4. Do you have any other comments or questions that we should answer in our next Up-

date?

Thanks for your help!

Maggi Arend, Team Leader
USFWS- Mail Stop 231
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, AK 99503



Commercial Guiding on
Refuge - Goodnews Forks

‘Commercial Guiding on Refuge
- Togiak Tributaries

Public Use at Cape Peirce
Wildlife Viewing Area

Recommendations for
Wild and Scenic River
and Wilderness
Designation

North Fork -1 motorboat
base camp authorized (not
used since 1991); 4
additional motorboat trips
per year from lower river:
7 guided float trips
annually

[Middle Fork - 1 motorized
base camp with 282 use
days authorized; no guided
float trips

Three use zones established
at Kashaiak Creek, Kemuk
River, and Ongivinuk River
Guides authorized for
maximum of two boats and 8
people per zone. Boat storage
site authorized in each zone.
One guided motorboat trip per
day from lower Togiak River
authorized. One guided float
trip per week authorized.

Use is limited to six people
per day, and permits are
required, Designated trails
and camping areas, planned
observation blinds, public
use cabin, outhouse.
Permits for all visitors are
issued ona first-come,
first-served basis; no
allocation between guided
and non-guided use.

O rivers (Upper Kanektok
was previously studied
but found not suitable)

Existing Wilderness
recommendation
(334,000 acres at Cape
Peirce/Cape Newenham
and in South Fork and
Middle Fork Goodnews
area,

(see map p. 10)

North Fork - No
motorboat base camp on
North Fork; 4 additional
motorboat trips per year
from lower river; 7 guided
float trips annually.
Middle Fork - 1 motorized
base camp with 282 use
days authorized: no guided
float trips.

Manage all Togiak tributaries
to maintain a self-reliant,
adventurous, low-use
wilderness experience (where
opportunities for guiding would
not be allowed and limits would
be established for non-guided
users)

Develop structured
program with designated
viewing areas, led and
managed by concessionaire
or Fish and Wildlife
Service. Could vary: the
number of people or
flights allowed at one
time; the permit time
period (permits could be
for more than one day);
and fees.

The entire Kanektok and
Arolik

Existing Wilderness
recommendation plus the
Osviak/Matogak, Arolik,
and Oyak Creek review
units from the original
cep.

(see map p. 10)

North Fork - No
motorboat base camp on
North Fork; one guided
motorboat trip per day
from the lower river
Middle Fork - 1 motorized
base camp with 282 use
days authorized; 2 guided
float trips per week on
Goodnews (guides could
luse either Fork); no
additional guided
motorboat trips from
lower river

Manage all Togiak tributaries
to maintain a self-reliant,
adventurous, low-use
wilderness experience (where
opportunities for guiding would
not be allowed and limits would
be established for non-guided
users).

Develop structured
program with designated
viewing areas, led and
managed by concessionaire
or Fish and Wildlife
Service. Could vary: the
number of people or
flights allowed at one
time; the permit time
period (permits could be
for more than one day):
and fees.

Trail Creek, North Fork
Goodnews River, Kemuk
River, Ongivinuk River,
Upper Togiak River,
Upper Kanektok River

All eligible acres
recommended for
wilderness

(see map p. 11)

North Fork - 1 motorboat
base camp authorized; 1
motorboat trip per day
from the lower river: can
also drop of f raft group
every 2 weeks: allow 1
float trip to start every
other day

Middle Fork - 1 motorized
base camp with 282 use
days authorized; 1 float
trip every other week

Divide the Kemuk zone into
two and authorize maximum of
three boats and 8 people per
zone. Two guided motorboat
trips per day authorized from
the lower river. One guided
float trip per week on the
Ongivinuk and one per week on
the Pungokepuk (small group
sizes)

Same as current but
establish a system to
allocate a proportion of
total use allowed at Cape
Peirce to guides anda
system to award permits
competitively to guiding
businesses.

O rivers, O acres
Recommended

(see map p. 11)



‘Togiak National Wildlife Refuge

22, tacoma Wont Ober
Bh Meecovnt Depend me

WH Meesteed Negi

ba

o's
Pca roet Oe
Mie Ging S9°°

Altemative B

}\ 6

Togiak National Wildlife Refuge



she interviewed 14 residents.
In July she spent several
days on the Kanektok with
the Fish and Wildlife Service
river rangers. A wide range
of opinions was evident; some
comments suggested that
conflicts had lessened over
the years while other people
believed that substantial
problems still existed.

Sources of conflict mentioned
included boats anchoring in
the middle of the river or
getting too close to
subsistence nets, too many
boats on the river at certain
times of the season, damage
to fish from catch and release
fishing, vandalism and
trespass, noise pollution from
air traffic, bear habituation,
and the lack of use of honey
buckets and threats to water
quality.

Some of the conflicts were
actual, on-river impacts while
some were value or cultural
conflicts, caused by different
perceptions of appropriate
behavior or conditions on the
river.

In Goodnews Bay from May
7-10, Joan first met with the
Traditional Village Council,
where she talked about her
study. Several issues were
brought up during the
meeting including: motor size
(this was the most
important); water quality;
trash; and shortening the

USRWS

Beaver pond along the Upper Goodnews River (North Fork)

season for drifters and river
lodges.

These issues also emerged
when she conducted seven
interviews with locals, with
the emphasis on the impacts
of boat/motor sizes and
speeds on the lower river,
downstream from the Togiak
Refuge boundary. Concerns
focused on the safety of river
travelers but also on effects
on fish habitat and bank
erosion. Another comment
was that sport users and
subsistence users are
occupying the same place at
the same time and competing
for the same fish.

During her June 4 — 7 visit to
Togiak, Joan first met with
several members of the
council before conducting 14
interviews. Again, there was
a diversity of opinions about
conflict; some people thought

there weren’t any large
problems. Others said they
have to travel farther
upriver because sport use is
displacing them downstream.

One concern was local people
starting to lease their native
allotments to sport users.
Another perceived threat
was introduced contaminants
in the water (due to sport use
of the river). A comment
heard in all three villages was
that if people feel like
agencies are not listening to
them they stop voicing
concerns.

Many of the people
interviewed suggested a
number of ways to address
the conflicts or impacts
identified. One recurring
theme was working together
and increasing
communication between
locals and non-locals; another
was educating all groups



Actions Common to all
Alternatives (cont.)

+ Encourage anglers to avoid
unnecessary impacts to fish
populations (how to minimize
damage to spawning areas;
proper catch and release;
disinfecting gear). Monitor
fishing and adjust regulations
as needed through a
cooperative state-federal
effort. Collect additional
information on anglers and
knowledge/practice of catch
and release on Refuge rivers.
Support Quinhagak cultural
program visits to sport fish
camps as one way to inform
non-local anglers about local
culture and customs.

+ Work cooperatively with
the villages and State to
identify sensitive habitat
areas (spawning beds), any
threats to them, and ways to
protect them. If needed,
consider submitting or
supporting proposals for
protection measures to the
State Board of Fisheries.
Identify and map sensitive
wildlife areas (such as caribou
calving grounds, bald eagle
nests, bear feeding areas)
and consider limiting access
or taking other measures as
needed.

* Develop a competitive
prospectus system for
awarding commercial guiding
permits to operate on the
Goodnews, similar to the

system that exists on other
Togiak Refuge waters.

+ Inform float and motorized
groups about motorboat
behavior (such as the need to
get on step to navigate some
stretches). Work with guides
to voluntarily reduce
motorboat use on upper
rivers (such as the number of
trips each boat makes up and
down river in a day of
fishing) to reduce conflicts
with subsistence users on
weekends. Work with all
users to improve etiquette.

+ Promote proper food
handling and storage
techniques to minimize bear
encounters and habituation.
Monitor and document the
extent and timing of the
problem; if needed, consider
changes in special use
permits or proposals to State
Boards of Fisheries and
Game to alter seasons or
timing of sport use to reduce
game displacement, conflicts
with subsistence use, and
bear-human conflicts.

+ Establish a new seasonal
position at Cape Peirce to
monitor and control public
use. Attend herring spotting
meetings every year to
present information about
conservation of marine
mammals and other species.

Subsistence Study
Update

During the spring and early
summer, the Refuge
supported a study of
subsistence uses and conflicts
on the Kanektok, Goodnews,
and Togiak Rivers. Joan
Kluwe, a long-time Alaska
resident and Ph.D. student at
the University of Idaho,
spent many days in
Quinhagak, Goodnews Bay,
Togiak, and Dillingham
interviewing people familiar
with subsistence use on the
rivers.

Most of the 42 interviews
were with local villagers but
Joan also spoke with several
sport fishing guides, state
and federal managers, and
recreational anglers from
Bethel. She asked about the
subsistence activities that are
part of peoples’ lives, what
makes a good day on the
river, differences between
uses and expectations along
the upper rivers vs the lower
stretches of rivers, and a
number of questions about
conflicts with other users.
The interviews were taped
and transcribed for analysis,
which will be completed in
early 2002. The results of
her study will be discussed in
the CCP and with the
planning team.

Joan was in Quinhagak for
eight days in April, where



close watch on the King
season however. Years ago
we would fish the lower river
and be able to move from
gravel bar to gravel bar
without much fear. Now your
almost afraid to move once

you find a spot, for fear that

if you leave and can’t find
another gravel bar to fish
when you return, someone
will have taken your original
spot. It’s not combat fishing,
but it’s not what you expect
when you pay to go toa
remote fishing hole in
Alaska!”

“Private float trip traffic was
increased since my last trip
on the river 10 years ago. My
major concerns are human
waste and unethical fishing
practices. The rainbow
fishery must be protected and
the natives must be assured
of clean water.”

“This was the best trip I’ve
taken. Highlights were:
number and disposition of
bears; low use in wilderness
area; lack of evidence of
human trash/ litter, other
wildlife encounters- caribou,
beavers, loons, ducks, ete.;
quality of fishing. I would
support limiting unguided
float trips if needed to
maintain this, but only if
there was a technical basis
for the number selected.”

Some anglers

Refuge rivers in rafts.

Kanektok Water Quality
Study Update

Maintaining water quality is
one of the purposes for which
the Togiak Refuge was
established under the Alaska
National Interest Lands
Conservation Act. The issue
of how to monitor and
maintain or improve water
quality within the Togiak
Refuge, and especially on the
Kanektok, has been
identified through several
Togiak Refuge planning
efforts and public meetings.

This summer, the Togiak
Refuge began a preliminary
study, collecting several
water samples from the
Kanektok River at the
Togiak Wilderness Area
boundary to identify and
assess Escherichia coli (E.
coli), one of the preferred

fish from motorized craft, while others float
USFWS

indicators of fecal
contamination in recreational
waters.

Preliminary results indicate
that the levels of E. coli in the
Kanektok River upstream
from the Wilderness area
boundary are within
acceptable limits, and are at
levels which can and do occur
naturally. While it is possible
that these bacteria are from
people, they could just as
easily be from bears, moose,
caribou or other wildlife. A
complete explanation of the
results will be discussed in
the draft environmental
impact statement.



This is the third in a series
of planning updates on the
revision of the comprehensive
conservation plan for the
Togiak National Wildlife
Refuge. The revised plan will
guide management of the
Togiak Refuge for the next
10-15 years.

Where we are now

Our Spring 2001 Update
described the main issues we
will address as we revise the
Togiak Refuge’s
Comprehensive Conservation
Plan. Since then, the planning
team (which includes
representatives from the Fish
and Wildlife Service, two state
agencies, and five local villages)
developed several preliminary
management alternatives.
These represent different ways
the Refuge and its management
partners could deal with the
planning issues.

During team meetings a
number of actions were
identified the Refuge could take
regardless of which alternative
is eventually adopted. These
activities, which we refer to as
“Actions Common to all
Alternatives” are listed on p 3.

Many Refuge management
activities are working fine now
so there’s no reason to change
them. These activities include

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Togiak National
Wildlife Refuge
Planning Update

Fall 2001

the hiring of local residents to
serve as links between the
Refuge and local communities
(the RIT program), and
continuing to monitor trends in
fish and wildlife populations
and habitat. The State of
Alaska manages fish and
wildlife, adapting its
regulations as needed.

The main purpose of this
update is to acquaint more
people with the preliminary
alternatives and to get your
reactions to them. What do you
like and not like? What have
we forgotten? Have we
considered a reasonable range

Goodnews Bay berry picking helpers.

USFWS:

of ways to direct the Refuge’s
management over the next 10-
15 years? Which actions in the
alternatives are most likely to

What happens next...
Refuge Purposes ..
Actions Common to
All Alternatives
Preliminary Alternati
Subsistence Study
Update... 2. Ay ne 6
Recreational Fishing
Study Update. . .
Kanektok Water Qu:
study Update
Maps



U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Togiak National Wildlife Refuge
Planning Update Fall 2001

How to contact us: Refuge Manager: Team Leader:

You can contact the planning Aaron M. Archibeque Maggi Arend

team leader or the refuge Togiak National Wildlife Refuge USFWS-Mail Stop 231
manager with comments or PO. Box 270 1011 E. Tudor Rd
questions. You can reach us by Dillingham, AK 99576 Anchorage, AK 99503
email at: (907) 842-1063 (907) 786-3393
fw7_togiak_planning@fws.gov Tribal representatives can also be

contacted through the tribal councils.

ubscribers, with electronic notices when an Alaska Refuge Manager initiates a compatibility determination and
information on how you can comment. Email notices will be sent when determinations are completed with information on how obtain a copy.

To subscribe sending an e-mail with the word subscribe in the Subject line of the message to:
fws-akrefugecompatability-request@lists.fws.gov .

If you need additional help in subscribing or have questions about the Refuge Compatibility Statements listserver, please e-mail:
George Constantino@fws.gov. Please review our privacy statement before subscribing

VOO# WUWW8d
dv ‘eBeioyouy 6619-€0566 Nv ‘abesoyouy
diVvd peoy Jopn] “3 LLOL
abejsod ‘S'N safinjay jo uolsinig
GLS LuYSud BIIMAS Sf/PIIM pue Ysi4 “SN



Togiak National Wildlife Refuge

een ee
ee

Hager

et ee

ro
cre

pene

N pect,

0 nent

1B samen

‘Togiak National Wildlife Refuge



involved in conflicts.

Many local residents also
suggested a number of ways
to limit the impacts of sport
use. Some of their ideas are
already reflected in the issue
statements and preliminary
alternatives presented in this
newsletter. Once Joan’s
analyses are completed, we
will have a valuable source of
new information to
incorporate into the Togiak
Refuge plan revision, and will
make it available on our
planning web site.

Recreational Fishing
Study Update

This season the Togiak
Refuge conducted a study of
sport anglers visiting the
Kanektok, Goodnews, and
Togiak rivers. The study was
similar to a survey conducted
for the Refuge in 1995, so we
will be able to compare
responses with the
experiences and perceptions
of anglers six years ago.

In contrast to the subsistence
study, which involved
informal interviews, the
angler study consisted of a
questionnaire mailed to
guided and non-guided
anglers whose names we
obtained either on the river,
at the Dillingham airport, or
from guides.

The survey was mailed out
regularly over the summer
and fall so anglers would
receive it soon after their trip
while the experience was still
fresh in their minds.

The rate of response appears
excellent, over 70 percent,
reflecting the strong interest
anglers have regarding the
rivers and their
management. Received
responses from residents of
43 different states and
several foreign countries.

Once a draft report is
available (early winter 2001/
2002) we will make it
available on the planning web
site as well as summarize key
findings in newsletters and
incorporate them into the
plan revision. Using the
survey results will ensure
that recreational anglers
concerns are understood and
communicated to all involved,
giving them a strong voice at
the table.

Most anglers place a high
value on the fishing
opportunities on the
Kanektok, Goodnews and
Togiak rivers, and believe
that these rivers offer a type
of fishing trip that is special
and unique to Alaska and
America.

Many express a desire to
learn more about history and
culture of the people who live
in and around the Togiak

Refuge.

Detailed responses and
analysis will be available
later, but we did select a few
representative responses to
the question “Is there
anything else you'd like to
tell us about your trip or how
you feel the river should be
managed in the future?”

“Alaska is a paradise, I have
made many visits, floating
rivers, hunting, sightseeing,
fishing local streams, etc.
and I have yet to have a
negative experience.
Alaskans should be very
proud of their state and
strive to maintain its “last
frontier” status and
primitive environment.”

“I am pleased to learn that
someone is showing interest
in one of the last (as yet)
unspoiled environments on
U.S. territory. A couple of
years ago we fished the lower
Kenai in a drift boat and it
was combat fishing at its
worst. At one time I counted
over 100 boats within my
viewing area. Without limits,
at some point in the future,
we can eapect to see that
same situation on the
Kanektok and other now
remote rivers in Alaska.

“Currently I believe the
system is being managed
properly. I would keep a


This table describes how each alternative would address each of the issues. These will be revised

based on public comments received. We can add new actions or rearrange the table as needed.

Water Quality

Non-Guided Use on
Upper Kanektok, Upper
Goodnews, and Upper
Togiak Rivers

Camping Opportunities on the Lower
Kanektok

Alternative A

(current
management)

Bury waste on upper rivers
(use of portable toilets is
voluntary); carry out waste
on lower rivers (honey
buckets previously provided
for lower Kanektok);
outhouses at Kagati and
Goodnews Lakes.

No limits on non-guided
use. Reexamine capacities
and allocations when non-
guided use reaches
approximately the level
of guided use.

No improvements except outhouses at
Kagati and Goodnews lakes. Alaska DNR
limits camping on shorelands to 3 days
for all users. Camping on lower river
uplands requires permit from the
landowner.

Alternative B

Require all float groups to
carry out solid human waste
on the Kanektok (perhaps
with user fee). When DEC
approved disposal sites are
available.

Upper Kanektok- require
permits for all non-guided
users. Allow no more than
one non-guided start
from lake every other day
for whole use season.
Allocate permits via a
reservation system.
Upper Goodnews-Limit
non-guided use to current
levels. Upper Togiak -
monitor non-guided use -
no limits at this time

No improvements except outhouses at
Kagati and Goodnews lakes. Alaska DNR
limits camping on shorelands to 3 days
for all users. Camping on lower river
uplands requires permit from the
landowner

Alternative C

Require all float groups to
carry out solid human waste
on the Kanektok now and on
the other rivers when DEC-
approved disposal sites are
available (perhaps with user
fee).

During king salmon season
(June 25 - July 15) and
silver salmon season (Aug
10 to Sept 7), require
permits for all non-guided
users. Allocate a limited
number of permits viaa
reservation system No
limits on non-guided use
the rest of the season.

DNR changes the camping limits to 7
nights on the lower Kanektok for non-
commercial users only.

Commercial camps are still limited to 3
nights on the entire river.

Alternative D

Install outhouses/waste
facilities at key locations on
Refuge lands or on
easements acquired for that
purpose. Specify type of
facilities and either the
exact locations or the
criteria for locating them
and a target number of
sites.

No limits on non-guided
use at this time but
require permit from the
Togiak Refuge during the
entire use season No limit
on number of permits
available. Encourage
launches when use is
lower and provide
information to help
groups plan.

DNR changes the camping limits to 10
nights on the lower Kanektok for non-
commercial users only.

Commercial camps are still limited to 3
nights on the entire river.



comments. We then take all
of the comments received,
incorporate them as needed,
and publish a final EIS and
plan. We plan to publish more
of these Updates along the
way to keep people informed
of our progress.

Actions common to all
alternatives

As mentioned on p. 1, these
are actions the Service could
pursue no matter what
direction is taken in
managing the Togiak Refuge.

* To ensure that quality
opportunities for recreational
use and subsistence use
continue to be available on
the Kanektok, Goodnews,
and Togiak Rivers, establish
a program to monitor
indicators of recreation and
subsistence quality. If
monitoring suggests that
standards are at risk of being
exceeded, additional
management action is taken.
Actions could range from site
hardening, to regulations, to
working with the State to
limit use levels, depending on
the cause of the risk or the
impact. Work with
landowners along the lower
rivers to study crowding and
explore possible solutions.

+ Recommend to the State of
Alaska that appropriate
horsepower limits be
established for the Goodnews

summer season. USFWS
River (including all forks).
This could include
recommendations that the
Alaska Department of
Natural Resources create a
Special Use Area with
horsepower limits on all forks
of the Goodnews. The
objective would be to reduce
the risk of collisions in these
narrow river corridors that
have many blind curves.
There have been potentially
fatal accidents and many
close calls in recent years.

+ Seek ways to encourage
compliance with State
regulations on the Togiak
Refuge (such as the three-
day camping limit).
Currently, some people
ignore the law even when
informed about it by Fish
and Wildlife Service
personnel.

* To minimize disturbance of
hauled out walrus,
recommend that State of

Togiak Refuge staff contact visitors throughout the

Alaska prohibit removal of
ivory from beaches in the
Cape Peirce area (similar to
the regulation in place on
Round Island). One
possibility would be to
pursue State designation of
the tidelands as Critical
Habitat Area, Sanctuary, or
Game Refuge.

(Ivory collected by the
Service from the Refuge is
made available for sale to
registered buyers and
Alaskan Natives.)

+ Increase water quality
monitoring, improve
education on waste disposal,
and work to increase
compliance with State,
Refuge, and Native
Corporation policies
regarding disposal of solid
human waste on the main
rivers and uplands. Require
visitors to practice ”Leave
No Trace” behaviors on
Refuge lands.

(continued on p. 6)



help the Refuge achieve its
purposes? Because the
alternatives may change, it’s
a little early to choose a
favorite, but we would like to
know if you have any
concerns that you feel should
be analyzed. The information
contained in the preliminary
alternatives is a bit uneven---
some are very detailed while
others are very general---
but we wanted to share them
with a broad audience before
going any further.

For your convenience, we
have included an addressed
mail-back response sheet for
you to give us your
comments. If you’d rather
call, email, or write your own
letter, please do so. For more
information on the issues, the
planning team, or the Togiak
Refuge, please contact us or
go to our planning web site at
www.r7.fws.gov/planning/
plan.html Your comments
will be most helpful if they
reach us by December 17,
2001.

What happens next
After we receive your
comments, we will present
them to the planning team
and revise the preliminary

Purposes | of the Togiak 7

iv local residents; and
(iy) to ensure, to the

with purposes set Hee in
be @, water

The planning team poses in front o,
still happy despite having spent two days in planning meetings.

alternatives. We will then
analyze the social, economic,
and environmental effects of
the revised alternatives. In
order to adequately analyze
the alternatives, we will need
to pull together a large
amount of information. We
then will publish a Draft
Environmental Impact.
Statement (EIS), currently
scheduled for about a year
from now. The Draft EIS will
describe the impacts
expected from each
alternative and will identify
the agency’s preferred
alternative.

Once the Draft EIS is
published we will have public
meetings in the villages near
the Refuge and elsewhere.
Everyone who receives this
newsletter will have the
opportunity to request a
copy of the EIS or a
summary. The EIS will have
a minimum 90-day comment
period to give people time to
prepare thoughtful

e preliminary alternatives,



Togiak National Wildlife Refuge
Response Sheet, Fall 2001

The Fall, 2001 Planning Update asks for your comments on preliminary alternatives. You
may use this response sheet to provide comments if you choose. To be most helpful,

please respond by December 17, 2001. Thanks for your help!

1. The update describes four preliminary alternatives-different approaches we could
take to managing the Togiak Refuge over the next 10-15 years (one of the four would
continue existing management direction). Do you have any suggestions for changes to any
of the alternatives and how they address issues facing the Refuge?

2. The preliminary alternatives contain a number of possible actions for managing recre-
ational use on the Goodnews, Togiak, and Kanektok Rivers. Do you have any comments on

these actions?

3. The preliminary alternatives contain a range of options for recommending that parts
of the Refuge be designated as Wilderness or Wild and Scenic Rivers. Do you have any

ideas about these recommendations or how they're described?