This analysis determines the recreation carrying capacity for the shoreline within the Admiralty Island National Monument and Juneau, Sitka, and Hoonah Ranger Districts. Carrying capacity is expressed as the maximum number of groups that can recreate within the shoreline zone at one time while preserving the social and environmental settings required in the Forest Plan.
This document revises the 1998 recreation carrying capacity analysis developed by Marti Marshall and Lynn Humphrey and documented in the Chatham Area Salt Water Shoreline-based Recreation Carrying Capacity Analysis. It updates the previous analysis by 1) including the Tracy Arm - Ford's Terror area, 2) subdividing and reassessing capacity figures for several Use Areas, and 3) increasing the amount of site-specific information provided for each Use Area.
Carrying capacity figures for each of the thirty-seven Use Areas are listed. No distinction between guided and non-guided users is made in this analysis.
This document revises the initial Chatham Area Salt Water Shoreline-based Recreation Carrying Capacity Analysis prepared in 1998 by Marti Marshall and Lynn Humphrey. This revision incorporates public comments and additional analysis conducted over the last three years. Significant changes include adding the Tracy Arm - Ford's Terror area to the analysis, subdividing some of the Use Areas for more meaningful recreation management, and presenting more site-specific information for each Use Area. However, the methodology for determining the carrying capacity figures remains the same.
As recreational and other uses continue to increase in southeast Alaska, more people are asking the question, "How much is too much?" Generally, people want to know what the appropriate number of commercially guided groups should be given the conflicting desires of some other users.
Forest Service recreation managers have a strong desire to determine and establish appropriate levels of use before overcrowding becomes evident. Concern about overcrowding stems from a continuous flow of requests for new outfitter and guide special use permits and from requests by existing permittees for additional use.
Forest Service managers responded to these concerns by looking at all amounts and types of commercial and non-commercial recreation use in the analysis area. Our goal is to provide quality recreation experiences sought by both guided and unguided users that will not adversely impact forest resources.
This recreation carrying capacity analysis will help us respond to increased outfitting and guiding requests. It may be used in environmental analyses required to authorize outfitter/guide use.
The analysis area covers the Admiralty Island National Monument, Juneau, Hoonah, and Sitka Ranger Districts (See Map 1). The focus of the analysis is on land-based recreational activities occurring above mean high tide line but within 1/2 mile of the saltwater shoreline, referred to here as the shoreline zone.
Recreationists on the saltwater at access points to the National Forest were only considered in conjunction with their upland use. Recreationists traveling by boats, sightseeing, fishing or anchored on the saltwater who did not set foot on the National Forest were not considered in the carrying capacity figures.
Management of recreation and wilderness includes defining appropriate capacity
levels to respond to the social issue of crowding, and impacts on human experiences.
This study will consider only recreation activities currently within the scope
of Forest Service responsibilities.
Two areas on Admiralty Island National Monument within the Kootznoowoo Wilderness are excluded from this analysis: Pack Creek Cooperative Management Area and Mitchell Bay and environs. The Pack Creek Cooperative Management Area already has a management plan in place. Mitchell Bay and the surrounding area require a unique management strategy to comply with Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The areas associated with the Sitka and Juneau road systems and the Juneau Icefields were also excluded from consideration.
This document also compiles applicable policy, direction and information related to recreation management of the analysis area. Specific information for each Use Area is found in Appendix B. This information includes a map, a recreation carrying capacity figure, and site-specific information concerning recreation use and management.
Beginning in the early 1990's, the agency has heard a growing number of concerns from licensed, big game guides about the number of brown-bear guided hunts in Game Management Unit-4 (covering Admiralty, Baranof and Chichagof Islands), especially during the spring season. The main concern is a perceived deterioration of the "Alaskan Experience" and the "quality of the hunt" due to crowding.
The Forest Service is also receiving more requests for other commercial activities, especially freshwater fishing and sightseeing, during the spring, summer and fall seasons.
At the request of the Alaska State Board of Game, the Forest Service participated on the Unit 4 Brown Bear Management Team during the winter of 1994-95. Members of the team included representatives from the Board of Game, Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Forest Service, Big Game Commercial Services Board, Department of Public Safety, Admiralty Bear Association, Territorial Sportsmen, Tlingit-Haida Central Council, Southeast Alaska Guides Association, and Alaska Visitors Association.
The team found that both brown bear hunters and bear viewers desired a high quality experience. It also found potential for significant growth in the numbers of commercially guided hunts by non-residents. The team concluded there was a need to limit the number of brown bear outfitters and guides in GMU-4. This action would stabilize the number of bears taken by nonresidents, reduce the risk for over-harvest, and maintain hunting aesthetics and an economically viable guide industry.
However, the Forest Service determined that commercial use could be limited only if the carrying capacity of an area was exceeded. As carrying capacity figures had not yet been developed for the GMU-4 area, the Forest Service agreed to develop a carrying capacity study.
Public meetings were held on October 6, 1995 in Juneau, Alaska, and on October 20, 1995 in Sitka, Alaska; attendees were predominantly brown bear guides from GMU-4.
Additionally, public service notices and letters were sent out to interested people in February and March of 1996, soliciting information on issues concerning use, conflicts, geography, seasons of use and accessibility in GMU-4.
A methodology was developed to determine recreation carrying capacity by Marti Marshall and Lynn Humphrey. They conducted an initial recreation carrying capacity study in 1998 for the analysis area which is documented in the Chatham Area Salt Water Shoreline-based Recreation Carrying Capacity Analysis.
That document was sent to the public for comment in October of 1998 as part of a scoping package. Many of the comments we received prompted the revisions contained in this document.
Some forest management activities, such as a timber sale, produce a product that is relatively easy to measure. It is more difficult to quantify the benefits of a project that seeks to manage or enhance a wild land recreation experience. People have a wide range of expectations and values and many different definitions of a successful experience. For this reason, the Forest Service manages its lands to give the public a variety of recreation opportunities.
We can influence the recreation experience by providing different settings for recreation, ranging from untouched wilderness to fully accessible trails and campgrounds, and the provision of different facilities, such as trails, cabins, boat moorings or roads, which make an area more accessible. In this analysis, we are working to manage the recreation setting by defining the number of users that can recreate in the analysis area while maintaining appropriate social and environmental surroundings.
The Forest Service provides shoreline-based recreation opportunities at levels that are consistent with our Forest Plan goals. We evaluate the recreation setting using Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and with a management tool called the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). The recreation carrying capacity for each Use Area was developed to meet the ROS class setting indicators stated in the Forest Plan.
The Forest Plan for the Tongass provides the management framework for the recreation resource. Recreation and tourism management goals are developed through scientific review and in response to public comment, and are specified in the Forest Plan.
The primary way that the Forest Plan categorizes land is by dividing it up into a series of areas that are each described by a Land Use Designation (or LUD). Each Land Use Designation has a management prescription that includes goals, objectives and a desired future condition. Each LUD also includes standards and guidelines for managing the different forest resources.
The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum was developed to analyze and describe an entire range of outdoor recreation experiences from Primitive to Urban. The seven different categories of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, from least developed to most accessible are listed below.
These classes cover the full extent of recreation opportunities, from pristine to highly developed environments. Each class is defined in terms of its combination of three major components: the activities, the setting and the experience of the opportunities provided.
The Forest Plan assesses recreation and tourism resources by assigning a range of appropriate recreation settings for each LUD using the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum settings. For example, in the Wilderness LUD, the direction is to manage for Primitive and Semi-primitive ROS settings. If a ROS class has not been adopted for an area, a line officer could choose within the allowed range of ROS classes in a specific LUD. In this analysis the more primitive ROS class held the most weight.
The Forest Service uses the ROS as an inventory tool to describe the existing condition of recreation opportunities on the forest. We also use the ROS to guide future management activities in order to maintain or attain the defined range of recreation opportunities within the ROS class setting. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classifications used in the Forest Plan by LUD are displayed in Table 1.
| Land Use Designation | ROS Classification |
|---|---|
| Wilderness | Primitive and Semi-Primitive |
| Wilderness National Monument | Primitive and Semi-Primitive |
| Non-Wilderness National Monument | Existing unless scheduled activities cause a change |
| Research Natural Area | No specific direction in the Forest Plan. Primitive is usually appropriate |
| Special Interest Area | Adopt through project planning. Before planning, manage as existing. |
| Remote Recreation | Primitive |
| Municipal Watershed | No specific direction in the Forest Plan. Primitive or Semi-primitive are usually appropriate. |
| Old-growth Habitat | Semi-Primitive |
| Semi-remote Recreation | Semi-Primitive generally, enclaves up to Rural |
| LUD II | Semi-Primitive |
| Wild River | Primitive and Semi-Primitive |
| Scenic River | Existing unless scheduled activities cause a change |
| Recreational River | Existing unless scheduled activities cause a change |
| Experimental Forest | Existing unless scheduled activities cause a change |
| Scenic Viewshed | Existing unless scheduled activities cause a change. Change to Semi-primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural or Roaded Modified is allowed. |
| Modified Landscape | Existing unless scheduled activities cause a change. Change to Semi-primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural or Roaded Modified is allowed. |
| Timber Production | Existing unless scheduled activities cause a change. Change to Semi-primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural or Roaded Modified is allowed. |
| Minerals | Existing unless scheduled activities cause a change. Change to Semi-primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural or Roaded Modified is allowed. |
| Transportation/Utility Systems | Manage changed setting with appropriate ROS guidelines. |
For each ROS class, the Forest Plan identifies seven setting indicators that describe the class. The indicators are visual quality, access, remoteness, visitor management, on-site recreation development, social encounters and visitor impacts. The standards and guidelines for all seven ROS classes are found in Table 2.
| Managed ROS Class |
|
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primitive | Less than 3 | Less than 3 | ||||
| Semi-primitive | Less than 10 | Less than 6 | ||||
| Roaded Natural | Less than 20 | Not applicable | ||||
| Roaded Modified | Less than 20 | Not applicable | ||||
| Rural | No guideline | Not applicable | ||||
| Urban | No guideline | Not applicable | ||||
Carrying capacity, in a simplistic sense, defines the maximum number of groups or people who could use a defined area without negatively impacting the desired social or biological conditions. Four types of recreation carrying capacity were considered in this analysis: Physical, Facility, Ecological, and Social.
Physical Carrying Capacity: the amount of recreational use that can physically occur in a defined space. Is enough land available to accommodate all users?
The physical carrying capacity of the analysis area is huge, with over 5,300 miles of shoreline and 995,000 acres available for recreation use. Physically the project area could accommodate many more groups than optimum and realistic use indicates. Use is not expected to ever approach the physical capability; therefore physical carrying capacity was not found to be a limiting factor.
Facility Carrying Capacity: the amount of recreational uses that can occur within the constraints of existing facilities. Can visitor needs for facilities such as parking lots, docks, restrooms, developed campgrounds, etc. be accommodated?
The facility carrying capacity is not a limiting factor for the Shoreline project because most recreation use in the project area does not rely on Forest Service facilities. Most recreational use is wild land-oriented and primarily boat-based, with recreationists and outfitter/guides providing their own services and facilities. The number and capacity of available facilities was not found to be a limiting factor to the recreation use of the analysis area.
Ecological Carrying Capacity: the amount of recreational use that can occur without creating unacceptable impacts on the ecosystem. Will increased recreational use inappropriately affect plants, animals, soil, water, air quality etc.?
The ecological carrying capacity of the analysis area is an important consideration in this analysis. However, it is not expected to be a limiting factor due to the relatively low levels of use throughout most of the area. In addition to low levels of use, most recreation activities in the area are low impact and occur for a relatively short duration. Commercial recreation is regulated with "leave-no-trace" stipulations. Sightseeing, hiking, photography, boating, hunting and fishing are the most common activities, and an outing is usually completed within daylight hours.
The standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan adequately protect the forest resources, and mitigation measures can be developed to moderate impacts to the higher use areas. Potential impacts to vegetation, soils, wildlife, and water can be avoided or mitigated.
To date, our monitoring hasn't shown any significant ecological effects from recreational use. However, we identified a limited number of sites that are approaching ecological carrying capacity in this analysis. In those site-specific locations, we developed the carrying capacity based upon resource impacts. Additional monitoring will be important to ensure that impacts in these areas do not become excessive. The State of Alaska also has responsibility to monitor and manage fish and wildlife resources. Through collaborative stewardship and joined efforts in the environmental analysis process, ecological impacts can be identified and managed.
Social Carrying Capacity - the maximum amount of recreational use that can occur without impairing the desired social experience. Will increased use result in a "crowded" feeling that does not meet user and Forest Plan expectations?
The analysis found that the social carrying capacity is the most meaningful type of capacity to determine the appropriate recreation use levels in the analysis area. The social interaction component of recreation was defined as the number of encounters that a group may expect to experience per day. Group encounters are an important part of the ROS classification, and they were determined to be the most limiting factor in the analysis area. ROS guidelines state the number of encounters one may expect to experience in a day, specify maximum party size, and the number of parties allowable within sight or sound of dispersed campsites.
Recreation carrying capacity can be measured at three levels: minimum, maximum and optimum. We used the optimal carrying capacity rather than a maximum capacity because it involves the concepts of quality and values along with numbers. Optimal carrying capacity may trade higher capacity numbers for other benefits.
To summarize, recreation carrying capacity determines the number of users that can be accommodated in a given area without loss of the quality of the natural environment and/or the visitor experience. In this study, the carrying capacity was derived by limiting the number of encounters expected in a day within each specific Use Area to the ROS class standards for social encounters specified in the Forest Plan.
Some observations and assumptions about existing use were made during the course of this analysis and are noted below:
Most recreation use is dispersed, and is primarily boat-based, although some groups use floatplanes to access areas. Most people pursue remote recreation experiences such as sightseeing, hiking, photography, boating, hunting and fishing, and other similar activities. Day trips are the norm around communities.
If people do spend the night, boats are also the main form of overnight accommodation. A small number of users may use land-based camps, mainly backcountry tent camps. Use of Forest Service public recreation cabins is mostly non-commercial. Access to the cabins is primarily by boat, although floatplanes are also used.
Excluding the Sitka and Juneau road systems and the Juneau Icefields, the majority of land-based recreation use during the year generally occurs within 1/2 mile of the salt-water shoreline. A small amount of activity takes place up streams for freshwater fishing, hunting or exploring. This access is also generally boat-based.
During spring and fall, hunting (both guided and unguided) is the predominant recreation activity on the analysis area. Brown bear hunting occurs primarily along the shoreline, streams and in estuary areas. Deer hunting occurs throughout the analysis area. The spring and fall hunting seasons are in the shoulder seasons, rather than the peak season, and which generally has less recreation use than the summer season.
By need or desire, brown bear and other hunters prefer isolated settings where they will not encounter others. However, big-game guides and their clients have a more limited ability to disperse themselves than others groups because of hunting regulations.
Group size is generally less than 12 people, although larger groups, both guided (outside of Wilderness) and unguided, may be present. Larger groups are often associated with commercially guided groups.
Guided and unguided groups tend to disperse themselves geographically; groups tend to seek areas where others are not. Both non-commercial and commercial recreationists who select areas close to communities or popular recreation areas expect a higher number of encounters in their outings. These expectations correlate with Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classifications and standards for number of encounters.
Season of use and weather, along with location, may also affect the number of encounters experienced or expected. For example, a person out recreating generally expects to run into fewer people in April than July. Expectations change during the summer season or during deer hunting season within the home range of a community.
A sense of crowding has been reported in the bays adjacent to the National Forest. A limiting factor to managing recreation experiences on the forest is the access points to the national forest land - i.e. the salt water bays, bights, and anchorages. The salt water, in essence, is the "road" to the forest.
If a bay or anchorage appears crowded, a group may avoid entering that bay to access the uplands. Although the Forest Service manages land only above the mean high tide line, the authorization of commercial operators to use the uplands may contribute to this sense of crowding. Additionally, one may make an argument that boats serve as "dispersed campsites." This perception of crowding can be directly tied to the number of available anchorages within a bay. The anchorages in a Use Area were considered when developing the number of groups at one time that would be acceptable to encounter in a day.
The guidelines for the current inventoried ROS class for each area were used for determining capacity.
The analysis area under consideration encompasses almost one million acres (over 5,000 miles of coastline), an area too large to develop recreation carrying capacity in a meaningful context. Therefore, Use Areas have been designated to facilitate analysis.
The Project Area is subdivided into thirty-eight different Use Areas. Thirty-seven of these contain a shoreline zone and are included in this analysis. These Use Areas provide a concise geographic area that is at a scale useful for recreation management. The Use Areas correspond closely with the Guide Use Areas (GUAs) designated by the State of Alaska for big game management. The Use Areas are displayed on the Use Area Map on page 2.
Information on each Use Area is displayed in Appendix B. Geographic boundaries are displayed along with a brief description of the area, existing facilities and recreation use.
The number of social encounters a person has while recreating is the basic social recreation component for this carrying capacity assessment. Recreation in the Project Area predominately occurs in groups, so we wanted to count the number of different groups of recreationists coming in contact with each other, rather than the total number of individuals in the area.
However, for our purposes a "group" may be one person recreating alone, or more than one person recreating together. Groups at One Time (GAOT) is the number of groups that are allowed at any one time in a defined area to preserve the number of expected social encounters.
Number of encounters is the indicator used throughout this analysis to determine appropriate carrying capacity. An encounter is considered when one group comes in contact, or within waving distance of another group, or if a group changes their direction or behavior upon seeing other people.
We used all available information to develop the Groups At One Time capacity
figure for each Use Area. We first considered the "recreation places"
inventoried for the 1997 Tongass Land Revision Management Plan, the report,
"Status of Anchorage Suitability for Use by Ecotourism Charter Boat Operators
and Guides in Southeast Alaska," and site specific knowledge and information.
Secondly, we evaluated Use Areas by their LUD and ROS classifications in the Forest Plan, and used maps and field visits to look more closely at the physical characteristics of each Use Area. The suitability of land for recreation use was a key consideration in developing the number of groups that could be in different Use Areas without exceeding ROS class standards.
Much of the land in the analysis area is functionally unsuitable for onshore recreation because of impenetrable vegetation, steep or water saturated terrain, or the cost of reaching remote areas. The majority of the coastline is rugged and rocky, so easy access by boat is limited primarily to protected bays and beaches. Many of these recreation places were inventoried in the Forest Plan. We assessed where boats could come ashore and where groups could reasonably recreate, given the local topography within each Use Area.
Once we had a general idea of where most of the recreation use currently was, and where it was most likely that people could access suitable areas of the National Forest, we returned to the ROS criteria for social encounters, which is 1) number of encounters with other groups per day and 2) number of other parties within sight or sound of dispersed campsites. Where an area had a range of ROS settings, the more primitive setting with the lower capacity was used.
Within the ROS criteria, the Groups At One Time capacity level was determined by looking at topographical features to evaluate the irregularity of the shoreline and the types of vegetative cover present in order to predict views and sound patterns from the most likely anchorages and recreation places. When there was some doubt or a borderline call, the more conservative capacity estimate was used.
We also factored the typical high mobility of most users in the analysis area into this number. Highly mobile boat access increases the possibility of encountering other parties, but also enables users to disperse to less crowded areas if they desire.
Determining a recreation carrying capacity is somewhat subjective. This analysis
uses the best data, numbers, and estimates and professional judgment available
to determine capacity. Final recommendations are a starting point; they will
continually be monitored and assessed for validity and appropriateness. The
recreation carrying capacity is displayed in Table 3.
| Use Areas | General Area | Capacity in Groups at One Time |
|---|---|---|
| 01-01 | Skagway Area | 10 |
| 01-02 | Haines Area | 5 |
| 01-03 | East Chilkats | 20 |
| 01-04A | Berners Bay | 10 |
| 01-04B | N. Juneau Coast | 6 |
| 01-04C | Taku Inlet | 12 |
| 01-04D | Slocum Inlet | 10 |
| 01-05A | Taku Harbor | 6 |
| 01-05B | Port Snettisham | 20 |
| 01-05C | Windham Bay | 26 |
| 01-05D | Tracy Arm | 12 |
| 01-05E | Ford's Terror | 3 |
| 04-01A | Gut Bay, Baranof | 8 |
| 04-01B | Port Armstrong | 7 |
| 04-02A | Recoubt Lake | 20 |
| 04-02B | Whale Bay | 18 |
| 04-03 | Sitka Area | 40 |
| 04-04A | Lake Eva, Rodman Bay | 8 |
| 04-04B | Kelp Bay | 9 |
| 04-04C | Baranof Warm Springs | 3 |
| 04-05 | SW Admiralty | 6 |
| 04-06A | Pybus Bay | 3 |
| 04-06B | Eliza Harbor | 3 |
| 04-07 | Gambier Bay | 6 |
| 04-08 | NE Admiralty | 28 |
| 04-09 | Seymour Canal | 10 |
| 04-10A | Greens Creek | 4 |
| 04-10B | NW Admiralty | 7 |
| 04-11 | Hoonah Area | 14 |
| 04-12 | Tenakee Inlet | 15 |
| 04-13 | Peril Straight | 16 |
| 04-14 | Slocum Arm | 8 |
| 04-15 | West Chichagof | 20 |
| 04-16A | Point Adolphus | 6 |
| 04-16B | North Chichagof | 6 |
| 04-16C | Idaho Inlet | 6 |
| 04-16D | Port Althorp | 6 |
The recreation carrying capacity developed here provides a good framework to move forward with recreation management in the analysis area. Some additional steps should be considered:
Ellis, Robert J., and Calvin, Natasha I. for Alaska Institute for Sustainable Recreation and Tourism, "Status of Anchorage Suitability for Use by Ecotourism Charter Boat Operators and Guides in Southeast Alaska", November 1995.
Shelby, Bo, and Heberlein, Thomas A., 1986 "Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings" Oregon State University Press.
USDA Forest Service, 1986 ROS Book
USDA Forest Service, "The ROS Users Guide," undated.
USDA Forest Service, 1997 Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, EIS, and ROD R10-MB-338.
Use Area maps are unavailable on-line.
Note: These documents, noted "(pdf)," require Adobe©
Acrobat Reader to open them. Click the Adobe icon to download this free program.
| Use Areas | General Area |
|---|---|
| 01-01 | Skagway Area |
| 01-02 | Haines Area |
| 01-03 | East Chilkats |
| 01-04A | Berners Bay |
| 01-04B | N. Juneau Coast |
| 01-04C | Taku Inlet |
| 01-04D | Slocum Inlet |
| 01-05A | Taku Harbor |
| 01-05B | Port Snettisham |
| 01-05C | Windham Bay |
| 01-05D | Tracy Arm |
| 01-05E | Ford's Terror |
| 04-01A | Gut Bay, Baranof |
| 04-01B | Port Armstrong |
| 04-02A | Recoubt Lake |
| 04-02B | Whale Bay |
| 04-03 | Sitka Area |
| 04-04A | Lake Eva, Rodman Bay |
| 04-04B | Kelp Bay |
| 04-04C | Baranof Warm Springs |
| 04-05 | SW Admiralty |
| 04-06A | Pybus Bay |
| 04-06B | Eliza Harbor |
| 04-07 | Gambier Bay |
| 04-08 | NE Admiralty |
| 04-09 | Seymour Canal |
| 04-10A | Greens Creek |
| 04-10B | NW Admiralty |
| 04-11 | Hoonah Area |
| 04-12 | Tenakee Inlet |
| 04-13 | Peril Straight |
| 04-14 | Slocum Arm |
| 04-15 | West Chichagof |
| 04-16A | Point Adolphus |
| 04-16B | North Chichagof |
| 04-16C | Idaho Inlet |
| 04-16D | Port Althorp |
