Prince William Sound Human Use Hot Spots GIS Database and Spatial Analysis Final Report

Chandra Brie Poe, Chugach National Forest, Glacier Ranger District, Girdwood AK Samantha Greenwood, Chugach National Forest, Cordova Ranger District, Cordova AK

December 2010

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council administers all programs and activities free from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. The Council administers all programs and activities in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire further information, please write to: EVOS Trustee Council, 441 West 5th Avenue, Suite 500, Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2340; or O.E.O. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. 20240. Study History: The Prince William Sound Human Use Hot Spots GIS Database and Spatial Analysis project was initiated in spring of 2007. Initial data gathering and review was followed by a series of public open house meetings with draft maps of base data layers in spring 2008. Data revision and spatial analysis were completed and the resulting GIS database and report products were produced in draft form in summer 2009.

Abstract: Human use in Prince William Sound, Alaska is not evenly distributed spatially or temporally. The Prince William Sound Human Use Hot Spots GIS Database and Spatial Analysis project compiles existing disparate data on the spatial and temporal distribution of human use in remote Prince William Sound, Alaska. We reviewed over forty existing data sources and collaborated with other land management agencies, private subject matter experts and land owners of the Sound to locate and validate data sources. Types of use considered include commercially permitted and private recreation, commercial and sport fishing, and hunting. Data are summarized by season of use and analyzed to identify areas of seasonal higher human use concentration. Data are summarized to the spatial scale of the General Area, which are areas created for this project based on physical geography, established place names and known use patterns in the Sound. Available lingering oil data were compared with areas of higher human use to determine overlap of recreation and lingering oil. Suggestions for further research and collaboration with ongoing projects are given.

Key Words: Prince William Sound, Alaska, recreation distribution, human use, hot spots, GIS data, lingering oil overlap recreation,

Project Data: Data collected from existing spatial and tabular data sources and subject matter experts were compiled in a GIS Database. The data will be housed at the Chugach National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Anchorage Alaska. Contact Aaron Poe [email protected] or (907)-743- 9500 to request access.

Recommended Citation: Poe, C.B. and S. Greenwood. 2010. Prince William Sound Human Use Hot Spots GIS Database and Spatial Analysis. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Criminal Restitution Project Final Report. USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, Alaska.

2

3 Human Use Hot Spot DRAFT report: Introduction and Methods sections Table of Contents

Prince William Sound Human Use Hot Spots GIS Database and Spatial Analysis ...... 1 Executive Summary ...... 10 Introduction ...... 14 Objectives ...... 15 Methods...... 16 Study Area ...... 16 Definition of Seasons ...... 17 Spatial Scale ...... 18 Analysis Areas ...... 18 General Areas...... 19 Buffering of General Areas ...... 21 Identification of potential data sources ...... 22 Data compilation ...... 23 Coordinate system ...... 23 Data types...... 23 List of vector datasets created ...... 23 Raster datasets ...... 24 Overview of raster data ...... 24 Summary of raster datasets created ...... 25 Hunting data ...... 26 ADF&G hunting/harvest data ...... 26 Brown Bear ...... 27 Deer ...... 27 Impact of ADF&G management polygons ...... 28 Outfitter-Guide Special Use Permit reported use - hunting ...... 29 Fishing data ...... 29 ADF&G Sport Fish data ...... 29 Private recreational fishing ...... 29 ADF&G Commercial Fisheries data ...... 30 Beach use data...... 31 Definition of beach use category ...... 31 Public Use Cabins ...... 31 Water Taxi Data ...... 31 Outfitter/Guide Special Use Permit Reported Use ...... 32 Anchorage ranks ...... 32 Vector data ...... 34 Ferry Routes ...... 34 Daily Scenic Tour Routes ...... 34 Public Use Cabin Locations ...... 34 Documented Campsite Locations ...... 34 Land Use Permit Locations ...... 35 Potential Attractions...... 36

4 Inhabited Areas ...... 36 Aircraft landing site point locations ...... 36 Anchorage point locations ...... 37 Lingering oil point locations ...... 37 Combination of Data Sets ...... 38 Results ...... 40 Overall Human Use Levels ...... 40 Summary of lingering oil data ...... 40 Seasonal variation in use distribution ...... 41 Areas with greatest potential for overlap of beach user groups ...... 42 Summary of Use Levels per Analysis Area ...... 45 Blackstone Bay (Analysis Area 11) ...... 45 Spring ...... 46 Summer ...... 46 Fall ...... 47 Cochrane Bay (Analysis Area 10) ...... 48 Spring ...... 49 Summer ...... 49 Fall ...... 49 College Fjord (Analysis Area 03) ...... 50 Spring ...... 51 Summer ...... 51 Fall ...... 51 Columbia Bay (Analysis Area 06) ...... 52 Spring ...... 53 Summer ...... 53 Fall ...... 54 Culross Island/Passage (Analysis Area 09) ...... 55 Spring ...... 56 Summer ...... 56 Fall ...... 57 Eaglek/Unakwik (Analysis Area 05) ...... 58 Spring ...... 59 Summer ...... 59 Fall ...... 60 East Knight Island (Analysis Area 15) ...... 61 Spring ...... 62 Summer ...... 62 Fall ...... 62 East Valdez Arm (Analysis Area 06-03F) ...... 63 Spring ...... 64 Summer ...... 64 Fall ...... 64 Esther Island and Passage (Analysis Area 04) ...... 65 Spring ...... 66 Summer ...... 66

5 Fall ...... 67 Fidalgo Bay (Analysis Area 06-03E) ...... 68 Spring ...... 69 Summer ...... 69 Fall ...... 69 Gravina Bay (Analysis Area 06-03D)...... 70 Spring ...... 71 Summer ...... 71 Fall ...... 72 Green Island (Analysis Area 06-06B) ...... 73 Spring ...... 73 Summer ...... 74 Fall ...... 74 Harriman Fjord/BarryArm (Analysis Area 02)...... 75 Spring ...... 76 Summer ...... 76 Fall ...... 76 Hawkins Island (Analysis Area 06-03G) ...... 77 Spring ...... 77 Summer ...... 78 Fall ...... 78 Hinchinbrook Island (Analysis Area 06-06A) ...... 79 Spring ...... 80 Summer ...... 80 Fall ...... 81 Icy/Whale Bay (Analysis Area 16) ...... 82 Spring ...... 83 Summer ...... 83 Fall ...... 83 Kings Bay/Port Nellie Juan (Analysis Area 12) ...... 84 Spring ...... 85 Summer ...... 85 Fall ...... 85 Montague Island (Analysis Area 06-06C) ...... 86 Spring ...... 87 Summer ...... 87 Fall ...... 88 Naked Island Group (Analysis Area 08) ...... 89 Spring ...... 90 Summer ...... 90 Fall ...... 90 Nelson Bay (Analysis Area 06-03A) ...... 91 Passage Canal (Analysis Area 18) ...... 92 Spring ...... 93 Summer ...... 93 Fall ...... 93

6 Perry Island and Lone Island (Analysis Area 07) ...... 94 Spring ...... 95 Summer ...... 95 Fall ...... 95 Port Bainbridge (Analysis Area 17) ...... 96 Spring ...... 97 Summer ...... 97 Fall ...... 98 Sheep Bay (Analysis Area 06-03C) ...... 99 Spring ...... 100 Summer ...... 100 Fall ...... 100 Simpson Bay (Analysis Area 06-03B) ...... 101 Valdez Area Non-Forest ...... 102 Spring ...... 103 Summer ...... 103 Fall ...... 103 West Delta (Analysis Area 06-02B) ...... 104 West Knight Island (Analysis Area 14) ...... 105 Spring ...... 106 Summer ...... 106 Fall ...... 107 West Knight Island Passage (Analysis Area 13) ...... 108 Spring ...... 109 Summer ...... 109 Fall ...... 109 West Port Wells (Analysis Area 01) ...... 110 Spring ...... 111 Summer ...... 111 Fall ...... 112 West Valdez Arm (Analysis Area 06-04) ...... 113 Spring ...... 114 Summer ...... 114 Fall ...... 114 Discussion ...... 115 Lingering oil and human use levels ...... 115 Validation and monitoring ...... 115 Data limitations ...... 116 Recommendations for future projects ...... 116 Recommendations for more in-depth review by Forest recreation staff: ...... 116 Evaluation of potential user group conflict areas: ...... 116 Further analysis of created data layers: ...... 117 Data acquisition: ...... 117 Conclusions ...... 117 Acknowledgements ...... 118 Literature Cited ...... 120

7 Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography of data sources reviewed...... 122 Beach Use Data Sources ...... 122 Guided Sport Fishing Data Sources ...... 123 Appendix B: Map Atlas of seasonal human use ranks by Analysis Area ...... 129 Appendix C: Maps of ADF&G management polygons ...... 130 Appendix D: Land Ownership in PWS ...... 131 Appendix E: Overview of seasonal human use ranks across PWS study area ...... 132

List of Figures Figure 1: Human Use Hot Spot study area and approximate locations of gateway communities in Prince William Sound, Alaska ...... 16 Figure 2: Analysis Areas currently used in PWS for special use permit administration. Note that the portion of AA-06-02B represented adjacent to Cordova is a small fraction of the larger area which is managed as part of the West Delta rather than PWS...... 18 Figure 3: Example of the smaller General Areas defined within a single Analysis Area. Harriman Fjord/Barry Arm, Analysis Area 02, is the shaded area in the inset above; this Analysis Area was divided into a total of 11 General Areas of variable size...... 20 Figure 4: Generalized example of conversion from polygon shapes to a raster surface, copied from ESRI ArcMap help files...... 24 Figure 5: Comparison of the variable size of UCU polygons on Montague Island (AA 06-06C) and Eaglek/Unakwik (AA05). The finer resolution /smaller size of UCUs on Montague Island allows hunting data to be applied to more specific General Areas, while the coarser resolution/larger size of UCUs in the Eaglek/Unakwik area leads to hunting data being applied to many General Areas which are potential access sites for the use occurring in the upland UCUs.28 Figure 6: Example of summing rasters with the cell statistic function in Spatial Analyst...... 38 Figure 7: Location of Blackstone Bay (darkened area) within the overall PWS study area...... 45 Figure 8: Location of East Valdez Arm (Analysis Area 06-03F) in PWS...... 63 Figure 9: Location of Esther Island and Passage (Analysis Area 04) in PWS...... 65 Figure 10: Location of Fidalgo Bay (Analysis Area 06-03E) in PWS...... 68 Figure 11: Location of Gravina Bay (Analysis Area 06-03D) in PWS...... 70 Figure 12: Location of Green Island (Analysis Area 06-06B) in PWS...... 73 Figure 13: Location of Harriman Fjord/Barry Arm (Analysis Area 02) in PWS...... 75 Figure 14: Location of Hawkins Island (Analysis Area 06-03G) in PWS...... 77 Figure 15: Location of Hinchinbrook Island (Analysis Area 06-06A) in PWS...... 79 Figure 16: Location of Icy and Whale Bays (Analysis Area 16) in PWS...... 82 Figure 17: Location of Kings Bay/Port Nellie Juan (Analysis Area 12) in PWS...... 84 Figure 18: Location of Montague Island (Analysis Area 06-06C) in PWS...... 86 Figure 19: Location of Naked Island Group (Analysis Area 08) in PWS...... 89 Figure 20: Location of Nelson Bay (Analysis Area 06-03A) in PWS...... 91 Figure 21: Location of Passage Canal (Analysis Area 18) in PWS...... 92 Figure 22: Location of Perry Island and Lone Island (Analysis Area 07) in PWS...... 94 Figure 23: Location of Port Bainbridge (Analysis Area 17) in PWS...... 96 Figure 24: Location of Sheep Bay (Analysis Area 06-03C) in PWS...... 99 Figure 25: Location of Simpson Bay (Analysis Area 06-03B) in PWS...... 101 Figure 26: Location of Valdez Area Non-Forest Analysis Area; these lands are outside of the Chugach NF boundary and have no designation as a Forest management unit...... 102

8 Figure 27: Location of West Delta (Analysis Area 06-02B) in PWS; this is only a small portion of the entire West Delta area...... 104 Figure 28: Location of West Knight Island (Analysis Area 14) in PWS...... 105 Figure 29: Location of West Port Wells (Analysis Area 01) in PWS...... 110 Figure 30: Location of West Valdez Arm (Analysis Area 06-04) in PWS...... 113

9 Executive Summary Human use in Prince William Sound, Alaska is not evenly distributed spatially or temporally. Certain locations within this remote area are more desirable for a variety of reasons including: distance from communities, presence of glaciers and post-glacial landscapes, availability of landing areas, protected anchorages, sport fish streams, cabins and wild game concentrations (Murphy et al 2004). Human use “Hot Spots” are important areas in PWS where human use is more concentrated relative to surrounding areas. In many cases these locations are physiographic bottlenecks restricting access to desirable inter-tidal areas and their associated upland opportunities for recreation activities. They also vary seasonally based on wildlife distribution (important for both harvest and viewing activities) and weather conditions.

Several disparate data sources describing various human uses of PWS exist but have not previously been collected in one location or analyzed comprehensively to identify areas of relatively higher concentrations of overall human use. In such areas competing uses (e.g., wildlife viewing and hunting) may converge at certain times, potentially resulting in detrimental effects upon one another and creating a larger cumulative impact on associated resources. It is critical for the sustainable management of human use in an area hosting a number of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill injured resources (both recovered and recovering) that the location, timing, and nature of these human use hot spots be well understood by resource managers.

The objectives of this project were to (1) review contemporary spatial and tabular data to create a GIS database characterizing known concentrations of human use and their seasonal patterns; (2) conduct a comprehensive spatial analysis of the data collected in order to identify hot spots of human activity in PWS and evaluate the potential for spatial and temporal (seasonal) overlap with EVOS injured resources and lingering oil; (3) identify locations where combinations of human use activity may be detrimental to the overall recovery of the injured service of recreation and tourism; (4) validate predicted hot spots using a combination of regional experts from land management agencies, other land owners including Alaska Native tribes and Corporations, and area communities; and (5) evaluate methodology for empirical validation of the hot spots predicted by this analysis relative to data integrity, the spatial extent and season of use.

The study area includes the waters and uplands of PWS, bounded by Blying Sound and the Gulf of Alaska to the south and the Chugach Mountains to the north. Montague, Hinchinbrook and Hawkins Island fall within the study area as does the coastline adjacent to the town of Cordova, Alaska; the Copper River Delta and associated coastline was not included in the study area.

We determined that existing management units as defined by land management agencies (Forest Service and State of Alaska) were not small enough to define a human use concentration area at a spatial scale useful for analyzing the potential impacts of human use on other resources of the Sound. Thus, we created a layer of General Areas (GAs) within our study area. These spatial units are based mainly on geography and established USGS place names; the majority of these areas are water bodies such as bays, inlets and fjords. Some upland GAs were defined based on known human use patterns; these areas tend to be smaller in size and are generally locations of known use concentration. A total of 537 GA polygons encompassing the water and adjacent uplands of the Sound were defined. Existing management unit boundaries were incorporated into the GA delineation wherever possible; these included Analysis Areas used by Forest Service

10 special use permit administrators as well as statistical polygons established by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Sport Fish Division to analyze data collected from commercial sport fishing guides operating in the Sound. GA names were assigned based on existing place names wherever possible, to ensure ease of use by a variety of management agencies and the public.

After identifying known categories of human use in the Sound, we reviewed existing spatial and tabular data sources describing these uses. Over forty different data sources were reviewed, including existing spatial data, tabular spreadsheets, anecdotal data, published trade paperbacks, peer reviewed publications, unpublished data obtained from agency and University researchers, personal communication with agency personnel and other local area subject matter experts, Alaska Native Corporation land use specialists, and Forest data including special uses permit data, campsite inventory data, and cabin reservations databases. Data were evaluated for accuracy, completeness and applicability. Several data sources found were available only as non- spatial tabular data (such as ADF&G harvest records); selected data sets were attributed with place names and either digitized or joined to existing spatial reference layers. New data were collected where critical data gaps were identified; for instance, a ranking of popular overnight anchorages was compiled with the help of local long-time boat captains. Selected datasets were compiled into a geodatabase for use in a Geographical Information System (GIS). All spatial data used in this project and contained in the geodatabase are in the coordinate system North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 6N (UTM 6N).

Public review and input was sought at open house meetings in the PWS communities of Whittier, Valdez and Cordova. Further input was sought from Forest staff, biologists at ADF&G, land use specialists from Alaska Native Corporations with lands in PWS, university researchers, and local area experts including several long-time commercial outfitter guide operators and special use permit holders.

All data were evaluated seasonally; no analyses were conducted using year-round data. Human use patterns in PWS are highly seasonal and are not distributed evenly throughout the Sound. Seasons were defined for this project based upon known weather patterns, hunting seasons and recreational use patterns; they are Spring (April 1 – June 14), Summer (June 15 – August 31), Fall (September 1 – December 31) and Winter (January 1 – March 31). Data were insufficient to develop valid relative ranks in the winter season, when human use of the Sound is low and mainly limited to commercial fishing and other commercial open water activities. Recreational use of PWS in the winter is very limited due to weather conditions. In general, use in the summer is more widespread throughout the Sound than use in the spring or fall which tends to be more concentrated near access ports and public use cabins.

Both measurable and locational/descriptive data were compiled. Three broad categories of human use with potential impacts to recovering resources were identified: beach use, fishing, and hunting. Measurable data (data layers for which a metric exists, for instance the number of nights reserved at a given cabin or the number of fishing trips conducted an area) were compiled from a number of data sources including ADF&G hunting and fishing data, Forest Service special use permit holder reported use, Forest Service and State of Alaska public use cabin reservation data, water taxi data, and others. These data were separated into season of use and converted to rasters

11 (grids); then each seasonal dataset was ranked into four classes using the Jenks Natural Breaks function in ArcGIS 9.3. These ranked datasets were combined to determine areas of relatively concentrated human use in PWS. Locational/descriptive data are also included in the GIS database. These include ferry routes, daily scenic tour routes, public use cabin locations, documented campsites, land use permit locations, potential attractions (tidewater glacier, wildlife areas, hiking opportunities), inhabited areas, aircraft landing site point locations and anchorage point locations.

Overall human use levels including beach use data, fishing data, and hunting data were summarized for each GA relative to the entire study area. No analyses were conducted at the Analysis Area scale; in other words, use levels for any GA are not relative to other GAs within the same Analysis Area but to all other GAs considered Sound-wide. Overall, use levels are higher in the western half of Prince William Sound than the eastern half. This is likely due to relative ease of access from Whittier, which is road-accessible and in close proximity to Anchorage, which is Alaska’s major population center. Valdez is also a major access port, accessible from the Richardson Highway which connects PWS to Fairbanks and other interior Alaska communities. A substantial portion of recreationists entering PWS from Valdez use the western Sound. Highest use levels were found at areas closest to Whittier (particularly Blackstone Bay) and Valdez. Public use cabins, both Forest and State of Alaska, act as nodes of concentrated use. Designation and developments at State Marine Parks also appear to increase overall human use.

Overall numbers of people using PWS are the highest in Summer; however, we believe the highest potential for cumulative impacts of various uses and highest potential for conflict between different user types occurs in the Spring season when hunting, other beach use such as camping and day hiking, and fishing are all present in the Sound. In Summer, use is dominated by beach use and fishing; in Fall the dominant user group is hunters. Managers may be able to use calculated ranks of various uses within GAs to pinpoint areas of potential user conflict.

At the time of this analysis, existing data were lacking on the levels of use, patterns of use, and characteristics of private recreation users such as small motor boat users and kayakers not using the services of commercial guides. Subsistence harvest data are not considered in this project. Further analysis should be conducted as data become available.

The GIS database has high potential for further use by the Forest Service, State of Alaska, Alaska Native Corporations and other groups interested in the management of human use in PWS. Validation of identified human use hot spots should be considered. Periodic updating of established datasets (i.e. ADF&G hunting data, campsite inventories) should be conducted in concert with agency and university partners.

This project is one component of the ongoing PWS Framework. Concurrent projects under the initial data gathering phase of the PWS Framework include: The Evaluation of PWS User Experience; Spatial and Temporal Characteristics of PWS Subsistence Harvest Activities; PWS Sensitive Areas GIS Database and Mitigations Report; Black Oystercatcher Surveys in PWS; and a Recreation Capacity Analysis review. As all of these projects near completion, opportunities for collaboration and incorporation of new data will be identified. Future integration with

12 additional projects may result in changes to our understanding of human use distribution. To maximize efficient use of resources, empirical on-the-ground validation of predicted use patterns should be conducted after comprehensive review and integration of all available PWS Framework project data rather than attempting to validate each data set independently.

13 Introduction Human use is not evenly distributed in Prince William Sound. Certain locations are more desirable for a variety of reasons including: distance from communities, presence of glaciers and post-glacial landscapes, availability of landing areas, protected anchorages, sport fish streams, cabins and other recreation infrastructure, and wild game concentrations (Murphy et al 2004). Human use “Hot Spots” are important areas in PWS where human use is more concentrated relative to surrounding areas. In many cases these locations are physiographic bottlenecks restricting access to desirable inter-tidal areas and their associated upland opportunities for recreation activities. They also vary seasonally based on wildlife distribution (important for both harvest and viewing activities) and weather conditions.

In desirable areas competing uses (e.g., wildlife viewing and hunting) are likely to converge, potentially resulting in detrimental effects upon one another and creating a larger cumulative impact on the associated resources. It is critical for the sustainable management of human use in an area hosting a number of EVOS injured resources (both recovered and recovering), that the location, timing, and nature of these human use hot spots be well understood by resource managers. Several disparate data sources characterizing human use in PWS are currently available but these have not been compiled into a single comprehensive database; nor have they been evaluated relative to their impacts upon one another or upon EVOS injured resources.

Existing spatial and tabular data sources were reviewed for accuracy, completeness and applicability. New data were collected where data gaps were identified, and public input was received at open house meetings in three PWS communities. Known data limitations include a lack of subsistence use data, and limited data on non-Forest Service lands. Several data sources found were available only as tabular data; selected data sets were attributed with place names and either digitized or joined to existing spatial reference layers. Selected datasets were compiled into a geodatabase for use in a Geographical Information System (GIS). These GIS data will allow managers, land owners and other interested parties to examine and display human use data mapped spatially and by season of use. Data are also presented as paper map and tabular layouts for spring, summer, and fall seasons.

Compiled data were combined to determine areas of relatively concentrated human use in PWS. This information can be a powerful tool for land managers and the public to inform future management decisions influencing human use in the area, and to aid in continued understanding of the interactions between various EVOS-affected resources in the Sound.

The Human Use Hot Spot project is a stand-alone product funded by EVOSTC with the intent to compile and analyze human use data to identify areas of higher concentrations of a variety of activities in Prince William Sound, to aid researchers in the continuing monitoring of the recovery of resources and services injured in the 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Data are presented in a geodatabase including an overall ranking of human use based on available data in the categories of hunting, fishing, beach use, and anchorages; point locations of documented campsites, public use cabins, land use permits, anchorages, aircraft landing sites, attraction points, and inhabited areas; and lines depicting ferry routes and scenic tours. These data can be used by researchers to explore further questions. It is not the intent of this project to offer an

14 analysis of user experience or impacts of user groups on either the social or physical environment, nor are specific National Forest management goals considered. Whether or not the areas of higher use levels are capable of absorbing this use or may be impacted by cumulative use is beyond the scope of this project.

However, the project is also a component of a larger analysis effort known as the Prince William Sound Framework being undertaken by the Chugach National Forest (CNF). The PWS Framework is the CNF’s comprehensive effort to: • Evaluate and improve the forest’s current management framework in the Sound along with associated tools for implementation. • Provide for the continued recovery, restoration, protection and enhancement of Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS) injured natural resources and human services. • Identify strategies and partnerships with communities and stakeholders to manage for and support sustainable human use into the future.

Concurrent projects under the initial data gathering phase of the PWS Framework include: The Evaluation of PWS User Experience; Spatial and Temporal Characteristics of PWS Subsistence Harvest Activities; PWS Sensitive Areas GIS Database and Mitigations Report; Black Oystercatcher Surveys in PWS; and a Recreation Capacity Analysis review (internal Chugach NF project, not an EVOSTC project). As all of these projects near completion, opportunities for collaboration and incorporation of new data will be identified.

Objectives • Review contemporary spatial and tabular data to create a GIS database characterizing known concentrations of human use and their seasonal patterns.

• Conduct a comprehensive spatial analysis of the data collected in order to identify hot spots of human activity in PWS and evaluate the potential for spatial and temporal (seasonal) overlap with EVOS injured resources and lingering oil.

• Identify locations where combinations of human use activity occur that may be detrimental to the overall recovery of the injured service of recreation and tourism.

• Validate predicted hot spots using a combination of regional experts from land management agencies, other land owners including Alaska Native tribes and Corporations, and area communities.

• Evaluate methodology for empirical validation of the hot spots predicted by this analysis relative to data integrity, the spatial extent and season of use. (This objective has been met only partially; the authors recommend that empirical validation of use patterns be conducted concurrent with other ongoing research efforts as part of the PWS Framework).

15 Methods Study Area The study area includes the water and adjacent lands of Prince William Sound, bounded by Blying Sound and the Gulf of Alaska to the south and the Chugach Mountains to the north (Figure 1).

Valdez

Whittier

Cordova

Figure 1: Human Use Hot Spot study area and approximate locations of gateway communities in Prince William Sound, Alaska

16 Definition of Seasons Human use of Prince William Sound is strongly seasonal due to variable weather and extreme winter conditions. All data were analyzed as three distinct datasets separated by seasons as described below. No year-round analyses were conducted. Recreational use of uplands (including hunting), recreational boating, and sport fishing occur mainly from May through September. Previous studies have used a recreational season of May 1 – September 30 in eastern PWS (USDA Forest Service 2008) and May 15 – September 15 in western PWS (USDA Forest Service 2005).

Four seasons were defined for this study: • Spring = April 1 thru June 14 • Summer = June 15 thru August 31 • Fall = September 1 thru December 31 • Winter = January 1 thru March 31

The seasons listed above were defined based on a review of existing recreational use studies of PWS as well as hunting seasons established by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) for species harvested in PWS including brown bear, black bear, deer, and mountain goats. Prior work in western PWS identified a core use season of June 15 – August 15, which does not correspond directly to our defined summer season due to hunting season considerations.

Overall ranks were calculated for each season independently; in other words, a rank of “Highest” use in Summer season reflects different absolute use numbers than a rank of “Highest” in Fall season, when there are lower overall numbers of people using the Sound and also different distribution of people than in the Summer season.

17 Spatial Scale Due to the large geographic extent of the study area (4.7 million acres), spatial scale of data organization is an important component of the analysis. The Chugach National Forest currently uses existing administrative units, known as Analysis Areas (AAs), for management of special use permits in PWS. These AAs range in size from over 380,000 acres (Montague Island Area, Cordova RD) to just under 11,000 acres (Perry/Lone Islands Area, Glacier RD). These AAs are too large to give a resolution useful for defining concentration areas of human use, therefore we developed another unit of measure we term General Areas (GAs).

Analysis Areas An overview of existing Analysis Areas in PWS is shown in Figure 2. These spatial units are used primarily by special use permit administrators to manage the amount of commercial use in PWS, and are currently the scale to which capacity recommendations for commercial use have been established. They are too large to meet the objectives of this study, and no analyses were conducted at the AA scale; however, data are presented according to established AAs to provide a logical geographic grouping.

Figure 2: Analysis Areas currently used in PWS for special use permit administration. Note that the portion of AA-06-02B represented adjacent to Cordova is a small fraction of the larger area which is managed as part of the West Delta rather than PWS.

18 General Areas All analyses were conducted at the General Area scale. General Areas (GAs) were created as a mid-level spatial unit useful for land managers and other EVOS trustees. These GAs are large enough for ease of display, yet small enough to capture the spatial distribution of various landscape attributes including human use. GAs are defined mainly by named geographic features, such as bays, as shown on standard USGS topographic quads. GAs were created using physical landscape features and established place names to allow ease of use by multiple agencies and the public, without concern about acronyms, management designations or political boundaries.

The focus of defining General Areas was on the tidal interface, due to the prevalence of water- based access to tidal and upland areas, whether by boat or plane. The majority of General Areas are therefore defined by bays and other water bodies. Few specific upland areas have been delineated at this time. Exceptions to this include popular upland lakes and associated trails used to access cabins and other recreation areas, as well as known concentrated shoreline recreation areas (for example Nellie Juan Glacier in Port Nellie Juan and the Humpback Creek/Shepard Point area of Orca Inlet).

One important exception to the absence of large upland GAs is retention of the large upland area remaining in each AA after specific bays and small upland areas were designated as GAs. These large upland areas have been retained as a catch-all to which use can be assigned when no finer spatial resolution is available; i.e. in some cases, commercial use days are reported to have occurred somewhere in an Analysis Area with no further information as to which bay or shoreline area was used.

Not every named bay or cove was made into a General Area, and several General Areas were defined based on local knowledge rather than officially named areas on USGS maps. Several reference sources were used in determining which areas should be designated as a General Area. Jim and Nancy Lethcoe’s A Cruising Guide to Prince William Sound was used with the authors’ permission as a valuable source of data on recreation features and potential anchorages and was used in several instances to define a General Area not labeled on USGS maps or marine charts. Paul Twardock’s Guide to Camping and Kayaking in Prince William Sound was used as another reference to determine popular recreation areas, particularly around Valdez where Forest Service data is severely limited. Additionally, a map of areas permitted for use by commercial outfitter and guide companies under permit with the Forest Service was used to ensure that popular commercially used sites were accounted for. Data points from the 2005 PWS Human Use Study (Gimblett et al 2007) were also considered to ensure that areas of public use concentration were adequately defined.

Open water areas of the Sound had not previously been defined into management or specific analysis units by the Chugach National Forest. Due to the broad objectives of this study to define human use concentration areas through PWS not exclusive to Forest Service lands, the large expanses of salt water not included in existing Analysis Areas were further defined. To accomplish this, we incorporated existing saltwater polygons established by ADF&G Sport Fish Division as reporting units for commercial sport fishing guides in PWS.

19 The resulting General Areas vary widely in size, ranging from 3 to 200,000 acres (average of 8,900 acres). Upland areas retain the associated Analysis Area name defined by the Forest unless otherwise designated as a smaller upland General Area. If these large upland areas and open water polygons are excluded, the average size of General Area is reduced to 2,300 acres. The trend is for smaller General Areas to have a higher known human use concentration while larger areas have less concentrated use. This reflects the current understanding of human use concentration; areas of known higher use can be better defined for management purposes than areas where use patterns are less understood or where use is not concentrated. An example of the division of an Analysis Area into General Areas is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Example of the smaller General Areas defined within a single Analysis Area. Harriman Fjord/Barry Arm, Analysis Area 02, is the shaded area in the inset above; this Analysis Area was divided into a total of 11 General Areas of variable size.

20 Buffering of General Areas The majority of GAs are defined by saltwater features; however, because much recreation use occurs onshore in tidelands and uplands, it was necessary to associate use assigned to any given bay with the surrounding land areas. We used the Buffer tool in ArcGIS (ESRI 2009) to expand the borders of each saltwater GA outward by 100m on all sides, so that they overlapped the adjacent land area. ArcGIS Topology tools were used to ensure these areas are geographically unique (any given spatial location is covered by a single General Area, with no overlap or gaps). Unnamed small islets and islands that are included as land masses in the Chugach NF base data were excluded from the General Area layer in order to minimize the number of polygons created. Large named islands are stand-alone General Areas, as are State Marine Parks; both of these are given a lower priority in the buffering process so that Granite Bay overlaps 100m into the land boundaries of Granite Bay State Marine Park, and Esther Passage overlaps 100m onto the upland portions of Esther Island. This is to ensure that use in the bays along the shoreline of these islands can be associated with the entire island, or use on the water can be associated with adjacent Marine Parks.

General Areas defined in the uplands have higher priority than adjacent water bodies when buffering. The upland General Areas were created specifically because we know they are areas of high use, and many have campsites or other features associated with them. In order to associate these specific point features with the correct area, the original shoreline is retained for the few upland General Areas that have been defined at this time. These include the Humpback- Shepard area adjacent to Orca Inlet; Red Head and Knowles Head both adjacent to Knowles Bay; Bomb Point in Simpson Bay; Nellie Juan Glacier and Spit adjacent to Derickson Bay and Nellie Juan Lagoon; Harriman south shore complex on the southern shore of Harriman Fjord, and Hinge Beach at the junction of Barry Arm and Harriman Fjord.

21 Identification of potential data sources Major categories of human uses of PWS were identified as sport fishing, commercial fishing, recreational hunting, subsistence harvesting, kayaking including day trips and overnight camping, recreational boating, commercial outfitter-guide operations, commercial sight-seeing tours, lands permits such as communication sites etc., public use cabins, private cabins, and beach use including hiking, beach combing, berry picking and camping.

Once human use categories were identified, data sources were sought out. Examples of data sources reviewed include: reported use numbers, such as reported use by special use permit holders or ADF&G guided sport fishing trips; infrastructure such as cabins, hardened campsites, and hatcheries; attraction points such as tidewater glaciers, wildlife concentration areas, and trails. Data reviewed included published and unpublished reports, guide books, existing maps, spatial data and tabular data maintained by the Forest Service and ADF&G.

Public meetings were used to better define our data and find other sources of human use data in PWS. Public input and knowledge were sought during three open house meetings in Valdez, Cordova and Anchorage. Although attendance was minimal, these meetings led to some significant changes and additions to our data sources.

Data received from other agencies such as ADF&G were reviewed both for the spatial and tabular content by the biologists who provided the data. Collaboration was conducted with other land owners such as State of Alaska and Alaska Native Corporations to obtain human use data. A complete annotated list of data sources reviewed is in Appendix A.

22 Data compilation Coordinate system All spatial data used in this project and contained in the geodatabase are in the coordinate system North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 6N (UTM 6N). GIS software used was the ArcGIS 9.3 suite (ESRI 2009).

Data types After a review of identified data sources (Appendix A), we determined a need for two separate types of spatial data: raster and vector. Existing data fell into two broad categories: (1) measurable data with a metric of relative use (for example, number of nights a cabin was reserved or number of permits fished in a given area), and (2) locational/descriptive data with no associated measure of relative use (for instance ferry routes). Data with measures of use were included as raster datasets, while descriptive data were included as vector datasets. Raster data include hunting, fishing, beach use and ranked anchorages. Descriptive data include ferry and tour routes, campsite locations, land use permit locations, potential attractions, inhabited areas, aircraft landing site and boat anchorage point locations. Each of these types of data will be explained in detail in the following sections.

Many datasets were in tabular formats rather than spatial formats. For example, hunting and fishing data obtained from various ADF&G departments were in the form of spreadsheets with no associated spatial dataset. Where spatial units existed to which these data could be linked, we digitized the spatial units and spatially joined the tabular data to allow display as a map in a GIS.

List of vector datasets created

• Ferry routes • Daily scenic tour routes • Public use cabin locations • Documented campsite locations • Land use permit locations • Potential Attractions • Inhabited areas • Aircraft landing site point locations • Anchorage point locations

23 Raster datasets

Overview of raster data As defined in ArcGIS, a raster “consists of a matrix of cells (or pixels) organized into rows and columns (or a grid) where each cell contains a value representing information”. Rasters are data representations useful for many types of spatial analyses. Data sets that do not share the same spatial boundaries can be converted to rasters and combined using various statistics. Converting data to a raster can be visualized as laying a piece of graph paper over the top of a shape, then assigning the majority value under each square of the graph paper to that square, resulting in a “pixilated” representation of the shape (Figure 4). The resolution or “fineness” of the representation will depend on the cell size of the raster data. The cell size used in this project was 100m2.

Figure 4: Generalized example of conversion from polygon shapes to a raster surface, copied from ESRI ArcMap help files.

Details for creation of each of the raster datasets included in the project are found in the following subsections. Data were spatially joined to the associated management unit polygons then converted to rasters. All raster data sets were created using ArcGIS Spatial Analyst extension (ESRI 2009), with a cell (pixel) size of 100m2. The study area boundary was converted to a raster and this was set as the extent for all raster data sets to ensure proper alignment.

The various metrics of the measurable data (Table 1) were assigned as cell values, then classified using Jenks Natural Breaks algorithm in ArcMap yielding values of 1-4, with 1 indicating the least amount of use and 4 indicating the highest amount of use. The Jenks Natural Breaks Classification method is designed to determine the best arrangement of values that are not normally distributed into different classes. This is done by seeking to minimize each class’s average deviation from the class mean, while maximizing each class’s deviation from the means of the other groups. In other words, the method seeks to reduce the variance within classes and maximize the variance between classes, finding natural groups within the dataset. The range of values within each class, therefore, is variable between classes (i.e. some classes may contain a wide range of values while others contain a small range of values).

24 Summary of raster datasets created Distinct seasonal rasters were created for measured use data; for example, number of nights reserved at a cabin or number of fishing trips recorded in a given fishing use area. A summary of created rasters is given in Table 1, followed by sections providing detailed methods for each dataset.

Table 1: Description of raster datasets included in analysis Dataset Years of Data Seasonal Unit of measure Spatial unit Range of values Included grids created (average annual) ADF&G 2003-2007 Spring, Permits fished Comm. fish 0.2 – 666 permits Commercial Summer, Fall statistical area fished per area Fishing polygon ADF&G Sportfish 2005-2007 Spring, Number of trips Sport fish 0.3 – 658 trips (reported from Summer, Fall statistical area per area commercial polygon fishing guides) Human Use Study 2005; Spring, Number of points Summarized by Beach Use: 1-20 and User 2008 Summer, Fall mapped by survey General Area points per GA Experience trip respondents Fishing: 1- 70 diary points points per GA (divided by fishing or beach use) Special Use Permit 2005-2007 Spring, Service days (one Summarized by Hunting: reported use Summer, Fall client on NFS General Area 0.3 – 49 service (divided by lands for any part days per GA hunting and beach of one 24-hr day) Beach Use: use) 0.3 – 358 service days per GA Forest Service and 2004-2006 Spring, Number of nights Summarized to 2- 116 nights per AK State Marine (except Decision Summer, Fall reserved General Area in cabin Park cabin Pt, opened in which cabin reservations 2005) located ADF&G Hunting 2002-2006 Spring, Fall Hunter days ADF&G 0.2 – 95 hunter Data for black Uniform days per UCU bear, brown bear, Coding Units mt. goats ADF&G Hunting 2006 Summer, Fall Hunter days ADF&G Deer 1 – 880 Data for deer (estimated)* Reporting Unit estimated hunter days per deer reporting unit Water taxi dropoff 2005-2007 Spring, Number of clients Summarized to 1-648 clients per records** Summer, Fall dropped off General Area GA * See full description of methods, pg. 27 **Drop-offs at Forest and State cabins removed from dataset to avoid double-counting with cabins data

25 Hunting data

ADF&G hunting/harvest data All personal use hunting data included in this project were collected by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and obtained from Dave Crowley, Cordova ADF&G wildlife biologist. ADF&G collects hunting data statewide and uses a standardized hierarchy system of geographical areas, called Uniform Coding Units (UCU). These spatial areas are described geographically on the ADF&G web page http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov. The only exception is for deer, where data is reported to different geographical units. These units will be discussed below. UCU polygons within our study area range in size from just over 600 acres to over 93,300 acres with a mean size of 27,000 acres.

The study area is mainly within ADF&G Region 2, Game Management Unit 6 (GMU) with the head of Kings Bay falling into GMU 7. GMU 6 Subunits 6D and a small portion of 6C are included in the study area. Also included in the study boundary is the head of King’s Bay, which is in GMU 7. Only a small portion of the UCU actually falls into the study boundary. There are total of 88 UCUs within our study area. Some of the UCUs near Valdez, Kings Bay and Cordova were clipped to the analysis boundary making the area considered in this study smaller than the actual UCU.

There are three types of hunts for game species in PWS: 1) registration hunts 2) drawing hunts and 3) harvest hunts. Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus), moose in 6C (Alces alces) and brown bears (Ursus arctos) on Montague Island are registration or drawing hunts, in which hunters are required to report all days spent hunting whether successful or unsuccessful. Deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis), moose in 6D, brown bear (other than Montague Island), and black bears (Ursus Americanus) are hunts where tags are issued and only successful hunt days (resulting in animal harvest) are reported. We are assuming that the reported successful moose, brown bear and black bear hunt days represent areas where the majority of hunts are occurring even though we have no data for unsuccessful hunts. Deer data is extrapolated from mail surveys performed by ADF&G.

The days recorded by ADF&G for registration or draw hunts include all days hunted regardless of harvest success; for other hunts the number of days hunted up to the date of harvest is reported. Hunters do not report additional days spent within the UCU after harvest has occurred, although they may continue to be present on the landscape. We did not try to eliminate any portion of UCUs based on habitat suitability for the species considered. With the exception of roaded areas previously discussed near Valdez and Cordova, we are assuming that hunter access is occurring from the shoreline or an inland landing area within the UCU.

For UCUs located only partially within our study boundary, only harvest locations that occurred within the study boundary were used for analysis. This occurred most often near Valdez, and Cordova, where UCUs that extend beyond the study area have road access and most of the animals harvested in these UCUs are associated with the roaded areas outside our study boundary. The harvest location for Kings Bay was also reviewed since the majority of the UCU falls outside of the analysis area.

26 For mountain goats, moose, brown bear and black bear, we received spreadsheets from ADF&G for the years 2002 through 2006 that had date, season, days hunted, location of harvest and UCU. If the number of days was not reported for a given hunt, the average number of days hunted for that species in that UCU for that year was assigned to the hunt.

All data were separated into season and the total of all days hunted was summarized for each UCU. These tabular data were joined spatially to UCU polygons that had been reconciled with the Chugach NF corporate shoreline. This resulted in a spatial polygon layer with total days hunted for each species by season for all UCUs. Insufficient data were available to create a layer for the winter season; only two harvest dates fell into the winter season across all years of data reviewed. ADF&G data for all species except deer were combined and summarized for each UCU for each season. These seasonal data were then ranked 1-4 (4 being the highest values) using Jenks Natural Breaks classification in ArcMap. Additional details are given for each species considered.

Brown Bear Montague brown bear hunting occurs in the fall and coincides with deer season. Many hunters obtain brown bear tags so that they can legally take a brown bear if one is seen while deer hunting (personal communication Dave Crowley, Wildlife biologist, ADF&G). In order not to double count hunt days from deer hunting, we only counted brown bear hunting days when a harvest occurred; unsuccessful hunting effort days were reported, but were not included in our analysis. All other brown bear data was summarized and joined as described above.

Deer Deer hunting is managed according to different geographical areas than the UCUs. Deer management units were digitized, snapped to the Forest Service shoreline, and clipped to the study area. There are 37 deer management units wholly or partially contained in the study area, ranging in size from 7,400 – 250,000 acres.

ADF&G conducts a mail survey to estimate the number of deer taken annually from GMU 6. Three thousand surveys (about 30% of hunters) are sent to harvest ticket holders, generally yielding about a 66% response rate. Respondents report total hunting effort – both successful and unsuccessful days hunting – within each deer management unit but hunting effort is not linked to a date. The actual number of harvested deer is reported by month and unit. In order to estimate the seasonal distribution of total hunting effort, the proportion of the number of deer harvested in each unit, and in each month was applied to total hunting effort; i.e. if 50% of all reported kills in a unit occurred in September, then 50% of the total hunting days in that unit were likewise assigned to September. The survey data broke down the percentage of overall harvest by month over a five year period (see Table 4 in Crowley 2005).

Deer hunting days used in this study are compiled from one year of data based on the assumption that a sample of one year should provide an adequate representation of days hunted because there has been minimal variation in results in the past (D. Crowley, ADF&G wildlife biologist, personal communication).

27 Impact of ADF&G management polygons As mentioned previously, data summarizing hunting and fishing presence in PWS were collected by ADF&G using a variety of management units including UCUs (game species other than deer), Deer Management Units, and two different polygon delineations for guided sport fishing and commercial fishing. Use of these polygons has some noteworthy impacts on the overall ranking of human use.

The UCU polygons (Appendix C, map 4) and Deer Management Units (Appendix C, map 2) to which game harvests are reported to ADF&G are the only quantitative data sources used in this database which cover large areas of uplands. In order to maintain a conservative approach, the use levels associated with these large upland areas were extrapolated to adjacent bays. Because we have no way to determine which shoreline was used to access these large upland areas, it is assumed that all of the use of an upland area could potentially occur from any of the adjacent bays. We emphasize that this does not indicate that every bay within a UCU is receiving this highest potential level of use; however, since we cannot define these specific areas we have chosen to display the highest possible use level. The size of the UCU or Deer Management Units directly impacts how generalized or specific these data are (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Comparison of the variable size of UCU polygons on Montague Island (AA 06-06C) and Eaglek/Unakwik (AA05). The finer resolution /smaller size of UCUs on Montague Island allows hunting data to be applied to more specific General Areas, while the coarser resolution/larger size of UCUs in the Eaglek/Unakwik area leads to hunting data being applied to many General Areas which are potential access sites for the use occurring in the upland UCUs.

In some instances such as Montague Island (AA 06-06C), the size of UCU polygons is quite small and specific to individual bays in many cases. This allows the hunting use data for these UCUs to be assigned to a very small number of GA, in some cases there is a one-to-one correspondence to that the data for a UCU covers a single GA. On Montague Island, a total of 12 UCUs cover the area of 23 adjacent GAs. However there are many other cases where extensive upland areas are encompassed in a single UCU, such as in the area of Eaglek Bay and Unakwik Inlet (AA 05). In these cases, hunting use data must be extrapolated to apply to multiple GAs; for AA 05, data from only 3 UCU are applied to 52 GAs.

28

Similarly, very large polygons are used by ADF&G to summarize both commercial fishing and guided sport fishing data (see Appendix C, maps 1 and 3 for display of these summary polygons). It is not currently possible to define a finer spatial resolution of where fishing is occurring, therefore the quantitative values of these statistical polygons are applied to multiple General Areas and even across multiple Analysis Areas in some cases. Again, we emphasize that this should not be interpreted to mean this highest fishing use level is actually occurring in each of the smaller bays / General Areas; rather we are displaying the highest known potential for commercial or guided sport fishing use in these more refined areas.

Outfitter-Guide Special Use Permit reported use - hunting As part of permit requirements, holders of Forest Service Special Use Permits for outfitting and guiding activities, including hunting, must report use at the end of each season. This data is distinct from the ADF&G data in that all days during which guided clients are on Forest Service uplands for any portion of the day are reported as use, regardless of the extent or success of hunting activities. This is a more accurate measure of the presence of hunting groups on the landscape, considering total effort rather than success. Data were summarized from 2005-2007 to the spatial scale of General Area.

Fishing data

ADF&G Sport Fish data ADF&G Sport Fish Division receives annual data from sport fishing guides (charter boat operators) reporting the number of people fishing and the number of trips made to use areas defined by ADF&G in PWS. Data are reported for bottom fishing and salmon fishing. We combined the bottom fishing and salmon fishing data and summarized the total number of trips for years 2005-2007. The management areas used by the sport fish division were not in a GIS format, so we digitized the areas and then snapped them to the Forest Service shore line. The number of trips were summarized to the areas and separated by season. The data were reported by month; in order to match our defined seasons we consulted ADF&G research analyst Bob Powers who determined that 35% of the trips occurring in June were prior to June 15. The data were split between the spring and summer seasons using this percentage (B. Powers personal communication with S. Greenwood).

Private recreational fishing Data on private recreational fishing were obtained from two Forest Service research studies. The Prince William Sound Human Use Study was conducted in summer 2005 and included distribution of trip diaries to recreationists entering PWS from the three major access ports of Valdez, Cordova and Whittier. The survey instrument included questions and a map where respondents were asked to indicate locations they visited and their primary activity at those locations (Gimblett et al 2007). These mapped points were digitized to a GIS and attributed with survey information.

29 Additional private recreational fishing points with a mapped location and primary activity type were obtained from 2008 data collected as part of the ongoing User Experience project, which focuses on defining both distribution of recreational use and ability to attain desired recreational experience (unpublished data is part of the PWS Framework; results are anticipated in 2010). We queried both of these GIS data sets to select those points where fishing (including shrimping) was the primary activity. The number of fishing location points in both studies was summarized per General Area, and this count was ranked 1-4 using Jenks Natural Breaks.

We also reviewed the data from an ADF&G report on recreational fisheries in PWS (Marston 2005) for another source of recreational fishing data. In 2001 the way that anglers reported their catch data changed to a more general area fished and port of landing. Catch is reported to a port of landing and either the eastern or western side of PWS (Marston 2005). We determined that this reporting area was too large to add value to the current study and did not include these data.

ADF&G Commercial Fisheries data All commercial fishing data (2003-2007) were obtained from the ADF&G Commercial Fisheries Division (S. Moffitt, fisheries biologist, ADF&G Commercial Fisheries Division, personal communication with S. Greenwood). We summarized available data using ADF&G-defined statistical areas, because they are the smallest area to which numbers of permits fished are reported. The spatial data for statistical areas was snapped to the Forest Service shoreline and topology was verified to eliminate slivers and mismatched polygons. These spatial areas are described geographically in Prince William Sound 2006-2009 Commercial Salmon Fishing Regulations book (ADF&G 2006).

We combined seine permits with gillnet permits for all areas. Some statistical areas may not have data depending on the season and run timing. The tabular data were joined to digitized polygons in ArcMap. These data were summarized by statistical area, season and number of permits fished. The data are reported as number of permits; this does not mean only one boat was present, especially in the case of seining where a skiff is used while fishing. There may be more boats present in these areas than these data actually represent.

Statistical areas have changed or been modified over the years considered. Some of the statistical areas were too small to be useful in our analysis. In other cases the areas were new and did not have enough years of data, so these new areas were not used in our analysis. All areas that were combined were reviewed with ADF&G staff for accuracy. We did not include the statistical area 212 in our analysis. This statistical area has a portion near Hinchinbrook Island that falls within our analysis boundary area, but the reported use is not occurring within our analysis boundary. (S. Moffitt, fisheries biologist, ADF&G, personal communication with S. Greenwood).

30 Beach use data

Definition of beach use category We initially attempted to separate beach use into categories of camping/overnight use versus day use. Following discussions with Forest recreation specialists and professor Paul Twardock of Alaska Pacific University (personal communication, P. Twardock with C. Poe), we decided to include both daytime and overnight use of uplands in the broader category of “beach use”. Two main reasons for the decision to include all recorded upland use within the beach use category were (1) a lack of data on the relationship between time spent on the uplands and relative resource impact; and (2) a lack of complete data on non-campers anchored overnight.

There is not a consistent way to categorize the level of potential impact of recreational use according only to the time spent in uplands. Examples were given of daytime use that included illegal chainsaw activity versus the Leave No Trace camping practiced by many users of PWS; in cases like this and many less dramatic examples (i.e. the impact from a few hours spent staging a large kayak trip versus the same group camping overnight), it can be argued that the use with longer residency time has far less impact on physical and recreation resources of PWS.

Further complicating the issue is the fact that if recreationists are staying on a boat anchored in salt water, their use would not be recorded as camping because they are not on FS lands overnight. However, anchored vessels are still present in the area and could still be accessing the uplands for recreation numerous times, and potentially influencing the decisions of other recreation groups whether or not to use adjacent shoreline.

Public Use Cabins Data on use of State Marine Park public use cabins were obtained from the State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks. Data on use of FS public use cabins were summarized by Forest recreation staff from data gathered by the online reservation system, Reserve USA, which handles the reservation process and fee collection for the cabins. Cabin use data are for the years 2004-2006 except for Decision Point cabin which opened in 12/2005. All data are given as the number of days the cabin was used, not including any administrative use, totaled for all years, and then sorted by season. The data for the State cabins was by the month, so the data for the month of June was divided evenly between spring and summer.

Water Taxi Data Data were requested from water taxis in Whittier and Valdez. Cordova currently does not have a water taxi service. Data were received only from Whittier and spanned the years 2005 to 2007. The data contained drop off and pick up locations, number of people, and a date. To avoid double-counting, we eliminated data points located at public use cabins, assuming that these users are being included in the cabin data. We were told by Valdez water taxi companies that most of their drop-off locations are at State Marine Parks in Valdez Arm (Shoup Bay and Sawmill Bay SMPs) but these companies did not choose to share actual data.

Although most of the drop off /pick up data were paired, there were times when drop offs did not get picked up or vice versus. When the data were paired, and the location for pick up and drop off was the same the number of people were assigned to that location. If the drop off and pick up

31 locations were different, the number of people were added to both locations. We have no method to track where people went if they were picked up in the same location or how they navigated to their pick up location. All location data were assigned to a GA and separated by season.

Outfitter/Guide Special Use Permit Reported Use Data were compiled from reported use by outfitter/guide permit holders with permitted activities in PWS from 2005-2007. Each permit holder is required under the terms of their permit to submit the date of use, number of people on Forest lands, location of use and activity. Because these data were submitted by the permit holders to fulfill Chugach NF requirements, it is likely that these data under-represent use on non-Forest lands. Most permit holders do report use on non-Forest lands. Because these reporting sheets are used to calculate fees charged to permit holders, there may be a bias toward under-reporting. Camping is calculated based on the day that the overnight stay occurs, the day of departure is not included as a day of use regardless of how many hours are spent prior to departure.

A relational database was developed to allow data entry including company, trip number, date, geographic location (Analysis Area, General Area, and specific point location where available), number of clients, whether or not camping on land occurred, and primary activity. These data were joined spatially in ArcMap to map use levels reported by permit holders within defined GAs.

For the category of Beach Use, primary activities of camping, kayak day trip, and hiking/picnic/beachcombing were combined.

Anchorage ranks The concept of access points allowing people to anchor and get into the uplands is an important part of describing use patterns in PWS. Our original intent was to compile one baseline layer with “good” anchorages and aircraft landing sites for the entire Sound.

We located several different existing sources of data for both anchorages and landing sites. These included a 1997 Public Access Atlas published by the State of Alaska; a 2005 Graphical Resources Database developed by the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company as part of the Prince William Sound Tanker Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan Supplemental Information Document (SID) #13; data points from the Chugach National Forest corporate GIS data; and locations listed in Jim and Nancy Lethcoe’s 1998 Cruising Guide to PWS (2nd edition)

Our first attempt at developing a useful baseline data layer was to summarize known anchorages listed in the Lethcoe’s Cruising Guide (with permission from Nancy Lethcoe) to the spatial resolution of the General Area, thus avoiding putting a too-specific location to the anchorage. However, input from long-time PWS skippers at public open house meetings led us to abandon our original intention of mapping the number of potential anchorages per GA. The viability of any given anchorage is extremely variable based on the vessel type, wind and weather conditions, and skill of the vessel’s skipper.

32 The existing point layers identified offered various attempts at locating anchorages, but those anchorages were not quantified in any way. In other words, they are an attempt to catalog potential anchorages but do not examine the popularity or frequency of use of any specific anchorage. In order to define not only the potential of an area as an anchorage but also the actual use of the area, we developed a polygon layer of ranked anchorages based on observations of actual use by local area experts.

To determine bays that are commonly used as an anchorage in the study area we surveyed long- time local boat captains based in both Cordova and Whittier. Their experience ranged from running a research vessel to commercial fishing boats and charter boat operators. We asked that they consider all boat sizes and areas that they often see boats anchored. We also developed ranks for them to use (Table 2). These ranks were developed with assistance from recreation analyst Bob Itami and University of Arizona professor Randy Gimblett, and were based on three criteria: 1) the intensity of use, 2) duration of use, and 3) physical evidence of recent use (this could include infrastructure). A range and description of use was developed for each criterion and then combined to create the rankings.

Table 2: Ranking scheme used by long-time local skippers to map use levels of well-known anchorages in Prince William Sound. Rank Description 1 Area is rarely used. Do not expect to encounter another user, generally expect to have this area to yourself even on weekends and holidays, even if staying for multiple days. Do not expect to see physical evidence of human use. 2 Area is not commonly used, even on weekends and holidays. Users may encounter others on overnight or multiple day trips, but probably would not encounter others during a day trip. Evidence of human use is rare and limited to occasional trash, lightly used trails, lightly impacted vegetation. 3 Area is commonly used, especially on weekends or holidays. Users can expect to encounter others in this area if staying overnight or longer, may not encounter others during a day trip or overnight during the week. Users may encounter evidence of human use such as cut trees, established informal trails, fire rings, trash, temporary structures, etc. 4 Area is one of the heaviest concentrations of human use in Prince William Sound, both day use and overnight use. Users can expect to encounter others at this area daily even if only in the area for a day trip. Permanent evidence of human use may be present, including cabins, boardwalks, tent platforms, fire rings, temporary or long-term structures, or established informal trails. During overnight and multiple day use of the area, would expect to encounter multiple other users; would not expect to have the area to yourself overnight or for multiple days.

Where a bay received multiple conflicting ranks from more than one captain, the highest rank was selected. The resulting layer was incorporated into the overall use levels for summer only. These data likely reflect mainly summer use because that is the time of year when the bulk of independent small boat traffic is present in the Sound.

33 We have concluded in the context of this project that there is not a single, reliable way to depict access points in PWS. Rather, we feel that the compilation of use data may help indicate areas that are accessible; if people are using the area, there is available access into the area.

When questions of access occur in relation to management of recreation and other human uses in the Sound, the compiled point layers contained in the electronic database may be useful tools to help evaluate each situation based on specifics of vessel type and other factors.

Vector data Vector data refers to spatial data layers within a GIS such as polygons, points or lines. These are the most familiar type of data to most people. We determined that several data sources such as infrastructure, attraction points, and anecdotal knowledge could not be reliably quantified or given a relative use value.

Ferry Routes Ferry routes were digitized from topographical 1:100,000 maps. Routes were digitized from route maps on the DOT web page and verified by the ferry personal. Spatial accuracy of these lines is low; they should be used for general reference only.

Daily Scenic Tour Routes Line feature class, digitized from available information from tour companies operating out of Whittier and Valdez (no daily routes currently exist from Cordova). Spatial accuracy of these lines is low; they should be used for general reference only.

Public Use Cabin Locations Point feature class consisting of Forest Service and State of Alaska public use cabins. Forest Service cabin locations were taken from CNF corporate data, spatial accuracy of these data is high. State of Alaska cabin locations were digitized from online State Marine Park maps, spatial accuracy of these data is unknown and these points should be used for general reference only.

Documented Campsite Locations Campsite locations included in the dataset were developed in collaboration with Paul Twardock of Alaska Pacific University. The layer currently includes 313 point locations throughout PWS representing a synthesis of Forest Service inventory work conducted by the Glacier Ranger District backcountry kayak ranger program from 2000 - 2008, and APU long-term monitoring points in western PWS. The layer does not include campsites located on private lands (Forest Service and State of Alaska lands only), and does not include potential sites without documented use.

To combine Forest Service and APU data points, ArcGIS was used to determine the distance from each APU point to the nearest FS point. Points within 100 meters of each other were reviewed with specialists to determine if they represented the same campsite. Where the same camping location was represented by different coordinate points, we used the APU coordinates due to their use of a fixed center point (buried metal marker) to re-locate campsite plots for future monitoring.

34

Due to the ephemeral and shifting nature of campsites in PWS, spatial accuracy of these data points remains unknown and they should be used for general reference only. Inclusion of a campsite location in this layer does not guarantee or imply the availability, safety or suitability of the site. Use of any and all camping or beach use locations in PWS is governed by weather, wind and tide conditions as well as the skill level of the potential user.

Land Use Permit Locations Points representing lands permits issued by the Chugach NF, current as of 2008, were digitized from permit files. Lands permit categories include research studies and camps, filming and photography, utilities, communication sites, fish weirs and hatcheries, set net permits, navigational aids, and many others. Due to the ephemeral nature of some permit categories (particularly research and filming permits), permits were included in this project only if they authorized either a physical structure or a human presence for one month or more out of the calendar year. For visual representation, permits are shown as point locations regardless of actual physical area occupied by authorized activities. Spatial accuracy of these data points is unknown and they should be used for general reference only.

For state land use permits, we obtained digital data from Alaska State Geospatial Data Clearinghouse (ASGDC) online at http://www.asgdc.state.ak.us/ on October 8, 2008 to check for most recent updated data.

Datasets examined were: Alaska DNR Aquatic Farms (metadata at http://fox.dnr.state.ak.us/SpatialUtility/SUC?cmd=vmd&layerid=167) Alaska DNR Shore Fishery Leases (metadata at http://fox.dnr.state.ak.us/SpatialUtility/SUC?cmd=vmd&layerid=170) Alaska DNR Tidal Leases (metadata at http://fox.dnr.state.ak.us/SpatialUtility/SUC?cmd=vmd&layerid=169) Alaska DNR Permit or Lease - Land Estate (metadata at http://fox.dnr.state.ak.us/SpatialUtility/SUC?cmd=vmd&layerid=147)

Further information on individual permits within the EVOS study area was obtained at the Alaska DNR Land Administration System database online at http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/las/lasmenu.cfm including expiration date and status of permit. Only active, issued permits were included as data points.

The state shore fishery data were lines; for ease of visual representation we located the centroid of each line and represented them as point data. The aquatic farms data were polygons; for ease of visual representation we located the centroid of each polygon and represented them as point data. No applicable data were found in the Land Estate data (no data located within our study area). Tidal Leases described within our study area were not included as they consisted of docks, access ramps, pipeline infrastructure or similar items in close proximity to Cordova, Valdez, Chenega Bay (dock) and Eyak (dock).

35 Potential Attractions Potential attraction points in PWS have been identified as important aspects of recreation distribution in previous studies (Murphy et al 2004). Potential attraction points include tidewater glaciers and other scenic features, concentrated wildlife viewing opportunities, and established trails or locally known hiking areas.

Tidewater glaciers are represented as points near their interface with the ocean, digitized from USGS maps.

Wildlife and other scenic attraction points were digitized based on input from subject matter experts. Spatial accuracy of these points is unknown and they should be used for general reference only.

Hiking areas are compiled from CNF corporate data and include established trails such as trails to FS cabins at Coghill and Shrode Lakes, as well as easement trailheads that may or may not receive much actual use. Additional areas were added based on anecdotal information from local knowledge and public input, as well as survey data collected from 2005 and 2008 human use studies in PWS (Gimblett et al 2007; unpublished FS data from User Experience project anticipated publication in 2010).

Inhabited Areas This is a point layer that has towns, private cabin clusters, hatcheries, private lodges, and float houses that are within the analysis area. All these places have people, buildings, and activities occurring during the spring, fall, and summer seasons. Towns and private cabin concentrations will also have people present in the winter months.

It is difficult to rank one town over another, they all have a constant population, and they all play an important role in the area where they are present. It is important to identify town locations, but they are not an explicit part of the recreational use that we are measuring.

We defined a private cabin cluster as a place where 4 or more cabins exist. We could not find a data source to provide us with a current layer of all the individual cabins in the analysis area and did not feel like we could produce an accurate layer of these cabins with the data we had available. Areas with 4 or more cabins are locally well known and were easily identified; however we know this layer is potentially missing additional areas. There is no way to quantify the use that occurs at the private cabins but it is important to be able to locate the cabin cluster spatially when considering recreational use.

Private lodges, hatcheries, and float houses also influence the recreational use in the analysis areas. Although we can spatially map the locations of these inhabited areas, we have no data on actual use therefore they are represented as point locations only with no relative measure of use.

Aircraft landing site point locations Point data sets included data from the PWS Public Access Atlas (State of AK 1997) and the Chugach NF corporate data.

36 Anchorage point locations Please refer also to discussion under Anchorage Ranks section (page 27). Point data sets included data from the PWS Public Access Atlas (State of AK 1997), and the Graphical Resources Database (2005).

Lingering oil point locations Lingering oil data points (presence or absence of EVOS oil) were collected in 2001. These data were randomly sampled points at beach segments stratified according to their oiling history and targeted those beaches known to have received higher levels of oiling from the EVOS (Pella and Maselko 2007). These point locations were obtained from NOAA and intersected with our General Area polygons to determine their coincidence with areas of higher human use.

37 Combination of Data Sets To determine areas of relatively high overall human, raster data sets were overlaid to find areas where all the various uses were concentrated. In order to overlay disparate data sources (for example the various polygon boundaries determined by ADF&G and FS administrative units), raster data were combined using Spatial Analyst tools in ArcMap. All rasters were classified using the Jenks Natural Breaks algorithm in ArcMap, yielding values of 1 (lowest use) to 4 (highest use).

All measurable data were classified 1-4, creating a series of datasets presented in order of relative importance or rank rather than actual values. This is a necessary step due to the highly variable metrics in the data considered (Table 1, pg. 21).

Additionally, one raster data set for ranked anchorages was developed and added to the data summarized for the Summer season. Anchorages were included only in the summer season due to a lack of measurable data. We made the assumption that the majority of observed use upon which these ranks were developed by local area experts occurs in the summer season.

Because hunting data is unique among other datasets in its focus on reporting use to upland areas, additional steps were taken following the creation of the raster datasets of hunting rank. Hunting data collected by ADF&G is reported to UCUs which are delineated only to the shoreline and are based on upland drainages rather than bays or fjords. In order to overlay these data with the other raster datasets of fishing and beach use, hunting use in these upland areas was spatially associated with the bays and coves adjacent to each UCU.

Individual ranked rasters were overlaid using the cell statistics function in Spatial Analyst to give the total sum of all ranks for each 100m2 pixel (Figure 5). Summed rank values range from 0-21 (the maximum potential value for a single pixel would be 44 if it had received the maximum rank possible for every input layer). The total rank sum for each season was classified using Jenks Natural Breaks to yield an overall relative use rank of 1-4, with 1 being the lowest relative use and 4 being the highest relative use. Using the zonal statistics function in the Spatial Analyst extension of ArcMap (ESRI 2009), the majority value for each GA was calculated and assigned to all pixels in the GA. This results in some loss of spatial variation, particularly in larger GA polygons, but is necessary to be able to compare and summarize results across uses and season.

Figure 6: Example of summing rasters with the cell statistic function in Spatial Analyst.

38

We acknowledge that summing cumulative ranks is not widely accepted as a method of combining ordinal data, as identified by early reviews of this report. However, we feel this method meets the objectives of this project and returns results that appear to accurately describe Human Use Hot Spots in PWS. We explored alternate methods, such as maximizing rank data, and found that we could not retain a useful spatial resolution; in other words there were far too many areas that showed up as higher use areas if the maximum rank from any input was used to characterize a GA. We believe this is due to the large number of input rasters we are considering (10 or 11 rasters combined for each season); there are a lot of chances for a single high rank to appear among that many inputs.

Conversely, certain areas, while they do not receive the maximum level of use from any one source (i.e. a rank of 4 from one use type such as sport fishing), may receive lower levels of use from multiple different sources (i.e. a rank of 2 from special uses beach use, ADF&G hunting, sport fishing, water taxi drop-offs). In other words, we need to capture both areas in which a high amount of activity occurs from one or two types of use, as well as areas with a wide variety of use types with lower levels of activity per use type. We are looking for a simple, relative measure of how the cumulative human presence at one location compares to surrounding areas, without any implications as to absolute use levels or the magnitude of difference between rank numbers.

To test our assumption that our calculated overall use level is an accurate reflection of reality, we used an independent data set not used in any other part of our project data. Validation of the calculated Human Use Hotspot rank was completed using vessel observation data collected in 2008 for the User Experience Project (Poe et al 2010). Transects were completed to record presence of vessels observed on saltwater. Observers recorded the type of vessels seen as well as mapping their approximate location and distance from the observer.

These vessel observation points were used to create a density surface for the saltwater of PWS using the Kernel Density tool in ArcMap Spatial Analyst. The density surface was then sampled with zonal statistics, using the GA polygons as the analysis zones. This resulted in a sum of all pixel values contained within each GA. Because the vessel density includes only saltwater areas, upland GAs were removed from the analysis (no comparison can be made as no vessel density values exist for these areas). GAs with a calculated Human Use rank where no vessel transects were conducted (the outer coast of Montague Island, and the Eaglek/Unakwik Analysis Area) were also removed. These sums were normalized by dividing by the area of each GA, and then classified into four classes using Jenks Natural Breaks algorithm in ArcMap. The rank of vessel density (1-4) summarized to GA was compared with the calculated Human Use Hot Spot rank (also 1-4) using a Pearson’s correlation coefficient, with a result of r=.71, indicating a high degree of correlation.

39 Results

Overall Human Use Levels Human use levels were summarized for each GA relative to all the GAs in PWS, including beach use data, fishing data, and hunting data. Use was evaluated seasonally. Overall, use levels are higher in the western half of the Sound than the eastern half. This is likely due to relative ease of access from Whittier, which is road-accessible and in close proximity to Alaska’s major population center. Valdez is also a major access port, accessible from the Richardson Highway which connects PWS to Fairbanks and other interior Alaska communities.

Data were insufficient to develop valid relative ranks in the winter season, when human use of the Sound is low and mainly limited to commercial fishing and other commercial open water activities. Recreational use of PWS in the winter is very limited due to extreme weather and unsafe conditions.

Summary of lingering oil data Lingering oil data points were collected in 2001. These data were randomly sampled points at beach segments stratified according to their oiling history and targeting those beaches known to have received higher levels of oiling from the EVOS (Pella and Maselko 2007). These point locations were obtained from NOAA researchers and intersected with our GA polygons to determine their coincidence with areas of higher human use. According to these data, six Analysis Areas contain beaches with identified lingering oil: East Knight Island, Green Island, Perry/Lone Islands, Port Bainbridge, West Knight Island and West Knight Island Passage. Two GAs with lingering oil have a rank of relatively Highest human use: Gibbon Anchorage on Green Island, and Herring Bay on West Knight Island. We do not know the impact of the presence of lingering oil on the recreation experience of PWS users, or even if recreationists recognize the presence of the lingering oil. Preliminary results from the User Experience Project (Poe et al 2010) indicate that the majority of PWS users do not feel that EVOS lingering oil impacts their recreation experience. These areas identified with lingering oil and relatively higher human use may be useful focal targets for further investigation of the impact, if any, of lingering EVOS oil on recreation experience.

40 Table 3: List of General Areas containing one to several lingering oil points as identified by Pella and Maselko (2007). General areas identified as Highest human use rank are in bold font. Maximum Analysis Area General Area human use rank East Knight Island AA15 AA15 East Knight Island Lowest East Knight Island AA15 Bay of Isles Higher East Knight Island AA15 Hogan Bay Higher East Knight Island AA15 Point Helen Lowest Green Island 06-06B Gibbon Anchorage Highest Green Island 06-06B Green Island Higher Perry Island AA07 Day Care Cove Lower Port Bainbridge AA17 Bettles Island Lowest Port Bainbridge AA17 Elrington Island Lowest Port Bainbridge AA17 Evans Island Lowest Port Bainbridge AA17 Latouche Island Lower Port Bainbridge AA17 Shelter Bay Evans Island Lower Port Bainbridge AA17 Sleepy Bay Lower West Knight Island AA14 AA14 West Knight Island Higher West Knight Island AA14 Aguliak Island Lowest West Knight Island AA14 Block Island Eleanor Island Lower West Knight Island AA14 Disk Island Lower West Knight Island AA14 Herring Bay Highest West Knight Island AA14 Herring Point Lower West Knight Island AA14 Ingot Cove Lower West Knight Island AA14 Ingot Island Higher West Knight Island AA14 Knight Island Pass CS #1 Lower West Knight Island AA14 Lower Passage Higher West Knight Island AA14 Northwest Bay Higher West Knight Island AA14 Smith Island Lower West Knight Island AA14 Squire Island Lower West Knight Island Passage AA13 Crafton Island Lower

Seasonal variation in use distribution Analysis of available data confirms the importance of seasonal variation in the distribution of human use in PWS. Overall use and human presence is highest in the summer months, followed by spring, then fall, with the least amount of human use documented in the winter. Spatially, human use appears to be more widespread in summer months and more concentrated in areas closer to Whittier and Valdez in the spring and fall. Hunting dominates the documented human use in the fall season.

Seasonal variation can be seen in differences in the range of overall ranks classified as Highest, Higher, Lower or Lowest human use levels among season (Table 4).

41

Table 4: variation in total value of summed ranks designated as Highest, Higher, Lower or Lowest for each season independently. Overall Rank Spring Summer Fall Highest 11-17 13-21 9-13 Higher 8-10 9-12 6-8 Lower 5-7 5-7 3-5 Lowest <5 <5 <3

Three categories of use were selected to demonstrate the variation in measurable data behind these ranks (Table 5): (1) special use permit holders beach use (total service days); (2) public use cabins (nights reserved); and (3) hunter days as summarized by ADF&G data for black bear, brown bear, mountain goats and deer. The special use permit data reflects a use that is directly managed by the Chugach NF, while cabin reservations reflect the most discreet quantitative public use data available. Hunting data reflects both commercially guided and private hunting effort.

Table 5: Seasonal variation in measured values for three different data types Maximum value per season Use Type and metric Spring Summer Fall Special Use outfitter-guide permit holders 142 1074 39 (service days) Public use cabins (nights reserved) 276 424 356 ADF&G Hunting data (hunter days; all 381 76 1226 species combined)

The importance of seasonal variation is clearly shown in Table 5, which indicates the Spring season may be the time of greatest potential for conflict between user groups. Beach use peaks in the summer when hunting is at its lowest level, while hunting peaks in the fall after beach use has dramatically declined; however, both uses have a presence in the spring.

Areas with greatest potential for overlap of beach user groups One of the stated goals of this project was to identify locations in which the convergence of a variety of human uses may cumulatively impact EVOS-injured resources. In order to summarize those areas with the greatest potential for desired use by multiple and possibly incompatible user groups, we examined the relative contribution of each use type to the overall rank of each GA. Those areas with a relative ranking of Higher or Highest were considered to have the greatest potential for overlap of various user groups. It is important to note, however, that this is not a definite indicator of perceived crowding or conflict between users; some research suggests there may be greater risk for perceived crowding and user conflict in areas that are the least crowded, as individuals seek out these areas with a goal of solitude and thereby may be least tolerant of any encounter with others (Blahna 2007).

42 GAs of Highest or Higher overall relative use rank were examined to determine which areas had multiple uses with similar contribution to the overall human presence in the area. The uses of hunting and beach use have been previously identified as the greatest potential for conflict, thus these ranks were evaluated and areas with similar beach use and hunting ranks are identified as having a higher potential for overlap of multiple user groups onshore; unless otherwise noted it should not be assumed that this potential overlap of use has led to actual conflict.

Table 6: General areas that appear to have both beach use and hunting occurring simultaneously, thereby suggesting potential for overlap and possible conflict between user groups. Analysis Area General Area Season Blackstone Bay AA11 Surprise Cove Fall Blackstone Bay AA11 Willard Island Fall Cochrane Bay AA10 Paulson Bay Fall Cochrane Bay AA10 Three Fingers Cove Summer College Fjord AA03 Golden Summer College Fjord AA03 Harvard Arm Summer Columbia Bay AA06 Columbia Bay Spring Culross Island/Passage AA09 Culross Bay Spring Culross Island/Passage AA09 Culross Cove Summer Culross Island/Passage AA09 Culross Passage Spring Culross Island/Passage AA09 Hidden Bay Fall Eaglek/Unakwik AA05 Cascade Bay Spring Eaglek/Unakwik AA05 Olsen Island Spring East Knight Island AA15 Bay of Isles Summer East Knight Island AA15 Snug Harbor Summer East Knight Island AA15 Thumb Bay Summer East Valdez Arm 06-03F Galena Bay Summer, Fall Esther Island/Passage AA04 Esther Bay Spring, Summer Esther Island/Passage AA04 Esther Bight Spring Esther Island/Passage AA04 Esther Passage Spring Esther Island/Passage AA04 Granite Bay Esther Island Summer Esther Island/Passage AA04 Waterfall Cove Summer Fidalgo Bay 06-03E Snug Corner Cove Summer Harriman Fjord/BarryArm AA02 Pakenham Point Spring Harriman Fjord/BarryArm AA02 Serpentine Cove Summer Hinchinbrook Island 06-06A Boswell Bay Summer Hinchinbrook Island 06-06A Double Bay Summer, Fall Hinchinbrook Island 06-06A Gulf of Alaska Spring Hinchinbrook Island 06-06A Port Etches Summer Hinchinbrook Island 06-06A Shelter Bay Hinchinbrook Island Summer, Fall Icy/Whale Bay AA16 Dual Head Spring Kings Bay/Port Nellie Juan AA12 McClure Bay Summer Kings Bay/Port Nellie Juan AA12 Mink Island Summer

43 Analysis Area General Area Season Kings Bay/Port Nellie Juan AA12 Port Nellie Juan Spring Montague Island 06-06C Port Chalmers Summer Naked Island Group AA08 Cabin Bay Summer Passage Canal AA18 Passage Canal Spring Port Bainbridge AA17 Fox Farm Bay Summer Port Bainbridge AA17 South Twin Bay Summer Port Bainbridge AA17 Squirrel Bay Summer Valdez Area Non-Forest Gold Creek/Camp Bowie Summer Valdez Area Non-Forest Port Valdez Fall Valdez Area Non-Forest Shoup Bay Fall Valdez Area Non-Forest Valdez Fall Valdez Area Non-Forest Valdez Narrows Summer West Knight Island AA14 Mummy Bay Summer West Knight Island AA14 Northwest Bay Fall West Knight Island Passage AA13 Eshamy Bay Spring, Summer West Knight Island Passage AA13 Falls Bay Summer West Knight Island Passage AA13 Main Bay Spring West Knight Island Passage AA13 Paddy Bay Spring West Knight Island Passage AA13 Pt Nowell Spring West Port Wells AA01 Bettles Bay Spring West Port Wells AA01 Head of Pigot Bay Spring, Fall West Port Wells AA01 Hobo Bay Spring West Port Wells AA01 Hummer Bay Spring West Port Wells AA01 Pigot Bay Spring, Fall West Port Wells AA01 Pirate Cove Spring West Valdez Arm 06-04 Sawmill Bay Valdez Arm Spring

44 Summary of Use Levels per Analysis Area

A brief summary of each Analysis Area (AA) is given, including a map showing the location of the AA within the study area, general land ownership, number of campsites, cabins, land use permits, and a summary of the General Areas with a rank of Higher or Highest relative human use level for each season. For detailed maps showing the use levels for all General Areas for each season (three maps per each Analysis Area), as well as locations of point data (such as campsites), please refer to the Map Atlas found in Appendix B of this document.

Blackstone Bay (Analysis Area 11)

Figure 7: Location of Blackstone Bay (darkened area) within the overall PWS study area.

Blackstone Bay is one of the most easily accessible recreation destinations and known to be one of the highest use areas in PWS. Our data confirm that the area is one of the highest ranked human use areas in PWS from spring through fall. It is a popular destination for sightseeing and kayak day trips from Whittier as well as other uses. There are two State Marine Parks in close proximity: Decision Point SMP is located northwest and Surprise Cove SMP is located east of the entrance to Blackstone. Surprise Cove SMP sits within the Analysis Area and includes developed tent platforms, bear proof caches and latrine areas. There is a public use cabin at Decision Point SMP, as well as tent platforms, bear proof lockers and a latrine. There are two FS hardened campsites with gravel tent pads and access trails, located at the popular 17-mile and 13- mile beaches. Willard Island sits near the head of the bay and is the site of another popular camping area on the spit off the eastern side of the island. There are a total of 21 documented campsites and 8 potential attractions in this analysis area.

45

Land ownership in the Analysis Area is relatively simple, including Forest Service and State of Alaska. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 7: Approximate acreages of land ownership of Blackstone Bay (Analysis Area 11) Land Owner Acres National Forest 56,965 State of Alaska 3,103

Spring

The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 8. In Spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is Beach Use.

Table 8: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Blackstone Bay (Analysis Area 11) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Blackstone Bay Highest 16 2 12 2 Surprise Cove Higher 9 2 4 3

Summer

The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 9. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is Beach Use

Table 9: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Blackstone Bay (Analysis Area 11) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Hunt Beach Fish Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Blackstone Bay Highest 18 2 12 4 0 Surprise Cove SMP Higher 12 2 5 1 4 Surprise Cove Higher 11 2 7 2 0 Willard Island Higher 9 2 7 0 0

46 Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 10. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is Beach Use; however, hunting increases and other beach use decreases in the fall relative to other seasons indicating that hunting and other uses may be more competitive in the fall season.

Table 10: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Blackstone Bay (Analysis Area 11) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Blackstone Bay Highest 13 3 8 2 Surprise Cove Highest 9 3 3 3 Willard Island Higher 6 3 3 0

47 Cochrane Bay (Analysis Area 10)

Figure 7: Location of Cochrane Bay (darkened area) within the overall PWS study area.

Cochrane Bay is the location of a Forest Service public use cabin in Paulson Bay. Three Fingers Cove is a protected anchorage that is home to one end of an established trail leading to another FS cabin at Shrode Lake. Although located relatively close to Whittier, Cochrane Bay does not receive the same high use levels as adjacent Blackstone Bay to the west or Culross Passage to the east. There are relatively few documented campsites and no tidewater glaciers or other known popular scenic attractions. Surprise Cove State Marine Park sits at the western entrance to Cochrane Bay. Surprise Cove SMP sits adjacent to the Analysis Area boundary and includes developed tent platforms, bear proof caches and latrine areas. There are a total of 7 documented campsites and 1 public cabin in this analysis area.

Land ownership in the Analysis Area is entirely National Forest (27,500 acres). Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

48 Spring

The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 11. In Spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is beach use.

Table 11: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Cochrane Bay (Analysis Area 10) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Cochrane Bay Higher 10 2 5 3 Paulson Bay Higher 9 2 6 1

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 12. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is beach use, influenced largely by the presence of the FS cabin in Paulson Bay. Three Fingers Cove is a popular anchorage.

Table 12: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Cochrane Bay (Analysis Area 10) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Hunt Beach Fish Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Paulson Bay Highest 13 2 9 2 0 Cochrane Bay Higher 11 2 5 4 0 Three Fingers Cove Higher 9 2 2 2 3

Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 13. In Fall, the overall level of human use in the area is more evenly distributed between hunting, beach use and fishing. Paulson Bay remains the most used area due to the FS cabin.

Table 13: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Cochrane Bay (Analysis Area 10) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Paulson Bay Highest 9 3 4 2 Cochrane Bay Higher 6 3 0 3 Three Fingers Cove Higher 6 3 1 2

49 College Fjord (Analysis Area 03)

Figure 8: Location of College Fjord (darkened area) within the overall PWS study area.

College Fjord contains the highest concentration of tidewater glaciers of any of our Analysis Areas, and is a destination for multiple sightseeing tours from Whittier and Valdez. A Forest Service cabin and trail are located at Coghill Lake, which is home to a July sockeye (red) salmon run monitored by an ADF&G weir. State lands at the Golden area were historically used as a gold mining site, and the area is easily accessible to upland users. There are a total of 5 documented campsites, 7 potential attractions, 1 land use permit and 1 public cabin in this analysis area.

Land ownership in the Analysis Area is highly dominated by Forest Service, with a small area of State lands and National Forest lands selected by the State for possible future conveyance, both in the Golden area. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 14: Approximate acreage of land ownership in College Fjord (Analysis Area 03). Land Owner Acres National Forest 122,072 National Forest - Selected 131 State of Alaska 642

50 Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 15. In Spring, the highest contributors to the overall level of human use in the area are black bear hunting and fishing. However, Coghill also receives relatively high levels of beach use and could be considered an area with an elevated potential for user conflicts.

Table 15: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in College Fjord (Analysis Area 03) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank College Fjord Highest 17 7 4 6 Coghill Highest 13 3 5 5 Golden Higher 9 4 1 4 Harvard Arm Higher 8 3 1 4 Yale Arm Higher 8 3 1 4

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 16. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is fishing. Coghill stands out as an area of fishing use, beach use, and a popular anchorage.

Table 16: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in College Fjord (Analysis Area 03) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Beach Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Hunt Rank Rank Fish Rank Rank Coghill Highest 15 1 4 6 4 College Fjord Higher 10 1 3 6 0 Golden Higher 9 1 2 6 0 Harvard Arm Higher 9 1 2 6 0

Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 17. In Fall, the Golden area stands out as high hunting and fishing rank.

Table 17: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in College Fjord (Analysis Area 03) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Golden Highest 9 6 0 3

51 Columbia Bay (Analysis Area 06)

Figure 9: Location of Columbia Bay (Analysis Area 06) in PWS.

The Columbia Bay Analysis Area includes Heather Bay, Columbia Bay, Glacier Island, Long Bay, Fairmount Bay and Fairmount Island. Columbia Glacier sits at the head of Columbia Bay and is well known among glacier enthusiasts for its size and a period of dramatic rapid retreat in 1980s and 90s. The glacier calves large amounts of ice into Columbia Bay and can create ice conditions hazardous to boat traffic. The area is a popular destination among kayak tour companies based in Valdez, and competition for preferred camping spots on Glacier Island and the area around Elf Point on the mainland has led to some conflict in recent years. Columbia Bay also receives daily visits from sightseeing vessels departing from Valdez during summer months. The AA is home to some of the most sought after mountain goat hunting in PWS. There are a total of 14 documented campsites and 5 potential attractions in this analysis area.

52

Privately owned Chugach Alaska Native Corporation land on Glacier Island was formerly the location of a tourist camp and the infrastructure for the camp is still in place including several buildings and a boat dock. Heather Island is owned by the Tatitlek Corporation and is an area of trespass concern to the Corporation; the lands are culturally significant, and tempting to casual trespass due to their prime location and easily accessible uplands in a popular scenic location. There are State lands located on the western shore of Heather Bay. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 18: Approximate acreages of land ownership in Columbia Bay (Analysis Area 06). Land Owner Acres Chugach Alaska Corporation 155 City or Private 17 National Forest 112,171 National Forest - Selected for possible future conveyance 1,038 State of Alaska 2,253 Tatitlek Corporation 1,298

Spring

The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 19. In Spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is beach use.

Table 19: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Columbia Bay (Analysis Area 06) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Heather Bay Higher 10 2 6 2 Columbia Bay Higher 8 4 3 1

Summer

The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 20. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is beach use.

Table 20: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Columbia Bay (Analysis Area 06) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Beach Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Hunt Rank Rank Fish Rank Rank Heather Bay Highest 13 1 5 3 4

53 Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 21. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting. Please note that the methodology used to summarize hunting data leads to each bay (General Area) contained within a large upland UCU being assigned the rank of the UCU; this indicates the highest potential use level of each GA and does not indicate that every General Area is actually receiving this use level.

Table 21: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Columbia Bay (Analysis Area 06) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall Total Hunt Beach Fish General Area Total Use Rank Rank Rank Rank Columbia Bay Highest 10 7 2 1 Long Bay Unakwik Highest 9 8 0 1 Heather Bay Highest 9 7 1 1 Emerald Cove (Heather Bay) Higher 8 7 0 1 Granite Cove Higher 8 7 0 1 Buyers Cove Higher 8 7 0 1 Eickelberg Bay Higher 8 7 0 1 Fairmount Bay Higher 8 7 0 1 Useless Cove Higher 8 7 0 1 Billy's Hole Higher 7 7 0 0 AA06 Columbia Bay Higher 7 7 0 0

54 Culross Island/Passage (Analysis Area 09)

Figure 10: Location of Culross Island/Passage (Analysis Area 09) within PWS

Culross Passage is a relatively protected, popular traffic route for vessels traveling from Whittier to areas in the southwestern Sound. There are several anchorage options and the Passage is a popular destination for fishing and shrimping boats on day trips or short overnight trips from Whittier. Culross Island is less steep than many other areas of western PWS and offers relatively accessible upland recreation including hiking in summer and skiing in winter and spring. Applegate Island, located off the southern tip of Culross Island, is popular for camping and contains several established camping sites. In recent years, the Applegate/south Culross area has been the location of multiple high-impact, unauthorized camping areas with impacts including cleared trees and human waste accumulation. There are two Forest Service cabins contained in the Analysis Area. At the time of analysis, an FS cabin was in Picturesque Cove. This cabin was removed in 2009 and replaced with a new cabin in Goose Bay at the north-eastern end of Culross Passage; further analysis would be needed to examine the change in use patterns due to the relocation of this cabin. Long Bay is one end of the access trail to the upland area containing Shrode Lake, which is the location of another FS cabin that can also be accessed from Three- Finger Cove in Cochrane Bay. There are a total of 26 documented campsites, 3 potential attractions, and 2 public cabins in this analysis area.

Land ownership in the AA is almost entirely Forest Service, with several small private land parcels. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 22: Approximate acreages of land ownership in Culross Island/Passage (Analysis Area 09). Land Owner Acres City or Private 16 National Forest 34,099

55

Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 23. In Spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is beach use, although Culross Passage receives higher amounts of hunting and fishing activity.

Table 23: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Culross Island/Passage (Analysis Area 09) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Picturesque Cove Highest 13 2 9 2 Culross Passage Highest 11 4 3 4 Long Bay Culross Higher 9 2 5 2 Culross Bay Higher 8 3 3 2

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 24. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is beach use. The popularity of the area for overnight and daytime anchoring is also reflected below.

Table 24: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Culross Island/Passage (Analysis Area 09) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Total Hunt Beach Fish Anchorage General Area Use Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Long Bay Culross Highest 15 2 6 3 4 Culross Passage Highest 15 2 8 5 0 Southern tip Culross Island Higher 12 2 6 0 4 Culross Cove Higher 11 2 3 2 4 Picturesque Cove Higher 11 2 7 2 0 Hidden Bay Higher 10 2 4 4 0

56 Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 25. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting. Please note that the methodology used to summarize hunting data leads to each bay (General Area) contained within a large upland UCU being assigned the rank of the UCU; this indicates the highest potential use level of each GA and does not indicate that every General Area is actually receiving this use level.

Table 25: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Culross Island/Passage (Analysis Area 09) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Long Bay Culross Highest 11 5 2 4 Hidden Bay Highest 9 4 3 2 Culross Passage Higher 8 6 0 2 Culross Bay Higher 6 4 0 2 Culross Cove Higher 6 4 0 2 Picturesque Cove Higher 6 5 1 0 AA09 Culross Island/Passage Higher 6 5 1 0

57 Eaglek/Unakwik (Analysis Area 05)

Figure 11: Location of Eaglek/Unakwik (Analysis Area 05) within PWS.

Eaglek/Unakwik Inlet (Analysis Area 5) is a very large area, encompassing the shoreline and uplands from Squaw Bay east to Fairmount Island, including Eaglek Bay, Unakwik Inlet and Wells Bay. This area, particularly Unakwik Inlet, is considered to be one of the more remote locations in western PWS and is approximately midway between Valdez and Whittier. The Cannery Creek Hatchery operated by Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation (see www.pwsac.com for details) is located on the eastern shore of Unakwik Inlet about a mile south of Miners Bay. There are a total of 35 documented campsites, 3 potential attractions and 1 inhabited area in this analysis area.

Land ownership in the AA is predominantly Forest Service, with a sizeable area of State lands from the head of Eaglek Bay east through Siwash Bay and smaller parcels of privately owned land in the AA. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 26: Approximate acreages of land ownership in Eaglek/Unakwik (Analysis Area 05). Land Owner Acres City or Private 104 National Forest 158,088 State of Alaska 2,314

58

Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 27. In Spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting, although there is also a high contribution from beach use in several GAs.

Table 27: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Eaglek/Unakwik (Analysis Area 05) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Cascade Bay Higher 10 4 5 1 Unakwik Inlet Higher 10 7 1 2 Eaglek Bay Higher 10 5 3 2 Head of Unakwik Inlet Higher 9 5 3 1 Olsen Island Higher 8 4 4 0 Siwash Bay Higher 8 5 2 1

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 28. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is beach use, with fishing a close second. Cascade Bay was one of the highest ranked anchorages in the PWS study area.

Table 28: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Eaglek/Unakwik (Analysis Area 05) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Beach Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Hunt Rank Rank Fish Rank Rank Cascade Bay Highest 13 1 5 3 4 Unakwik Inlet Higher 10 1 4 5 0 Olsen Cove Higher 9 1 3 5 0

59 Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 29. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting. Please note that the methodology used to summarize hunting data leads to each bay (General Area) contained within a large upland UCU being assigned the rank of the UCU; this indicates the highest potential use level of each GA and does not indicate that every General Area is actually receiving this use level. In this case, the length of the list of GA with the “highest” or “higher” overall rank is an indicator of the size and shoreline complexity of the Analysis Area leading to a large number of GAs that are adjacent to established UCU polygons.

Table 29: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Eaglek/Unakwik (Analysis Area 05) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Unakwik Inlet Highest 12 7 4 1 Siwash Bay Highest 10 7 1 2 Schoppe Bay Highest 10 7 2 1 Eaglek Bay Highest 10 7 2 1 Head of Unakwik Inlet Highest 9 7 2 0 Cannery Creek Higher 8 6 0 2 Papoose Cove Higher 8 7 0 1 Squaw Bay Higher 8 7 0 1 Agayuut Bay Higher 8 7 0 1 Jonah Bay Higher 8 7 0 1 Point Pellew Lagoon Higher 8 7 0 1 Cow Pens Higher 8 6 2 0 Head of Eaglek Bay Higher 8 7 0 1 Ragged Bay Higher 8 7 0 1 Mueller Cove Higher 8 7 0 1 Olsen Cove Higher 8 7 0 1 Derickson Bay Eaglek Higher 8 7 0 1 Cascade Bay Higher 8 7 0 1 Wells Bay Higher 7 6 0 1 Winter Anchorage Unakwik Higher 7 6 0 1 Miners Lake Higher 7 7 0 0 Granite Bay (Eaglek) Higher 7 6 0 1 Cedar Bay Wells Bay Higher 7 6 0 1 Head of Cedar Bay Higher 7 6 0 1 Brave Harbor Higher 7 7 0 0 Fish Hook Anchorage Higher 7 6 0 1 AA05 Eaglek/Unakwik Bay Higher 7 7 0 0 Wells Anchorage Higher 7 6 0 1 Head of Wells Bay Higher 7 6 0 1 Kiniklik anchorage Higher 7 7 0 0 Cedar Lake anchorage Higher 6 6 0 0 Miners Bay Higher 6 6 0 0 Hidey Hole Higher 6 6 0 0 The Keyhole Higher 6 6 0 0 Hogan Bay Higher 6 3 0 3

60 East Knight Island (Analysis Area 15)

Figure 12: Location of East Knight Island (Analysis Area 15) in PWS.

The coast of Eastern Knight Island was some of the most heavily oiled shoreline in western PWS following the 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Available data did not indicate widespread high recreational use of the area; however, local captains identified several popular anchorages along the coast. This may indicate a greater level of private recreational use than is reflected in our data (see Discussion section for more in-depth review of the lack of personal use data), or may indicate a tendency for use of the area as overnight anchorages with limited upland use. There is a privately operated lodge in Thumb Bay at the southern end of Knight Island. There are a total of 2 documented campsites, 2 potential attractions and 1 inhabited area in this analysis area.

Land ownership within the AA is complex. A large area of Chugach Alaska Corporation lands extends from the head and southern shore of Bay of Isles inland and south past Marsha Bay, although portions of Marsha Bay are Forest Service. The southern tip of the island is owned by Chenega Corporation, and there are several additional private land areas in the AA. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 30: Approximate acreages of land ownership in East Knight Island (Analysis Area 15). Land Owner Acres Chugach Alaska Corporation 10,669 Chenega Corporation 4,334 City or Private 195 National Forest 14,499 National Forest - Selected for possible future conveyance 435

61 Spring No GAs in this Area had a relative rank of Higher or Highest for the spring season.

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 31. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is fishing. Several anchorages were also identified as relatively high-use areas.

Table 31: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in East Knight Island (Analysis Area 15) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Beach Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Hunt Rank Rank Fish Rank Rank Thumb Bay Higher 11 1 1 5 4 Snug Harbor Higher 10 1 2 4 3 Bay of Isles Higher 9 1 2 4 2

Fall No GAs in this Area had a relative rank of Higher or Highest for the fall season.

62 East Valdez Arm (Analysis Area 06-03F)

Figure 8: Location of East Valdez Arm (Analysis Area 06-03F) in PWS.

This Analysis Area extends from the Forest boundary on the southern shore of Valdez Arm south to Landlocked Bay and includes the village of Tatitlek and the community of Ellamar, and a large acreage of non-Forest lands. There is an FS cabin in Jack Bay. There are a total of 2 documented campsites, 2 potential attractions, 1 public cabin and 3 inhabited areas in this analysis area.

Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 32: Approximate acreages of land ownership in East Valdez Arm (Analysis Area 06-03F). Land Owner Acres Chugach Alaska Corporation 26,657 City or Private 590 National Forest 99,426 National Forest - Selected for possible future conveyance 402 State of Alaska 3,966 Tatitlek Corporation 29,195

63 Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 33. In Spring, the highest contributors to the overall level of human use in the area are beach use and fishing.

Table 33: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in East Valdez Arm (Analysis Area 06- 03F) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Jack Bay Highest 13 3 5 5

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 34. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is fishing; the area also includes two of the most highly used anchorages documented in this project.

Table 34: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in East Valdez Arm (Analysis Area 06- 03F) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Beach Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Hunt Rank Rank Fish Rank Rank Jack Bay Highest 21 1 6 10 4 Galena Bay Highest 13 1 1 7 4

Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 35. In Fall, the highest contributors to the overall level of human use in the area are hunting and fishing.

Table 35: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in East Valdez Arm (Analysis Area 06- 03F) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Jack Bay Highest 10 4 1 5 Virgin Bay Higher 6 3 0 3 Tatitlek Higher 6 3 0 3 Tatitlek Narrows Higher 6 3 0 3 NE Galena Coves (Lethcoe) Higher 6 2 0 4 Galena Bay Higher 6 2 1 3

64 Esther Island and Passage (Analysis Area 04)

Figure 9: Location of Esther Island and Passage (Analysis Area 04) in PWS.

Esther Island and Passage contain some of the highest relative human use levels documented in PWS. There are currently 14 General Area polygons delineated for this Analysis Area. The use of the area comes from various sources including commercial fishing, the Wally Noerenberg Hatchery located in Lake Bay, South Esther State Marine Park and Granite Bay State Marine Park, hunting, and camping as well as day use by hikers and others. The waters of Esther Passage including the southern entrance and the offshore areas of southern Esther Island are extremely busy during commercial fishing openers. There are are a total of 11campsites, 3 potential attractions, and 1 inhabited area in this analysis area.

Land ownership of this Analysis Area is dominated by Forest Service and State of Alaska, including two State Marine Parks and additional State lands. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 36: Approximate acreages of land ownership in Esther Island and Passage (Analysis Area 04). Land Owner Total Acres National Forest 31,173 State of Alaska 10,000

65

Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 37. In Spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is fishing which includes commercial fishing, private sportfishing and guided sportfishing.

Table 37: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Esther Island and Passage (Analysis Area 04) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Esther Bay Highest 11 3 2 6 Esther Bight Higher 10 3 2 5 Esther Passage Higher 9 3 2 4 Granite Bay Esther Island Higher 8 3 1 4

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 38. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is fishing which includes commercial fishing, private sportfishing and guided sportfishing. This Analysis Area includes three of the 32 anchorages ranked as the highest relative use level in PWS.

Table 38: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Esther Island and Passage (Analysis Area 04) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Total Hunt Beach Fish Anchorage General Area Use Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Esther Passage Highest 13 1 5 7 0 Lake Bay Higher 12 1 3 4 4 Waterfall Cove Higher 12 1 2 5 4 Esther Bight Higher 11 1 4 6 0 Fisherman's Anchorage Higher 11 1 0 6 4 Esther Bay Higher 9 1 2 6 0 Granite Bay Esther Island Higher 9 1 2 6 0

66 Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 39. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting. Other beach use declines dramatically relative to summer use of the area. Please note that the methodology used to summarize hunting data leads to each bay (General Area) contained within a large upland UCU being assigned the rank of the UCU; this indicates the highest potential use level of each GA and does not indicate that every General Area is actually receiving this use level.

Table 39: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Esther Island and Passage (Analysis Area 04) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Esther Bay Highest 13 7 0 6 Quillian Bay Highest 12 7 0 5 Esther Passage Highest 12 7 3 2 Esther Bight Highest 9 7 0 2 Granite Bay Esther Island Highest 9 7 0 2 Grommet Cove Highest 9 7 0 2 Waterfall Cove Higher 8 6 0 2 Fisherman's Anchorage Higher 8 6 0 2 Lake Bay Higher 7 4 0 3 AA04 Esther Island/Passage Higher 7 7 0 0 Shoestring Cove Higher 7 7 0 0

67 Fidalgo Bay (Analysis Area 06-03E)

Figure 10: Location of Fidalgo Bay (Analysis Area 06-03E) in PWS.

Fidalgo Bay is relatively easily accessible via both Valdez and Cordova. There are 10 defined general areas in this Analysis area. There is currently only one documented camp site in this area, one hiking trail, and a private lodge. The majority of use in this area comes from hunting and fishing. There is a mix of private and public lands within this AA. There is a lodge on private land for which we did not locate use data. There are are a total of 1 documented campsite, 1 potential attraction, and 1 inhabited area in this analysis area

Approximately 28% of the land in this Analysis area is private land, with the remainder under Forest Service or State of Alaska ownership. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 40: Approximate acreages of land ownership in Fidalgo Bay (Analysis Area 06-03E). Land Owner Acres Chugach Alaska Corporation 27,790 City or Private 807 National Forest 117,997 State of Alaska 562 Tatitlek Corporation 18,085

68 Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 41. In Spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is spilt between fishing and hunting, with hunting having a slight higher input. Two out of the ten general areas have ranks that are higher during spring.

Table 41: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Fidalgo Bay (Analysis Area 06-03E) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Snug Corner Cove Higher 10 4 2 4 Head of Port Fidalgo Higher 10 6 1 3

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 42. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is fishing. The anchorage ranking of 4 pushes the general area at snug corner cove in to the higher rank. The anchorage rank indicates that boat use is occurring in Snug Corner Cove; this rank may indicate that there is more beach use or boat camping taking place in this UCU then we could account for with our data.

Table 42: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Fidalgo Bay (Analysis Area 06-03E) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Beach Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Hunt Rank Rank Fish Rank Rank Snug Corner Cove Higher 11 1 1 5 4

Fall No GAs in this Area had a relative rank of Higher or Highest for the fall season. In this analysis hunting is occurring in the fall although there was not enough to give the General Areas a rank of highest.

69 Gravina Bay (Analysis Area 06-03D)

Figure 11: Location of Gravina Bay (Analysis Area 06-03D) in PWS.

There are 17 general areas in Gravina Bay. This AA is within small motor boat range of Cordova. It has a relatively high number of documented campsites (6) as compared to other ares in the eastern side of PWS. Beartrap Bay is a local favorite attraction where many people boat to observe bears and the pink salmon run. The majority of use in the AA comes from hunting. Two UCUs fall within the AA, one covering the northern/eastern half of the area and one covering the southern/western half. In Spring, hunting use is concentrated in the northern/eastern half of the AA while in fall the hunting use is in both UCUs, throughout the AA. There are a total of 6 campsites, 2 potential attractions, and 2 land use permits in this analysis area.

70 This AA is mainly composed of FS lands, which includes much of the shoreline for the bay. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 43: Approximate acreages of land ownership in Gravina Bay (Analysis Area 06-03D). Land Owner Acres Chugach Alaska Corporation 4,423 National Forest 146,811 State of Alaska 4,610 Tatitlek Corporation 358

Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 44. In spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting. Five out of the 17 general areas in the Gravina bay analysis have higher ranks for hunting, most of these

Table 44: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Gravina Bay (Analysis Area 06-03D) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Beartrap Bay Higher 9 5 2 2 Saint Matthews Bay Higher 8 5 1 2 Head of Port Gravina;Gravina River Higher 8 5 1 2 Knowles Bay Higher 8 5 0 3 Olsen Bay Higher 8 6 0 2

Summer No GAs in this Area had a relative rank of Higher or Highest for the summer season. The information from the point layer indicates the potential for summer use due to presence of campsites. The campsite layer does not have a season associated with the inventoried use, so it may be that these are campsites used by hunters in the fall and spring. This AA is accessible by motor boat from Cordova or Valdez, and has a local popular bear viewing area which people visit in the summer when the pink salmon are running. It is possible that beach use including both land and boat camping is occurring but so far has not been documented.

71 Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 45. In fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting. Please note that the methodology used to summarize hunting data leads to each bay (General Area) contained within a large upland UCU being assigned the rank of the UCU; this indicates the highest potential use level of each GA and does not indicate that every General Area is actually receiving this use level.

Table 45: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Gravina Bay (Analysis Area 06-03D) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Head of Port Gravina;Gravina River Highest 11 8 0 3 Parshas Bay Highest 11 7 1 3 Saint Matthews Bay Highest 10 7 0 3 Gravina Rocks anchorage (Lethcoe) Highest 10 7 0 3 Comfort Cove Highest 10 7 0 3 Olsen Bay Highest 10 7 0 3 Hells Hole Highest 10 7 0 3 Beartrap Bay Highest 10 7 0 3 Knowles Bay Highest 9 7 0 2 06-03D Gravina Bay Higher 8 7 1 0

72 Green Island (Analysis Area 06-06B)

Figure 12: Location of Green Island (Analysis Area 06-06B) in PWS.

The southeast half of Green Island has been designated a Research Natural Area under the 2002 Forest Plan. There are 3 general areas in the Green Island AA. There is a Forest Service cabin which receives use in all seasons, but is especially popular during the fall and summer seasons. The cabin is accessible by boat and plane. There are lingering oil points on the northern shore of the island, some of which are near the cabin. The entire island is easily accessible on foot. There is 1 documented campsite and 1public FS cabin in this analysis area.

The majority of Green Island Analysis area is Forest Service land. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 46: Approximate acreages of land ownership on Green Island (Analysis Area 06-06B). Land Owner Acres City or Private 10 National Forest 7,401

Spring No GAs in this Area had a relative rank of Higher or Highest for the spring season.

73 Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 47. In summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is tied between fish and beach use. Beach rank includes the FS cabin use data. Gibbon Anchorage is the GA that includes the cabin, but the entire island is accessible on foot.

Table 47: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use on Green Island (Analysis Area 06-06B) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Beach Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Hunt Rank Rank Fish Rank Rank Gibbon Anchorage Higher 12 2 4 4 2

Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 48. In fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting. The cabin use is included in the beach use. All hunt data is reported to one UCU which encompass the entire AA.

Table 48: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use on Green Island (Analysis Area 06-06B) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Gibbon Anchorage Highest 12 7 4 1 Green Island Higher 7 7 0 0

74 Harriman Fjord/BarryArm (Analysis Area 02)

Figure 13: Location of Harriman Fjord/Barry Arm (Analysis Area 02) in PWS.

Harriman Fjord and Barry Arm are popular recreation areas located relatively close to Whittier. The Analysis Area is home to many tidewater glaciers and camping areas, as well as Kelly’s Cove which is one of the more popular kayak staging areas in western PWS. This is one of only two Analysis Areas (the other is Blackstone Bay) for which seasonal use restrictions are in place for special use permit holders on the Glacier Ranger District; no hunting is allowed in the area from May 15 – August 15, and several charter boat and kayak companies also have seasonal use restrictions particularly for the Blacksand Beach camping area located adjacent to Coxe Glacier at the head of Barry Arm. The area is on the daily sightseeing route of three Whitter-based companies during summer months; these are large vessels (from 100-137 feet in length with the capacity to seat up to 342 passengers) that tour the area but do not anchor or offload visitors. There are a total of 34 documented campsite and 9 potential attractions in this analysis area.

Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 49: Approximate acreages of land ownership in Harriman Fjord/Barry Arm (Analysis Area 02). Land Owner Acres National Forest 131,711 State of Alaska 3,004

75 Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 50. In Spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is beach use. There is a notable well-established and highly impacted hunting camp (Camp 2-26 Mt. Curtis) located on the western shore of Barry Arm; the site has also been used by the FS and ADF&G for a research camp for multiple summers.

Table 50: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Harriman Fjord/Barry Arm (Analysis Area 02) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Harriman south shore complex Higher 10 2 8 0 Barry Arm Higher 9 2 5 2 Kelly's Cove Higher 8 2 5 1 Pakenham Point Higher 8 2 3 3 Surprise Inlet Higher 8 2 5 1

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 51. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is beach use although fishing also contributes a significant amount of use in some GAs.

Table 51: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Harriman Fjord/Barry Arm (Analysis Area 02) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Hunt Beach Fish Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Kelly's Cove Highest 13 1 8 4 0 Harriman south shore complex Higher 12 1 11 0 0 Pakenham Point Higher 12 1 5 6 0 Head of Barry Arm Higher 12 1 7 4 0 Barry Arm Higher 12 1 6 5 0 Surprise Inlet Higher 11 1 5 5 0 Serpentine Cove Higher 11 1 2 5 3 Head of Harriman Fjord Higher 9 1 4 4 0

Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 52. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is beach use.

Table 52: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Harriman Fjord/Barry Arm (Analysis Area 02) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Barry Arm Higher 7 1 6 0

76 Hawkins Island (Analysis Area 06-03G)

Figure 14: Location of Hawkins Island (Analysis Area 06-03G) in PWS.

Hawkins Island has a variety of human uses occurring on it and around it including personal cabins and aquaculture sites. It is easily accessible by motor boat and the SE side of the island is easily accessible by kayaks, for more experienced kayakers the entire island is navigable. There is also a developed area of private cabins in Canoe Pass where people spend time all year. There are also individual cabins on the SE shoreline of the islands. There are 18 general areas for this analysis area. There are a total of 13 documented campsites, 4 potential attractions, 1 inhabited area and 10 land use permits in this analysis area.

Land ownership in the Analysis Area is shown below. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 53: Approximate acreages of land ownership on Hawkins Island (Analysis Area 06-03G). Land Owner Acres City or Private 85 Eyak Corporation 2,226 National Forest 34,283 National Forest - Selected for possible future conveyance 2,703 State of Alaska 5,787

Spring No GAs in this Area had a relative rank of Higher or Highest for the spring season.

77 Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 54. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is fishing and anchorage rank. There is a group of private cabins located at Canoe passage which contributes use to area but the use is undocumented.

Table 54: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use on Hawkins Island (Analysis Area 06- 03G) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Beach Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Hunt Rank Rank Fish Rank Rank Canoe Passage Higher 12 3 0 5 4 Windy Bay Higher 9 3 0 2 4

Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 55. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting. Fishing also contributes a significant portion to the total ranks.

Table 55: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use on Hawkins Island (Analysis Area 06- 03G) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Whiskey Cove Higher 7 4 0 3 Cedar Bay Hawkins Island Higher 7 4 0 3 Canoe Passage Higher 7 4 0 3 Orca Inlet Higher 6 5 0 1

78 Hinchinbrook Island (Analysis Area 06-06A)

Figure 15: Location of Hinchinbrook Island (Analysis Area 06- 06A) in PWS.

There are 20 general areas in the Hinchinbrook AA. There is an area of development of private cabins in Boswell Bay where people spend time all year around. There are 3 Forest Service cabins on the island. The Forest Service cabins and hunting provide most of the contribution to the higher and highest ranks in the summer and fall. There are no campsites with documented use on Hinchinbrook Island. There are a total of 2 potential attractions, 2 inhabited areas, 3 land use permits and 3 public cabins in this analysis area.

There are a variety of land owners on the island; the Forest Service is the majority land owner. Although lands around Boswell Bay are shown as a State Marine Park on several maps (including the official visitor map of CNF), these lands have not yet been conveyed to the State and are still owned by the Forest Service. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 56: Approximate acreages of land ownership on Hinchinbrook Island (Analysis Area 06-06A). Land Owner Acres Chugach Alaska Corporation 825 City or Private 250 Eyak Corporation 2,845 National Forest 100,438 National Forest - Selected for possible future conveyance 8,059 State of Alaska 728

79 Spring No GAs in this Area had a relative rank of Higher or Highest for the spring season.

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 57. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is fishing. The Anchorage ranks are also a major contributor. The anchorage ranks may indicate beach use that is not being documented in the summer time.

Table 57: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use on Hinchinbrook Island (Analysis Area 06-06A) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Total Hunt Beach Fish Anchorage General Area Use Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Double Bay Higher 12 3 2 4 3 Port Etches Higher 12 2 1 5 4 Shelter Bay Hinchinbrook Island Higher 11 2 2 4 3 Anderson Bay Hinchinbrook Island Higher 10 3 0 4 3 Boswell Bay Higher 10 2 1 3 4

80 Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 58. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting. The general areas where there are FS cabins also have a contribution to the rank from beach use. In the fall 14 out of the 20 General Areas are ranked higher or highest. The three GAs with cabins have the highest ranks.

Table 58: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use on Hinchinbrook Island (Analysis Area 06-06A) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Hook Point Highest 9 5 3 1 Shelter Bay Hinchinbrook Island Highest 9 4 3 2 Double Bay Higher 8 3 3 2 Hawkins Island Cutoff Higher 8 6 0 2 Gulf of Alaska Higher 7 5 0 2 Kenny Cove Higher 7 5 0 2 Boswell Bay Higher 7 5 0 2 English Bay Higher 7 5 0 2 Constantine Harbor Higher 6 4 0 2 Fish Bay Hinchinbrook Higher 6 4 0 2 Port Etches Higher 6 4 0 2 Garden Cove Higher 6 4 0 2 Dan Bay Higher 6 4 0 2 Deer Cove Hinchinbrook Higher 6 4 0 2

81 Icy/Whale Bay (Analysis Area 16)

Figure 16: Location of Icy and Whale Bays (Analysis Area 16) in PWS.

The area of Icy and Whale Bays is one of the more remote Analysis Areas in PWS, being relatively distant from all three of the major access ports to the Sound. Both Icy Bay and Whale Bay are often choked with ice from the actively calving glaciers at the head of Icy Bay and Nassau Fjord, which may periodically limit boat access to the areas. There are a total of 19 documented campsites and 4 potential attractions in this analysis area. This Analysis Area is recommended for further review of use patterns.

Land Ownership is heavily dominated by FS. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 59: Approximate acreages of land ownership in Icy and Whale Bays (Analysis Area 16). Land Owner Acres City or Private 352 National Forest 84,339

82 Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 60. In Spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting; the target species in the area is black bear.

Table 60: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Icy and Whale Bays (Analysis Area 16) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Icy Bay Highest 13 7 4 2 Whale Bay Higher 9 6 1 2 Dual Head Higher 8 4 4 0

Summer When considering all uses together, none of the areas in Icy/Whale Bays are among the higher or highest categories of relative human use in PWS. The area has been identified as a potential concern to managers of permitted commercial use in the past. The Dual Head area is ranked as a “higher” use area when looking exclusively at beach use. However, according to available data, the area overall is not among the most heavily used areas of the Sound. We recommend this area be considered for further review and monitoring to evaluate the use levels occurring in the area.

Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 61. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting; the target species is black bear.

Table 61: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Icy and Whale Bays (Analysis Area 16) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Icy Bay Highest 9 7 1 1 Humpback Cove Higher 7 6 0 1 Whale Bay Higher 6 5 0 1 Tiger Glacier;Head of Icy Bay Higher 6 5 0 1

83 Kings Bay/Port Nellie Juan (Analysis Area 12)

Figure 17: Location of Kings Bay/Port Nellie Juan (Analysis Area 12) in PWS.

Kings Bay and Port Nellie Juan are highly scenic areas home to some remarkable geologic features including large granite outcroppings in Deep Water Bay (a “miniature Yosemite” described in Lethcoe and Lethcoe 1998), a white sand beach also in Deep Water Bay, and a tidewater glacier calving into a protected lagoon in Derickson Bay. The area is home to several hiking opportunities, and the spit in Derickson Bay has multiple camping locations popular with black bear hunters and kayakers. While there is some potential for conflict in late spring and early fall, in general our data indicate that the majority of beach use occurs in summer while the majority of hunting occurs in spring and fall. There are a total of 21 documented campsites and 5 potential attractions in this analysis area. This is an area recommended for further consideration of potential user conflicts in Derickson Bay.

Land ownership in this Analysis Area is almost exclusively National Forest. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 62: Approximate acreages of land ownership in Kings Bay/Port Nellie Juan (Analysis Area 12). Land Owner Acres City or Private 36 National Forest 176,810 National Forest - Selected for possible future conveyance 868

84 Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 63. In Spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is fishing although beach, hunt and fish rank are all very similar. Spring is the season most likely to see conflicts between different user groups.

Table 63: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Kings Bay/Port Nellie Juan (Analysis Area 12) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Port Nellie Juan Higher 9 3 2 4

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 64. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is beach use. The area is also home to a high concentration of popular anchorages.

Table 64: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Kings Bay/Port Nellie Juan (Analysis Area 12) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Beach Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Hunt Rank Rank Fish Rank Rank Derickson Bay Nellie Juan Higher 12 1 6 2 3 Deep Water Bay Higher 10 1 4 2 3 Mink Island Higher 9 2 1 2 4 Port Nellie Juan Higher 9 2 4 3 0 McClure Bay Higher 9 1 1 3 4

Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 65. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting although beach use at Derickson Bay (Nellie Juan Glacier and spit) is high in the fall as well. These data indicate the potential for user conflicts in the area and should be evaluated further.

Table 65: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Kings Bay/Port Nellie Juan (Analysis Area 12) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Nellie Juan Glacier and spit Highest 9 3 6 0 Port Nellie Juan Higher 6 5 0 1

85 Montague Island (Analysis Area 06-06C)

Figure 18: Location of Montague Island (Analysis Area 06-06C) in PWS.

Montague Island has five Forest Service cabins and one private lodge. The north end of Montague Island is a popular deer hunting destination in the fall. Use patterns on Montague are highly concentrated both seasonally (deer season opens August 1 and continues through Fall season) and spatially (high use on northern end of island). There also have been numerous documented campsites located on the northern portion of the island, most where the majority of deer hunting occurs. There is one FS cabin at Port Chalmers on the northern half of Montague. Use patterns do not appear to be a function of potential campsite suitability: during a 2008 campsite inventory trip conducted via kayak, Forest staff noted many potential camping beaches on the southern half of the island but did not find any evidence of use at the sites (Dave Sanders, GRD kayak ranger, personal communication with C. Poe). There are 4 FS cabins on the southern half of Montague. Commercial and sport fishing occur off the coast of the island. Areas of Alaska Native lands have been logged and there is a closed road that circles the south tip of Montague Island from Patton bay to Maclead Harbor. There are 20 General Areas on Montague Islands. There are a total of 8 documented campsites, 3 potential attractions, 5 public cabins, 1 inhabited area and 1 land use permit in this analysis area.

86 The Forest Service it the major land owner. The largest area of Chugach Alaska Corporation land is located on the southwest side of Montague Island from Patton Bay to the Beach River area, with another relatively large section of Macleod Harbor also owned by CAC. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 66: Approximate acreages of land ownership on Montague Island (Analysis Area 06-06C). Land Owner Acres Chugach Alaska Corporation 15,947 City or Private 386 National Forest 190,606 State of Alaska 1,100

Spring No GAs in this Area had a relative rank of Higher or Highest for the spring season.

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 67. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting, with both anchorage and fishing contributing substantially in all the GA listed.

Table 67: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use on Montague Island (Analysis Area 06- 06C) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Beach Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Hunt Rank Rank Fish Rank Rank Port Chalmers Highest 15 4 3 4 4 Stockdale Harbor Highest 14 4 2 5 3 Zaikof Bay Higher 12 4 2 3 3 Rocky Bay Higher 10 4 0 3 3

87 Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 68. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting. Beach Use also contributes where there are forest service cabins.

Table 68: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use on Montague Island (Analysis Area 06- 06C) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Port Chalmers Highest 12 7 4 1 Beach River Highest 11 6 4 1 San Juan Bay Highest 11 6 3 2 Logjam Bay Highest 10 6 3 1 Patton Bay Highest 10 6 3 1 Gilmour Bight Higher 8 7 0 1 Stockdale Harbor Higher 8 7 0 1 Hanning Bay Higher 7 5 0 2 Rocky Bay Higher 7 6 0 1 MacLeod Harbor Higher 7 5 0 2 Zaikof Bay Higher 7 6 0 1 Montague Island Higher 6 6 0 0

88 Naked Island Group (Analysis Area 08)

Figure 19: Location of Naked Island Group (Analysis Area 08) in PWS.

The Naked Island Group is made up of Storey, Peak, and Naked Islands. A sizeable inholding of private land is located on Peak Island, which has historically been the location of a fox farm. According to the Lethcoes (1998) this island group offers several good anchorages but is also subject to high winds and strong currents due to its exposed location. Naked Island is the location of an oil spill response vessel. The most notable use of the area is hunting in the fall season. There are a total of 5 documented campsites, 1 inhabited area and 2 land use permits in this analysis area.

Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 69: Approximate acreages of land ownership in the Naked Island Group (Analysis Area 08). Land Owner Acres City or Private 149 National Forest 12,668

89 Spring No GAs in this Area had a relative rank of Higher or Highest for the spring season.

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 70. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting with fishing a close second. Two popular anchorages were indicated on Naked Island.

Table 70: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in the Naked Island Group (Analysis Area 08) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Beach Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Hunt Rank Rank Fish Rank Rank McPherson Bay Higher 11 4 1 3 3 Outside Bay Higher 11 4 0 4 3 Cabin Bay Higher 10 4 3 3 0 Bass Harbor Higher 9 4 1 4 0

Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 71. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting. Please note that the methodology used to summarize hunting data leads to each bay (General Area) contained within a large upland UCU being assigned the rank of the UCU; this indicates the highest potential use level of each GA and does not indicate that every General Area is actually receiving this use level.

Table 71: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in the Naked Island Group (Analysis Area 08) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank McPherson Bay Highest 9 8 0 1 Outside Bay Highest 9 8 0 1 Bass Harbor Highest 9 8 0 1 Cabin Bay Highest 9 8 0 1 Passage Anchorage Highest 9 8 0 1 Naked Island Higher 8 8 0 0

90 Nelson Bay (Analysis Area 06-03A)

Figure 20: Location of Nelson Bay (Analysis Area 06-03A) in PWS.

Nelson Bay is accessible easily from Cordova by motor boat or kayak. There is no road access to this Analysis area. There are two GAs in the AA. The Rude River has a large braided outwash delta, and there are not a lot of steep and difficult areas surrounding the river bottom. There are a total of 2 potential attractions in this analysis area.

The entire shoreline and much of the uplands are owned by Alaska Native Corporations. There is Forest Service and State owned land in the uplands only. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 72: Approximate acreages of land ownership in Nelson Bay (Analysis Area 06-03A). Land Owner Acres Chugach Alaska Corporation 1,964 Eyak Corporation 6,147 National Forest 44,268 State of Alaska 53,534

No GAs in this Area had a relative rank of Higher or Highest for any season. This may be due in part to the high percentage of non-National Forest lands and a lack of use data for those lands.

91 Passage Canal (Analysis Area 18)

Figure 21: Location of Passage Canal (Analysis Area 18) in PWS.

Passage Canal leads directly to the port of Whittier. Much of the shoreline of the area is State or private land, thus FS data for human use of the area are known to be lacking. Two State Marine Parks fall within the AA: Decision Point SMP is the site of a very popular State public use cabin, and Entry Cove SMP is a popular anchorage and day use area. Bays along both shores of Passage Canal receive both day and overnight use by small motor boats departing from Whittier. A black- legged kittiwake rookery on the northern shore is a popular sight-seeing stop for private and commercial vessels. There are a total of 11 documented campsites, 2 potential attractions, 1 inhabited area, 1 public cabin and 1 land use permit in this analysis area.

Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 73: Approximate acreages of land ownership in Passage Canal (Analysis Area 18). Land Owner Acres Chugach Alaska Corporation 445 City or Private 715 National Forest 17,213 National Forest - Selected for possible future conveyance 370 State of Alaska 8,078

92 Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 74. In Spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is beach use, which is likely underestimated due to the prevalence of non-Forest lands.

Table 74: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Passage Canal (Analysis Area 18) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Passage Canal Highest 12 3 4 5 Entry Cove SMP Highest 11 3 7 1 Shotgun Cove Highest 11 2 6 3 Decision Point SMP Higher 10 2 8 0

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 75. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is beach use, which is likely underestimated due to the prevalence of non-Forest lands.

Table 75: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Passage Canal (Analysis Area 18) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Hunt Beach Fish Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Shotgun Cove Highest 14 2 6 2 4 Passage Canal Higher 11 2 4 5 0 Decision Point SMP Higher 10 2 8 0 0 Squirrel Cove Higher 10 2 7 1 0 Whittier Higher 10 2 5 3 0 Entry Cove SMP Higher 9 1 7 1 0

Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 76. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is fishing.

Table 76: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Passage Canal (Analysis Area 18) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Shotgun Cove Higher 8 3 1 4 Passage Canal Higher 8 3 0 5 Whittier Higher 7 3 0 4 Squirrel Cove Higher 6 3 1 2

93 Perry Island and Lone Island (Analysis Area 07)

Figure 22: Location of Perry Island and Lone Island (Analysis Area 07) in PWS. Perry Island is an area with good anchorage potential and easily accessible upland areas. Much of the island, including the most popular anchorage site of West Twin Bay, is owned by the State of Alaska. Use of this Analysis Area is under-represented by our available data.

There are a total of 10 documented campsites and 3 land use permits in this analysis area.

Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 77: Approximate anchorages of land ownership on Perry and Lone Islands (Analysis Area 07). Land Owner Acres National Forest 7,865 State of Alaska 3,083

94 Spring No GAs in this Area had a relative rank of Higher or Highest for the spring season.

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 78. In Summer, the overall level of human use in the area is evenly divided between beach use and fishing, with one of the busier Anchorages in PWS located in West Twin Bay.

Table 78: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Perry and Lone Islands (Analysis Area 07) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Total Hunt Beach Fish Anchorage General Area Use Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank West Twin Bay Highest 14 2 4 4 4 South Bay Perry Island Higher 9 2 4 3 0

Fall No GAs in this Area had a relative rank of Higher or Highest for the fall season.

95 Port Bainbridge (Analysis Area 17)

Figure 23: Location of Port Bainbridge (Analysis Area 17) in PWS.

Port Bainbridge is one of the more remote regions of PWS, and may potentially receive use from private boaters departing from Seward although the open approach across Blying Sound would present challenges to small watercraft. The area is adjacent the village of Chenega Bay on Evans Island. There are a total of 7 documented campsites, 2 potential attractions, and 2 inhabited areas in this analysis area.

Land ownership in the Analysis Area is relatively complex. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 79: Approximate acreages of land ownership in Port Bainbridge (Analysis Area 17). Land Owner Acres Chenega Corporation 19,145 Chugach Alaska Corporation 14,542 City or Private 543 National Forest 97,177 National Forest - Selected for possible future conveyance 761 State of Alaska 857

96 Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 80. In Spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting, mainly for black bear.

Table 80: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Port Bainbridge (Analysis Area 17) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Bainbridge Passage Higher 10 8 2 0 Bainbridge Island Higher 9 7 2 0 Port Bainbridge Higher 8 7 1 0 Swanson Bay Higher 8 7 1 0 Prince of Wales Passage Higher 8 7 1 0

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 81. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is fishing; the level of onshore use associated with this fishing is unknown.

Table 81: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Port Bainbridge (Analysis Area 17) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Beach Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Hunt Rank Rank Fish Rank Rank Fox Farm Bay Highest 13 1 1 7 4 South Twin Bay Higher 11 1 2 8 0 Sawmill Bay Evans Island Higher 10 1 4 5 0 Squirrel Bay Higher 9 1 1 7 0

97 Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 82. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting, mainly for black bear.

Table 82: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Port Bainbridge (Analysis Area 17) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Port Bainbridge Highest 9 7 2 0 AA17 Port Bainbridge Higher 7 7 0 0 Puffin Cove Higher 7 7 0 0 South Twin Bay Higher 7 2 0 5 North Twin Bay Higher 7 2 0 5 Fox Farm Bay Higher 7 2 0 5 Auk Bay Higher 7 7 0 0 Squirrel Bay Higher 7 2 0 5 Otter Cove Higher 6 6 0 0 Bainbridge Passage Higher 6 6 0 0

98 Sheep Bay (Analysis Area 06-03C)

Figure 24: Location of Sheep Bay (Analysis Area 06-03C) in PWS.

The Sheep Bay Analysis Area is an easy day trip from Cordova. There are a total of 2 documented campsites and 1 potential attraction in the analysis area.

Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 83: Approximate acreages of land ownership in Sheep Bay (Analysis Area 06-03C). Land Owner Acres Chugach Alaska Corporation 2 Eyak Corporation 245 National Forest 35,382 State of Alaska 7

99 Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 84. In Spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting.

Table 84: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Sheep Bay (Analysis Area 06-03C) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Sheep Bay Highest 11 6 2 3 Sahlin Lagoon Higher 9 6 1 2

Summer

No GAs in this Area had a relative rank of Higher or Highest for the summer season. The campsites and the local knowledge use of the bays for both boat and beach indicate there may be more beach use then we have data for.

Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 85. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting with fishing also contributing to the total rank.

Table 85: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Sheep Bay (Analysis Area 06-03C) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Sahlin Lagoon Higher 7 4 0 3 Sheep Bay Higher 7 4 0 3

100 Simpson Bay (Analysis Area 06-03B)

Figure 25: Location of Simpson Bay (Analysis Area 06-03B) in PWS.

Simpson Bay is located within motor boating and kayaking distance of Cordova. There are 3 commercial float houses and an area where there is a development of private cabins. None of the general areas in the AA had higher or highest ranks for any season; this may indicate a lack of private use data rather than actual use patterns. A large portion of the shoreline of the AA is private land. There are a total of 2 documented campsites, 3 potential attractions, 1 land use permit and 4 inhabited areas in this analysis area This area is recommended for further review of use patterns to account for use of private land and undocumented private small vessel traffic.

There are a variety of land owners in this analysis area. The Forest Service and the State are the majority land owners. The eastern shoreline of Simpson bay is owned Eyak Corporation. Chugach Alaska Corporation owns land in the uplands of Simpson bay. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 86: Approximate acreages of land ownership in Simpson Bay (Analysis Area 06-03B). Land Owner Acres Chugach Alaska Corporation 4,569 Eyak Corporation 10,497 National Forest 30,679 State of Alaska 16,391

No GAs in this Area had a relative rank of Higher or Highest for any season.

101 Valdez Area Non-Forest

Figure 26: Location of Valdez Area Non-Forest Analysis Area; these lands are outside of the Chugach NF boundary and have no designation as a Forest management unit.

The area surrounding the city of Valdez is a very high-traffic area with a lot of fishing activity, the terminus of the Alyeska pipeline, and sight-seeing activities. Because the area is outside of the Chugach NF boundary, FS data for the area are limited. Even with a general lack of information, Shoup Bay State Marine Park stands out as an area of high levels of visitation. There are 2 documented campsites, 5 potential attractions, 3 public cabins, and 3 inhabited areas in this analysis area.

Please note that land ownership in this area comes from a different source than the land ownership data used for the rest of the study area. Because the area is outside of Forest boundaries, existing CNF land ownership did not cover the area and ownership data were obtained from Alaska Department of Natural Resources data downloaded at http://www.asgdc.state.ak.us/ Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 87: Approximate acreages of land ownership in Valdez Area Non-Forest Analysis Area. Land Owner Acres BLM 6,831 City or Private 11,514 National Forest 153 State of Alaska 23,408 Tatitlek Corporation 20

102 Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 88. In Spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is

Table 88: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Valdez Area Non-Forest Analysis Area for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Shoup Bay Highest 11 2 7 2 Valdez Higher 10 2 4 4 Shoup Bay SMP Higher 9 2 7 0

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 89. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is

Table 89: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Valdez Area Non-Forest Analysis Area for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Total Hunt Beach Fish Anchorage General Area Use Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Shoup Bay Highest 17 1 7 9 0 Port Valdez Highest 16 1 4 11 0 Valdez Highest 15 1 5 9 0 Valdez Narrows Higher 12 1 1 10 0 Valdez Arm Higher 12 0 4 8 0 Gold Creek/Camp Bowie Higher 11 1 2 8 0 Anderson Bay Valdez Higher 10 1 0 9 0

Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 90. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is

Table 90: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in Valdez Area Non-Forest Analysis Area for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Valdez Highest 12 2 2 8 Port Valdez Highest 12 1 1 10 Shoup Bay Highest 11 2 2 7 Valdez Narrows Highest 9 2 0 7 Gold Creek/Camp Bowie Higher 8 2 0 6 Anderson Bay Valdez Higher 8 1 0 7

103 West Delta (Analysis Area 06-02B)

Figure 27: Location of West Delta (Analysis Area 06-02B) in PWS; this is only a small portion of the entire West Delta area.

This analysis area has the town of Cordova and a developed area of cabins at Whitshed point. This analysis is the eastern boundary of the study area. The hunting UCUs in this area are clipped to the PWS study boundary. The majority of this AA extends into the Copper River Delta area; the shoreline included in our study area is under private ownership and very limited data are available for the area despite its proximity to Cordova. There are a total of 2 potential attractions and 2 inhabited areas in this analysis area.

Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 91: Approximate acreages of land ownership in a partial segment of West Delta (Analysis Area 06- 02B). Land Owner Acres City or Private 778 Eyak Corporation 7,340 National Forest 4,680 National Forest - Selected for possible future conveyance 1,639 State of Alaska 3,784

No GAs in this Area had a relative rank of Higher or Highest for any season.

104 West Knight Island (Analysis Area 14)

Figure 28: Location of West Knight Island (Analysis Area 14) in PWS.

West Knight Island is a relatively remote area with a complex shoreline and many camping areas with documented use, and is also the location of many sites of known lingering oil. There are a total of 20 documented campsites and 1 land use permit in this analysis area.

Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 92: Approximate acreages of land ownership on West Knight Island (Analysis Area 14). Land Owner Acres Chenega Corporation 83 Chugach Alaska Corporation 5 City or Private 147 National Forest 47,753

105 Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 93. In Spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting, but fishing and beach use area also notable contributors to overall use levels.

Table 93: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in West Knight Island (Analysis Area 14) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Lower Passage Higher 10 5 2 3 Herring Bay Higher 10 5 3 2 Mummy Bay Higher 9 5 1 3

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 94. In Summer, the highest contributors to the overall level of human use in the area are fishing and beach use.

Table 94: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in West Knight Island (Analysis Area 14) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Beach Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Hunt Rank Rank Fish Rank Rank Mummy Bay Higher 10 1 1 5 3 Herring Bay Higher 10 2 5 3 0

106 Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 95. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting. Please note that the methodology used to summarize hunting data leads to each bay (General Area) contained within a large upland UCU being assigned the rank of the UCU; this indicates the highest potential use level of each GA and does not indicate that every General Area is actually receiving this use level.

Table 95: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in West Knight Island (Analysis Area 14) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Herring Bay Highest 9 6 2 1 Northwest Bay Higher 8 4 3 1 Deer Cove Knight Higher 7 5 0 2 Johnson Bay Higher 7 6 0 1 Lower Passage Higher 7 6 0 1 Louis Bay Higher 7 6 0 1 Solf Cove Higher 7 6 0 1 Bear Cove Higher 7 6 0 1 Northwest Arm Lower Herring Bay Higher 7 6 0 1 East Bight Lower Herring Bay Higher 7 6 0 1 Lucky Bay Higher 7 5 0 2 Lower Herring Bay Higher 7 6 0 1 Port Audrey Higher 7 6 0 1 Northeast Cove Drier Bay Higher 7 6 0 1 Italian Bay Higher 7 5 0 2 Quayarnaq Cove Higher 7 6 0 1 Mummy Bay Higher 7 5 0 2 Barnes Cove Higher 7 6 0 1 Drier Bay Higher 7 6 0 1 Cathead Bay Higher 7 6 0 1 Mallard Bay Higher 7 6 0 1 Northeast Arm Mummy Bay Higher 7 5 0 2 Copper Bay Higher 6 5 0 1 Middle Bight Lower Herring Bay Higher 6 6 0 0 AA14 West Knight Island Higher 6 6 0 0 Ingot Island Higher 6 4 2 0

107 West Knight Island Passage (Analysis Area 13)

Figure 30: Location of West Knight Island Passage (Analysis Area 13) in PWS.

The area considered within West Knight Island Passage (Analysis Area 13) includes mainland shoreline from Lighthouse Reserve at the entrance to Port Nellie Juan south to Jackpot Bay, including Chenega Island (all of which is Non-Forest land) and State of Alaska lands around Eshamy Bay and Paddy Bay. Use of the area is heavily influenced by fishing; Main Bay is home to a hatchery and many set net fisheries. Chenega Island is of great historical and cultural significance, being the former location of the Village of Chenega which was destroyed in the 1964 earthquake. There are a total of 13 documented campsites, 2 potential attractions,1 inhabited area and 64 land use permit in this analysis area

Land ownership in this Analysis Area is complex, dominated by Forest Service, Chenega Corporation and the State of Alaska. Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 96: Approximate acreages of land ownership in West Knight Island Passage (Analysis Area 13). Land Owner Acres Chenega Corporation 15,678 City or Private 45 National Forest 46,461 National Forest - Selected for possible future conveyance 2,636 State of Alaska 16,220

108 Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 97. In Spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting, but beach use is a close second.

Table 97: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in West Knight Island Passage (Analysis Area 13) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Jackpot Bay Highest 12 7 4 1 Eshamy Bay Higher 10 3 3 4 Main Bay Higher 10 3 2 5 Ewan Bay Higher 8 5 2 1 Pt Nowell Higher 8 4 4 0 Paddy Bay Higher 8 4 3 1

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 98. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is fishing.

Table 98: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in West Knight Island Passage (Analysis Area 13) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Beach Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Hunt Rank Rank Fish Rank Rank Main Bay Highest 15 1 3 7 4 Eshamy Bay Highest 13 1 2 6 4 Jackpot Bay Higher 11 1 4 2 4 Falls Bay Higher 9 1 2 6 0

Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 99. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting.

Table 99: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in West Knight Island Passage (Analysis Area 13) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Eshamy Bay Highest 9 6 0 3 Paddy Bay Higher 6 4 1 1

109 West Port Wells (Analysis Area 01)

Figure 29: Location of West Port Wells (Analysis Area 01) in PWS.

West Port Wells is easily accessible from Whittier and encompasses two State Marine Parks (Ziegler Cove and Bettles Bay) and two Forest Service cabins at the head of Pigot Bay and in Harrison Lagoon. Pigot Point is a popular saltwater fishing area. There are a total of 10 documented campsites, 2 potential attractions, and 2 public cabins in this analysis area.

Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 100: Approximate acreages of land ownership in West Port Wells (Analysis Area 01). Land Owner Acres National Forest 40,034 State of Alaska 2,148

110 Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 101. In Spring, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is beach use, closely followed by fishing.

Table 101: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in West Port Wells (Analysis Area 01) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Harrison Lagoon Highest 13 3 7 3 Pigot Bay Highest 12 3 4 5 Bettles Bay Higher 10 3 3 4 Head of Pigot Bay Higher 10 3 4 3 Hobo Bay Higher 9 3 4 2 Pirate Cove Higher 8 3 3 2 Hummer Bay Higher 8 3 2 3

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 102. In Summer, the highest contributors to the overall level of human use in the area are beach use and fishing.

Table 102: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in West Port Wells (Analysis Area 01) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Total Hunt Beach Fish Anchorage General Area Use Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Harrison Lagoon Highest 16 1 7 5 3 Hobo Bay Highest 15 1 9 5 0 Head of Pigot Bay Highest 13 1 6 6 0 Pigot Bay Higher 12 1 4 7 0 Bettles Bay Higher 11 1 3 5 2 Hummer Bay Higher 10 1 4 5 0

111 Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 103. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is beach use.

Table 103: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in West Port Wells (Analysis Area 01) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Harrison Lagoon Higher 8 2 5 1 Pigot Bay Higher 6 2 1 3 Head of Pigot Bay Higher 6 2 3 1

112 West Valdez Arm (Analysis Area 06-04)

Figure 30: Location of West Valdez Arm (Analysis Area 06-04) in PWS.

The West Valdez Arm AA is a small segment of land on the western shore of Valdez Arm that is within the Cordova RD and is the only boundary line between the Cordova and Glacier RDs that does not fall in open water. The popular recreation destination of Sawmill Bay SMP falls within this area. There are limited camping opportunities along the coastline. There are a total of 5 documented campsites and 1 land use permit in this analysis area.

Please refer to Appendix D for a map of PWS land ownership.

Table 104: Approximate acreages of land ownership in West Valdez Arm (Analysis Area 06-04). Land Owner Acres National Forest 12,714 State of Alaska 3,489

113 Spring The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Spring season (April 1 – June 14) is shown in Table 105. In Spring, the overall level of human use in the area is fairly evenly distributed between hunting, beach use and fishing.

Table 105: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in West Valdez Arm (Analysis Area 06- 04) for Spring season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Spring General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Sawmill Bay Valdez Arm Higher 8 2 3 3

Summer The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Summer season (June 15 – August 31) is shown in Table 106. In Summer, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is fishing. Sawmill Bay was identified as one of the most heavily used anchorages in PWS.

Table 106: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in West Valdez Arm (Analysis Area 06- 04) for Summer season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Summer Total Beach Anchorage General Area Total Use Rank Hunt Rank Rank Fish Rank Rank Sawmill Bay Valdez Arm Highest 18 1 4 9 4

Fall The relative contribution of hunting, fishing, and beach use to overall use level in the Fall season (September 1 – December 31) is shown in Table 107. In Fall, the highest contributor to the overall level of human use in the area is hunting.

Table 107: General Areas with Higher or Highest relative human use in West Valdez Arm (Analysis Area 06- 04) for Fall season, with breakdown of rank contribution by use type. Fall General Area Total Use Total Rank Hunt Rank Beach Rank Fish Rank Sawmill Bay Valdez Arm Highest 9 4 0 5 Valdez Arm west side CRD Higher 7 6 1 0

114 Discussion

Lingering oil and human use levels Six Analysis Areas contain beaches known to have lingering EVOS oil (Pallek and Maselko 2007), two of which (Green Island and West Knight Island) have GAs with a rank of Highest human use (Table 3 page 36).

These data provide a glimpse of the distribution of human use relative to lingering oil in PWS; however, new research resulting in a predictive surface of probability of lingering oil for all of PWS and the Gulf of Alaska is in review pending publication as of August 2009 (EVOSTC Project 070801, primary researcher Jacqui Michel). The final report should become available through the EVOSTC web site at http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/projects/ProjectInfo.cfm?project_id=1559 . We recommend further analysis of the overlap of human use concentration areas with predicted areas of lingering oil as data become available. It should also be noted that the ongoing PWS Framework User Experience project will address whether recreationists in the Sound noticed or were affected by the visible presence of lingering oil.

Validation and monitoring Validation of predicted human use hot spots should be coordinated with concurrent PWS Framework projects. Data resulting from the Evaluation of PWS User Experience project should be evaluated to determine the degree of similarity between predicted Hot Spot areas and recorded observational data. Further analysis should be conducted to determine if human use levels in PWS have been captured by our analysis of available data, with a focus on areas where there is a disagreement in the predicted use level between this Human Use Hot Spot project and the Evaluation of PWS User Experience project. Initial evaluation should include a review by Forest Service and State Marine Park recreation staff, and external subject matter experts including special use permit holders, university researchers, and other long-time users of PWS.

Empirical validation of predicted Human Use Hot Spot areas may be conducted as necessary through continuation of boat-based or aerial surveys similar to those conducted under the Evaluation of PWS User Experience project. Such surveys are expensive to complete in the remote wilderness of the Sound and should be considered as needed to respond to identified areas of concern and/or potential user conflicts. An overall evaluation of the need for empirical validation should occur upon final review of the PWS Framework data gathering projects.

Partnership opportunities with Forest and State permit holders and university researchers should be explored to maximize the potential for human use reporting.

One of the data products of this project is the creation of topologically clean spatial polygons representing ADF&G reporting areas for hunting and fishing data. We recommend continued updating of identified hunting and fishing data sources through partners at ADF&G. These data

115 should be updated on a regular semi-annual interval, perhaps every 2-3 years, to monitor changes in private and commercial fishing and hunting use levels in PWS.

Data limitations Known limitations exist in the data used to complete this analysis. These include: • Lack of human use data on non-FS lands; this may be particularly important in areas of high proportion of non-FS lands, such as the area surrounding Tatitlek and the coastline near Cordova. • Overall lack of quantitative personal use data, particularly private small motor boat use and associated camping and sport fishing. • No consideration of subsistence use at this time

Recommendations for future projects Recommendations for more in-depth review by Forest recreation staff:  Western PWS: • Blackstone Bay: potential for user conflicts • College Fjord: Coghill and Golden areas potential for user conflicts • Esther Island/Passage: Esther Passage potential for user conflicts • Icy/Whale Bay: recommend further analysis of overall use patterns • Kings Bay/Nellie Juan: Derickson Bay and Nellie Juan Spit potential for user conflicts  Eastern PWS • Gravina: further analysis of seasonal use (campsites), refine spatial scale of hunting use data if possible, how to best capture use in Beartrap Bay • Green Island: potential impact of cabin users on RNA, further analysis of freshwater fishing use • Montague Island: high concentration of use on northern half of island may indicate need for separate management consideration from southern half; lack of data on private lodge use patterns • Simpson Bay: review for private use patterns; campsites and float houses are present but use of these sites has not been captured.

Evaluation of potential user group conflict areas: • Review of detailed data layers for General Areas identified as higher potential for user group conflict, especially those areas with multiple seasons of higher conflict potential, to determine if conflict is occurring or any management action should be considered.

116 Further analysis of created data layers: • Analysis of contribution of various user types to overall use; specifically, what is the relationship of overall use patterns with Forest special use permits including commercial outfitter guide companies and land use permits. • Analysis of condition class versus actual use level and timing of use for campsites; focus on areas with large number of identified campsites but low summer use ranks to determine if private use can be better captured. • Partnership with ADF&G to investigate potential GIS mapping of finer spatial scale hunting distribution, using existing hunting use report databases and habitat maps or models. • Overlay human use predictions with habitat models/maps for species of management interest to determine areas of higher potential human impact on wildlife habitat (existing or potential habitat models include black bear, goat, black oystercatcher, anadromous fish, spawning herring, etc.). • Estimate the spatial extent of recreational cabin use –average distance people hike, boat or move away from cabin may be seasonal and depend on primary use (hunting, fishing, sightseeing). • Comparison of higher use areas with forthcoming predictive model of lingering oil in PWS. • Coordination with other Framework results as they become available, including Subsistence, User Experience, Sensitive Areas projects.

Data acquisition: • Continue looking for data to describe inland (freshwater streams and lakes) sport fishing, working with ADF&G and developing Forest protocols for data collection as necessary, including consideration of sup reporting requirements. • Consider partnership opportunities with water taxi companies, special use permit holders, other interested groups to increase understanding of personal use. • Campsite use (amount and season) and how it relates to condition class. • Refine anchorage ranks/use levels using data from User Experience and/or additional survey efforts. Conclusions Human use patterns in PWS are highly seasonal and are not distributed evenly throughout the Sound. In general, the highest levels of use occur nearest access ports particularly the road- accessible ports of Whittier and Valdez. The presence of infrastructure such as public use cabins and other developments (generally found in State Marine Parks) appears to concentrate use to those areas.

The highest occurrence of multiple user types across the landscape and potential for conflict may be the Spring season when hunting, other beach use such as camping and day hiking, and fishing are all present in the Sound. Managers may be able to use calculated ranks of various uses within GAs to pinpoint areas of potential user conflict.

117 Existing data are lacking on the level of use, patterns of use, and characteristics of private recreation users such as small motor boat users and kayakers not using the services of commercial guides. Subsistence harvest data are also lacking from this project. Further analysis should be conducted as data become available.

The GIS database has high potential for further use by the Forest Service, State of Alaska, Alaska Native Corporations and other groups interested in the management of human use in PWS. Validation of identified human use hot spots should be considered. Periodic updating of established datasets (i.e. ADF&G hunting data, campsite inventories) should be conducted in concert with agency and university partners.

This project is one component of the ongoing PWS Framework. Concurrent projects under the initial data gathering phase of the PWS Framework include: The Evaluation of PWS User Experience; Spatial and Temporal Characteristics of PWS Subsistence Harvest Activities; PWS Sensitive Areas GIS Database and Mitigations Report; Black Oystercatcher Surveys in PWS; and a Recreation Capacity Analysis review. As all of these projects near completion, opportunities for collaboration and incorporation of new data will be identified.

Acknowledgements This was a very involved project and could not have been completed without the willing assistance of many contributors. While we cannot list all who helped us along the way, we do want to extend a special thanks to the following:

• Jack Blackwell (Alaska State Marine Parks) • Milo Burcham (USFS) • Dave Crowley (ADF&G) • Jason Fode (USFS) • Dr. Randy Gimblett (University of Arizona) • Marilyn Heddell (owner and operator, Honey Charters) • Ken Hodges (USFS) • Bob Itami (GeoDimensions) • Dave Janka (captain, Auklet Charters); • Jim and Nancy Lethcoe (authors of A Cruising Guide to Prince William Sound) • Mandy Lindeberg (NOAA) • Brian Marston (ADF&G) • Jacek Maselko (NOAA) • Brian Neilson (USFS) • Bob Powers (ADFG) • Karin Preston (USFS) • Dean Rand (captain, Discovery Voyages) • Dr. Paul Twardock (Alaska Pacific University) • Jim VanSant (ADF&G) • Alex vonWichman (captain, Babkin Charters) • Brad vonWichman (captain, Babkin Charters)

118

119 Literature Cited ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game) 2009. 2006-2009 Commercial salmon fishing regulations Prince William Sound. 107 pages. Report available from ADF&G, Commercial Fisheries Division, Anchorage AK.

Blahna, D.J. 2007. Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management , Introduction Recreation Management, pgs. 101-113, PNW-GTR-698, June 2007.

Crowley, D.W. 2007. Unit 6 deer management report. Pages 76-89 in P. Harper , editor. Deer management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004—30 June 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska.

Crowley, D.W. 2005. Unit 6 deer management report. Pages 93-108 in C. Brown , editor. Deer management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2002—30 June 2004. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska.

ESRI (Environmental Systems Resource Institute). 2009. ArcMap 9.3. ESRI, Redlands, California.

Gimblett, H.R., P. Wolfe, L. Kennedy, R.M. Itami, B. Garber-Yonts. 2007. Prince William Sound Human Use Study (PWSHUS). Report prepared for Chugach National Forest.

Graphical Resource Database (GRD), NOVEMBER 2004 SLR Alaska 2525 Blueberry Road, Suite 206 Anchorage, Alaska 99503. Applied Science Associates 70 Dean Knauss Drive Narragensett, RI 02882, . 'Brien Publications 8651 Swiss Place Anchorage, Alaska 99507.

Lethcoe, J., and N. Lethcoe. 1998. A Cruising guide to Prince William Sound, Alaska. (Vols. I and II) 196 pp.

Marston, B. H. 2005. Area management report for the recreational fisheries of the Prince William Sound Management Area, 2005. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 05-61,

Moffitt, S. Commercial Fishing Data 2003-2007. Data Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial, PWS area salmon research, Cordova, AK 99574

Murphy, K.A., L.H. Suring, and A. Iliff. 2004. Western Prince William Sound human use and wildlife distribution model, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Final Report (Restoration Project 99339), USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, Alaska.

Pella, J., and J. Maselko. 2007. Probability sampling and estimation of the oil remaining in 2001 from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. U. S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo.NMFS-AFSC-169, 60 p.

120 Poe, A., H. R. Gimblett and R.M. Itami. 2010a. Evaluating the Recreation Service Recovery: Evaluation of Prince William Sound User Experience, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Final Report (Restoration Project xxxxx), USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, Alaska State of Alaska. 1997. Prince William Sound Public Access Atlas. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land, and Water, Anchorage, AK 99503. March 1997.

Twardock, P., 2004 Kayaking and Camping in Prince William Sound A Kayaker's Paradise. Prince William Sound Books. Copyright 2004. ISBN: 1-877900-14-1. Soft cover 215 pages. 5.5" x 8.5" x .50". 8 Charts, 15 Maps, 45 B&W photos.

Twardock, P., and C.A. Monz. 2000. Recreational kayak visitor use, distribution, and economic value in Prince William Sound, Alaska USA. In Cole, D.N., McCool, S. F.,Borrie, W. T. and O’Loughlan, J. (comps.) Wilderness science in a time of change conference– Volume 4. Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management.Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol-4. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station.

121 Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography of data sources reviewed.

Lingering EVOS Oil Data Sources

• Pella, J., and J. Maselko. 2007. Probability sampling and estimation of the oil remaining in 2001 from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. U. S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo.NMFS-AFSC-169, 60 p

• Note than new research resulting in a predictive surface of probability of lingering oil for all of PWS and the Gulf of Alaska is in review pending publication as of August 2009 (EVOSTC Project 070801, primary researcher Jacqui Michel). The final report should become available through the EVOSTC web site at http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/projects/ProjectInfo.cfm?project_id=1559

Beach Use Data Sources

• USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2004-2006. Cabin Usage Reports. Internal Document. o Cabin use reports for all Forest Service cabins in PWS were obtained from the Forest Service. The reports included nights at cabin, number of people and dates. The numbers of nights were used to calculate use. This data was combined with other beach use data to make the beach use ranks.

• State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Divisions of Parks. 2004-2006. Cabin Usage Reports. o Cabin use reports for all State of Alaska cabins in PWS were obtained from the State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Divisions of Parks. The data is for the years 2004-2006 except for Decision Point cabin which opened in 12/2005. The reports included nights at cabin, number of people and dates. The numbers of nights were used to calculate use. This data was combined with other beach use data to make the beach use ranks.

• Water taxi records o Data were requested from water taxis in Whittier and Valdez water taxis. Cordova currently does not have a water taxi service. Data was received from Marilyn Heddell of Honey Charters in Whittier, for 2005-2007. The data contained drop off and pick up locations, number of people, and a date. We did not use data where people where dropped off and picked up at public use cabins. We assume this use is being counted in the cabin data. Then number of people was used to determine use for this analysis. All location data was assigned to the general areas layer and separated by season. This data was combined with other beach use data to make the beach use ranks.

122

• Special Use Permit reported use data, Chugach National Forest internal records. o Data were compiled from reported use by outfitter/guide permit holders with permitted activities in PWS from 2005-2007. Use data included camping and other reported beach use. These data were joined spatially to the general areas. This data was combined with other beach use data to make the beach use ranks.

• Paul Twardock 1987-2000 beach use data: o Raw data compiled under research described in Twardock and Monz 2000. Excel spreadsheet of reported numbers of people at beach locations. One quantitative layer not included in our ranking scheme due to a lack of seasonal data is a 13- year data set of beach use compiled by Paul Twardock of Alaska Pacific University from 1987-2000. Methods for data collection can be found in Twardock and Monz 2000. We were given a spreadsheet with a beach name and the total number of people reported at that location for each year of the study. We assigned each beach name to its General Area then summarized all years to give an overall historical background of use in the years prior to the Anton Anderson memorial tunnel opening Whittier to road access in 2000.

• Wolfe, P.E. 2007. Boating in Alaska’s Prince William Sound: Modeling and Assessment of Recreational Use. M.S. Thesis – Oregon State University. 188 pages; Gimblett, H.R., P. Wolfe, L. Kennedy, R.M. Itami, B. Garber-Yonts. 2007. Prince William Sound Human Use Study (PWSHUS). Report prepared for Chugach National Forest; and associated unpublished data points: o Human use data from this report was spatial; we queried data for personal use sport fishing and beach use. The number of fishing data points and beach use points were summarized per General Area and used in the analysis. These points were also used in developing the general areas.

Guided Sport Fishing Data Sources

• Dora Sigurdsson, Sport Fish Charter/Guide Logbook Programs 2005 – 2007. Data as of 1/30/2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Research and Technical Services, Anchorage, AK 99518.

• Fresh water data: There were a limited number of reports of guided freshwater fishing in the hotspot analysis area. A total of 25 trips over a 3 year period to 7 streams were reported, over half of the trips were reported to one stream. Since these data were limited in scope we did not include these numbers in our analysis.

• ADF&G guided saltwater fishing is reported to spatial saltwater statistical areas in PWS. We obtained data for bottom and salmon fishing for these areas for the years 2005-2007. The data included number of trips and year. The ADF&G provided a seasonal

123 distribution percentage for the data. The tabular data were joined to the spatial data and this was used in conjunction with other fishing data to make the fishing ranks.

Commercial Fishing Data Sources • Moffitt, Steve PWS area salmon research project leader, ADF&G commercial fisheries, Cordova, AK

o All data were obtained from the ADF&G Cordova office for commercial fishing for the years 2003-2007. Tabular data were joined to the spatial statistical areas. The data had the number of permits and by commercial opener for each statistical area. These data were combined with other fishing data to make the fishing ranks.

Personal Use Fishing Data Sources

• Marston, B. H. 2005. Area management report for the recreational fisheries of the Prince William Sound Management Area, 2005. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 05-61.

o We reviewed the data from ADF&G report on recreational fisheries in PWS (Marston 2005) for another source of recreational fishing data. In 2001 the way that anglers reported their catch data changed to a more general area fished and port of landing. Catch are reported to a port of landing; either the eastern or western side of PWS (Marston 2005). After reviewing the report we felt that the areas that catch information were reported too was to general to contribute our analysis.

• Western PWS Recreational Fishing Series. 2006 Southcentral Region Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fish. www.sf.ADF&G.state.ak.us/Static/Region2/pdfpubs/westernpws.pdf: This document was reviewed and used to compare with sport fishing data that was already collected.

Personal Use Hunting Data Sources: • Crowley, Dave; Area Wildlife Biologist, ADF&G Cordova, AK

o All personal use data for moose, black bear, brown bear, and mountain goats were obtained from the ADF&G Cordova office for the years 2002-2006. All data are reported to a spatial unit called a UCU. We joined the tabular data to the spatial data and used this information to create the hunt ranks. This hunt dataset is composed of days hunted, locations and dates. These data were combined with other hunting data to make the hunting ranks.

124 Deer • Crowley, D.W. 2007. Unit 6 deer management report. Pages 76-89 in P. Harper , editor. Deer management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004—30 June 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska.

o Tabular data were obtained from the ADF&G Cordova office for the year 2006. Data compiled from a mail survey on annual basis. All data were reported to a spatial unit called a deer management unit. We joined the tabular data to the spatial units and used this information to create the hunt ranks. This deer hunt dataset is composed of days hunted and locations. These data were combined with other hunting data to make the hunting ranks.

• Crowley, D.W. 2005. Unit 6 deer management report. Pages 93-108 in C. Brown , editor. Deer management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2002—30 June 2004. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska.

o This report was used to determine the seasonal distribution of deer hunting in PWS. Detailed information on the percentage of hunting occurring monthly was used from this report to determine the seasonal timing of hunting in PWS so that the deer data could be added to the seasonal ranks.

Land Use Permit Data Sources

• Data for State of Alaska Permits in PWS sound were obtained from this web page http://www.asgdc.state.ak.us/ . Data were used as part of the land use permit layer. Data reviewed and incorporated from the following layers: o Alaska DNR Aquatic Farms (metadata at http://dnr.alaska.gov/SpatialUtility/SUC?cmd=vmd&layerid=167 o Alaska DNR Shore Fishery Leases (metadata at http://dnr.alaska.gov/SpatialUtility/SUC?cmd=vmd&layerid=170 o Alaska DNR Tidal Leases (metadata at http://dnr.alaska.gov/SpatialUtility/SUC?cmd=vmd&layerid=169 o Alaska DNR Permit or Lease - Land Estate (metadata at http://dnr. alaska.gov/SpatialUtility/SUC?cmd=vmd&layerid=147

• US Forest Service Lands Permits: USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, 2005- 2007 Special Use Permit file data. Paper files housed at district offices in Girdwood, AK (Glacier Ranger District) and Cordova, AK (Cordova Ranger District). o Data were compiled from lands permit holders with permitted activities in PWS from 2005-2007. Data used as part of the land use permit layer.

125 Other Data Sources Reviewed

• Murphy, K.A., L.H. Suring, and A. Iliff. 2004. Western Prince William Sound human use and wildlife distribution model, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Final Report (Restoration Project 99339), USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, Alaska. o This paper was reviewed for potential data and used in the development of the potential attractions layer contained in the final geodatabase.

• State of Alaska, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land, and Water. March 1997. Prince William Sound Public Access Atlas. o The 1997 Alaska DNR publication Prince William Sound Public Access Atlas was used as a historical reference and cross-check for anchorages, beach strips, and floatplane access. Point layers for anchorage and aircraft landings are included in the final geodatabase.

• Lethcoe, J., and N. Lethcoe. 1998. Cruising guide to Prince William Sound, Alaska. (Vols. I and II) 196 pp. o The Cruising Guide to PWS was used as a historical reference and cross-check for anchorages. It was also use to identify places for the potential attractions layer, and was an important aid in identifying and defining General Areas.

• Lands information from Alaska Native Corporations: o All native corporations were asked to provide land use data for the analysis. Minimal data was received and did not contain quantitative seasonal or use information. These data were not included in the final geodatabase.

• Prince William Sound Area Plan for State Lands. 1988. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Departement of Fish and Game. o Content reviewed. Did not contain quantitative seasonal or use information.

• USDA Forest Service 2005 Big Islands Landscape Assessment. Unpublished report on file at Chugach National Forest, Cordova Ranger District, Cordova AK.

• USDA Forest Service 2005 Western PWS Landscape Assessment. Unpublished report on file at Chugach National Forest, Glacier Ranger District, Girdwood AK.

• Graphical Resource Database (GRD), NOVEMBER 2004 SLR Alaska 2525 Blueberry Road, Suite 206 Anchorage, Alaska 99503. Applied Science Associates 70 Dean Knauss Drive Narragensett, RI 02882, . 'Brien Publications 8651 Swiss Place Anchorage, Alaska 99507.

o The 2004 Graphical Resource Database was used as a historical reference and cross-check for anchorages, beach strips and floatplane access.

126 USFS Corporate GIS Layers • USDA Forest Service, 1996-2000. Chugach National Forest Corporate GIS Data Layers. Accessed 2008-2009. • All Forest Service GIS data were reviewed for usefulness in the project. Some Corporate Data used to develop individual layers.

Oil Spill Barges

• Gilson, D. 2008 Project Manager, Oil Spill Prevention & Response Operations, Locations and seasonal use of oil spill response barges. Personal communication with S. Greenwood.

• Locations, seasonal time frames for barges and tugs, and descriptions of the activities were obtained from Prince William Sound Regional Citizen regional advisory council.

Tour company websites

Web pages and local companies were researched to determine if companies did tours in PWS. Cruise boat tour routes were taken from maps and tour route descriptions from these web pages. www.26glaciers.com www.stanstephenscruises.com www.majormarine.com http://www.princewilliamsound.com

Local Experts

• Burcham, Milo USDA Forest Service Wildlife biologist. Cordova Ranger District. Cordova, AK Provided information on kayaking and wildlife viewing in eastern PWS .

• Hodges, Ken USDA Forest Service Fisheries Biologist, Cordova Ranger District, Cordova, AK Provided input on sport fishing in PWS.

• Crowley, Dave State of Alaska. Wildlife Biologist 111, Cordova, AK Office. Provided information on hunting in PWS.

• Moffitt, Steve PWS area salmon research project leader, ADF&G commercial fisheries, Cordova, AK provided information on commercial fishing in PWS.

• Janka, Dave Owner/operator of Auklet Charter Service, Cordova, AK Provided information on anchorages and other uses in PWS.

• Vansant, Jim Retired ADF&G boat captain, Cordova, AK. Provided information on anchorages and other uses in PWS.

• Rand, Dean. Owner/operator of Discovery Tours, Whittier, AK. Provided information on anchorages and other uses in PWS.

127

• Von Wichman, Brad and Alexandra von Wichman. Owners/operators of Babkin Charters. Provided information on anchorages and other uses in PWS.

Campsite Data Sources:

• Twardock, P., 2004 Kayaking and Camping in Prince William Sound A Kayaker's Paradise. Prince William Sound Books. Copyright 2004. ISBN: 1-877900-14-1. Soft cover 215 pages. 5.5" x 8.5" x .50". 8 Charts, 15 Maps, 45 B&W photos. • USDA Forest Service, Chugach NF, Glacier Ranger District kayak inventory program unpublished data on file at District office, Girdwood AK. • Paul Twardock, APU professor, unpublished data campsite condition class monitoring.

128 Appendix B: Map Atlas of seasonal human use ranks by Analysis Area

159 pages of tables and maps

129 Appendix C: Maps of ADF&G management polygons C-1: Commercial fishing statistical polygons C-2: Deer Management Units C-3: sport Fishing statistical polygons C-4: UCUs

130 Appendix D: Land Ownership in PWS This is a 3 ft x 4 ft map displaying general land ownership in the Sound, with known recreation/human use sites also displayed.

131 Appendix E: Overview of seasonal human use ranks across PWS study area

Three 3 ft x 4ft maps displaying overall human use rank summary for Spring, Summer, Fall. Includes known recreation/human use data as in Appendix D.

132