:integrated terrain unit mapping, automation and analysis : final report/prepared for Department of Planning, Municipality of Anchorage ; prepared by Environmental Systems Research Institute. Volume I Anchorage (Alaska).Planning Dept. Environmental Systems Research Institute. United States.Dept. of Commerce. Alaska.Division of Community Planning. [S.l.:s.n.,1981] Physical geography Alaska Anchorage Region Data processing. Coastal zone management Alaska Anchorage Region Data processing. Anchorage (Alaska) V51A FINAL'REPORT VOLUME I ANCHORAGE COASTAL STUDY INTEGRATED TERRAIN UNIT MAPPING, AUTOMATION AND ANALYSIS GB 21.5 E44 A5 1981 ESRI 380 New York Street Redlands, California 92373 bo a- LA Ail FINAL REPORT VOLUME I ANCHORAGE COASTAL STUDY INTEGRATED TERRAIN UNIT MAPPING, AUTOMATION AND ANALYSIS Prepared for: Depa rtment of Planning Municipality of Anchorage George M. Sullivan, Mayor Prepared by: Environmental Sy:items Research Institute 380 New York Street Redlands, California 92373 This effort was financed in part through a Coastal Zone Management Program grant and a Coastal Energy Impact Program grant from the US Department of Commerce and the Division of Community Planning Department of Community and Regional Affairs of the State of Alaska. December, 1981 US Department of Commerce NOAA Coastal Services Center Library, 2234 South Robson Avenue Charleston,, SC 29405-2413 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page VOLUME I: FINAL REPORT Introduction Chapter I: Data Collection and Classification A. Introduction B. Methodology 1-2 C. Data Structure and Classification 1-3 Manuscript No. I Integrated Terrain Unit Mal) 1-5 Manuscript No. 2 Land Use/Seismic/Elevatiori Milp 1-6 Chapter II: Data Mapping A. Introduction IT-1 B. Methodology 11-2 C. Manuscript Maps Map No. 1 Integrated Terrain Units Map No. 2 Land Use/Seismic/Elevation Map 11-12 Chapter III: Data Automation A. Introduction III-1 B. Methodology 111-2 1. Manuscript Map Preparation for Digitizing 111-3 2. Digitizing 111-3 3. Editing of Digitized Files 111-4 4. Final File Generation 111-5 C. Interpretive and Derived Data 111-7 Expansion,Matrices 111-8 Distance Searches 111-9 D. Programs 111-9 Chapter IV: Computer-Modeling A. Introduction IV-1 B. Methodology IV-3 C. Model Outlines IV-4 Opportunity/Constraint Erosion Potential IV-9 Visual Quality IV-11 Ecological Sensitivity IV-15 Water Pollution Potential IV-17 Fire Hazards IV-19 Capability/Suitability Recreation IV-21 Conservation/Open Space IV-23 Concentrated Urbanization IV-25 General Development IV-29 Energy Facility Siting IV-31 Con-f 1 i ct Urban Residential/Industrial IV-31 Residential/Commercial IV-35 General Development Suitability/Ecologically Sensitive Lands IV-37 Chapter V: Computer Mapping A. Introduction V-1 B. Methodology V-2 C. Maps, Legends, and Statistics V-6 Eagle River Basic Data Elevation Province V-11 Landform (Primary) V-12 Vegetation'(Primary) V-13 Land Use V-14 Slope V-15 Geology V-16 Soil V-17 Interpreted Data Wetlands V-18 Floodplains V-19 Habitats V-20 Septic Suitability V-21 Soil Drainage V-22 Agricultural Capability V-23 Seismic Hazards V-24 Opportunity/Constraint Analyses Soil Erosion Potential V-25 Ecological Sensitivity V-26 Water Pollution Potential V-27 Visual Quality V-28 Fire Hazards V-29 Capability/Suitability Analyses Recreation V-30 Conservation V-31 Concentrated Urbanization V-32 General Development V-33 Conflict Analyses Urban Residential/Industrial V-34 Residential/Commercial V-35 General Development Suitability/Ecologically Sensitive Lands V-36 Anchorage Bowl Basic Data Elevation Province V-39 Landform (Primary) V-40 Vegetation (Primary) V-41 Land Use V-42 Slope V-43 Geology V-44 Soi 1 V-45 Interpreted Data Wetlands' V-46 Floodplains V-47 Habitats V-48 Septic Suitability V-49. Soil Drainage V-50 Permafrost V-51, Agricultural Capability (Soils) V-52 Seismic Hazards V-53 Opportunity/Constraint Analyses Soil Erosion Potential V-54 Ecological Sensitivity V-55 Water Pollution Potential V-56 Fire Hazards V-57 Capability/Suitability Analyses Recreation V-58 Conservation V-59 Concentrated Urbanization V-60 General Development V-61 Energy Facility Siting V-62 Conflict Analyses Urban Residential/Industrial V-63 Residential/Commercial V-64 General Development Suitability/Ecologically Sensitive Lands V-65 Figures Figure 1 - Study Area Map -2- Figure 2 - Environmental Analysis Flow Chart -4- Figure 1-1 - Basemap/Tic Structure 1-4 T Figure III-1A - Data Automation I Figure-III-IB - Dropline Review 111-12 Figure III-1C - Data Reformatting and Referencing 111-131 Figure III-1D - MVF Creation 111-14: Figure III-1E - Modeling and Data Mapping 111-1.5 Figure V-1. - Data Map Grid Symbols V-8 Tables Table III-1 - PIOS System Program Summaries 111-16 Table 111-2. - GRID System Program Summaries 111-18- BIBLIOGRAPHY VOLUME II: TECHNICAL APPENDICES Appendix A: Manuscript Map Data Variables and Codes Integrated Terrain Unit Manuscript Interpreted Environmental Data Pre-Interpreted Geo-Environmental Data Land Use/Seisiytic/Elevation Manuscript Interpreted Environmental Data Pre-Interpreted Geo-Environmental Data Appendix B: Data Code Descriptions Integrated 'Terrain Unit Manuscript Interpreted Environmental Data Pre-Interpreted Geo-Environmental Data Land Use/Seismic/Elevation Manuscript Interpreted Environmental Data Pre-Interpreted Geo-Environental Data Appendix C: Soil Expansion Matrix Appendix D: Grid Multi-Variable File INTRODUCTION Envir onmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) was contracte,- d,to provide technical and consulting services to the Planning Department of the Municipality of Anchorage in relation to the identification and evatua tion of environmental opportunities and constraints in the Anchorage coastal zone. As a major component of this effort, ESRI developed an Automated Geographic Information System (GIS) and conducted a systematic land capability/suitability analysis for two study areas within the coastal zone. The first of these study areas, termed Eagle River, is located north of the urban core of Anchorage and encompasses an area of approximately 20,785 hectares. The second, termed Anchorage Bowl, is centered on the City of Anchorage. Including Fire Island to the west, it encompasses.,r,','n area of some 38,475 hectares. The two study areas are not contiguous@,-'l As evident in.Figure 1, Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson Mil:-,.-i3tary Reservation lie between them. The ESRI effort was co-nducted as part of a broad coastal zoneplanning and management effort. It was funded in part through a.Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) grant and a Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) grant from the US Department of Commerce and the Division of Community:. Planning, Department of Community and Regional Affairs oF the State of Alaska. The effort was carried out under a contract with the Department of Planning of the Municipality of Anchorage. Anthony Burns, Senior Planner, directed and administered the contracted effort. Aerial imagery, topographic maps, and collateral data used in the effort were collected largely through the efforts of the staff of the Department of Planning. A I w, ph it to Vd ? U. 0.0 _@t - h if, _)r Knik 41, sr 2d a 1"; W - .00 0 0 Lv 1. b@4 1q, 74 v - 4 A,. 1 lit dA. rto A- . .. ....f Yll"d, ILO c A 30 Oll I;Aff, yi vx@l JJ4; 7 ip -y3 @i 1_@ 41, Ort -,g fill -In r( R 141. Jiq F I a wioit 141 IN sit, A) iF off jz@ V., Oft)) Pt :Mi 7:@@@ A Te@ t.tiqn Peak'. pi camp ell MINT C. C 41 bill. :c:l ISLAN If Hu"k; RANGV, W01V 4_1\\x Wes erme -olli Peak m.d @'p /.0 4 Py, riattop Mtn YW_ BOROUGH A, A )I- 4 M it. lu. Ae The automated data system developed for the Eagle River and Anchorage Bowl study areas was designed to satisfy a broad range of land planning and management interests. It is comprised of a large number of interrelated, land-based data types which were selected to serve both long, and short term interests. As part of the overall effort the automated data base was applied in relation to the following: the assessment of general environmental opportunities and constraints; the evalUatio n of specific land capabilities and suitabilities; and the identification of existing and potential land use conflicts. Figure 2 illustrates the general components of the GIS and the sequential application of the GIS in the process of environmental impact analysis and evaluation. One specific application of thesystem involved the evaluation of land capability/suitability in the coastal areas for energy facility siting. This evaluation, like the on-e dealing with general development potential, was directed by a conceptual model-which underwent several iterations before being finalized. Given tile permanent nature of the GIS, new and modified criteria for a given model or entirely new models addressing more specific land uses can be quickly and inexpensively implemented. In many respects, the creation of the automated GIS for the Eagle River and Anchorage Bowl study areas represents the culmination of a resource inventory and analysis effort which commenced several years ago and which, among other things, involved the detailed mapping and field survey of geologic and soil resources in both of the areas. Many of these studies were focused on the definition and mapping of geologic hazards including the following: slope stability/ mass wasting; seismically -3- Fi ure Environmental Rnalysis Flow Chart ftEVAIVIN PROVINCE - -LAIJ3fORM (PRIMARY)' - A VEGETATION (PRIMARY) - c LAND USE - D A SLOPE - COLOR 11mls A GlOtOGY - put it4 RECRIATION SOIL ECOLOGICAL $[NNITIVITY CONSERVATIGN 4URVAN @U %11% NI JAI 1IJI10i;RAI'MJ( HAPS INItGRAIII) I(RRAIN UNITS -L--) INOW.1111AX WA ER POLLUTION I CONIUIUIRATif) RINI.%* III JAI/ fift[LAI It IW5 LANO UNEISE(SRIC/ POTEN !A[ URBAIII IAT FON ELEVATION pralaw;%! WcILANG6 VISUAL NALITY GENERAL DEVELOPMENT 11A3IWYA(%I)G1[;,L1 RIP&IN S(:IS:IIVE LA:.L@S FILOOPPLAINS FIRE HAZARD ENERnY FACILITY tIbRAR1 WCUMLNIS SnING HAB I IAI S SEPTIC SUITABILITY - T e SOIL DRAInAfA - D D A PERMAFROST - T A AGRICULIURAL CAPABILITY - SEISMIC HAZARDS low, induced ground failure; and earthquake intensity. As part of the present study, two discrete photo-interpretation efforts were conducted, one involving the interpretation and delineation of landforms, the other of vegetation. These and other data were subsequently rectified, cross-compared, and composited by ESRI in -the pre-automation process. Related natural phenomena such as geology, landform, slope, soils, and vegetation -ware cross-compared and composited in a single map overlay by a process termed, "Integrated Terrain Unit Mapping". This process imparted a higher level of splitial resolution, accuracy, and consistency to the mapped data than was otherwise inherent in the diverse source materials. The terrain unit map was composed of individual units, each of which encompassed a set of homogeneous characteristics. The-numerous data planes represented on the map were segregated and mapped.as independent phenomena after the process of automation was completed. In order to accomodate several data sets which did not fit with the essential elements of the terrain unit, a second composite map overlay was created. It is important to note that the pre-automation compositing and integrztion process provided for a high level of technical. and cost efficiency in the subsequent data automation effort. The development and application of the data base for Eagle River and Anchorge Bowl represents one aspect of the development of a GIS technology within the Municipality of Anchorage. This study provided an opportunity for professional and-technical personnel from the Municipality to participate in all phases of data base design, implementation, and application. It also resulted in the creation of a data base which has been structured for installation on a computer facility in the Municipality. It is conceived that this data base, the -First of many, will serve as a component of a superstructure for the efficient storage arid retrieval of environmental data for the Municipality and as the context for its legible and systematic application to future land planning and management functions. As indicated, landforms and vegetation cover in the two study areas were mapped as part of this study. Landform interpretation and mapping was conducted by Ray Kreig Associates. Landforms and vegetation types were identified and delineated using 1:12,000 scale natural color aerial photos (10.78) and 1:63,360 scale color infrared aerial photos...,(1978). The latter photos were enlarged to black arid white cronaflex transparencies at a nominal scale of 1:25,000 in order to facilitate the mapping process. The diverse collateral data provided to ESRI at scales ranging from 1:150,000 to 1:250,000 were re-scaled to a consistent 1:205,000 scale, checked against aerial imagery, and rectified to a standard planimetric base as part of the process of GIS development. The first step in the development of the GIS was the creation of a set of stable mylar basemaps of the region. These basemaps were created at a scale of 1:25,000. All data variables were scaled and rectified to the basemap series. Eighteen general types of data were mapped for automation. All data were mapped in a polygon form. This provided optimal representation of the configuration of these natural phenomena. Terrain unit polygons had a minimum resolution of four hectares, areal units smaller in size generally not being captured as discrete units. Related data variables were composited on the same map sheet as re-scaled boundaries were being rectified and redrawn. Two manually drafted mylar sheets termed, "Map Manuscripts", were drawn for each of the ten map modules comprising the two areas. 1hese manuscripts and the data types which they encompass are outlined below. Manuscript No. I Integrated Terrain Unit Map 5asic Environmental Data Landforms Vegetation Surficial Geology Slope Gradient Surface Form Soil Pre-Interpreted Geo-Environmental Data Slope Stability Mass Wasting Seismically Induced Ground Failure Floodplain/Coastal, Flooding/Erosion Foundation Conditions Permafrost Groundwater Wetlands Habitats Manuscript No. 2 Land Use/Elevation/Seismic Map Basic Environmental Data Elevation Province Land Use Pre-Interpreted Geo-Environmental Data Earthquake Intensity The mapped data were automated by a process of x,y coordinate digitizing. The automation procedures provided for the accurate capture of the natural form of the mapped data. The computerized data files, composed of polygons, were used to create a number of plotter drawn maps of th.e -7- study areas, as well as to create a parallel set of data files in a grid format. A uniform grid was laid atop each of the original data files in the computer, and the data values were transferred into and recorded by individual grid cell. This grid cell data bank, ultimately formatted as a grid multi-variable file, was used to produce a grid inap atlas of the region and to display the mapped results of the environmental analyses which were tonducted. It is important to note that once [nap data existed in a computerized form, they could be accurately displayed at a variety of different scales. However, the final products Of the Study were produced at a scale of 1:25,000. The following computer maps, which illustrate some of the basic d ata and interpretations coded into the GIS, were produce d: Basic and Interpretive Data Maps i Z 5a U 0-7--aM7 Polygon Plotter Maps Anchora e Bowl Eagle River Basic Data Land f orm X Vegetation X X Slope X X ITUM Polygon Number X X Grid Electrostatic Maps Basic Data ETevation Province X X Landform (Primary) X X Vegetation (Primary) X X Land Use X X Slope X X Geology X X Soil X X Interpreted Data Wetlands X X Floodplains X X Habitats x x Septic Suitability x x Soil Drainage x x Permafrost x x Agricultural rapability x x Seismic'Hazards x x The computerized data bank was subsequently used to evaluate and assess environmental conditions in the two study areas in relation.to certain potential uses. A series of theoretical models were constructed to assess natural opportunities and constraints in the region, to evaluate the capability and suitability of land for, select uses, and to identify actual and potential land use conflicts. ESRI staff worked @qith representatives from the Municipality in structuring the overall -for-mat for the analyses and in outlining the format and variables for each of the models. Thirteen conceptual models, comprised of selected, prioritized and ranked factors, were programmed by ESRI staff. Their application to the computerized and gridded data resulted in the sequential overlay of each of the select variables and the automatic calculation of mathematical values for each of the same 230,000 grid cells comprising the two study areas. In general, each of thelmodels underwent several iterations before being finalized. The map output from each model was evaluated by Municipality staff. Where appropriate, the models were modified. It is important to note that the data base which was developed in the course of the effort has been designed for installation on a computer facility in Anchorage and that it is anticipated that in the future, additional modeling and mapping applications can be made locally. The following computer maps illustrate the results of the models which were developed. These maps were produced in an electrostatic gray-tone format at a scale of 1:25,000. -9- Model Maps (1:T5-,To-o scale) Electrostatic Grid Maps Anchorage Bowl- Eagle River Opportunity/Constraint Analyses Sol] Erosion PoEential x x Ecological Sensitivity x x Water Pollution Potential x x Visual Quality NIA x Fire Hazard x x .Capability/Suitability Analyses Recreation x x Conservation x x Concentrated Urbanization x x General Development x x Energy Facility Siting x N/A Conflict Analyses Urban Re-s-iUe--ntial/Industrial x x Residential/Commercial' x x General Devlopment Suitability/ Ecologically Sensitive Lands x x This report is designed to provide an overview of the methodology and results of the study. It is accompanied by a series of appendices which enumerate and document-the data types, data sources, mapping methodology, and final computer data files. Collectively, the report and the computer maps document, illustrate, and provide statistics for the significant environmental impact concerns in the study areas. The report is divided into five chapters, one deal ing with each major phase of the effort. Three Appendices, formatted in a separate volume, are used to supplement and complement the basic volume. The first chapter, entitled, "Data Collection and Classification", describes the general procedures employed to collect the data and structure a conceptual framework for interpretation, mapping, automation, and to -10- analysis. The essential focus of the chapter is an outline of the form in which related data variables are COMPOSited on the same map and the general way in which data are classified. The classification scheme is of essent ial importance with respect to all potential applications of the system. It sets both the upper and lower limits of the potential applications of the system. The second chapter entit'lec-1, "Data Mapping", describes, the general sources for the interpretation and mapping of data as well as the processes used to composite and, in soaie@ c(,is(-.!s, integrate data onto map manuscripts for automation. The third chapter, entitled, "Data Automation", deals with the processes used to accurately translate the spatial configuration and numeric codes of mapped dat(I into a machine readable form. In addition, it includes outlines and descriptions of data interpretations and deriviations which were made an integral part of the data bank and which, in effect, supplement and complement the data types and classes outlined in Chapter I. The fourth chapter, entitled, "Computer Modeling", deals with the theoretical models which were developed to assess natural opportunities and constraints, to evaluate land capability and su-itability, and assess existing and potential land use conflicts in the two study areas. An outline is provided for each of the models. The fifth chapter, entitled, "Computer Mapping", provides an outline and descri ption of all of the computer maps which were developed for the study area. It is focused on a series of legend sheets which identify the data displayed on each of the maps comprising the ESRI atlas of the region. It stands somewhat in parallel with Chapter I, the former outlining the essential components of the incipient data bank, the latter the visible record of it Chapter I Data Collection and Classification Introduction Methodology Data Structure and Classification Manbscript No. 1 Integrated Terrain Unit Map Manuscript No. 2 Land Use/Seismic/ Elevation Map I. 'DATA COLLECTION AND CLASSIFICATION A. Introduction At the outset of this study, the specific data necessary for the desired analyses were determined. The collection of data was structured by this determination. The first step in the process required a decision as to the general types of data needed. The analyses to he performed for the many aspects of the Anchorage Coastal Study required Wormation on such diverse environmental considerations as geology, landforni, soils, vegetation, geologic hazards, wetlands and habitats, and land use. The data base was to also include the results of numerous engineering and resource studies performed in the Anchorage area, such as Geotechnical H.azards Assessment maps and those for the District Coastal Management Program. Data were collected for all of these general considerations. These data were in two forms: collateral data - previously mapp ed or delineated information which, with necessary rescaling and spatial rectification and adjustment, was utilized directly for mapping; and interpreted data - photo-interpreted from a variety of sources by the study team. The third major step in the-data collection process was the development of a data classification system which would provide for consistent interpretations and designations for the data. This system subdivided the general types of data into specific variables and in turn classified the information into specific levels or categories. Finally, a set of basemaps were created which were used for the rectification and mapping of all of the requisite data. B. Methodology The initial determination of data needs guided the data collection effort., Most of the data used in the study were obtained hy ESRI from the Department of Planning of the Municipality of Anchorage. Some data were obtained in the course of previous studies conducted by ESRI in the Anchorage region. Field surveys undertaken as part of these previous studies enabled the ESRI study team to become familiar- with the general environment of the area, and to accurately identify and describe the representative patterns or signatures on the aerial imagery. A listing of the maCerials used in the interpretation and mapping effort is provided in the bibliography at-the end of this report. Once these materials were obtained, inventoried, and reviewed, necessary revisions were made to the original categorization of. the data in order to most efficiently capture the data. Two "manuscript" (preliminary hand-drawn) maps were outlined for compositing and delineating the assembled data. A detailed classification scheme was then developed, described in the following section of this chapter. Explanations and descriptions of the collateral and interpreted information used to map each of the data variables are presented in Appendix B of this report. Following the initial phase of data collection, a set of consistently scaled basemaps of the sub-basin were for-matted on translucent mylar. Ten USGS 7.5-minute topographic guadrangle maps at scales of 1:25,000 were reproduced to provide a set of detailed and consistently scaled basemaps on mylar for the study area. Ten topographic maps were used to provide coverage for Eagle River and Anchorage Bowl. These include a separate mosaiced base map was prepared for Fire Island. As indicated below, it was composed of portions of three separate map sheets. Eagle River Anchorage, B7 NW Anchorage, B7 NE Anchorage, B7 SW Anchorage, 87 SE Anchorage Bo wl Anchorage, A8 NW Anchorage, A8 NE Anchorage, A8 SW Anchorage, A8 SE Tyonek, Al NE Fire Island Tyonek, Al NE Tyonek, A1.NW Tyonek, Al SW Each of the ten basemaps, or more accurately, that portion of the study area included on the basemaps, was termed a study area "module". In order to ensure accurate and consistent registration, four tic marks were placed on each basemap module. Thereafter, every overlay manuscript which was drafted was registered to these tic marks. The structure of the basemaps created for the Anchorage Bowl and Eagle River areas and the numbering of the tic marks are identified on Figure I-1. C. Data Structure and Classification As indicated, the definition of data classes for each of the variables in this study was guided by considerations similar to those which guided the selection*of the variable themselves. That is, the data classification had to consider information critical to the required level of environmental evaluation, it had to reproduce the results of the special studies, and it 1-3 EAGLE RIVER Figure 1-1 Basemap/Tic, Structure Anchorage (B-7) NW 2 NE 3 71 72 4 SW5 SE ANCHORAGE.BOWL 73. 74 -T-Yonek -(A-1) NE An6horage (A - 8) i2l 8 NE 10 11 12 fo NW 9.. 12 81 82 23 14 SW 15 SE 16 Fire Island 83 84 17 18 19 iml owl had to be broad enough to produce legible maps with sufficient detail to be useful. In general, related data variables were identified for mapping on the same manuscript. The manuscripts were designed as a means of efficiently compositing the broad range of data,selected foi- inclusion in the automated system. It should be rioted that the manuscripts were designed for application atop the ten module spatial structure of the GIS;, that is, two manuscript (naps were identified -for over-lay atop each of the ten 1:25,000 scale map modules covering the study area. The following outline illustrates the essential nature of the data structure and classifications employed in the creation of the GIS for 'the Eagle River/Anchorage Bowl area. A complete enUlfleration of the r classification and codes is provi.ded in Appendix A of this report. Desriptions of each mapped class are provided in Appendix B. DATA STRUCTURE COASTAL STUDY MANUSCRIPT #1 INTEGRATED TERRAIN UNIT MAP Data Type Number of Classes LANDFORMS Landform Combinations 7 Landforni Connectors/Modifiers 5 Landform Types 126 VEGETATION Vegetation Types/Combinations 132 SURFICIAL GEOLOGY Surficial Geology Type 18 SLOPE Average Slope Gradient 8 SURFACE FORM Surface Form Type 4 1-5 SOILS Soi I Type 39 Soil Survey 2 SLOPE STABILITY Slope Stability Rating 5 MASS WASTING Mass Wasting Rating 7 SEISMICALLY INDUCED GROUND FAILURE Ground Failure Rating 6 FLOODPLAIN/COASTAL FLOODING/EROSION Flooding Rating 8 Erosion Rating 5 FOUNDATION CONDITIONS Foundation Conditions Rating 6 GROUNDWATER Groundwater Rating 3 PERMAFROST Permafrost Rating 4 WETLANDS Wetlands Type 10 Wetlands Name 143 HABITATS Habitat Types 7 MANUSCRIPT #2 LAND USE/SEISMIC/ELEVATION MAP Data Type Number of Classes ELEVATION PROVINCE Elevation Zone 4 LAND USE Land Use Type 16 EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY Intensity Rating 4 1-6 Chapter II Data'Mappi rig I ntrodUCti OP Methodology Manuscript Mapping No. 1 Integrated Terrain Unit Map No. 2 Land Use/Seismic/Elevation Map II. DATA MAPPING A. Introduction As indicated, the mapping phase of this project involved -the delineation of the data collected from the Municipality of Anchorage and that derived through the process of photo- i nterpret at ion on two separate manuscript maps. Each of these manuscripts represented a class or format of data -that could conveniently and meaningfully be displayed on one map. All of the information was areal, such as landforin or geology, and was shown as spatial units called polygons. The manuscripts prepared and the format of the data shown Are as follows: Manuscript No. Name Data Format No. I Integrated Terrain Unit Map Polygons- No. 2 Land Use/Se-ismic/Elevation Map Polygons The integrated terrain unit map utilized a mapping concept which resolved related environmental data to a single manuscript map. Its creation involved the manual overlay arid integration of individually interpreted and mapped single-variable overlays onto a single map at a scale of 1:25,000. This scale was sufficient to accurately capture information from the 1:12,000 color imagery and 1:63,360 color infrared imagery as well as the data represented on the collateral overlays. Each overlay contributed lines which were drafted onto the manuscript. However, given that boundaries between natural phenomena dere often coincident, the process often involved the delineation of a single line on the manuscript in place of several different but generally consistent lines which existed on individual overlay maps. Very small mapping units on the overlays, those sinaller in size than approximately 10 acres, were typically merged I I into larger surrounding or adjacent units. Thus, the data on this manuscript are considered to have a minfiBLIM polygon resolution of 10 acres. The result of the process was the development of integrated terrain unit maps comprised of several thousand polygons, each representing areas of homogeneous natural characteristics. Th e other manuscripts was created by a process of rectification and compositing. It should be noted that data rectification was accomplished in reldtionshipoto the topographic base maps in all instances where they were considered reliable. B. Methodology The basic concept underlying the preparation of polygon maps such as Manuscript No. 1 was the Integrated Terrain Unit Mapping (ITUM) approach, used.to integrate several kinds of variables into a single polygon map.. There are four general principles dealing with the distribution of natural geographic at-tributes that relate to the ITUM approach. 1. The Principle of Graded Likenesses and Infinite Differences in Natural Areas No two geographic locations or areas are ever exactly alike, although similar-'Ities can be perceived between areas which permit classification of areas into like kinds. The degree of perceived dissimilarity increases directly as the closeness of scrutiny increases. Conversely, similarities become more obvious as observation is less detailed. 2. The Principals of Areal Transitions Changes in natural geographic characteristics from one area to another are usually gradational. The rate of change along such 11-2 gradations may vary. Thus, the placement of a line drawn to show the separation of any two features is in part a subjective decision. This means that for two or more data variables, different lines can be resolved into a single line, representing -the best fit for both features, which can be drafted onto the final ITUM manuscript. 3. The Principles of Continuous Alteration of Areal Characteristics 'W TIF71 -me All the characteristics of any geographic ar,!a are changing continuously, although each feature changes at a rate which differs from the rate of change for other featar(-_@s. Since some features change more rapidly than others, the m(@ip his soriiE? data dealing with rapidly changing. features and other dat'l deal-ing with feature which change quite slowly under most circumstances. 4. The Principle of the Functional Interrelatedness of Envir onmental Elements As the pattern of any enviro ninental attribute changes, it will have recognizable effect on the patterns of other environmental attributes in the same area. This interrelatedness often means that the various features of an area will respond somewhat as a unit, what might be called an "ecological response unit". The rate of environmental changes are determined by those factors described in Principle 3. The ITUM mapping process resolves sonie major obstacles to the computerized handling of spatially defined environmental information: the cost of automating multiple parametric data planes; the cost of doing polygon overlays in the computer; the problem of polygon "splinters" created through the overlay process; and perhaps most importantly, the problem of mismatched data sets which are supposed to be related and consistent. In many respects, the latter point represents the ultimate argument for the integration process. When complex land capability/ suitability or conflict modeling is done in a data basp, such as was done with that for the Eagle River and Anchorage Bowl, the mismatches among the data planes can cause major errors* to surface across the mapped out@ut. Differentiating between the va lid and invalid values which are thus registered is difficult and often impossible. Using computer logic to resolve the discrepancies once the data are automated represents a coarser and less sensitive means than careful decision-making on a case by case basis by an experienced resource specialist ,-iith photos, basemaps, and related maps at hand.. Some of the data employed in the development of the GIS for both the Eagle River and Anchorage Bowl study areas was in a format which required rescaling and adjustment to the imagery before it was in a form amenable to integration into a manuscript map. In the rescaling process a combination optical/manual procedure was followed, involving the use of an optical pantograph. A Kargl reflecting projector, with a rated distortion factor of less than 0.01%, was used. Collateral maps were placed on a platform and their images were optically projected upward onto a glass surface. Enlargement or reduction of the original collateral maps occurred as the map-to-lens ratio was changed. Fastening the mylar copy of the topographic basemap onto the projection glass allowed the collateral to be reformatted to the basemap scale of 1:25,000. In certain cases, the enlarging or 11-4 reducing process was repeated in order to achieve the required scale. After the information was adjusted to the baSPITiap scale-, it was manually transferred onto the drafting film. Care was taken to ensure that all information was transferred accurately, and that no tran@position of information codes occurred.' An edit check of the hand drawn map compared it to the original data. The physical characteri.stics and interpretive valuas of the phenomena mapped -for this project were derived largely from the collateral maps arid .documents which were provided to ESR1 staFf by the Department of Planning of the Municipality of Anchorage. The color and color infrared imagery and the basemaps were used to verify, rectify, cand clarify the distribution and areal extent of the phenomena mappPd from the collateral. Patterns were adjusted to match the imagery and the basemaps. The imagery and basemaps thus acted as geographic "controls" for reformatting and fo r correcting cartographic inconsistencies between the various data variables. In two cases the imagery was used as the basis for the photo-interpretation of new data. Both vegetation and landforms in Eagle River and Anchorage Bowl were photo-interpreted as part of this study. Both efforts contributed substantially to the data included in the GIS. A brief description of each effort is provided. Vegetation Interpretation and Mapping The vegetation maps of Eagle River and Anchorage Bowl, including Fire Island, were prepared from stereoscopic interpretation of existing 1:63,360 color infrared (1973) imagery. The original color imagery was enlarged to black and white chronaflex copies at a niminal 11-5 scale of 1:25,000 in order to aid in the final delineation of vegetation boundaries and the refined delineation of a number of the other data variables. The standard vegetation classification presently being employed by the US Forest Service -in mapping vegetation in Alaska was used in this study. In areas where more t:han one vegetation type was present, the primary, secondary and tertiary types were interpreted and coded. A special code icheme was structured to allow the efficient storage of stich combinations in a four digit code. Field work was not conducted as part of this effort. Landform Interpretation arid Mapping The landforn maps of Eagle River and Anchoraije Bowl were prepared from stereoscopic interpretation of existing 1:12,000 color aerial imagery and from existing geologic mappinq and reporting. That of Fire Island was prepared from the interpretation of 1:24,000 black and white photography and from. existing geologic mapping and reporting. Field work was not conducted as part of this mapping effort. Subsurface information that could not be interpreted from aerial photography was obtained from the existing geologic mapping. The characteristics used to identify the different landforms included the following topography; drainage patterns (type and texture); photographic tone or color; gullies, or other erosional features; land use; vegetation; and other features such as outcrops and fractures. The landforTns were classified into groups determined by their mode of origin because similar geologic processes usually produce similar topography and soil properties. These properties also determine and/or influence the development and appearance of other attributes like drainage, erosi on, and vegetation. These factors in turn largely determine land use capability. The units mapped are based on those landforms and geologic units which possess the highest degree of interpretive and predictive value for the evaluati on of land capability and environmental conditions. The units describe not only land surface form but also take into acccount the geologic materials probably present to a depth of about 20 feet. Complex landforms can take to forms: layered systems where two different geologic materials are-present, such as Ft terrace, over glacial till, or arealy T, _t interspersed system: N + Gt , metamorphic bedrock arid glacial till over metamorphic bedrock. Other data employed in the system were interpr eted from topographic maps or derived from collateral Sources. In all instances, delineations were matched to both the imagery arid basemaps. These data are identified in two general classes: interpreted environmental data and pre-interp retted geo-environmental data. The general types of data prepared for automation are outlined below by these classes and by the manuscript map on which they were placed. Manuscript Map.#1 Integrated Terrain Unit Map INTERPRETED ENVIRONMENTAL DATA Surficial Geology The collateral surficial geology maps identifying types of 11-7 surficial deposits, were refined to match the visible pattern on the imagery and slope breaks of the topographic and soil phase maps. Care was taken to ensure consistency with landform types. Slope Gradient Slope gradients were interpreted from 1:37,000 scale topographic sheets having 50 and 100 foot contour intervals. Polygons wi th slopes greater or less steep than the coded slope value but below 10 acres in resolution were not mapped. Slope delineations are broader and less detailed than those which.might be derived from the soil phase maps. The following slope classes were used: were 0-3%, 3-7%, 7-12%, 20-30%, 30-45% and 45% or greater. To interpret the slope, a scale having different line densities corresponding to contour line density at the specified slope classes was used to compare the-contour lines on the topographic map. A mylar slope m-ap was prepared by drawing polygons ,around areas of homogeneous line density. Surface Form Surface forn was mapped through the stereographic interpretation of aerial photographs and a review of the contour line configurations on the topographic sheets. Mapping unit size varies from a few to several hundred acres. Topographic basemaps were used to verify the photo-interpretations of the units. Soil Soils.were derived primarily from USDA, Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey data. The majority of the study area, with the exception of the urbanized portion of Anchorage and small areas around the fringe of the survey areas, were covered by existing mapping. In fringe areas, soils were interpreted and extrapolat'd using the imagery, adjacent soil survey lines, and soil survey descriptions. In surveyed areas, dynamic fea tures such as floodplains and tidal flats were updated to match the conditions shown on the iniagery. In -v ed yste to t e addition, al I data were rectif ied from the imacle-b, 11. s in h basemaps. The soil overlays prepared for this study viere delineated to the series level with a polygon resolUtiOil gernk@ralized to ten acres. PRE-INTERPRETED GEO-ENVIRONMEN"rAL DATA Nine separate data planes rt!presenting pre-interpreted geo-environmental assessments were overlaid arid merged with the basic terrain features listed earlier. Boundaries were adjusted to fit tile general terrain features. However., no substantial changes were made which added or subtracted from these data as originally interpreted. Some inconsistency between these pre-interpreted data and the basic terrain data are evident, however, they reflect different levels of classification as well as cartographic generalizations or local conditions. The p -interpreted data include tile following: slope stability, mass wasting, re L' seismically-induced ground failure, floodplains/coastal flooding/erosion, foundation conditions, groundwater, permafrost, wetlands, and habitats. Manuscript #2 Land Use/Seismic/Elevation Map 11-9 INTERPRETED ENVIRONMENTAL DATA Land Use These data were derived from existing detailed maps of land use, patterns. They were generalized to a ten-acre resolution and then photo-checked to ensure currency and accuracy of line placement. Elevation Province These data were derived from the topographic basemaps and represent a generalization oF select elevation contours. PRE-INTERPRETED GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL DATA Earthquake Intensity This very general data set based on an existing collateral map .,ias drafted with no change onto the land use map to facilitate automation. After all of the variables were mapped and integrated, the polygons or line segments delineated on the individual da-ta maps were assigned code numbers. These code numbers referred to the different values or characteristics which each such delineation represented. The code numbers were the n either applied directly to the man uscript map itself or were referenced, in turn, to sequential numbers applied to the map. In either case, the numbers used were related to the polygons shown on the map by being placed withi n the polygons. Each module aas then edgematched to its adjoining module. Edgematching is a process of comparing the shared borders of adjoining map modules. Edgematching was done to correct any problems occurring along the borders due to the adjoining maps having been created independently of one 11-10 another. Where lines of any kind crossed from one module into the other, these were checked to be sure that they were properly located and that they matched. A check was also made to be sure that the c'ode assignments along each side of the shared border were correct and were consistent with those across the border in other modules., C. Manuscript Maps The maps created for Eagle.River and Anchorage Bowl are outlined in this section. Appendices A and B contain a detailed discussion of them, encompassing the following considerations: the reasons for incorporating each data type in the data base; 'the col lateral information used to prepare each manuscript map; the implications of the source map's scale and resolution; the process used to transfer information from the source,map to the stable base manuscript map; -the interpretive decisions involved; and the reliability and quality of the information provided on each manuscript map . Manuscript No. I - Integrated Terrain Units Manuscript No. 1 is a polygon map delineated at a scale of 1:25,000, comprising twenty data categories. In virtually all instances, the classification used for a given data category was consistent with that provided in the collateral information or indicated by the Department of Planning. For example, soil and surficial geology were both mapped using the data classification provided in the original soil and geology surveys. In some instances, a classification was modified to account to a higher level of data II-11 resolution in the present study than in the original one. In the creation of the manuscript maps for each of the ten map modules, each data variable was manually cross-compared and then checked against the basemaps and imagery before being delineated-on the manuscript. The data planes with the highest accuracy and reliability were drafted first. Those with the least were drafted last. The addition of each new data plane typically resulted in the drafting of additional lines on the man'Uscript; however, due to the integration process, proportionately more were added for the highly resolved data planes than for those with low resolution and reliability. As indicated earlier, some of the source data was derived from interpretations made at general scales. In these case, boundaries were adjusted to correspond with existing lines where appropriate. Manuscript No. 2 Land Use/Seismic/Elevation Map Manuscript No. 2 is a polygon map delineated at a scale of 1:25,000, comprising three data variables. Polygons were used to represent land uses, seismic zones, and elevation zones. In general, data were composited on the manuscript but not integrated. All data were nonetheless checked against the basem@aps and imagery to ensure accuracy and currency. 11-12 Chapter III Data Automation Introduction Methodology Map Pre'p'aration Digitizing Editing Final File Generation Interpreted and Derived Data Expansion Matrices Distance Searches Computer Programs III. AUTOMATION A. Introduction The central feature of this stud y was the automation of all of the geographic data collected for the data bank-and regional analyses. The information prepared for automation was 'in two basic formats: the manuscript maps and the codes for those maps.. The maps were automated by a process called digitizing. Lines defining each of the pollygons were stored in the computer as series of x,y coordinates connected by straight line segments. Given that the polygon coordinates were closely spaced and the connecting straight lines very short, the automated polygons closely approximated the curved lines drawn on the original manuscripts. The codes, which describe the attributes of the environmental variables represented on 'Che manuscripts, were k-eypur),--hed directly into the computer. A series of programs were then run on both the map and code data to elim3nate errors and inconsistencies and to prepare the information for analysis, modeling, and computer mapping. This procedure was followed for each of the two manuscripts for each of the ten map modules comprising the study area. Once completed, the polygon information was converted into a parallel grid format. This in effect involved overlaying a uniform rectilinear grid over the automated maps and assigning an appropriate value for each variable to each cell based on -the predominant characteristics in that cell. The result of this and other processes was the creation of a grid imulti-variable file (MVF) incorporating all the data on the two manuscril-pts into one code string for each grid cell in the entire Eagle River/Anchorage Bowl area. III-1 In addition to tkie maps and basic code information, a matrix of interpreted data was automated for mapped soils data. An expanded code of this type represents an efficient form of recording, storing, and modifying information which is, by nature, subject to change. Derived data items were also added to the data base. These items are those which obtain froin basic and/or interpreted data. They include distance searches, in which cells are identified in terms of their distance from such mapped phenomena as water arid developed land. These derived data were included in the data base with the basic and interpreted data. The final automated data base contained data developed by these three distinct processes. The spatiall-conFiguration and essential attributes of the mapped units were automated-by a process of coordinate digitizing and code keypunching. These data were subseqUently subjected to procedures which created a parallel grid file. The aCtUal information in the system., however, was -expanded by the addition of select matrix descriptions and interpretations. These were keypunched into the system and structured as associative tables in the x,y coordinate files. The data stored in the grid files were further expanded by the process of evaluating each grid cell relative to its distance from select geographic phenomena and the number of occurrences of select phenomena wi'thin a specified radius. B. Methodology The technical process involved in transferring geographic data froin the manuscript maps and associated codes to the automated data files can be divided into four major task's. These can be described as Follows: 111-2 Manuscript Map Preparation for Digitizia Before any manuscript map was automated, it was carefully checked for errors and prepared for actual digitizing. The checking included examination for missing polygons or codes, lines, or problems which might cause confusion d0ring digiLizing.. Next, a unique number was assigned to each of the two manuscript maps for each of the ten modules.to distingui.,**)@h it from all of' the other files. Next, each manuscript map was prepared -for digitizing by numbering the geographic reference tic points on each map in soquc-@@nce from north to south. The origin point and centroid of each polygon were then marked. 2. Digitizing Using a process termed "digitizing", till data recorded on the manuscript map were converted to machine. readable form. A digitizer, a backlighted drafting table to which is attached a movable cursor, was used to make this conversion. As the cursor was moved horizontally and vertically over each manuscript map mounted on the digitizer table, electronic devices translated these movements into digital measurements in units of one thousandth of an inch. The numbered tic mark-s were digitized first. The cursor was moved to each tic mark and, by pressing a key, a record was sent to a mini-computer for storage. After all tic marks were digitized, each polygon on the map was similarly recorded and stored in order of the sequence number for each, described above. The digitized record indicates the precise location in x,y coordinates of all mapped information with respect to 111-3 the tic marks. The tic marks represent known points of latitude and longitude to which all of the mapped information coiild be referenced. Data digitizing and all subsequent data aUtOM,1tiOn processes utilized PIOS (Polygon Information 0verlay System) and GRID software sets, developed by ESRI during the past tan years. . The digitizing process involved systematically record-ing data according to a standard set of procedures. For polygon data, this involved selecting and recording a string of Y,y coordinates, termed livertices", where a change in direction Occurred along the border of each polygon. Curves were approximated by short straight line segments. All polygons were automated as closed units, digitized in a specific order, and sequenced accordingly. When donut polygons occurred, the innermost polygons were digitized first. Digitizing then proceeded to the polygon wh ich contained the donut polygon or polygons. PIOS software resolved the hierarchy. 3. Editing of Digitized Files After each manuscript map was digitized, the stored record was transferred from the digitizer's mini-computer to a large computer for further processing. The first step in the edit process was to shift and scale the coordinates of each file relative to tic marks which provided geographic reference. From this step, lists were generated which allowed tic identification numbers, tic coordinates, sequence numbers, donut level identifiers, and code numbers to be checked. Because of machine errors during digitizing, it was some'Limes necessary to redigitize a polygon or a series of polygons. After 111-4 these editing steps were completed, changes were made and the revised files were stored. -At this stage, all information stored in the file was numerically accurate. After these machine edits, a plot of each manuscript map for each module was generated. 'These computer maps were used to visually check the accuracy of the digitized and machine edited x,y coordinates against the original manuscript maps. Th i s step all-ows identification of missing or duplicated polygons, unacceptable configurations, code ey-rnrs, and code offsets (for legibility). Following the visual edit of polygons, the nui-neric attribute codes which had been. keypunched -into the coiftputer were associated with their appropriate spatial unit. Each of the data variables in the system was plotted out at the manuscript scale and compared against manually prepared overlays of the collateral data. These plots, termed "dropline plots", were used to ensure that each data variable was accurately delineated and coded in the computer data file. Most data errors discovered in this edit process were corrected using PIOS edit software. For cases where entire polygons were missing, the original manuscript map was remounted on the digitizer and polygons in error were digitized. This redigitized information was merged into the previous information set. Perfect alignment was ensured by redigitizing of the tic marks as well. 4. Final File Generation This process involved the creation of final polygon files foi- the study area as well as the creation of a parallel grid cell file. Two 111-5 preliminary steps were required -for completion of the x,y coordinate files. The first step involved the conversion of the digitized tic coordinates, which were referenced in inches, to a geographic coordinate referencing system Such as UTM. The next step involved the merging of the individual files created for each map module into a single file for the two portions of the Study area, Eagle River and Anchorage Bowl. At the completion of this step, the data files were in their final polygon format. Due to the number of columns necessary to store the terrain unit data variables for each polygon, it was necessary to create two separate data records. The first was a 16 column I.D. record associated with the digitized x,y data coordinates. The se cond was a 3.8 column record which contained for each polygon the proper codes for each variable. In order to produce a final data file, it was necessary to join these ltwo records together. The polygon I.D., or sequence number, was a component of both of these records and was used as the merge identifier. At this point, the terrain unit polygon file was complete. A similar process was utilized for the land use/seismic manuscript. Following completion of the final polygon files, a grid cell format data file was created. Using a series of ESRI computer programs including GRIPS (Gridded Information from Polygons), the polygon data files were converted to a grid cell format data file. In effect, a uniform grid with a cell size of 0.617 hectares (c. 73.@) meters on a side) was superimposed over the polygon data in each of 'A' 111-6 the x,y coordinate files and each cell was assigned a code corresponding to the unit or the va:lue of the unit in which it was located. This process resulted in the crea@ion of a number of single variable grid files. These were SUbSeCjUently inprq@,d together to create a multi-variable file of all of the grid data. The complete multi-variable grid file created for the Anchoraq.- Coastal Study contains all of the data variables contained in the two manuscript maps and the interpretive da-ta from the soil expansion matrix.. Certain simple data items were packed into one position in the MUlti-variable file to save space. The grid cell data bank for the Anchorage Coastal Study is in _two,separate sections. The Eagle River portion measures 340 rows by 247 COILINIIIS with 3/1 positions for data for each cell. That for Anchorage Bowl ineasures 318 rows by 448 C01 Urnns. C. Interpretive and Derived Data The basic data files created for the study were expanded t.o include interpretive and derived data. The interpretive data are added by keypunching numeric codes outlined on the soil expansion matrix. The derived data were generated through the manipulation of data which were already automated. This involved the execution of a number of simple and complex distance search procedures. The interpretive and derived data encompass--(] in the GIS are described in -the following SUbsecilions. 111-7 Expansion Matrices During the mapping phase of the study, soils were identified only by unit names. These names alone do not provide the user with either a decription or an interpretation of the unit. This type of soil information was incorporated into the systern as an "'expansion Inatrix", which provides a series of coded descriptions And interpretations for each soil series mapped. These values were entered into the computer as numeric codes associated with the code for the unit itself. A separate legend provides an explanation of ra@in( represented by each of the codes. The soil expansion matrix automated -For this StUdy includes the following data characteristics. - Agricultural Capability - Physical Characteristics Surface K Value Subsurface K Value Dr a i n age Depth - Building Limitations Local Roads Septic Tank Absorption Fields Shallow LExcavation Dwellings Without Basements Dwellings With Basements Small Commercial Buildings Recreational Development Campgrounds Picnic Areas Playgrounds Paths and T.rails The complete expansion matrix is presented in Appendix C. Iii-8 Distanco Searches Once all of the data for the study area were in' a grid format, additional manipulations of -the data were per-formed. These involved the application of both simple and complex distance search programs to the automated data. Simple search programs were used to determine the distance of each cell from water, bodies, specified vegetation, developed land, and a number of oUier features. These features were originally encoded as basic data items in the form of polygons. For each feature, the computer defermined the grid cells within a specified distance of that feature. Cells within that distance were coded consecutively from "0" for the feature itself, increasing outward as successive integers for each cell. Cells outside that distance were coded as 9999. Complex searches determined the number of occurrences of specified phenomena within a given distance of a cell. Distance searches are indicated on the model outlines in the following chapter by the assignment of value for being proximate (within a specified distance) to a given phenomenon. A complex search was conducted for the Vizllal Q!ja1;+_-.y mo&!l. D. Programs As indicated earlier in this chapter, the raw manuscript and code data were processed through a series of computer programs designed to ensure clean (error-free) data files and prepare the stored information for further, analysis and display. Figures III-1A to III-1E portray the sequence of PIOS and GRID programs utilized for this study. Collectively, 111-9 these illustrations document the flow of data through the system to create the final grid multi-variable file. The steps required for modeling and printing of maps are also illustrated. The function of each of the individual PIOS and GRID programs is OUtlined in Table ITI-1 and 111-2 III-10 FICt It'll" ITT-1A. DATA AUTOl.LVI LON MANUSCR EPT MAI' D V: I T I z ED FI LE GSt11.T INTERSECTION 01AIN FILE FILE EDIT PRINT FILE RMAGITIZE .11UF;J,-X LINE CPMOD E GM FN T S WERT DCSPL@ CPMOD SGPAIR PLYPLT EDIT LINE SEGME14TS EDIT ANWOR REDIC- DGSPLT ITIZE INTEIZ- SECTIONS RCLIST UFE,;D LTV-r.RT MIR CFMOD PLYPLT EDiTED INTERSECTION FILE "Sc,"PT] iA L1 A @ @N FIGURE III-1B T K, C DROPLIN. REEVIEW ED I T E D EDITED c I LA I N INTEnSECTION FILE CODE KEYPUNCF, CODE LISTING COD ta, LISTI@,,G FTLT'S TUEXII COD CODE coDFIND SGPAIR FILES REFERENCE TICS CNSIST P ,LT LY] DROPLINE PLOTS ..CFSEARY COMR17C71ONS PROCESS F, ED -'.L FILES Cf,E:A*N PEVTEt%T D ROP 1, 1 N E pr.,oTS C DF C 0 D F -REVTLt,T f, , _ . '01 1_ I" r <D 1, r, OC> 111-12 FIGURE !I!-lr DATA REFORMATTING AND REFERENCING C 0 D 1 @ 1 "@ i. ON INC11 17 FILE F I T.J." TICS Lrl,-,;I.- TUDE 7@CS CEN110J., UTMICNIV 1::m l'VLc I I PIC UTM TIC FILE PIWI FILE BILINE l'i IT, TF--'A R Pl()S FJ-LF f) N VrLf: 10- oi) UT' IC I @ILE PROCESS REPEATED FOR EACH OF TEN MODULES 111-13 I ., I I 1 11 1 11 17 1C I u A!% U I T f -VA R 1A I,';- r '7 L P01,YGO' S, LINES A@,D K)DULALR ?@MVISTCN C07@Vl; )-,M PoLycol., (PIC15) H.dt,le @fodule 'm d 82 83 0 "'L cno-s Fol.ycotfs LKF.RQE t;E CONCATONA17F.D C0l;CA'C0NA'l'Ff, CODE-FILFS POLYC.,;@l VILTS FILE V1,111 I @N, .1. @ @ ( t F. SE.) Vm!"r. !iS Isr svy r:kLo CELL FILE SPLTID CMERGE S?LTID 'NF C RID . CME FILLE CE.I.I. FILE BOWL) (PROCESS REPEATED FOR MMI.E 71, 72, 73, 4110 74 TO ?WDUCIZ @f%- CRIO CELL ME FOR EAGLE R17ER) *MAY FF RY.PKA77t; TO MORF. VARIART.-- W', . 7F 'Mod 'I d. L' @3 (CO'C'A. 1111111\FI 111-14 riouKL iii-iL MODELING AND DATA MAPPTNG MNF FILE AINICHORAU SU, BO;,TL OR EACLE FILE RIVER) S f."A I, C, I I GRI)MIA, YF MO D 1-" 1, OUTPUT FILE LCTRGD ELECTRO'STATIC L Olill L, I., C 111-15 TABLE III-1 PIOS SYSTEM PROGRAM S UM@-LAR I E S PROGRAMS ORIENTED TO CRAIN DIGITIZ111TG DIGITIZER CONVERSION AND SPLITTING - Converts digitized data for which a file has been generated to PIOS format, provides the capability to edit ,k@ I identifiers and insures alignment of coordinates through the use of t,,- digitized tic locations. XATCH 'RECORDS - Allows a separately digitized file of polygon boundary components ("chains" where, each chain represents-a boundary between the same two contiguous polygons), to be compared to a clean, but separate, file of points representing only intersections where three or more polygons come together. The two files are. "matched" to identify whether or not each appropriate set of intersections on the one file has a corresponding "chain" boundary (to link the two points together) on the other file. CRAIN/POLYGON MODIFICATION - Allows portions of a digitized chain or intersect 11 e--,- -w- 51-c hhave been redigitized due to error-.,; found in editing, (such as in the Match Record program), to be merged back into the correct, portion of the parent file4 Also allows miscellaneous other edits. UPDATE CHAIN ENDS - Allows ends of "chain" boundary segments (which are inherently the same as intersections where three or more polygons come together), on a "chain" file to be compared to the corresponding 0 intersection points on the Intersection file. If the "chain" end points have coordinates which are within a user specified tolerance of the intersection coordinates, they are matched and subsequently represented by the same point. GENERATE POLYGONS - Allows a "clean" "chain" file to be-combined with a r1clean" Intersection file to generate a combined file in the PIOS format. PROGRAIIIS ORIENTED TO DOUBLE DIGITIZING DIGITIZER CONVERSION AND SPLITTING - Converts digitized data for which a file has been oenerated to PIOS format, provides the capability to edit ;r identifiers d insures alignment of coordinates through the use of the ano digitized tic locations. CHAIN/POLYGON MODIFICATION - Saine as above, allo@,,s portions of a double digitized file, which have been redi-itized due to errors found in editinrg', 0 to be merged back into the correct portion of the parent file. Also allows miscellaneous other edits. 1LNTC11 VERTICE - Consists of live pro3rams which allow vertices of 8 djacent polygon common borders, which were separately digitized and may not coincide, to be matched and represented by a single point. EDIT VERTICE - Allows strings of matchverted vertices which comprise adjacent polygon common borders to be analyzed and compatibility resolved. C@ DONUT - Allows calculation adjustments due to polycTons completely contained within other polygons. PROGRAMS USABLE SUBSEQUENT TO E177HER D'.1-ICITIZING CO;NVF'k'11TIONM SEGMENT PAIRING - Assists file editing by identifying double digitized point "utatches" and "non-riatches" and transfo;:-,as a ,;ubsequently clean double digitized file into a line segment file. POLYGON PL OTTING - Creates final computer dravrn plots of digi.tized polygons, lines, and points. For terrain unit plotting, the pro(yram allows elimi- C, L7 nation of common boundaries between polygons with the same code. AUTOPLOT - Creates final COMPLIter draTwn choropleLh or zone shaded plots of digitized polygons (or polygons created using AUTOTMA-P II). Tile user can 0 choose from twelve standard shadincy patterns or design his own. C@ 41 DESCRIPTOR - Calculates the area, centroid, and riinirtlUm and maximum coor- dinates for each polygon and transforms nu-meric digitized codes.to alpha, if desired. BILINEAR Allows a digitized map to be transformed into another coordinate ,referencing system, such as U111, State Plane, etc. 0 OVERLAY - Calculates intersection coordinates of overlayed polygons, thus identifying newly created polygons. STATISTICS - Consists of five programs which furnish various statistical printout listings. UTILITY - Consists of nineteen programs which enhance data update, edit, C, and manipulation capabilities for both chain digitizing and double C@ digitizing conventions. POLYMODEL - Allows simple to complex modelin.7 capabilities to be performed by a non-technically oriented user. ROUTE EVALUATION - Allows a proposed route to be evaluated r(!garding impacts to intersectTd geographically disposed data. GIRAS TO PIOS - Allows USGS generated Geographic Information Retrie\,al and Analysis System (GIRAS) data (includes LUDA) to he transformed into the PIOS System. "COM"'IMNID" - A user "friendly" question and ans-...!z-,r on-line "inel-ul" S)'St0_,.) which interacts WiLh the user Lo prompt hi-.i regardinc, the variOLIS pro:-,:a@.@ and input options in the PIOS sys@.em. TABLE 111-2 GRID SYSTEM PROGR@M SIQ-L-LARIES GRIPS Stands for gridded information from polygons and allows a GRID oriented data file to be created from a polygon automat:ed data file. FILE GEN&RATION - Converts card ima,,e records of heterogeneOUs data to single variable file structure. RECORD GENERATION - Converts card image records of hoinogeaeous data to single variable file structure. @.CELL SPLIT - Doubles the number of rows and columns in a grid cell file matrix by creating 4 new cells from each of the input cells, and assigning the code from the old cell to each of the 4 new cel.l-,. GRID MAP/MODEL - Allows two-dimensional printer maps of spatially identified data to be produced according to user specified cosmetic treatments. GRIDMERGE - Allows several data files of one variable each, for the same study area, to be merged into one data file of several variables. Allows the file creation or printout of a subarea of an automated file.. :')GRID MODEL - The portion of GRID MAP/MODEL which allows simple to complex modeling C, capabilities to be performed by a non-technically oriented user. :ZOLOS Uses the output of a model which has assigned "cost" values to each grid cell within a predetermined geographic area, and determines a "leas C> t cost" corridor between any two points which a user may specify. CELL UPDATE - Allows an automated data file to be updated. SEARCH - Examines the-geographic area around each cell in an automated study area for proximity to or number of occurrences of a particular geographic phenomenon. GRIDPLOT - Provides pen plotter output for the GRID oriented system. 'ELECTROSTATIC GRIDPLOT - Provides electrostatic plotter output. "COLOM-LA2 Provides color graphics of computerized data. AREA CALCULATION - Calculates polygon areas of one variable subject to polygon outlines of another variable when the two are superimposed. COMMAND INTERACTIV=@* GRAPHICS PACKAGE A user "friendly" question and ans-,..,cr on- ,:din@ line "menu" system which interacts with the user to prompt him rega, the various programs, electives and options in the GRID system. TOPO SYSTEM PPOGP,@I SUM-1ARIES CONGRID - Converts digitized contour lines or r ando:.i point data to a single variable file containing continuous surface data. SHORTGEN - Enlarges a single variable file containing continuous surface data by doubling the n'u@mber of rot-is and columns, ano inEilling by calculating values for the new cells. *(This capability data to be automated using one-quarter of the original data.) TOPO - Provides two-dimensional isoline COI-ItOUr plorter maps of topographic surface information. SLOPE slope from topographic'elevation for niapping arid/or modeling, C> purposes. ASPECT - Calculates the direction of slope frorit topo-raphic elevation for mapping L C, and/or modeling purposes. CUT AND FILL - Uses a topography file to qualit'atlivc:ly relate cut areas to fill areas and quantitatively provide data regl-troling cut areas or regarding f ill/ areas. .SUN INTEINSI77 - Uses slope, aspect, sun position, etc. , data to calculate sun intensities based on tirnes of (lay and day of year. EXPOSLJRE - Id entifies areas in a Lopograj)li-ir, d@iLa file seen and/or not seen from selected points and liIWS. VIE14S - Produces three-dimensional or cross-sectional line drawing plotter displays of topographical, socio-economic, etc., data. C02MAND INTERACTIVE GRAPHICS PACKAGE - A user "friendly" question and anst-7er on-line "menu" system which interacts vith the user to prompt him regarding the various programs, electives and options in the TOPO system. 111-19 Chapter IV Computer Modeling I ntroducti on Methodology Conceptual Model Outlines Opportunity/Constraint Analyses Soil Erosion Potential Ecological Sensitivity Water Pollution Potential Visual Quality Fire Hazard Capability/Suitabf.lity Analyses Recreation Conservation Concentrated Urbanization General Development Energy Facility Siting Conflict Analyses Urban Residential/Industrial Residential/Commercial General Development Suitability/ Ecologically Sensitive Lands IV. COMPUTER MODELING A. Introduction The automated data base developed for Anchorage was used for purposes of regional land assessment and evaluation with particular emphasis on identifying lands appropriate for energy -facility sit-ing as well as general urban development. Working in conjUnCtiQn with Kunit'_Jpality of Anchorag-2, ESRI processed thirteen conceptual models to assess the natural opportunities and constraints in the region, the capability and suitability of the land for potential uses, and existing arid poLential conflicts relative to those uses. At the outset of the study, ESRI and Municipality staff determined the analytical models to he developed and the general criteria for each. On the basis of these gener.al cr iteria, ESRI staff specialists structured the logic arid values fo*r each of the models. Following the automation of the data base, ESIZI staff programmed the conceptual models. As conducted during this study, modeli-ng was both a developmental and iterative process. In some cases the models and progra-ms ,,qere changed after a review of the maps by both ESRI and Planning Department specialists. Most of the models, however, were sufficiently well-considered at the start that they were not significantly modified on the basis of subsequent review. As employed in this study, modeling represented a process by which the data mapped and automated for the study were manipulated in the computer to produce maps with evaluations of various environmental factors. Such evaluations were based on a set of assurniptions regarding the positive or negative significance of particular features of the landscapp. to the IV_1 relevant factor. For example, the relativ.e importance of particular vegetation types to an evaluation of fire @,,.bazard and of individual slope categories to the evaluation of land capab@- ility for, concentrated urbanization was assessed. All of the opportunity/const'.raint models were based upon the assignment of numeric values to different data variables. For example, in the opportunity/constraint model for- firo hiazard, coniferous forest was assigned a much higher than v.1as tundra. Each of the opportunity/constraint models contained a soimrilLion element which was used to determine the overall rating for each area. The value ranges for each category were carefully selected, particular attention being directed to ensure that known constraints rec4eived high constraint value. The weighting procedures used for the capabi-.,.,-,: y/suitability models relied on the assignment, of ratings to each of the possible expressions of a number.of general environmental consideratiorts. In general, the most. restrictive rating applicable to a given point was used as the overall capability/suitability rating for that point. As used in this study, land capability was conceptualized as the inherent capacity of the land to sustain development, taking into account natural promoting and constraining factors. More specifically, it referred to the inherent capacity of the L.otal complex 01' land-based environmental patterns and processes to sustain a specific type of use without bringing 'about unusual environmental degradation or exposing people or investment to hazards or unusual costs. The conflict models were not summed,, but used numeric scores to identify -particular classes of conflict which could then be rated or ordered. IV-2 B. Methodology Thirteen models were applied to the ZILItomated data base in order to analyze and evaluate natural constraints and opportunities in the Eacile River/Anchorage Bowl area,-to assess land c.apability for specific uses, and to identify potential land use conflicts. Designed and evaluated by staff specialists at ESRI, the mode'ls were structured to provide a useful output to the resource analysis and planning process. They were directed by and are consistent with established and accepted principles of resource evaluation, and they are sensitive to the particular environmental conditions and interrelations existing in the Anchorage area. The assumptions guiding mo(II-el development are implicit -in the factors selected and the weights assigned. These assumptions and their relation to model devel.opment are discussed in detail in the main body of this report. The models which were programmed and run for this study are: Opportunity/Constraint Analyses .'Soil___Eros_ion Potenlial Ecological Sensitivity Water Pollution Potential Visual Quality Fire Hazards Capability/Suitability Analyses Recreation Conservation/Open Space General Development Concentrated Urbanization Energy Facility Siting Conflict Analyses General DeV-eTopment/Ecologically Sensitive Lands Urban Residential/Industrial Residential/Commercial Once progr&nmed, each model was run in the automated geographic data files for the study area. All models were run in the 0.6 hectare grid IV-3 multi-variable file developed from the original polygon data. This file included the following: basic data Pncoded in the initial...-process of automation; interpretive data encoded in the soil expansion matrix; and derived data developed through the process of distance searching@. Some of the models required the development of sub-modeling rOUtines.@to evaluate such complex considerations as local re, lieF. The results of 4ach of the sub-models were checked before they were channelled into the principal models. The map outputs were first checked by ESRI professional staff to ensure that the model had been programmed accurately arid that the models had general conceptual integrity. The models and maps .@jere then reviewed -s. The finalized models we e then by Municipality resource specialist e!r programmed for the production of the final grid electrostaticMnaps identified and described in the following chapter. C. Model Outlines Each of the models developed and programmed for evaluating the land resources of tiie Anchorage coastal area is outlined on the following pages. The outlines were designed to legibly convey the essence and salient characteristics of each model to both readers and programmers.- Four columns were used to indicate model logic, data base factors@, and value assignment. The first column indicates the general concept under consideration. This could be a data variable in the data base or, for capability/suitability models, the results of a previously-run , opportunity/constraint model. General considerations such as flood potential and slope gradient tie in directly with the assessment of land IV-4 capability/suitability for many kinds of developed land uses, including energy facility siting. The second column identifies the specific class of data in the grid cell data base which was being used to satisfy the analytical requirements of the general consideration. For example, six or eight different coded vegetation or' landform types miyR be used in a given analysis. In some of the models, two or more- data v-,-iriahles were grouped into one general consideration. The third and fourth c.o)umns identify the Values assigned to each of the specific factors and variables. The third column identifies the value or rating assigned when the sipecific feature or condition was incident in a cell, thp fourth when it was proximate to a cell (the distance used for this evaluation is shown in parentheses under the general consideration). For the.complex search in Visual Quality, additionSl-value was added when two or more I`edtUres were proximate to a cell. The opportUnity/con straint models generally operated on an additive principle. In effect, each cell accumulated points in relation to the factors identified and weighted in each model. Value was normally added when a particular phenomenon or attribute was incident to a cell, but in some cases value was added when it was proximate to the cell. The values which were assigned to individual -factors were positive ones; the higher the numerical tCotal, the higher the ranking of level of constraint for each cell. The capability/suitability models were rated models, rather than numerical ones. Each of the specific data classes within a general consideration was assigned a rating of high (H), moderate (M), low (L), IV-5 unsuitable (U), or not rated (NR) for the specified land LISP- Implicit in the model outlines was the assumption that a class had a high (or not rated) value unless otherwise specified. Thus, the models penalized any cell with certain identified adverse conditions. For example, in the General Development Capability/Suitability model a few land-Forms, including glaciers, tidal flats, and floodplains, Were rated as Linsui table, low value, or moderate value for general development. Other landforms not listed were assumed not to have less than a high rating for development (or are not rated for this use). This process was repeate,d for- each co nsideratiom. Each consideration was then assigned an overall rating. Model summation rules indicated the procedures for assigning composite ratings. In general, the most restrictive (i.e., lowest) value became the -ee H, five M, an&three L ratings by composite rating, so a cell with thr consideration would obtain an ultimate value of L. These rules are modified in certain instances to rate a high number of M values as L. The Conservation/Open Space model followed the same principles, but the highest values were the most restrictive. The conflict models were based on the identification of discrete types- of conflict, rating of those types, and assigning numeric codes to each. The first two conflict models compare existing conditions, the last assesses poten'tia"'! conflict. The first two identify existing conflicts between residential and commercial, as well as between residential and industrial. The last identifies areas where urban expansion is most likely i.0 be in conflict with ecological values. In some models binary ratings were used: OFF indicates that the IV-6 analysis was terminated at that point for that cell and the lowest value was automatically assigned; SKIP also te@rininates the analysis for that cell, but an independent value will SUbSe(JUP-rItly be- assigned. Carewas taken in all of the models to ensure against double weighting and against the possibility of an area with a clearly unsuitah1c,. condition receiving a high overall value and rating because Of some other very positive conditions exist-ing there. All modeled data were ultimately grouped into classes on the final maps produced in the study. IV-7 OPPORTUNITY/CONTRAINT MODEL EROSION POTENTIAL Consideration Specific Data Class Va.] tie Value c_17_(!@ FE-e P r-oxi fni ty) Soil Characteristics K N Slope Gradient 0 3% .2145 3 7% .746 7 12% 1.)8 12 20% 3.60 20 - 30% 34 30 - 45 10.71 > 45% 17.58 SUMMATION RULES K Factor- val ues are mul ti pl i ed to val ue f or, ave r iq I o pe gradi en t to determine computed soil loss in tons per acre--year. Very high 3.960 a nd Greater High Soil Loss 2.332 - 3.959 Moderate .865 - 2.331 Low .106 - .864 Very low .030 - 105) Not rated Water -9 OPPORTUNITY/CONSTRAIRT MODEL VISUAL QUALITY Consideration S peci -f iData Class Value Val tie Proximity to Water ocean (In"Ciden,ce) (Proximity) < 500m 10 500 - 1000m 5 Streams/ Ri vers/Lakes < 150M 10 Landform Ost Element) Bx, 1, N, S 5 Ca, Cm, C1 , Ct @3 Cg 6 Cs' CX I E 2 Fd, Fin 6 F-f 3 Fp, Fpb, Fpm 7 Fps, Fpa, Fpc, Fpo 4 Fsh, Fsw 2 Gg 10 Gin 8 Gt, Gto, Gty 4 Gtd, Gtf, Gtl 9 GF 3 GL 5 Le, Lt 5 Lp I MC 9 Mct 5 0, OS 3 W 10 Landform Type (multiply by lst Element Value) 2 1.4 3 1.2 4 1.5 5 1.5 6 1.') 7 1.5 IV-11 VISUAL QUALITY, cont. Vegetation - CF - tall 10 Primary Component CF - short 8 < 150m) DF/MF 8 BS - tall 7 BS - short 1 S 0 G 4 T 7 SW/FW 3 Mud 1 . I Rock 5 Ice 5 Cultural/Disturbed S k i P Vegetative Edge One other vegetation type 4 within 150m iwo other vegetation types within 150in More than two other 8 vegetation types within 15) 0 In Elevation Province > 300m 5 Slope 7 - 20% 3 20 - 30% 7 > 30% 10 Surface Form Undulating I Complex 2 .Erosion, Coastal Rapid 2 Habitats Fowl , Moose 1 Local Relief 1 - 6 Specific slope phases a re aggregated into six slope groups. Each group is assigned value: 0 - 7% + 0; 7 - 120/01 + 2; It' - 20% + 3; 20 - 30% + 5; 30 - 45% + 7; and GT45t. + 10. The greatest value difference between different slope categories located within a radius 0 1 km are recorded. The following matrix is employed IV- 12 VISUAL qUALITY,.cont. to generate value differences between contactus. GT 0 -7% 7 - 12% 12 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 4 5 4 5) 0 - 7% 0 1 - 2 4 5 6 7 - 12% 1 0 1 2 4 5 12 20% 2 1 0 1 2 4 20 30% 4 2 1 0 1 2 30 45% 5 4 2 1 0 1 GT 45% 6 5 4 2 1 0 SUMMATION RULES Very High 37.1 - 50.0 High 30.1 - 37.0 Moderate 19.1 - 30.0 Low 10.1 - 19.0 Very Low 0 - 10.0 Cultural----- I V -13'. OPPORTUNITY/CONSTRAINT iNiODLEL ECOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY Consideration Specific Data Class Val ue Val ue (Incidence) (Proximity) Landform Floodplain (all types) 5 Tidal Flat 5 Emergent Tidal Flat 5 Vegetation < .2kn) CF CF, BS 14 CF,S 13 CF, BS, S 14 CF, BS, R-1 23 5 CF, S, T 17 CF, S, FW 22 5 DF 1.2 DF,S 16 MF 18 MF, BS 20 MF,S 19 MF,G 21 5 MF, FW 22 5 MF, BS, FW 24 5 BS 7 BS, CF 9 BS, MF 10 BS,S 8 BS, FW 20 5 BS, CF, S 10 BS, CF, N 22 5 BS, MF, FW 23 5 Sw 25 S 5 S, CF 8 S, DF 11 S, MF 11A S, BS 7 S, Sw 20 5 S, G 13 S, T 19 S, FW 20 5 S, CF, BS 9 S, DF, FW 20 5 S, MF, G 15 S, MF, T 17 S, MF, FW 23 5 S, BS, G 10 S, BS, FW 20 5 G G, MF 19 G, S 13 G, F14 24 5 G, S, FW 23 5 T 18 20 5 T, CF N 25 Mu d IV-15 2 ECOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY, cont. Consideration Specific Data Class Val ue Va I ue (Incidence) (Proximity) Vegetation, cont. Water SKIP 5 Cultural -5 -5 Habitat Fowl 4 Moose 5 Anadromous Fi-sh 4 Land Use Developed < .2km -5 .2 - I km -3 1 - 2km -1 Elevation Province > 300m 5 SUMMATION RULES Very high sensitivity 31 - 40 High sensitivi ty 24 - 30 Moderate sensitivity 18 - 23 Low sensitivity 8- 17 Very low sensitivity 7or less Water IV-16 OPPORTUNITY/CONSTRAINT MODEL WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL Cons i derati on fic Data Class Val Lie Value I rici dence) (Proximity) Landform Lake/Pond < 150[n 10 150 - 500m 5 Stream/ Ri ver < 150M 10 150 - 500m 5 Ocean < 150ai 10 150 - 500m 5 Vegetation Barren 2 Wetl and ( < 150ui) 5 3 Geology Fine-grained Deposits 3 Landslide Deposits 3 Bedrock 2 Soi I Drai nage Very Poor 5 Poor 3 Excessively Well 5 Soil Limitations Severe 5 for Septic Tanks Moderate 2 Groundwater < 20 ft. 5 Permafrost High (LISe wetlands in 2 Eagle River) Habitat Fish 5 < 150m 3 150 - 500m I Fowl 4 < 150m 2 150 - 500m 1 Moose I SUMiNATION RULES High Potential 29 - 45 High Potential 22 - 28 r1oderate Potential 17 - 21 Low Potential 11 - 16 Very Low Potential 0 - 10 W'a te r IV-17 OPPORTU,'@ITY/CO'l@i!QJTR,",'L,111- MODEL FIRE HAZARDS Consideration Specific Data Class Value Value (Incidence) (Proximity) Vegetation CF 40 CF, BS 35 CF,S 35 CF, BS, S 35 BS , Bit 30 CF, S, T 35 CF, S , FW 30 DF 30 OF,S 25 MF 35 MF, BS 30 MF,S 30 flF,G 30 ff, FW 25 MF, BS, FW 25 BS is BS, CF 25 BS, MF 20 BS,S 15 BS, FW or BS, S, FW 10 BS, CF, S 25 BS, C F, FW 20 BS, MF, FW 15 Sw 0 S 10 S,CF 25 S, OF 20 S, MF 20 S, BS 15 S, Sw 5 S,G 15 S,T 10 S3 FW or S, G, FW 5 S, CF, BS 20 S, OF, FW 15 S31 MF,G 20 S, MF,T 15 S, MF, F14 15 S, BS,G 15 S, BS, FW 10 G 20 G, CF 2-0 G, MF 25 G,S is G, FW 10 G, S, FW 15 T 10 T, CF 25 FW 0 Mud/Rock OFF Wa ter SKIP CUl tUral SKIP IV-19 FIRE HAZARDS, cont. Consideration Specific Data Class Val ue Val ue ty) (Incidence) Proximi Slope 0 - 30% 10 30 - 45% 25 > 45% 40 SUMMATION RULES Very high hazard 66 - 80 High hazard 46 - 65 Moderate hazard 31 - 45 Low hazard. 16 - 30 Very low hazard 0 - 15 Cultural Wa te r IV-20 CAPABILITY/SUITABILITY MODEL RECREATION Consideration Specific Data Class Value Value (Incidence) (Proximity) Vegetation BS M (Primary) SW S T L F14 U Mud U Water SKIP slope 12 - 20% 20 - 45% L > 45% U Surface Form Compl ex M Soil Drainage Poor - Very Poor M Land Use Park SKIP Urban De-veloppd U Residential > 50om Visual Quality Very High M Moderate M Very Low L Ecological Sensitivity Very High L High M Wetlands Wetland U Mass Wasting Highest Known Potential U SUMMATION RULES Ratings are scanned within each general category encompassing more than one factor, and the most severely constraining rating is used to provide the overal I rating for the category. In effect, each general consideration landform, soils, water availability, etc., - has a single rating when summation begins. The fol.lowing summation procedures are used: Hi gh Cl:qpabil i ty/SUi 11--a@il ity Not EQ M, L or U 1-'oderote Capability/Suitabil-ill--y LE 6,',! and Not EQ L or U Low Capability/Suitability GT 6 M or LE 6 L or Not EQ U Unsuitable GT 6 L or GE I U ---------------- Park Water IVZ CAPABILITY/SUITABILITY MODEL CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE Consi derati on Specific Data Class Val tie Value (Incidence) (Proximity) Land-form Fp, Fpb, Fpm, Fps, Fpc M Gg M 0, Os M W SKIP Ecological Sensitivity Very High H High H Moderate Visual Quality Very High H High H Moderate M Wetland Wetland < 150m from water H > 150m from water M Habitat Fowl H Anadromous Fish H Moose M Land Use Urban/Devel oped/Disturbed U Agriculture SUMMATION RULES Ratings are scanned within each general considerattion and the highest rating is used to provide the overall rating for the category. The following summation procedures are used: High Capability/Suitability GE 1 H Moderate Capability/Suitability No t EQ H Low Capability/Suitability Not EQ M or H Unsuitable GE 1 U 'Wate r IV-23 CAPABILITY/SUITABILITY MODEL CONCENTRATED URBAINIZATION Consideration Specific Data Class WALie Value (Incidence) (Proximity) Landform Cg U Fp, Fpb, Fpm, Fps, Fpc L Gg 1-1 MC L Mct L 0, Os W Slope 7 12% 12 20% 20 30"' L 30 45% L > 45% LJ Soil Erosion Very High L High L Moderate M Soil Drainage Poorly ill Very Poorly L Water Pollution Very High L Poten ti al High M Moderate M Ecological Very High U Sensitivity High U Moderate L Low M Visual Quality Very High U High L Moderate M Land Use Developed SKIP Agriculture L Fire Hazard Very H'i gh U High L Moderate M I V-25 CONCENTRATED URBANIZATION, continued Consideration Specific Data Class Value Value (Incidence) (Proximity) Ground Stability Slope Stabili ty Lowest U Generally Low L Moderate M Mass Wasting Highest Moderate to High L Foundation Conditions Poor Fair to Poor Soil Engineering Local Roads Limitations Severe L Moderate M Dwellings with Basements- Severe te Modera Small Commercial BuildinLs Severe L Moderate M Seismic Hazards Seismically-Induced Ground Ground Failure Very High L High III Moderate M Earthquake Intensity High Intensity Knik Fault Zone Floodplain/Coastal 100-yr. Floodplain L Flooding/Erosion Coastal Flooding L W/Rapid Erosion U Groundwater < 20 ft. L P e ,7, a -1:7 ro s C High Potential I'll I Wetland Wetland U TV CONCENTRATED URBANIZJUION, continued SUMMATION RULES Ratings are scanned within each general category encompassing more than one factor, and the most severely constraining rating is used to provide the overall rating for the category. In effect, each general consideration land-form, soils, water availability, etc., - has a single rating when summation begins. The following summation procedures are used: High Capability Not EQ M, L, or U Moderate Capability LE 8 M or Not EQ L or U Low Capability GT 8 M or LE 8 L or Not EQ U Incap@tj@___ GT 8 L or GE I U Developed Water 1V-27 CAPABILITY/SUITABILITY MODEL GENERAL DEVELOPMENT Consi de rati on Specific *Data Class Vill tie Val ue (Incidence) (Proxi mi ty) Landform Cg tj Fp, Fpb, Fpm, Fps , Fpc ki Gg U Mc L Mct L 0, Os L W SKIP Slope 12 - 20% 20 - 30% M 30 - 45% L > 45% L) Soil Erosion Very High L High M Water Pol I uti on Very Hi gh L Potential High L Low to Moderate M Ecological Very H i c1h L Sensitivity Hi gh L Moderate M Visual Quality Very High L High M Land Use Developed SKIP Fire Hazard Very High L High M Ground Stability Slope Stability Lowest L General ly Low M Mass Wastin Highest U Moderate-Hi gh L Fo unda Lion 'on di ions ,-Fo-o m Iv-29 GENERAL DEVELOMIENIT, continued Consideration Specific Data Class Value Value (Incidence) (Proximity) Soil Engineering Local Roads Limitations Severe M Septic Tanks Severe Dwellings- without Basements Severe M Sn Induced Seismic Hazards ei smi cal 1 y.: Ground Fai I Lire Very High High Fl oodpl ai n/ Coas ta I 100-yr. Floodplain U Flooding/Erosiori Coastal Flooding U Wetland Wetland U SUMMATION RULES Ratings are scanned within each general category encompassing more -than one factor, and the most severely constraining rating is used to provide the overall rating for the category. In effect, each general consideration landform, soils, water availability, etc., - has a single rating vihen summation begins. The following summation procedures are used: High Capability All not rated or Not EQ M,L,or U Moderate Capability LE 6 M or Not EQ L or U Low Capability GT 6 M or LE 6 L or Not EQ U Incapable GT 6 L o r GE I U Developed 1.4a te r IV-30 CAPABIL.11-Y/SUITABILITY MODE-L ENERGY FACILITY SITING Consideration Specific Data Class Value Value (Incidence) (Proximity) Elevation Province 40 - loom L > loom U Slope 7 - 12% M 12 - 20% L > 20% U Surface Form Undulating M Complex L Soil Engineering Local RQads Limitations Severe M Shal I ow Excavati oil Severe Geology Sand in Hills M Sand by Lakes M Peat U Lake/Pond Sediments L Silt L Bootlegger Cove Clay L C0llUViUM 11 Landslide Deposits L Flooding 100-yr. Floodplain U Coastal Flooding U Water Pollution Very High L Potential High L Moderate M Ecological Sensitivity Very High L High L Moderate M Land Use Undistu'rbed M Urban, Park U Residential < 5 km U Landform Wa te r SKIP > lkm from Ocean, R-I,,,-?-r U** Seisin-1c Hizards Seismically-Induced Ground Failure Very High L Hi gh ill Eliminate for ,-iater dependen.t (type facilities Keep for water dependent type faci I ities IV-31 ENEERGY FACILITY SITING, continued Consi deration Specific Data Class Value Value (Incidence) (Proximity) Seismic Hazards, cont. Earthquake Intensity Unknown - Knik Fault Zone U High Intensities SUMMATION RULES Ratings are scanned within each general category encompassing more 'than one factor and the most severely constraining rating is used to provide the overall rating for the category. In effect, each general consideration landform, soils, water availability, etc., - has a single rating when summation begins. The following summation procedures are used: High Capability/Suitability Not EQ M, L, or U Moderate Capability/Suitability Not EQ L or U, or LE 6 M Low Capability/Suitability GT 6 tl or Not EQ U, or LE 6 L Unsuitable GT 6 L or GE 1 U --------------- Water CONFLICT MODEL URBAN RESIDENTIAL/INDUSTRIAL Consideration Specific Data Class Value Value (Incidence) (Proximity) Land Use Residential (a) M < 150m from Industrial 3 150 300M froin Industrial 2 300 500m from Industrial 1 > 500m from Industrial 0 Industrial 10 (a) Codes 01 , 02, 03, 04, 05 (b) Codes 08, 09, 11 SU."I'MATION RULES Substantial Conflict 3 2 Negligible Conflict 0 Industrial 10 -------------- Study Area. Water IV-33 CONFLICT MODEL RES I DENTI A L/COMMERC I AL Consi deration Specific Data Class Val LIP Value (Incidence) (Proximity) (a) Land Use Residential (b) Adjoining Cominercial 3 < 150(n from Comm-rcial 2 150 - 300m froi-n Lommercial I > 300m -from Commercial 0 Commercial 10 (a) Codes 01 02, 03, 04, 05 (b) Codes 06, 07 SUMMATION RULES Substantial Conflict 3 2 Negligible Conflict 0 Commercial 10 ------------ StUdy Area Water IV-35 POTE14TIAL CONFLICT t-,11ODEL GENERAL DEVELOPMENT SUITABILITY/ECOLOGICALLY SENISITIVE LANDS Capability/SLjitability Ratiliq for General Development Ecological Sensitivity Ra ti n g. Develop d H i g!L 1.1o d e r a t Low Incapable Water Very High SKIP 10 6 4 1 SKIP < 200m Distance 9 9 5 3 High SKIP 8 j, 2 1 SKIP < 200rn Distance 7 7 4 Moderate SKIP 5 3 2 1 SKIP < 200m Distance 4 4 Low SKIP 2 2 1 1 SKIP Very Low SKIP 1 1 1 1 SKIP Water SKIP S KI 11 SKIP SKIP SKIP SKIP SUMMATION RULES Conflict Rating Level I (Substantial 10 Level 11 9 Level 111 8 Level IV 7 Level V 6 Level VI 5 Level VII 4 Level VIII 3 Level IX 2 Level X I Developed Land H 'via ter L IV-37 Chapter V Computer Mapping Introduction Methodology Maos, Legends and Statistics Eagle Ri-ver Basic Data Interpreted Data Opportunity/Constraint Analyses Capability/Suitability Analyses Conflict Analyses Anchorage Bowl Basic Data Interpreted Data Opportunity/Constraint Analyses Capability/Suitability Analyses 'Conflict Analyses V. COMPUTER MAPPING A.' Introduction The automated data f i I es f or- the Anchorage Coastal Stu 'y were used to produce a variety of maps for Eagle River and for Anchorage Bowl. The two types of computer maps produced for this study were maps of basic data and maps of modeled outputs. Basic data maps portray information directly from the data entered into -the computer in the form of manuscript maps, codes, and expansion matrices; they illustrate select physical and cultural components of the landscape. Modeled outputs utilize information contained in the data base, but these data have been manipulated, restructured, and weighted according to the models outlined in the previous chapter. As noted previously, some models also utilize classes of information generated by separate sub-models. The model-maps illustrate environmental assessments and evaluations of the region expressed in terms of general opportunities and constraints, specific land capability and suitability, and land use conflicts. A few of the maps identified in this section were produced at a scale of 1:25,000 in a pen plotter format with lines showing boundaries originally delineated on the manuscript maps. Mnst of the maps were produced in shaded gray tone symbolism. These maps illustrate basic and modeled data which are in a grid format rather than the original polygon format. They were produced on an electrostatic printer, also at a scale of 1:25,000. All maps thus register to the 1:25,000 scale basemaps. The basic sets of pen plotter maps of landform, vegetation, and slope, plus the terrain unit map, were plotted on mylar and overlay and register to individual 1:25,000 basemaps. The grid gray tone maps register to the V-1 composite basemap sets at 1:25,000 fnr EA-le River and Anchorage Bowl. B. Methodology Four sets of maps were produced in a pen plotter format on mylar at a scale of 1:25,000. One illustrates the actual integrated terrain unit manuscript maps as they were subsequently automated. Used in conjunction with print-outs of the terrain unit attribute codes, these inaps providp a simple manual way of determining the environmental characteristics of any areas within the study area, arid are a graphic representation of the original PIOS files. The other three sets are maps portraying the configuration of the data for land-form, vegetation, arid slope whic.h were originally mapped in the- terrain unit manuscript. Data were displayed at a scale of 1:25,000 and were structured in system map modules, corresponding to the standard topographic-quadrangles of the area. Fifteen maps illustrating basic environmental conditions in the area w.Qv,p produced.in a shaded gray tone format. Representing gridded data, they were produced at a scale of 1:25,000, and were printed on translucerit panels which fitted together to form individual maps illustrating the Eagle River and the Anchorage B-wl-areas. The computer maps which were produced to illustrate basic environmental conditions in the study area are of two types - basic data and interpreted data. Basic data maps represent specific environmental characteristics mapped as part of the data base, such as landform, geology, and land use. Interpreted data are those which are based on evaluations or investigations involving environmental specialists. Some wpre mapped in the data base, such as floodplains, V-2 wetlands, or seismic hazards; others were incorporated by means of the soil expansion matrix, such as drainage or agricultural,capability. Both types (basic data and interpreted data) typically represent aggregations of the data originally mapped, reflecting interpretive decisions regarding similarities between closely related environmental characteristics as well as the display options available with an electrostatif, printer. Thirteen computer maps illustrating the results of the application of theoretical models to the,original data base were also produced. They illustrate data transformed and analyzed -in a grid coll configuration at the 1:25,000 scale. All are based on the conceptual roodels outlined in the previous chapter of this report, which were progra',TIME@d to manipulate the basic, matrixed, and derived qrid data in the autoinated system. This process resulted in the creation of a data -file for, each model which stored accumulated values by cells. These values were subsequently grouped into classes and the computer was used to generate grid maps of the ranked and classed data on an electrostatic printer. As with the basic/interpreted data maps, all of the modeled data were portrayed.in an electrostatic gray tone format at a scale of 1:25,000, and wpre printed on paper panels which fitted -together to form individuil maps illustrating the two study areas. The maps produced for this study are listed below. These maps are characterized according to type (terrain unit, basic and interpreted data, and opportunity/constraint, capability/suitability, and conflict analysis maps) and format (polyaon plots or grid electrostatic maps'. Statistical summaries were produced for all of the maps. Based on 10 modules, a total of 40 polygon plots were produced. Two V-3 electrostatic maps were produced for each of those listed below, with exceptions of Permafrost, Visual Quality, and Energy Facility Sitin". Thus, a total of 53 electrostatic grid maps were created. Po I yqotj/My'I arl Grid/Paper2 by Mnrlule by Study Terrain Units x B;1 s i -@'- Data Elevational Province x Landform x x Vegetation x x Land Use x Slope x Soil x Interpreted Data Wetlands x Floorfplai-ns x Habitats x Septic Suitability x Soil Drainaqe x Permafrost (Anchorage 3-w" x Agricultural Capability x Seismic Hazards x Opportunities and Constraints Soil Erosion Potential x Ecological Sonsitivity x Water Pollution Potential x I Visual Quality (Eagle River) x Fire Hazards x Capahility/Suitability Recreation x Conservation/Open Space x Concentrated Urkanization x General Development x Eneray Facility Siting (Anchorage Bowl) V-4 Conflicts Urban Residential/Industrial x Res identi a I/ C@-,me@ci al x General Development Suitability/ Ecoloqically Sensitive Lands x 10 Mndules: Anchorage (A-8) NE NW SE SW (B-7) NE NW SE SW Tyonek (A-1) NE Fire Island Composite 2 2 Study Areas: Eagle River Anchorage Bowl (includes Fire Island) V-5 C Maps, Legends, and Statistics tarh of the maps produced for the Anchorage Cnastal Study was accompanied by a legend and statistics sheet describing the map symbolism and the areal extent of the mapped phenomena. A typed sheet for each of the maps is included at the e nd of this chapter. As indicated earlier, most maps were prnduced in an electrostatic gray toile format. The nray tnnes and their corresponding alpha symbols are illustrated in Figure V-1. An alpha symbol was used on each of the legend and statistics sheets to express the map patter n for each class.of data on a given gray tone map. The gray tnne maps are desiqned to aggregate the infor,,,riation which they convey. Those produced for the study area display data in twelve classes or less. When %,iewed from a distance, the data displayed on the gray tone maps appear to grade from w6ita through shades of gray to black. Some 'of. the maps portray qualitative data, others quantitative data. In qeneral, the basic data maps are qualitative in nature, focusing on type rather than rating. However, where appropriate, the gray tone hierarchy was used t-o qive a visual impression of importance or severity. The modeled maps are generally quantitative in nature, typically involving the ranking of areas within the region for their capability for specific types of land use. On most of the maps, the gray tone symbolism was selected to portray the rankin-. In general, the sequence of light to dark was used to represent the sequence from high to low capability. The map illustrating cons-ervation capability, for example, display ranked data in four classes from n-Igh to unsuitable. It, like most of the other maps, displays water as a separate data class. The codes portrayed on the polygon plots are V-6 those contained in -the data classification system in Chapter 1. Thus, a 1 andform polygon wth a code of 1653000000000 wnuld be " I c@wl and gl aci al till1l; a veqetation polygon with a code of 2112 would be "closed coniferous forest, white spruce, short stands, with low willow res:-in birches"; and a land use polygon with code 06 would be a commericz! land use. V-7 FIGURE V-1 DATA MAP GRID SYMBOLS BLANK El SYMBOL A SYMBOL 0 SYMBOL D syrVIBOL F SYMBOL K SYMBOL M L-0 I --o All SYMBOL 0 SYMBOL P SYMBOL S SYMBOL T SYMBOL X EY SYMBOL Z V-8 Eagle River Map Legends and Statistics Basic Data Interpreted Data Opportunity/Constraint Analyses Capability/Suitability Analyses Conflict Analyses V-9 EAGLE RIVER BASIC DATN-;MAP U7Gl:ND/STATISTlCS " L ELEVATION PROVI,NCE Class Q -1 Area - lia Area--- 0 40m c 2279.30 10 . 9 6 40 1 OOm F 3637..24 17.50% 100 300m p 7510.39 36.12i., > 300m T 3464.95 16.67% Water Blank 3897.84 18. 7 5@,@ V-11 EAGLE RIVER BASIC DATA MAP LEGEND/STATISTICS LANDFORM (PRIMARY) Class aLTLb o I Area - ha Are a Bedrock z 819.46 3.94/1 Col I uvi al Depos i ts C 116.71 0.56'/" Eolian Deposits D Fluvial Deposits F 2775.79 13.35% Glaci"al Deposits K 8211.28 39 - 50cilo Glaciofluvial/glacio-lacustriiie 3521.15 16 . 9 4'1@I, Deposits f1l I Lacustrine Deposits P 541..57 2 . 6 Marine Deposits S 820.08 3. 941101' Organic Deposits T 85.84 0 . 4 Man-made Landforms x Water Blank 3897.84 18.751" EAGLE RIVER BASIC DATA MAP LEGU@ID/STATIS- 'ICS VEGETATION (PRIMARY) Class Area - ha A re.a - '14 Coniferous Forest T 3773.72 18.151-1 Mixed Forest S 6103.65 29.36.'@ Deciduous Forest P 2.47 0.02@@' Black Spruce Forest 0 1557.41 7.495' Wetland z 927.53 4.46'; Shrub 1391.29 6 . 6 9c'@';' Grassland K 53.11 0.26:' Tundra D 765.12 3.68% Barren, Snow and Ice A 120.42 0 . 5 8 Di s turbe d X 2195.93 10. 56"' Water Blank 3897.84 '-118'.75i,' V-13, EAGLE RIVER BASI@C DATA MAP LEGENO/STATISTICS LAND USE Class aTboL Area-ha Area-., Residential 0 2163.82 10.41% Commercial/ I nsti tutional P 161.79 0.78% Industrial T --- --- z '0i I Extractive 1*08.07 0.52/3 Transportation S 305.68 1 . 4 7,/'o/ Park K 947.29 4 . 50"% Agriculture F 15.44 0 . 0 7?1 Vacant Disturbed C 65.46 0. 3 1 % Hon-developed A 13124.34 63.13% Water Blank 18.7 5:42 V-14 EAGLE RIVER BASIC DATA MAP LEGEND/STATISTICS SLOPE Class Area - ha Are 0 - 3% c: 4060.25 19.53% 3 - 7% 0 3293.28 15.84% 7 - 12%- K 1879.76 9.04% 12 20%. 0 2113.80 10.17% 20 30% 1) 2369.46 11.40% 30 45% 1285.69 6.18% > 45% z 1889.64 9.09% Water BI ank 3897.84 18.75% v-i5 EAGLE RIVER BASIC DATA MAP LEGEND/STATISTICS GEOLOGY Cl ass. Symbol Area - ha Ar-ea ,Alluvium C 6736.62 32 .'40'.'11 Sand F Peat, Lake or Pond Sediments M 729.92 3.51y@ SiI1,,,t, Bootlegger Cove Clay 0 863.31 4.15%1 Glacial/morainal/marine deposits P 3615.63 17.39% Col I Uvi uni K 3258.70 15.68%1 Landslide Deposits T --- --- .Bedrock z 1687.71 8.12% Man.-made Fill --- --- Water BI ank 3897.84 18.75% V-16 EA@GLE RIVER BASIC DATA M.AP LEGLEND/STATISTICS SOIL Class Area - ha Area - % Sandy Loam C 69.78 0.34% Si It Loam D 14618.14 70.31% Gravelly/stony Silt Loam 663.84. 3.19% Mucky Silt Loan 0 6.79 0.03% Peat 1) 500.20 2.41% Riven@jash, Gravel Pits S 167.97 0.81% Rock Outcrops Cryaquents/Cryorthents x 865.16 4.16% Urban A Fire Island A Water BI ank, 3897.-84 -18.75% V-17 EAGLE RIVER IINTERPRIETED DATA .@,111,@P LEGLEND/STATISTICS IPETLA"NDS J Class Symbo 1 Area ha Area Patterned Open Complex D --- Non-patterned Elongated Complex F 560.72 2.70% Lakeside Bog K 35.20 0 .1T,*0' Old River Terrace Complex M 713.86 3.43`@' 0? Concentric Closed Complex 0 6.18 0. 031*2 Forested Closed Basin Bog/swajup P 59-28 0.29@/ Non-forested Bog or Wet Meadow T 12.97 0.06:' Large Freshwater Marsh/Coastal We tl ari d Z 627.41 3. 021@ Non-wetl arid A 14876.27 71.56.@@ Water Blank 3397.84 18.75@)' EAGLE RIVER INTERPRETED DATA HIAP LEGENID/STUISTICS FLOOOPLAINS Class @.,Lmb o 1 Area - ha Area - % No Flooding A 14463.14 69.571,11 100-yr. Floodplain 0 1152.31 5. 54 Coastal Flooding p 1259.76 6.06% Coastal IFlooding with Slow T 16.73 0.08% to Moderate Coastal Erosion Coastal Flooding with Rapid Coastal Erosion z Wa te r Blank 3897.84 18.75% V-19 EAGLE RIVER INTERPRETED DATA PIAP LEGENO/STATISTICS HABITATS Class Symbol Area ha Area Fish D 51-87 0 2 5 Fowl F --- Moose K 7526..44 36.20:!. Fish + Moose p 36.43 0 . 18%2 Fowl + Moose 5 804.64 3.87% Fish + Fowl + Moose T --- --- No Habitat A 8644.79 41.58,1 Wa te r Blank 3725.55 17 92c, V-20 EAGLE RIVER I N T'- RP RE TE D D JA MAP LE GE N D/ S TAT I S T I CS SEPTIC SUITAbILITY Class @y L,. b1 Area - ha A re a- - Severe limitations T 14840.45 71.38") Moderate limitations K 810.20 3.90-/@ Slight limitations C 212.43 1 . 02"') Not rated x 1028.80 4.95:'l Water Blank 3897.84 18.75:,'3 V-21 EAGLE RIVER INTERPRETED DATA NA@ LEGENDIISTATISTICS SOIL DRAIINAGE- Class @Lfflbo I Area - ha Area - Very poorly drained z 500.20 2.4 1 Poorly drained T 3109.26 14.961@ Somewhat poorly drained P 235.28 1.13 Moderately well drained K 313.70 1. 51:,) I-Jell drained 1- 11952.27 57.49"3' Somewhat excessively drained D 67-31 0.32: Excessively drained C 713.86 3.43-) Not rated X --- --- Wa +,-.e r Blank 3897.84 18.75:' EAGLE RIVER INTERPRETED DATA MiAP LEGEND/STATISTICS AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY (SOILS) Class SyLlb.0 I Area -- ha Area Class II C 238.37 1 . 15/:' Class III D 1582-11 7.61@,. Class IV F 11546.55 55 . 531,'s Class V K --- --- Class VI p 1327.69 6. 3 9 of,@ Class V1.1 S 1164-04 5. 60@', Class VIII z ---- --- Not Rated x 1033.13 4 . 970' Via te r BLANK 3897.84 18.751.. V-23 EAG E RIVER INTERPRETED DATA MAP LEGEND/STATISTICS SEISMIC HAZARDS C, 1 ass. §Ymbol Area ha Area % Lb"W@..-moderately low ground faJlure susceptibility Unknown surface rupture potential C 5657.30 27.21% ',,,Lower earthquake intensities 0 3895.37 18. 7 4 Higher earthquake intensities 1.- 4593.18 22.0972' Mo.derate ground failure suscepLibility Unknown surface rupture patential K 904.68 4.35@'@' Lower earthquake.intens'Ities 1533-32 7.3W'@ Higher earthquake intensitips 296.41 1. 4 3% High-very high ground failure su ,--s,ceptibility nknown surface rupture potential S --- ower earthquake intensities T 9.88 0 5'_ igher earthquake intensities z 3899.08 18.75% Wa te@. r,. BLANK V-24 EAGLE RIVER TATI ST I CS OPPORTUNITY/CONSTRAINT MIAP LEGEND/S SOIL EROSION POTENTIAL ha S Area Area class Very Low Soil Erosion c 2918.44 14.04/1 Low Soil Erosion F 4982.84 2 3 . 9 7 01 Moderate SoiT Erosion p 4291.83 20.64/; High Soil Erosion T 1277.67 6.140/' Very High Soil Erosion z 1887.78 9.08% Not Rated x 1533.32 Water Blank 3897.84 V-25 EAGLE RIVER OPPORTUNITY/COi',,IST@?A"l@.@IT' RV, LEGEND/STATIS-Ff CS ECOLOGICAL SENSI-livr-ry Class @ymboj Area ha Area Very Low Ecologic'a-1.1 Sensitivity C 2628.82 12.64") Low Ecological Sensi--tivity F 5757.22 27.69% Moderate Ecological :Sensitivity p 5786.86 2 7 . 8 4'5'1 High Ecological Sensitivity T 2052.67 9.871o' Very High Ecological Sensitivity z 666.31 3.21"" Water Blank 3897.84 18.75@2' V-26 EAGLE RIVER OPPORTUNITY/CONSTRAINT 14AP LEGEND/STATISTICS WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL Class Area - ha Area - % Very Low Potential c 8080.37 38.87% Low Potential F 5310.75 25.54% Moderate Potential P 1716.73 8.26% High Potential T 1517.88 7.30% Very High Potential z 438.44 2.11% Water Blank 3725.55 17.920,1 V-27 LEAGLE RIVER OPPORTUN11TY/CONSTRAINT MAP LEG[ND/,STATISTICS VISUAL QUALITY Class -b Area - ha, Area Very Low Visual Quality c 3830.53 13.43-' Low Visual Quality F 3368.00 16.201, Moderate Visual Quality p 7853.74 37.78@ High Visual Quality T 3025.27 14. :55@- gh Visual Quali ty z Very Hi 516.25 Cul tural Features x 2195.93 10.56/* V-28 EAGLE RIVER OPPORTUP11 TY/CONSTRA I PIT MAP LEGEND/S-rivris-rics FIRE HAZARDS Class Are.a - ha Area - Very Low Hazard C 120.42 0.58% Low Hazard F @2773.94 13.34/@ Moderate Hazard p 8781.88 42.24% High Hazard T 1722.90 8.29% Very High Hazard Z 1296.81 6.24% Cultural Features x 2195.93 10.56% Water Blank 3897.84 18.75% V-29 EAGLE RIVER CAPABILITY/SUI-TrfOiLITY MAP LEGEND/STATISTICS RECREATION Class Symbo 1 Area - ha Area - High Capability/Suitability 650.26 3.13%1 Moderate Capability/Suitability P 1385.73 6.661/101 Low Capabilit.y/Suitability F 7328.21 35.25%1 Unsuitable C 6580.39 31.65% Park A 947-29 4.56% Water Blank 3897.84 18.75% V-30 EAGLE RIVER CAPABILITY/SUITABILITY MAP LEGEND/STATISTICS CONSERVATION Class @1 1-J9 -1 Area - ha Area - % High Capability/Suitability z 5427.46 26.11%' Moderate Capability/Suitabilit@y P 721 3.97 34.70% Low Capability/Suitability 1: 482.91 2.32/3 Unsuitable C 3767.54 18.12i@, Water Blank 3897.84 18. 7 5% V-31 EAGL 17) CAPAB/$UITABILITY MAP LEGEND/STATISTICS CONCErD URBANIZATIO,"I Class Area ha Area High C@ity/Suitability z --- Moderatabil ity/Suitabil ity p --- ---- Low Capity/Suitability F 7961.80 38.30% Unsuitab c 5243.44 25.22%1 Develope( A 3686.64 17.73% Water Blank 3897.84 18.75%11 V-32 EAGLE RIVER CAPABJLITY/SUITABILITY RAP LEGEND/SIATISTICS GENERAL DEVELOPHtNT Symbol Area - Ila Area - Class High Capability/Suitability z 208.10 1.00% Moderate Capability/Suitability P 3489.04 16.78% Low Capability/Suitability F 4667.90 22.45% Unsuitable C 48.24.75 2 3 . 2 1 `/?' Developed A 3702.09 17.81,", Water Blank 3897.84 V-33 EAGLE RIVER CONFLICT MAP LEGEND/STATISTICS URBAN RESIDENTIAL/INDUSTRIAL Class Symbol Area - ha Area A, Conflict Rating Level I (Substantial) z 54.96 0.260;,, Level II S 80.90 0.39% Level III p 200.70 0.97 Level IV (Negligible)@ F 1827.27 8.1 Industrial A 193.89 0.931 Study Area C 14534.16 69.91% Water Blank 3897.84 18 . 7 5,cl V-34 EAGLE RIVER CONFLICT MAP LEGEND/STATISTICS RES I DENTIAL/ C0,14"ILE RCIAL Class @YTLii Area - ha Area - % Conflict Rating Level I (Substantial) z 122.27 0.59% 132.15 0.64% Level II S Level III p 21.3.66 1.03% Level IV (Negligible) F 1695.73 8.16% Commercial A 161.79 0.78% Study Area C 14566.28 70.05% Water Blank 3897.84 18.75Y. V-35 EAGLE RIVER POTENTIAL CONFLICT MAP LEGEND/STATISTICS GENERAL DEVELOPMENT SUI TAB ILI TY/ ECOLOGI CALLY SENSI'TiVE LANDS Class Syi-ftbol Area ha. Area %Z Potential Confl.ict Rating Level I (Substantial) z Level II x --- --- Level III S --- --- Level IV P 15.44 0.07% Level V 0 --- --- Level VI M 1371.53 6.60 Level VIT I/ 471.17 2.27% Level VIII F 303.82 1 46% Level IX 0 4033.70 19:40;. Level X (Negligible) C 6994.13 33.64% Developed Land A 3702.09 17-81% Water Blank 3897.84 18.75% v-36 Anchorage Bowl Mal) Legends and StatisLics Basic Data Interoreted Data Opporiunity/Constraint Analyses Capability/Suitability Analyses Confl ict Analyses V-37 ANCHORAGE BOWL BASIC DATA KAP LEGEND/STATISTICS ELEVATION PROVINCE Class S Area --yinbol Area - Ila -- 0 - 40m c 13206.48 34 .32%' 40 100m F 9302,46 24.18" 100 300in p 4795.73 12.46,11' > 300in T 3303.16 8.59", Water Blank 7868.56 20.45", V-39 ANCHORAGE BO'Y-41L BASIC DATA f,AP LEGE.,ND/STATIsTics LANDFORIM (PRIMARY) Cl ass Symbol Area - ha Area - Bedrock z 305.68 0.79% Col 1 uvi al Deposi ts C 276-03 0.724 Eolian Deposits D 1279.52 3.3 131 Fluvial Deposits F 1129-46 2.94% Glaci .al Deposits K 4171.41 10.841j, Glacio-fluvial/glacio-lacustritip- - Deposits 12499.41 321 .48 21 Lacustrine Deposits P 310.62 0.81% Marine Deposits S 8380.49 21.7/8 ,"l Organic Deposits T 2255.21 5.96,11(m Man-made Landforms x Wa tP r Blank 7868.56 20.45%1,' V-40 ANCHORAGE B014L BASIC DATA HAP LEGENIDISTATIS-FICS VEGETATION (PRIMARY) Class Area - ha Are a - Coniferous Forest T 6350.67 16.50-':' Mixed Forest 2058-22 5.35-" Deciduous Forest P 15.44 0.04--@ Black Spruce Forest 0 2649.82 6.89-"' Wetland z 2712.19 7 0'---" -Shrub 2789.38 7.25:,;' Grass 1 an d K 175.99 0 . 4 6:,)' Tundra D 219.84 0.57:1; Barren, Snow and Ice A 2525.08 6. 5 6 Di S tUrbed X 11111-20 28-88:.@ Water BI (ink 7868.56 '-@O 45:;' V-41 ANCHORAGE BOWL BASIC DATA MIAP LEGEND/STA-FISTICS LAND USE Class Symbol Area-ha Area-.*, Residential 0 7676.50 19.95@@ Commerci a I/ I nsti tutional P 4763.00 12 . 3 8 Industrial T 841.07 2. 19 Extractive z 349.52 0 . 9.1 Transportation S 1372.15 3.57@@ Park K 1551.23 4.03@@ F 38.91 Agriculture 0.10': Vacant Distu'rbed C 870.72 2. 26:,:- Non- devel oped A 13144.73 34.16@'.. Water Blank 7.868.56 20.45'@,. V-42 ANCHORAGE BOWL BASIC DATA MAP LEGEND/STATISTICS SLOPE Class f r, b o 1 Area - ha Area - 'X 0 - 3% C 18336.91 47 . Eo'-"@ 3 - 7% D 4799.44 12.47:/@/ 7 - 12% K 2999.34 7 .8X', 12 - 20% 0 2237.92 5.82% 20 - 30% p 726.21 1.69/0 f v 30 - 45% 548.37 1.421.7 > 45% z 959.64 2.49cl@ Water 11, an k 7868.56 2 0 . 4 5%' V- 43 ANCHORAGE BOWL BASIC a-ATA HAP LEGEND/STATISTICS GEOLOGY Class Symbol__ Area - ha Area - Alluvium C 10786-38 28.04%1 Sand F 2121.21 5.510/7 Peat, Lake or Pond Sediments 4201.05 10.9 271 Silt, Bootlegger Cove Clay 0 4178.20 10 .8.60%liff Gl aci al /morai nal /marine deposi ts P 5864.68 15-24% C01 I UVi LIM K 2186-05 5.68"1 Landslide Deposits 241.45 0 . 6 30%@ Bedrock z 839.85 2.18 .% Man-made Fill x 188.96 0.499lof Water BI ank ... 7868.56 20.45%1 V-44 ANCHORAGE B014L. BASIC DATA KAP LEGEND/STATISTICS SOIL C1 ass -SY-@L Area - ha Area - % Sandy Loam C 177.85 0.46%. Silt Loam D 11919.55 30.98% Gravelly/stony Silt Loam K 1289.40 3.35% Mucky Silt Loan 0 723.13 1.88% Peat P 2531.25 6.58% Rivervash, Gravel Pits S 411.27 1.07% Rock Outcrops z 19,8.84 0.52% C rya q Uen ts/ Cryo rt h e n ts x 3565.00 9.26% Urban A 9791.'54 25.45% Fire Island A Wa te r B I Eink" 786& 56 -20.45% V- 45 ANCHINIL INTD DATA ,VkP LEGEND/ STATI STI CS WET Cl a: Symbol Area - ha A r e a - Pat-Open Complex D 1215.92. 3.16% Non-ned Elongated Complex F 1577.17 4.10% Lake)g K 161.79 0.42% Oldrerrace Complex M --- Conc Closed Complex 0 Fore@osed Basin Boglswamf) 1) 430.421 1.12% Non-!d Bog or Wet Meadow T 61.75 0.16% 3119.14 8 - 11'/" Largiwater Ilarsh/Coastal We tl an (IZ Non-q A 24041.64 62.487. Wate; BI ank 7868.56 20.45% v-46 ANCHORAGE BOIA.- INTERPRETED DATA MAP LEGEND/STATISTICS FLOODPLAINS Class @y Lb o I Area - ha Area No Flooding A 26680.96 69.34@-', 100-yr. Floodplain 0 590.98 1. 54'@ Coastal Flooding p 2655.99 6.90:@ Coastal Flooding with Slow T .669.4.0 1 .74@,) to Moderate Coastal Erosion Coastal Flooding with Rapid Coastal Erosion z 10 . 50 0.03:') 0-8.56 Wa te r Blank 78' 20.45.:' V- 47 ANCHORAGE BOWL INTERPRETED DATA IIIAP LEGLENT/STATISTICS) I AB I TATS Class Szrrbol Area - ha Are a - J Fish Fowl D 60.52 0.16% F 4160.91 10-82% Moose K 857.75 2.23'y Fish + Moose p --- Fowl + Moo se S 77.81 0.20% Fish + Fowl + Moose T 4.32 0. 0 1*% No Habitat A 25707.12 66.81% Water Blan'K 7607.96 19.77% V-48 ANCHORAGE BOINL 1NTERPRETED DATA NiAP LEGENID/STATISTICS SEEPTIC SUITABILITY Class Symbol Area - ha Are a Severe limitations T 13584.41 35.31:': Moderate limitations K 2820.25 7.33:;: Sl ight limitations C 290.24 0 . 7 15 Not rated x 13912.93 36.16-";' Water F" I all k 7868.56 2 0 . 4 V-49 ANCHORAGE BOYL INTERPRETED UATA MAP LEGEND/STATISTICS, SOIL DRAINAGE Class _nbol Area - ha Area Very poorly drained z 2531-25 6..58% Poorly drained T 5212-56 13-55% Somewhat poorly drained P 324.82 0. 84% Mo de ra tely well drained K 999.16 2.60% Well drained F 10292.93 26.75% Somewhat excessively drained D 651.49 1 . 6 9%, Exce@ssively drained c 770.06 2.00% Not rated 9825.51 25.54010 x Water Blank 7868.56 2 0 . 4 5%1 V-50 ANCHORAGE BOWL INTERPRETED D' TA IMAP LEGEND/STATISTICS PERiMAROST c1ass SyLbol Area - ha Area - 'Ib Moderate Potential K 23666.19 61.51% High Potential T 6941.64 18.04% Unassessed Potential c --- Wa t,er Blank 7868.56 20.45% ANCHORAGE BOWL TISTIC S INTERPRETED DATA MAP LEGEND/STA AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY (SOILS) Class LiLL Area - ha Area Class II c 2278,68 5.92@; Class III D 1309.78 3.41:;' Class IV F 8999.25 23.39@.'- Class V K --- Class VI P 219.84 0.57'@ Class VII S 3833.@62 9.96@ Class VIII z x 13966.66 3 Not Rated 6.30,@ Wa te r BLANK 7868.50' 20.45-. v- 52 ANCHORAGE BOWL INTERPRETED DATA MAP LEGEND/STATISTICS SEISMIC HAZARDS Class §L qmp 1 Area ha Area Low-moderately low ground failure susceptibility Unknown surface rupture potential C 3648.98 9.480%, Lower earthquake intensities D 3728.64 9.69% Higher earthquake intensities F 10267.04 26.69% Mo.derate ground failure susceptibility Unknown surface rupture potential 1, 590.36 1.53% Lower earthquake -intensi ties M 455.74 1.18% Higher earthquake intensities 0 9763.13 25.38% High-very high ground failure suscepti bi I i ty tial 80.90 0.21% Unknown surface rupture poten 5 Lower earthquake intensities T --- Higher earthquake-intensiLies z 2052'-.67- 5.-34% Water BLANK 7888.93 20.50% V- 53 ANCHORAGE BOWL OPPORTUNITY/CONSTRAINT HAP LEGFND/STATISTICS SOIL EROSION POTENTIAL C lass Symbol Area - ha Area Very Low Soil Erosion c 4947.03 12-86-*' Low Soil Erosion F 5780.69 15-02., Moderate Soil Erosion p 2203.34 High Soil' Erosion T 448.94 1. 17") Very High Soil Erosion z 894.80 2.32-'@ Not Rated x 16333.03 42.45:-' Water Bland 7868.56 20-45:"., v -514 ANCHORAGE BOWL T MU LEGEND/-')Ti@ITISTICS OPPORTUNITY/CONSTRAIIN ECOLOGICAL SENISITIViTy ha Area @yyLbc)L Area Cl ass Very Low Ecological Sensitivity @C 14327.91 37.2-':-- Low Ecological Sensitivity F 10751.18 27.9"-"--,,' Moderate Ecological Sensitivity p 3565.62 9.2-i:,: High Ecological Sensitivity T 1661.15 4.32:,- Very High Ecological Sensitivity z 301.97 0.7E":' Water BI ank 7868.56 2 0 .4:-::,: V- ANCHORAGE BOWL OPPORTUNITY/CONSTRAINT RAP LEGEND/-STATI'STICS WATER POLLUTION POTENFIAL Class Symbo I Area - ha Area - % Very Low Potential c 19278.02 010.10% Low Potential F 4249.84 11.05% Moderate Potential P 3437.79 8.93% High Potential T 3083.94 8.02"41 Very High Potential z 818.84 2.13% Water Blank 7607.96 19. 77% V-56 ANCHORAGE BMIL OPPORTUNITY/CONSTRAINT MIAP LEGENID/STATISTICS FIREE HAZARDS Class S- 1-11! i(-) -I Area-- ha Area-- Very Low Hazard C 2525.08 6.56% Low Hazard F 5818.36 15.12% Moderate Hazard p 9932.95 25.82%, High Hazard T 1045.48 2.72% Very High Hazard 174.76 0.45% Cultural Features x 11111.20 28.88% Water 131 a n k 7868.56 20.45% V-57 A111CHO,11,AGE- BOWL UTTA3 CAPABILI ry/s I LITY RAP LEGE-f,!D/ST,",TIS1-ICS RECREATION Class S.O@bo I Area - ha Area High Capability/Suitability z 2407.75 6.206'@'7 Moderate Capability/Suitability P 3104.94 8.07'.1 Low Capability/Suitability F 2378.72 6.18:1j Unsuitable C 21165.19 55.01-,)' Park A 1551.23 4.031/ Water Blank 7868.56 20.40':-2' V- 58 ANCHORAGE BOWL CAPABILITY/SUITABILITY MAP LEGEND/STATISTICS CONSERVATION Class i,. b o. Area - ha Area High Capability/Suitability. z 4031.23 10.48-@,' Moderate Capability/Suitability P 2948.70 7.66,-@, Low Capability/Suitability F 6164.79 16.021-^.3 Unsuitable C 17463.11 45 .39.-!2 Water Blank 7868.56 20.45@@' v -,5 9 ANCHORAGE BOWL CAPABILITY/SUITA@ILITY @IAP LEGEND/STATISTICS CONCENTRATED URBANIZATION Class Symbol Area ha Area High Capability/Suitability z Moderate Capability/Suitability P 206.25 0.54% Low Capability/Suitability F 7596.23 19.74% Unsuitable c 6251.86 16.25% Developed A 16553.49 43.02% Water Blank, 7868.56 20.45% V-60 ANCHORAGE BOWL CAPABILITY/SUITABI"TY f'IAP LEGEND/STATISTICS L A. GENERAL DEVELONIENT Class §Y- ILI! LI-1-1 Area ha A're a High Capability/Suitability 1511.09 3. 9 Moderate Capability/Suitability P 4517.23 11.7411, Low Capability/Suitability F 1957.57 5.09:@ Unsuitable C 6029.55 15.67:,' Developed A 16592.39 43.12--' Water Blank 7868.56 20.455--@ V- ANCHORAGE 60t' 'L CAPABILITY/S,UITABILITY MAP LEG.END/STATISTICS ENERGY FACILITY SITING Class Symbol Area - ha Area - % High Capability/Suitability z --- --- Moderate Capability/Suitability P 1029.42 2.68% Low Capability/Suitability F 1199.24 3.12% Unsuitable C 28379.17 73.75% Water Blank 7868.56 20.45% V-62 AN C H OR A G E -113 T.L CONFLICT MAP LEGEND/STATISTICS URBAN RESIDEPITIAL/INDUSTRIAL Class Area ha Area 10 Conflict Rating Level I (Substantial) z 626.79 1.63% Level II S 647.17 1.68% Level III p 1081.91 2.81% Level IV (Negligible) F 5320.63 13.83%. Industrial A 2232@98 5.80% Study Area C 20698.35 53.80% Water Blank 7868.56 20.45/, V-63 AiNCHORAGE BO!i,'L CONFLICT MAP LEGEN D/ STATIST I CS RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL Class Symbol Area - ha @rea Conflict Rating Level I (Substantial) z 1114.64 2'.90t' Level II S 11,98.62 3 . 12 Level III p 1708.70 4.44% Level IV (Negligible) F 3654.54 9.501:11. Commercial A 4763.00 12.38012' Study Area C 18168.33 47.21%, Water Blank 7868.056 20.45;@ V-64 ANCHORAGE BOWL POTENTIAL CONFLICT MAP LEGEND/STATISTICS GENERAL DEVELOPMENT SUITAB ILI l'Y/EC0[-0('j1CAL1-Y S[NISITIVIF LAN DS Class Area ha Area Potential Conflict Rating Level I (Substantial) z --- --- Level II x 4.32 0.01C/11 Level III S --- Level IV P 59.28 0.15';@o' Level V 0 --- --- Level VI M 1065.86 2.77@/` Level VII C!! K 876.89 2.28, Level VIII F 35.20 0.09c, Level IX D 3190.77 8.29@1 Level X (Negligible) C 8783.12 22.83q/ Developed.Land A 16592.39 43.13f: Water BI ank 7868.56 20.450/1 V-65 BIBLIOGMPHY Anchorage Bowl Series General Eagle River Series General General ANCIIOP,@GE ITU@f COLT.,NTEIZAL DATA ANCHORAGE BOWL (INCLUDING FIRE 18LAND) Series: Geotechnical Hazards Asses-sment & District Cr)'-'stal Management Program 101 Geotechnical Hazards Assessment: Croundwater, Icings, and Permafrost Mylar 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage 3-79 Comments: Refe'rence only Plate 5A 102 Geotechnical Hazards Assessment: SeisnLically Induced Ground Failure Mylar 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage 3-79 Comments: Plate 2A 103 Geotechnical Hazards Assessment: Tectonic Hazards and Maximum Expectable Earthquake Intensities Mylar 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage 3-79 C. Comments: Plate 1A 104 Georechnical Hazard s Assessment: Mass Wasting Mylar 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage 3-79 Comments: Plate 3A 105 100-Year Floodplain and Inland Extent of Coastal Flooding Mylar 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage, District Coastal 1,1anagement Program (DCMP) 12-77 100' Coastal Habitats Mylar 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage, DC@T 12-77 107 Geotechnical Hazards Assessment: Coastal Erosion, Flooding and Wind Mylar 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage 3-79 Comments: Plate 4A 108 Soils Mylar 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage 109 Lakes and Streams Mylar 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage D("M' 12-77 110 (Base Map) Mylar 1:25,000 (lm x 1.1m) Municipality of Anchorage DCMP 12-77 111 (Colored map, incomplete) Mylar 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage DCMP 12-77 112 Slope Stability Hylar 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage DCMP 12-77 Comments: Slope Stability, Area of Potential Large Landslides, Earthquake Depi 113 Foundation Conditions Mylar 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage DCHP 12-77 General 114 Fire Island Base Map Mylar, Scale Unknown (,@,1:12,000?) Source Unknown 115 South Anchorage Area, Soils Delineations on Photo, Scale Unknown Source Unknown Comments: Supplementary interpretations for area south and east of DCMP 116 Geology (?) - Unlabeled Delineations Blueline, Scale Unknown (-,,l:62,,500?) Source Unknown 117 Soil Interpretations - Residential Suitability Blueline with Crayon', 1:25,000 MunicIpal"ity of Anchorage, DCMP, 12-77 Comments: DCM? soils map colored according to SCS interpretations for dwellings with basements and dwellings without basements 118 Parcel Map, Portion of Anchorage Mylar, Scale Unknown Source Unknown 119 Land Ownershi? and Zoning 1-@ Paper (printed color), 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage, 80 0 Comments: Exact study area boundaries. 120 Wetlands Blackline, 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage 8-80 Comments: Wetland type and number referring to "MUnicipality of Anchorage Wetland Study:. Classification of Wetlaads: 8-80 121 Anchorage Coastal Resource Atlas Bound Paper Color Maps 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage/Stuart Allen 1980 Comments: Atlas of maps for Anchorage Bowl area of: a. Land Use b. 'Wildlife Habitats c. Surficial Geology d. SeisrwLcally-Induced Ground Failure e. T-and Ownership and Zoning f. Floodplains and Wetlands g. Mass Wastin@ h. Foundation and Excavation Conditions i. Slope and Wind j. Coastal Management Zone: Preservation k. Coastal Management Zone: Conservation and Utilization 122 Base Maps - USGS 7.5' Quads Paper 1:25,000 USGS - Municipality of Anchorage Comments: Anchorage. (A-8) sw, w, SE, NE; Tyonek. (A-1) 11,14, NE, No Tycnek- (A-1) 1:25,000 SW, SE coverage available 123 Natural Color Aerial Photographs Prints, 1" = 1000' Municipality of Anchorage 9-80 Comments: Two boxes containing Flights 1 - 5 and 6 -'11. 124 Water-Table Contour Map, Anchorage Area, Alaska Printed Paper 1:24,000 USCS/Greater Anchorage Area Borough (Open File Report, 1974) Comments: 20' contour interval, 1962 base map 125 Relative Permeability of Surficial Geologic Materials Printed Paper 1:24,,000 USGS/Municipality of Anchorage, 1976 Comments: No Coverage for Fire Island. 126 Generalized Geologic Map Printed Paper 1:24,000 USGS, 1972 Comments: Modified, simplified from standard geolocay sheets 127 Foundation and F.,:cavation Conditions Blueli-ne 1:24,000 USGS, 1973 (Open File) Co=ents: Closely related to generalized goology map 128 Slope @Iap Blueline 1:24,000 USGS@I 1972 (Open File) Comments: 6 categories (< 5, 15, 25., 45, l0OX 100-I-) plus hummocky, graded, escarpments 129 Slope-Stability Map Blueline 1:24 '000 USGS@I 1973 Comments: 126-129 in series of USGS "Anchorage and Vicinity" maps EAGLE RIVER Series: Geotechnical Hazards Assessment & District Coastal Management Procyram. 203 Soils Mylar 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage DCUP 12-77 204 (Base Map) Mylar 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage DCHP 1.2-77 205 Drainage Conditions of Surfaced 11aterials Mylar/Color 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage DC@IP 12-77 Comments: Legend Incomplete 206 Geotechnical Hazards Assessment: Tectonic Itazat-ds and Maximum Expectable Earthquake Intensities Blueline 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage 3-79 Comments: Earthquake Intensity Zones, Tectonic Stibsidence Plate 115 207 Geotechnical Hazards Assessment, Seismically Induced Cround Failure BlUeline 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage 3--79 Comments: Plate 2B 208 Geotechnical Hazards Assessment: Coastal Erosion, Flooding, and Wind Blueline 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage 3-79 Comments: Plate 4B 209 Ceotechn ical Hazards Assessment: Groundwater, Icings, and Permafrost Blueline 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage 3-79 Comments: Groundwater, Frozen Ground, Ici@ngs. Plate 5B 210 100-Year Floodplain and Inland Extent of Coastal Flooding Bldeline 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage DC@IP 12-77 211 Geotechnical Hazards Assessment: Mass I-lasting Blueline 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage 3-79 212 Geology Mylar/Color 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage DCHP 12-77 /213 Wetlands Blueline 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage 8-80 Comments: Wetland type + no. referring to "Municipality of Anchorage Wetland Study: Classification of Wetlands" 8-80., General 201 soils'-'Suitability for Dwellings Blueline with Crayon, 1:25,000 Source Unknown Comments: Map of soils colored according to iiiterpretations for suitabilit) for dwellings 202 Soils a. Mylar 1:25,000; b. Blueline Unknown (same as previous listing@ Comments: Larger Coverag"_ than DC*,'-T I.-[aps 214 Base Maps - USGS 7.5' Quads Acetate 1:25,000 uomments: Anchorage@ (B-7) S14, NW, SE, NE Quads 215 Parcel I-lap Acetate 1:25,000 Municipality of Anchorage 216 Natural Color Aerial Photographs Prints, I" = 1000' . Municipality of Anchoraae 0 Comments: Two boxes containing Flights 1 7 with 7a + 6a and 8 13 with 8a + 1 oblique 217 Geology Blueline 1:25,000, Photocopied legend sheets Municipality of Anchorage, 81 C> 218 Habitats Blueline 1:25,000 M %unicipality of Anchorage, n.d. Comments: Hatid-drawn areas; delineations of moose, fish, bird habi--ats GENEP,,,,E 303 CIR Photo Transparencies 2 Packages a. 28 Transparencies + 1 Print. b. 7 Transparencies 304 Eagle River 'Chugiak-Eklutna Comprehensive Plan Printed Volume Municipality of Anchorage 9-79 Comments: Includes page-size maps 305 Geology add Ground Water for Land-Use Planninc, in" the Lagle River-Chugiak Area, Alaska - 1974 Printed volume plus 2 blueline plates (type of aquLEer, depth to bedroc'K add yield; well depth and depth to water) at 1:63,360 plus printed plate (water well and spring location irtap) at 1:25,000 U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS, :1.11 coopel.-ation with Greater AnchoraSe Area Borough (Open-File Report 74-57) Comments: Includes small-scale maps of foundation conditions, slope stability 306 Hydrology for Land-Use Planning, the Hillside Area, Anchorage, Alaska Printed Volume USCS/Gre'ater Anchorage Area Borough (Open-File Report 75-105) 307 Geotechnical Hazards Assessment Study Published Report Municipality of Anchorage (Har ding.-Lawlson Assoc.), 6-79 (Ret. to T. Burns) Comments: Geology, Seismicity, Seismic.Hazards (tectonic, ground failure), Non-seismic Hazards (miss wasting, erosion, tsunami, wind, ground- water, permafrost), Guidelines for Planning 308 Anchorage Area Soil Survey, Volume 7 Published Report USACE, 1979 Comments: Metropolitan Anchorage Urban Study 309 Soil Survey, South Anchorage Area Alaska Published Report USDA-SCS, 11-80 Comments: No maps; adjoins Anchorage Survey on west and north, Chuggach SP on south and east 310 Soils of the Anchorage Area, Alaska, Part X Photocopied Report USDA-SCS for USACE, 4-77 311 Municipality of Anchorage Wetlands Study: Mapping and Classification of Freshwater Wetlands Photocopied Report Municipality of Anchorage (by Fugro Northwest), 9-80 Comments: Contains classification for each mapiped wetland on Anchorage Bowl, Eagle Riversheets 312 Municipality of Anchorage Wetlands Study: Resoitrce Aualysis Photocopied Report Municipality of Anchorage (by Fugro Northwest), 2-81 Comments: Sets forth criteria for mapping and classLfication 313 Coastaf Management Planning in Anchorage, Alaska Photocopied Report Municipality of Anchorage (Anthony Burns), ii.d. Comments: Contains matrix for environmental nss@--ssment 314 Water Resources of the Cook Inlet BlaSiTl, Alaska Printed Paper, 1:1,000,000 4 Sheets USGS/DkNR 1980 Comments: Maps with text, charts, profiles, et(--. Sheet I - Geology (maps of Generalized Geology, Quaternary Sediment Thickness) r A-,7a 1 ab ii t@ Sheet 2 - Gioundwater (map of Generalized Ground-Wate Sheet 3 - Surface Water (map oF @Ieau Annual Runoff) Sheet 4 - Surface Water (map of'Miniinurn Discharge, M7,10 (7 day minimum discharge with a 10-yr. recurrence interval)) 315 Generalized Geologic Map of Anchorage and Vicinity USGS, 1972. Map I-787-A Comments: Landforms for Anchorage Bowl. 316 Preliminary Geologic Map of the Middle Part of the Eagle River Valley, Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska USGS Open File Report'No'. 80-890,*1980 Comments: Landforms for Eagle River 317 Geology and Groundwater for Land Use Planning in the Eagle River Area, Alaska USGS Open File Report No. 74-57, 1974 Comments: Landforms for Eagle River. NOAA COAS TAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 3 6668 14110044 8