evaluation of the recreation potential of lands in the Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks area a report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

4_2

an eval ation of
recr0a io t In the
t n po -ential -of the Jandt
I=TTo"W[)&.__.
EASTLAN
DCREEKSARE
ka.chemak bay,'c,ilaska.

ho.

GV
191.42 -OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1979
FATE.PARKS -DEPARTMENT
A4
R34
1980

'0q)

An Evaluation of the Recreation
Potential of Lands in the
Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks Area

A Report by

Planning Section
Alaska Division of Parks
Department of Natural Resources

This project was supported, in part, through funds provided by the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, through the Coastal
Energy Impact Program, administered by the Office of Coastal Zone
Management, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration,
U. S. Department of Commerce, and funds provided by the Resources
Development Internship Program, Western Interstate Commission for
Higher Education.

June, 1980

f Commerce
US Department o enter LibrarY
NOAA Coastal Services C
2234 South I[-Iobson Avenue
V*
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

ABSTRACT

This report has been prepared to explore the feasibility of
designating publicly owned lands in the vicinity of Cottonwood
and Eastland Creeks (northeas.t of the City of the City of Homer)
for public recreation and openspace purposes by the State. The
Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks area was first identified by the
Alaska Division of Parks for its public recreation potential i n
the Division's draft 1976 report titled""Coastal Recreation
Resources: West Kenai Peninsula, Alaska." Since that time, growing
demands for campgrounds and recreation facilities on Homer Spit,
in the City of Homer and elsewhere on the Kenai Peninsula has led
to a need to more fully explore the possibility of establishing
a state recreation or park at this location.

The following subjects are discussed as they relate to the study
area: natural and cultural resources; socioeconomic characteristics;
regional needs; local attitudes and concerns; recreation use patterns;
potential park boundaries and development intensities; and general
recommendations pertaining to future management of the area if a
park is eventually established.

Recreational oppo rtunities in the area include hiking, camping,
picnicking, berry picking, beachcombing and observing wildlife.
Over the course of the four month study of this area, the author,and
the Division of Parks planning staff have determined that the
establishment of a'recreation area or park at this location is
not only feasible but is also desirable. Local residents seem to
share this conclusion with over 80% of the persons (31) attending
a public meeting in Homer on the matter desiring to see some type
of park established. This report recommends that strong consideration
be given to the establishment of a 3,020 acre recreation area with
the development of low intensity recreational facilities being delayed
until 1983. The purpose of a delayed development plan is to allow
for a reassessment of adverse social and environmental impacts which
may result from recreational use and development' in the area.

CONTENTS

Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Fi'gures
Introduction.
Area and Regional Setting. 2
Background 4
Goals and ObJectives 4
Study Approach 4

Natural System Inventory 6

Climate 7
Geology 11
Oceanography 16
Soils 19
Water Resources 29
Vegetation 32
Mammals 40
Birds.(Marine & Terrestrial) 47
Marine Life -56

Socioeconomic System Inventory 64

Human History 65
Land Use 75
Land Ownership 78
Demography 84
Economy 86
Transportation 91
Other Plans and Proposals 97

Regional Needs Analysis 100

Accessible Recreation Lands 101
Shoreline Access 101
Wildlife Habitat 101
Open Space .103
Economic Stabilization and
Enhancement 103

Local Attitudes and Concerns 105

Maintenance of Rural Quality 106
Transfer of Public Lands into
Private Ownership 106
Social and Environmental Impacts
Associated with Recreation/
Tourism 107

Recreation Use Analysis 109

Current Use Patterns 110
Projected Use Patterns 113
Role of the Study Area 114

Evaluation of Alternative
Boundaries and Development
Intensities 116

Recommendations 137

Appendix A:
Hiking Trail Construction,
Policy Guideline 143
Appendix c:
Public Comments-on Draft
Report 144a-i
Appendix B:
Construction Costs 145

References 146

Acknowledgements 150

LIST OF FIGURES

Study Area (.location map). 3

2. Climate Data: Sky Conditions, Fog and,
Thunderstorms--Homer and Anchorage/ Mean
Monthly Temperatures--Homer (graph). 8

3. Climate Data: Climatological Data--Homer/
Mean Monthly Precipitation--Homer (graph). 9,

4. Surficial Geology. .12

5. Soils Analysis 20

6. Soils Capability. 21

7.. Vegetation. .33

8. Cotto.nwood Creek Plant List, A Tentative
List of Probable Plants. 34

9. Birds of Kachemak'Bay and Vicinity. 48

10. Bird List of the Homer and Kachemak
Bay Area. 50

11. Zooplankton Recorded in Cook Inlet at Nikiski. 58

12. Historical and Archaeological Sites. 66

13- Surface Ownership. 79

14. Governmental Applications, School and,
University Land. 80

15. Subsurface Land Status. 82

16. Private.ApplicAtions for-Public Land. 83

17. Estimated Value of 1976.Kachemak Bay
'Commercial Fish Harvest 87

18. Transportation Routes 92

19. Location of East End Road 94

20. Recreation Participation By Activity and
Region. 1012

21. Boundary Alternative Al. 117

22. Boundary Alternative A2. 118
237 Boundary Alternative Bl. 119
24. Boundary Alternative B2. 120

25. Boundary Alternative Cl. 121

26. Boundary Alternative C2. 122

27. Boundary Alternative DI. 123

28. Boundary Alternative.D2. 124

29. Attitudes Towards Recreation Area Designation
By Place of Residence. 130

30. Attitudes of Persons Wanting a Park Towards,
Various Area Boundaries. 131

31. Attitudes Towards Boundary Alternatives and
Development Concepts. 132

32. Written Comments Submitted at the PARC
Public Meeting, September 12, 1978. 133
33. Surface Ownership-(desirable land acquisitions). 142

INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared to explore the feasibility of
designating publicly owned lands in the vicinity of Cottonwood
and Eastlands Creeks (northeast of the City of Homer) for
public recreation purposes by the State. The Alaska Division
of Parks first identified this area as potential parkland in 1976.

The demand for public recreation lands and facilities with coastal
frontage is growing on the Kenai Peninsula. Already, existing
.,Coastal recreation areas are being overused. Additionally Kenai
Peninsula residents have expressed concern over the protection
and maintenance of the areas rural character. To help maintain.
a vestige of the lower peninsula's rural character and provide lands
for future recreation opportunities efforts need to undertaken to
evaluate remaining undeveloped lands for their park potential.

This situation has lead the Division of Parks to study lands in the
Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks area, among other places, for public
recreation and open space uses. This report discusses natural and
cultural features found in the area, land ownership and interests,
local and regional conerns as they relate to these lands and makes
recommendations concerning the area's future management.,

Area and Regional Setting
.The study area (see Figure 1) is located on the northeast
shoreline of Kachemak Bay. Both Cottonwood and Eastland
Creeks drain the study area. From the City of Homer, the
study area is reached by driving about seventeen miles east
on East End Road.

The climate of the area is generally moist with mild weather
compared with the rest of Alaska. As a result, the area.has
a longer growing season than most other parts of Southcentral
Alaska. Diverse topographic features exist in the study
area. Cottonwood, Eastland and Falls Creeks have eroded
deep canyons into the land. In addition, steep coastal
bluffs, some over 400 feet high, line the shore of Kachemak
Bay. Except for these canyons and bluffs,,the land is
gently sloping.

The quality of the soils vary, but they are generally capable
of supporting roads and structures. The soils are suitable
foragriculture in many parts of the study area.

Spruce forests dominate the upland areas, with the exception
of small scattered meadows and small thick patches of brush.
'In the canyons and on the faces of the coastal bluffs, alder.
is the dominant type of vegetation. Throughout the area
wildflowers and berries are abundant.

There are not any lakes or ponds in the study area, but
creeks flow year around and provide potable water. Several
waterfalls enhance the scenery of the study area.

Wildlife in the area includes black bear, moose, red squirrel,
bald eagles, spruce grouse and many species of small birds.
Other wildlife thought to occur in the area, but hot verified,
include lynx, snowshoe hare, mink, weasel, coyotes, wolves,
porcupines and red-backed voles. Ducks and seabirds utilize
the n6arshore waters of Kachemak Bay. Fish are not present
in the creeks, but a wide variety of species occur in Kachemak
Bay.

The area holds abundant evidence of prehistoric occupation.
Known archaeological sites are located near the mouths of
both Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks. The Cottonwood Creek
site has been nominated to the National Register of Historic
Places.

laska

AW>ORAAM

STUDY
ARrA

study area

FIGURE

The City of Homer exerts an economic and social influence on
the peopl-e living near the study area. Because the area is
.easily accessible from Homer via East End Road,.many people
commute from the vicinity of the study area to work and shop
in Homer.

Background

The Alaska Division of Parks first identified the Cottonwood
and Eastland Creeks area as a possible location for a recreation
area in 1976. This is documented in a Division of Parks
publication titled "Coastal Recreation Resources: West
Kenai Peninsula, Alaska." This report contains an inventory
and description of those coastal areas on the West Kenai
Peninsula which would be suitable for designation as public
recreation areas. The Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks area
was one of several areas identified for future study. More
recent concerns expressed over overcrowding on Homer Spit, a
fourteen percent annual population increase within the City
of Homer, and the likelihood of State or Borough land sales
in the Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks area has led to the
need to more fully assess the recreation use potential of
this area.

Goals and Objectives

The goal of this report is to evaluate the recreation poten-
tial of the lands in the study area and make recommendations
concerning the desirability of withdrawing these lands for
recreation purposes. This includes the following objectives:
1) determine if the natural environment is conducive to and
capable of supporting recreation uses, 2) determine if the
socioeconomic system can support recreation area designation,
3) determine the extent to which recreation area designation
may meet regional recreation and open space related needs,
4) determine local attitudes and concerns in regard to
recreation area designation, 5) determine present recreation
uses of the study area, as they relate to recreation area
designation, and 6) recommend alternative boundaries and
development concepts for a recreation area including a no
action alternative.

Study Approach

The first phase of this study was an inventory of information
concerning the natural and socioeconomic environments. This
included literature reviews, field studies, discussions with

local residents and a public meeting.
The second phase of the study involved an analysis of the
inventory information in view of the study goal and objectives.

The third and final phase involved the development of area
boundaries and development concepts as well as general
.recommendations regarding future management of the area.

NATURAL SYSTEM INVENTORY

Outdoor recreation opportunities largely depend upon the
quality and character of the natural system. For the purposes.
of the following discussion, the natural system includes
climate, geology, oceanography, soils, water, veggtation and
wildlife. Each of these aspects of the natural system will
either provide or,place constraints on the@recreational
opportunities found in the study area. F6 r 6xample,'harbor
seal's frequent the nearshore waters of Kachemak Bay along
the study area and the viewing of these seals would be a
recreational opportunity provided by the natural system.
Recreational opportunities and the constraints on recreational
opportunities are discussed at the end of each section under.
the head'ings "Implications" and "Recommendations."

Cl imate

The climate of the Homer/Kachemak Bay area is one of the
mildest in Southcentral Alaska. As a result, it is well
suited for recreational activities. Early summer is usually
sunny and fairly dry. However, in late summer and early
fall, cloudy, rainy weather is dominant. Winters are long
and moderately cold. In June, July, and August the mean
daily temperatures are in the upper 40's and lower 50's. In
December, January, and February, the temperatures are in the
low 20's. The temperature rarely drops below zero.

The moderate climate results from the marine influence of
Kachemak Bay and Cook Inlet. Furthermore, the area is
protected by mountain ranges. The Alaska Range protects the
area from severe outbreaks of cold air following southward
from the interior. Also, the Kenai Mountains to the east
block the flow of moist air from the Gulf of Alaska.

Despite the mountains, prevailing winds blow from the northeast,,
.but these winds are seldom strong. Most strong winds that
reach the area are channeled up Cook Inlet from a'west-
southwesterly direction.

Precipitation data is not available for the study area, but
data is available for Homer. Homer receives approximately
23 inches of precipitation annually. Because most of the
study area is at higher elevations, the precipitation there
will probably be slightly greater. Climate data for the
Homer area is contained in Figures 2- and 3

CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA HOMER 3
2 2
..Temp. Temp Temp Total Snow
Min. Ave.@. Mean Ave. Max. Ave. Precip.

JANUARY 14.0 20.7 27.3 1.173 10.4

JULY 44.6 52.4 60.2 1.69 0.0

YEAR 29.2 3
6.4 23.0 55.4

1. Degrees Faherenheit
2. Inches
3. Elevation 67 feet

SOURCE: Evans et al. 1972.

MEAN MONTHLY.PRECIPITATION HOMER

C-5.0

-4.0

< 3. 0

2. 0

uj 1 .'0

i F M A M i i A S 0 N D

FIGURE 3.: CLIMATE DATA

SKY CONDITIONS, FOG AND THUNDERSTORMS HOMER and ANCHORAGE

MONTHLY Mean Number of Days Per Year
VARIATION OF VISIMLITY
MEAN TENTHS THUNDER- HEAVY LESS
STATION SKY COVER CLOUDY* STORME-' FOG** THAN-is MILE

HOMER 5 to 8 223 1 9 10

ANCHORAGE 6 to 8 235 28 28

Generally, 8-10 tenths coverage
Visibility is reduced to 1/4 mile or less
NOTE: Thunderstorm occurrence is rate with an average frequency of I to 3
annually
SOURCE: Swift, W.H. et al. 1974.

MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURES HOMER

i F M A M i j A S 0 N D

FIGURE 2: CLIMATE DATA

implications

1., The moist, and mild climatic conditions will probably
make cross-country skiing poor, because the snow will-
melt periodically.

Recommendations

1. Because of the frequent rain storms, visitor shelters
.should be considered in the Olanning of recreation facilities.

Geol ogy

The area of Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks is underlain by
the Kenai Group which is sometimes called the Kenai formation
(Dick Reg6r, personal communication, 1978). The Kenai Group
is a gently folded sedimentary deposit which is several
thousand feet thick (Soil Conservation Service, 1971). In
the study area, it is exposed at the surface in many places,
,but it is usually covered by other materials, ranging in
thickness from less than a foot to more than 200 feet (Dick
Reger, personal communication, 1978). The Kenai formation
is exposed at the surface near canyon edges, on canyon walls
and along the sea cliffs. There are also a few outcroppings
on near'level terrain (Reger, 1977). Figure 4 contains a
map of the surficial geology of the study area.

The Kenai Group is composed of silt stone, sand stone, clay
stone, coal, Ferrugenous material and iron stone. Ferrugenous
material is composed of iron oxides which were transported
into the Kenai formation through the ground water system.

Iron stone is a silt stone which is impregnated with an iron
oxide called hematite. Iron stone usually occurs in nodules
(Dick Reger, personal communication, 1978).

The Kenai Group was formed during the Eocene Age which.began
53 million years ago. During the Eocene, the Kenai lowlands
were often submerged under freshwater through which layer
upon layer of sand, silt, and clay were laid down (Soil
conservation Service, 1971).

The Kenai Group also contains coal beds which formed during
the Eocene. In the area of the creeks, the coal beds formed
in small swamps where trees and plants grew abundantly. As
these plants died, they accumulated as layers of organic
matter. Periodically, this organic matter was buried by
sediment carried in streams. Through the release of volatile
components and compression, this organic matter eventually
became.coal. Geologists have determined that the coal beds
were formed in numerous, small swamps because the coal beds
occur in numerous, small, thin,Jense shaped deposits. The
beds contain both bituminous and lignitic coal, both of
which have a relatively low energy content (Soil Conservation
Service, 1971).

The Kenai Group is covered by more recent deposits including
glacial till, outwash, colluvial-alluvial deposits, alluvium,

Rep 044

(Pq

QA
6

F -Fault (Approx. location)
Qac -Abandoned Meltwater Channel Fill
Qal -Stream Alluvium
Qc -Colluvium
Qcf -Colluvial-Alluvial Deposits
Qcm -Mudflow Deposits
Qd -Glacial Till
Qmb -Beach Deposits
Qmt -Tidal-Flat Deposits
Qo -Outwash Alluvium
-Swamp Deposits
Tk -Continental Clastic Rotks
of the Kenai Group

SOURCE: Adapted from a Photointerpretive map of the surficial
Geology of the Southern Kenai Lowlands, Alaska. R.D. Reger
SURFICIAL GEOLOU T

FIGURE 4

and to a very limited degree losses. Glacial till is the
most abundant material resting on the Kenai Group. Till is
UsUally heterogeneous, containing clays, gravel, and even
boulders. The small particles resulted from abrasion caused
by the movement of glaciers over the surface of the earth.
.The large particles result from rocks which were carried on
and in the glaciers, and were deposited when the glaciers
melted (Dick Reger, personal communication, 1978).

The glaciers which formed the till occurred in the Pliestocene.
Epoch (1.5 million years ago to approximately 15,000 years
ago). Durjng this period, there were five major glacial
advances, and within each major advance there were minor
advances. Each time the glaciers pushed down from thehigh
mountains they scoured.the ground; sometimes the ground was
tertiary bedrock, e.g., the Kenai formation.

Outw&s'h is sand and gravel which is deposited by meltwater'
from glaciers. Past glaciers left one moderatel large
deposit of outwash in section 6 (T5S, RUN, SX@ of the
study area (Reger, 1977).

Colluvial-alluvial deposits are also found in the study
area. The largest deposits occur at the mouths of McNeil,
Cottonwood, and Eastland Creeks. These deposits indicate
that huge mudslides occur in the canyons of the study area.
Such mudslides can be very destructive; this point will be
expanded on later (Reger, 1977; and Dick Reger, personal
communication, 1978).

Similar to mudslides, are landslides which also occur in the
area of the Creeks. Landslides also have a great destructive
force (Dick Reger, pe .rsonal,communication, 1978).

Alluvium it material that is deposi.ted by water. It is
found along some stretches of Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks
away from the sea cliffs. The alluvial material could
contain sand and gravel. Wind deposited materials, losses,
are not common in the area of the Creeks (Dick Reger, personal
communication, 1978).'

Earthquakes: The Kachemak Bay area, like most areas in
Southcentral Alaska, is prone to earthquakes. When quakes
do occur, they often cause accelerated erosion of the sea
cliffs. Several small faults exist in the study area (see
Figure

Implications

ii Because glacial till in the study area doesn't contain
much pure sand or gravel, it is a poor source of con-
struction matertals. However, it packs well and usually
supports roads well.

2. There is little sand or gravel suitable for construction
material in the study area or in the East End Road
area. This may make road construction expensive.

There are two places where construction material might
be found. One is in section 13, the other is in those
areas of the creeks where alluvium is found. The area
in section 13 is probably a channel which filled with
coarse morranic material carried by melt water (Reger,
personal communications, 1978.)

3. As mentioned earlier, mudslides and land slides occur
in the canyons. These slides may pose a threat to
people hiking in the canyons, and the slides have the
power to destroy buildings and other structures in
their path.

4. Because of the low grade and thin beds of the coal
deposits, large scale coal mining probably would not be
profitable in the study area.

5. Because of the occurrence of iron compounds in the
subsurface layers, ground water and surface water may,
to some persons, have a bad taste. However, some 'local
residents have-reported good water from their wells.

I+

Recommendations

1. R6creational facilities should not be built i n the
canyon bottoms because of the landslide and mudslide
danger.

2. The quality of ground and surface water varies greatly
in the area. Therefore, care should be,@taken in choosing
well sites.

Oceanography
The,ttudy area borders Kachemak Bay, an elongated embayment
contiguous to the lower portion of Cook Inlet. The north
side of the bay which extends from Anchor Point to the mouth
of the Fox River contains approximately 47 miles of coastline.
About six miles', or thirteen percent of this coastline is
contained within the study area.

Kachemak Bay is divided into an inner bay and an outer bay.
The'inner bay, which borders the study area, extends from
Homer Spit to the head of the Bay. The outer bay extends
north from Homer Spit to Anchor Point and south from Homer
Spit to Point Pogibishi (Trasky, 1977).

Physical Oceanography: Kachemak Bay is relatively shallow.
The average depth is.25 fathoms (46 m.; 151 ft.) The bottom
Of.the Bay slopes gently from the north side down to a 30-40
fathom (53-73 m; 174-239 ft.) trench which runs along the
south central side.

The flood and ebb of the tide dominates the water movement
in the Bay. However, the net circulation, which in part is
driven by the tidal currents is characterized by an inflow
of 'Clear ocean water on the south side of the Bay and an
outflow of slightly turbid water on the north side of the
Bay. In addition to the tides and water circulati *on pattern,
there is a net outflow of low salinity water from the inner
Bay past the distal end of Homer Spit to the outer Bay.
This results because more freshwater runoff and precipitation
enters the inner Bay than evaporates from it (Trasky, 1977).

The tides in Ka.chemak Bay are semidiurnal which means there
are two high and two low tides.per day. There is a difference
of several feet between the two high tides, and there is a
difference between the two low tides of the same magnitude
The mean tidal range in Kachemak Bay is 15.4 feet (at Seld@via),
but the highest tides exceed 22 feet, and the lowest tides
drop to about -6 feet (Trasky, 1977).

Ice rarely forms in outer Kachemak Bay because of the warming
influence of the.Gulf of Alaska. However, during severe
winters, ice related problems in the inner Bay can occur
when northerly winds push freshwater ice from the head of
the Bay against Homer Spit. Surface water temperatures in
the Bay as a whole range from a summer high of 55* F. to a
winter low of 28* F. (Trasky, 1977).

The waters of the inner Bay contain more sediment than the
fairly clear waters of the outer Bay. Sources of sediment
in the inner Bay include glacial and river runoff as well as
:erosion materials from the bluffs along the north-shore of
the inner Bay (Trasky, 1977).

Coastal Morpholo5y: The bluff face within the study area
consists of friable coal bearing sedimentary rocks of the
Kenai Group. This bluff face is slowly eroding.

The low rate of erosion is indicated by the gently sloping
beach. The average slope is about 3%. The beach face is
composed of extremely fine grained material which also
indicates a slow erosion rate. Intertidal mud flats completely
line the bluffs except for a narrow strip of gravel at the
bluff face (Hayes@, 1977).

Chemical Oceanography: The salinity of Kachemak Bay probably
averages between 30 and 32 parts per thousand (ppt) during
spring, summer and fall. Seasonal runoff of freshwater
reduces salinities especially at the surface in the inner
Bay (Trasky, 1977).
Oxygen levels are about 8 parts per million (ppm) at the
surface of the Bay, And about 6.7 ppm at the bottom. For
comparison, oxygen levels in Lower Cook Inlet vary from 11.
ppm at the surface to about 7.2 ppm at depth. No Cook'Inlet
waters are deficient in oxygen (Trasky, 1977).

Impl ications
Kachemak Bay is an extremely interesting marine environment
which provides visitors with many attractions such as waves,
tides and beaches.

Soils

The Soil Conservation Service has surveyed the soils of the
study area. For planning purposes, the Soil Conservation
Service has divided the area into major soil associations.
A soil association is considered to be an area that has a
distinctive pattern of soils. It normally consists of one
or two predominant soils and one or more minor soils. The
same soils that occur in one association may occur in another
associati'on, but the relative abundance of soils will be
different (Soil Conservation Service, 1971).

Figure 6 contains a map showing.the locations of these
soil types; Figure 6 contains a map showing the construction
capabilities in the study area. Recreation planning must
take into consideration the construction suitability of the
soils in an area for the purpose of trail and building
construction.

The Soil Conservation Service mentions five factors which
determine a soil's suitability for supporting roads and
buildings. These are frost action, shrink/swell potential,
erosion potential, drainage, and bearing capacity. These
factors are often interrelated.

Frost action takes many forms, but the most pertinent is
frost heaving. As subsurface ice freezes, it expands and
lifts the surface of the ground. This can cause damage to
both roads and buildings.

Swelling and shrinking of soil is usually caused by changes
in the amount of water.present in the soil, but it can also
be caused by freezing and thawing. Soils that have a.high
shrink/swell potential do not offer good support for roads
and buildings, because they cause the surface of the ground
to be unstable. Perhaps the worst soils for shrinking are
the peat soils, e.g., Salamatof and a similar soil, the
Starichkof.

Erosion is an important consideration because of possible
sediment.pollution of streams. Also, erosion is often
associated with a loss of vegetation.

Another important consideration is drainage. In some portions
of the study area, the water table is near the surface,
leading to ponding, bogs, and unstable soil conditions.
Roads or trails built in one of these areas can literally

L
k spa
MUC
)d4uc
Q SrA
KhC Spa
Spa
RUB SrA SB U KhB'
Kh

h hf)
K
Spa h KhR RP ..
MuC UC P

IWO
Kh
E KhC
5P8

r
KhD
hD

KhC`..
Kho

-Mi1r)

h Mu
SkB
KhD, Ba
MUD

SrA hE Muc
Knu
K

KhC h hC
IF-T 'W
KhB
MUD

Kh Muc

KhD KhE
MUD SMS
Muc
KhC AN&YW
`4, 0 1

rnikees

Indicates Soil Type .Indicates Slope
Ba-Beluga Silt Loan A-Neariy Level
Do-Doroshin Peat B-Gently Sloping
Kh-Kachemak Silt Loan C-Modcrately Sl-oping
Mu-Plutnala Silt Loam D-Strongly Sloping
Ro-Rough Broken Land E-Moderately Steep
z Sa-Salamatof Peat' F-Steep
MDY AREA BOUNDARY Sp -Spenard Silt Loam
Sr-Starichkof Peat
171
TENTATFVE PARK BOUNDARY SOURCE: Soil 'Conservation Service, Soils Survey

FIGURE

11110

SOIL CAPABILITY

Soil Capability evaluated for construction purposes only.
F-71 LOW CAPABILITY

MEDIUM CAPABILITY
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY HIGH CAPABILITY
F/I NOT EVALUATED
TENTATIVE PARK BOUNDARY

FIGURE

sink into a puddle of water, if:proper engineering and
construction techniques are not utilized.
Bearing capacity is related to the factors mentioned previously,-.
and to the type of materials present under the soil. In
general, soils with a thick gravelly substratum are able to
support more weight than soils with a fine grained.substratum.

Within the study area, there are four soil associations:

1) the Mutnala-Salamatof Association,
2) the*Kachemak Association,
3) the Beluga Association, and
4) the' Rough Broken Land Association.

The Mutnala-Salamatof Association: The Mutnala-Salamatof
Association is formed by Mutnala and the Salamatof Soil
Serfes. A soil series is a precisely defined and well
understood type of soil. The Mutnala series is a well
drained silt-loam that often occurs over gravelly glacial
till. It is-usually found in uplands. The slope of this
soil ranges from nearly level to steep.

The other principle soil series in this association is the
Salamatof. This series is a poorly drained, peat soil, and
it is usually associated with Muskegs.

In the coastal area, there is a complex pattern of Mutnala
and peat soils--Salamatof, and Starichkof. The Matanala
occurs,on low morraines, while the peat occurs in depressions.
Many of the depressions contain small lakes.

The Mu.tnala soil is typical of area soils in regard to frost
action which is moderate to high. Furthermore, it usually
issubject to erosion and requires much cutting and filling.
This is because it often occurs in hilly areas. In contrast
to its undesirable characteristics, the Mutnala soil has a
high bearing capacity and a low shrlnk/swell potential.
The peat soils including the Salamatof and the Starichkof
are poor soils to build on. They have a high susceptibility
to frost action. As a result of the above characteristics,
the peat soils have a low bearing capacity.

The Kachemak Association: The Kachemak Association contains
only one abundant series, i.e., the Kachemak. This series
contains well drained silt-loams that are shallow to moderately

2 2

deep. They occur over soft shale and sandstone, or gravelly
glacial. drift. They are found in uplands, generally between
800 and 1000 feet.

The Kachemak,.Iike the Mutnala, is erodible when excavated.
It has a moderate to very high-susceptibility to.frost
action (in this 'case, mainly frost heaving). In most places,
it has a low bearing capacity, but in some places it has a
high bearing capacit@ because of firm underlying layers..
The Kac'hemak has.a low to moderate shrink/swell potential.

The City of Homer, in.their Comprehensive Development Plan
of 1978, reports that local Kachemak soils are well drained,
but because of their.high organic matter content and fine
mineral grains, they provide very poor road surfaces. In
addition, they are unsuitable for septic tanks because of
seep water which interferes with septic tank operation.
Also, in these cases, septic tank use can cause groundwater
pollution.

The Beluga Association: The Beluga Association contains one
predominant soil series--the Beluga. This soil series
developed in medium textured and moderately fine colluvium,
and it is a silt-loam. The Beluga soils are usually poorly
drained. However, they can be found on steep grades as well
as level ground. This soil is locally important to farming
and much of Homer is built.on this soil association.

The most conspicuous problem associated with the Beluga soil
series is caused by the presence of groundwater at or near
the surface. This water must be diverted before construction
can take place. In Homer, a ditch above the construction
site is used to intercept seep water. This diverts the,
groundwater around surface developments, and allows the soil
to dry. Road ditches can serve as a diversion ditch insome
areas (Homer, City of, 1978).

The Beluga Series poses another problem in Homer. Septic
tanks and seepage pits do not function efficiently in these
soils, and pollution of groundwater and surface water can
occur where they are used (Homer, City of, 1978).

The Belug a Series has a moderate to very high susceptibility
to frost heaving, but it has a low shrink/swell potential.
Presumably, it has an adequate bearing capacity because
roads and houses in Homer are built on this type of soil

u OL4eLOOSSR LtOS SL44
UL An:):)o SLRUO@S?330 sap@Lspntu pup sgp@LSPURI 'Pa4e4869Aun
pup aLqe4sun ua;lo SL UO@JeLoosse L@Os SLU -SLLeM suOkue:)
Pup SIM-3 29S lsju9wdjR3S8 papo.Aa daa4s @o pasodwo3 SL
'UOL4ejI3OSSV PURI UOJOJS 46noH aqj. wof4ef3ossV PURI ua4ojS gonob

*(SL61 '03tAJaS UO@4e&AMOO MS)

Imp!-ications

1., One favorableaspect of,the soils in the Homer area is
the absence of permafrost which if often a major problem
in other Alaskan communities.

2. The Mutnala soil series is generally suitable for the
construction of'trails and buildings because of its
high bearing capacity and low shrink/swell potential.

3. The Kachemak soil series is probably less suitable than
the Mutnala soil series because its bearing capacity
and shrink[swell potential is unpredictable.

4. The Beluga soil series is adequate for construction if
it is adequately drained.

5. All the soils in the study area are erodable if the
vegetation is removed.

6. The Rough and Broken Land offers a very poor surface
for construction because it is steep, unstable and
highly erodable.

7. The soils of the area can support all.forms of nonmotorized
.recreation, i.e., hiking and cross country skiing.
However, some erosion could occur on improperly designed
or constructed hiking trails.

8. Visitor safety is an important consideration in the
rough broken soil type. This is becuase of topography
more than soil structure. The Rough Broken Soil Association
occurs mostly on steep cliffs and canyon walls. The
soil near the edges is susceptible to breaking off,
which could result in visitor hazards if this condition
is not properly advertised.

9.1 Most forms of motorized recreation would lead to a
deterioration of the soils in the area. Operating All
Terrain Vehicles,(ATV's) and motorcycles.causes erosion
because the vehicles loosen the soil and destroy
surface vegetation, especially on steeper slopes.
Also, the impact of this use is normally not confined
to trails.

1.0. Unlike motorcycling and operating ATV's, snomnobiling
may not damage the.soil because the snow forms a protective

layer over soil and vegetation. However, some
impacts on wildlife and conflicts with other recreationists,
Mottmotably:cros-s-country skiers., can occur if the use
is not -properly managed.

2 6

Recommendations

Every effort should be made to:

1. Restrict road construction to the following soils:
1) Mutnala soils of low to moderate slope,
2) Kachemak soils that have a gravelly substratum,
and
3) Beluga soils where artificial drainage can be
applied.

Figure 6 shows the areas where these soils are likely
to occur.

2. Avoid building roads on peat soils, and unstable Kachemak
toils. The probable locations of these soils are also
shown in Figure

3. Do, not build septic tanks in water saturated soils, or
in areas or shallow unconfined acquifers.

4. Proper construction methods are important to assure the
stability of roads and buildings.

5. The road maintenance costs should be figured into the
co st of operating the park from the beginning.

6. Trail designs should avoid areas of poor soil stability.

7. Avoid uilding hiking trails in the Rough Broken Soil
Association, because of its high erosion potential and
potential for danger to visitors which may stray from
designed trails.

8. Warn people of the danger of hiking near the edges of
steep canyon walls and sea cliffs. This could be
accomplished with signs and leaflets.

9. Prohibit motorcycle and ATV use in the area, unless a
park of sufficient size is established to provide for
this use in a separate area. Such an area must be
capable of supporting the use without serious environmental
impacts or impacts to adjacent land owners.

10. Allow snowmobiles if,they do not undul y conflict with other rec-
reation uses. Also,-other impacts such as noise should be considered.

Water Resources

Thd Water resources-of the study consist of groundwater and
Mail creeks.

Groundwater: Groundwater from wells around the study area
'@ften has a bad taste because of high iron concentrations*.
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has tested the
.chemical properties of the water from several-private wells
near the-study area. Their records indicate that iron
concentrations of these well waters range from about 1.5
mg./L to over 5 mg./L. These concentrations exceed the
drinking water standard of .3 mg./L for iron. USGS records
indicate that the pH ranges from 6.0 to 7.0. Wells in the
area range in depth from 15 feet to over 200 feet. Local
residents have reported both good and bad tasting water, in
addition to weter that causes staining problems.

Surface Water: The surface water resources of the study
area consists of several small creeks. The two principal
creeks are Cottonwood and Eastland.Creeks which flow year
around. These creeks become frozen over in some places
during the winter.

While bacterial sampling has not taken place, th6 waters are
probably.pollution free because there are few houses, or
other developments, along the creeks. Even though the water
is probably good from a human health standpoint, the Department
of Environmental Conservation (DEC) does not allow the use
of surface waters for public water supply without some
treatment. The minimum treatment probably would be chlorination.
The reason for this ruling is that rare bacterial pollution
events occur in surface water. When such pollution occurs,
people drinking the water can become seriously ill.

2.9

.ImPl ications

1. It may be difficult to find a source of ground water
that does not have an excessive concentration of iron.

.2. It may be difficult to use the area's surface water. as
a public drinking supply. This is because expensive
water treatment equipment, such as chlorinators, would
have to be installed to meet the requirements of the
DEC.

Recommendations

1. A water quality monitoring program should be set up
with the DEC to protect the quality of surface waters.

.2. If.a well with water meeting the standards of the DEC
cannot be located, an alternative would:be to treat
local groundwater or surface water. This, probably,
would involve installing equipment to remove the iron
from the ground water, or installing chlorination
equipment to protect the purity of surface water.

Vegetation
Knowledgbable persons have not published an adequate amount
of information on the vegetation of the Kenai Lowlands which
includes the study area. However, there are a few sources
of general information on the vegetation; these include the
following: "Alaska Regional Profiles," "Alaska Trees and
Shrubs," and "[The] Soil Survey [of the] Homer Ninilchik
Area, Alaska." The following discussion is, in part, based
@on the dangerous adaptation of this general information to
the specific area of Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks. This
discussion also contains information from an unpublished
vegetation list supplied by an employee of the Pratt, Museum
in Homer, and from brief field surveys conducted by the
Alaska Division of Parks.
The "Alaska Regional Profile" (Selkregg, 1974) inden tified a
wide belt of land on the north side of Kachemak Bay, including
the study area, as a coastal Western Hemlock-Sitka Spruce
Forest. This forest community is common on the Pacific
coast of North America. It usually contains high brush and
meadows as subsystems within the larger forest community.
The'vegetation in the study areaO however, differs signifi-
cantly from the Western Coastal Hemlock-Sitka Spruce Forest
as described in the "Regional Profile." The most obvious
.difference is that there are no hemlock trees growing in the
study area, or if they.are present, they are very rare.
Another difference is the abundance of the meadow and brush
subsystems. These vegetation groups are so abundant in the
study area that they can be considered as separate groups.

As a result of these differences, it seems appropriate to
drop the "Hemlock-Spruce Classification" and divide the
vegetation into'four major groups: 1) Sitka Spruce Forests,
2) Dry Meadows, 3) Wet Meadows, and 4) Brush. These vegetation
groups and their locations are shown in figure 7 . and
species'likely to be found in each vegetation type are shown
in figure a
.The Spruce Forest: Sitka Spruce is the most abundant vegetation
existing above the deep canyons of Cottonwood, Eastland, and
Falls Creeks. Stands of Sitka Spruce are more abundant
around Eastland and Falls Creeks than around Cottonwood
Creek. The Alaska Spruce Beetle is causing some damage to
these trees (Soil Conservation Service, 1971). Scattered
thinly through the Sitka Spruce are cottonwood and Kenai

. ..............
... ..........

IN Hill'
121i 'ia
HIM

zu,

u:
MIN.
mm-

VEGETATKD.N
'J": 0

v m4es

Vegetation map adapted from aerial photographs.
E
BRUSH & UNVEGETATED
l

SPRUCE WOODS
El
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY MEADOWS
17_1 F] NOT EVALUATED
TENTATIVE PARK BOUNDARY

FIGURE 7@

FIGURE 8:
COTTONWOOD CREEK PLANT LIST.
A TENTATIVE LIST OF PROBABLE PLANTS

SPRUCE WOODS

Actaea rubra Baneberry
Anemone richardsonii Yellow Anemone
Cornus canadensis Canada Bunchberry
Dryopteris dilatata Wood Fern
Echinopanax horridum Devil's Club
Equisetum silvaticum Woods Horsetail
Gymnocarpium dryopteris Oak Fern
Grasses
Impatiens noli-tangere Touch-me-not
Listera cordata Twayblade
Linnaea borealis Twinflower
Lycopodium sp. Clubmoss
Menziesia ferruginea Rusty Menziesia
moneses uniflora Single Delight
Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce
Populus balsamifera Cottonwood
Pyrola asarifolia Wintergreen
Pyrola chlorantha Wintergreen
Pyrola grandiflora Large-leaved Wintergreen
Pyrola minor Small-leaved Wintergreen
Rubus pedatus Trailling Dewberry
Rubus stellatus Nagoonberry
Rushes
Salix sp Willows
Sedges
Streptopus amplexifolius Watermelon berry
Vaccinium ovalifolium Blueberry
Vaccinium vitis-idaea Lingonberry
Viola Langsdorfii Alaska Violet

(continued on next page)

COTTONWOOD CREEK PLANT LIST CONTINUED

MEADOWS

Achillea borealis Yarrow
Aconitm delphinifolium Monkshood
A1nus crispa Sitka k1der
Angelica lucida Wild Celery
Anemone richardsonii Yellow Anemone
Artemesia Tilesii Sage
Aruncus sylvester Burnet
Aster sp Aster
Athryium felix-femina Lady Fern
Betula kenaica Kenai Birch
Botrychium lanceolatum Grape fern
Botrychium lunaria Moonwort
Castilleja unalaschcensis Coastal Paintbrush
Conioselinum chinense Hemlock Parsley
Draba sp Mustard
Delphinium glaucum Larkspur
Epilobium agustifolium Fireweed
Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail
Erigeron sp. Fleabane
Frit illaria camschatcensis Chocolate Lily
Galium borealis Northern Bedstraw
Gentiana amarella Gentian
Geum macrophyllum, Large-leaved Avens
Geranium erianthum Wild Geranium
Grasses
Heracleum lanatum Cow parsnip
Lathyrus palustris Vetchling
Lupinus nootkatensis Lupine
Myosotis alpestris Forget-me-not
Plantathera dilatata Bog Orchis
Polemonium acutiflorum Jacob's Ladder
Ranunculus Bongardi Buttercup
Rhinanthus minor Yellow Rattle
Rosa acicularis Wild Rose
Rubus arcticus Nagoonberry
Rubus idaeus Raspberry
Rumex acetosella Sheep sorel
Rushes
Sambucus racemosa Elderberry
Sanguisorba stipulata Burnet
Sedges
Solidago lepida Goldenrod
Spiraea beauverdiana Spiraea
Stellaria so Chickweed
Streptopus amplexifolus Watermelon Berry
Taraxacum officinale Dandelion
Thalictrum sparsiflorum Meadow Rue
Trifolium hybridum Alsike Clover
Trifolium repons Clover
Trientalis europaea Starflower
Urtica lyallii Stinging Nettle
Viola epipsila Marsh Violet

(continued on next page)

COTTONWOOD CREEK PLOT LIST CONTINUED

MARSHY AREAS

Caltha palustris Marsh Marigold

Drosera rotundifolia Sundew
Epilobium glandulosum Willow Herb
Equisetum fluviatile Water Pipes (Horsetail)
Eriophorum sp. Cottongrass
Grasses
Hippuris vulgaris Mares Tails
Iris setosa Wild Flag
Menyanthes trifoliata Bog Buckbean
Mimulus guttatus Monkey flower
Parnassia palustris Grass of Parnassus
Ranunculus hyperboreus
Rubus chamaemorus Cloudberry
Rushes
Sedges
Swertia perennis Bog Star
Valeriana capitata Valerian
Veratrum viride False Helebore
Viola epipsila Marsh Violet

Rumex sp. Dock

Source: Griswold, Carol , 1978.

birch trees, The cottonwood trees are probably the largest
trees in the study area. Mature cottonwood trees in the
Homer area average 60 to 75 feet high and 18 to 36 inches in
dtameter (Soil Conservation Service, 1971). The understory
is composed chiefly of mosses, ferns and lichens; but willow,
.alder, berries and flowers are also present.

High Brush: High Brush occurs between the beach and upland
forest and in the deep canyons containing the creeks. The
high brush is usually composed of alder, but stands of
almost oure willow are sometimes present. In the alder
thickets, devil's club is often present as understory vegetation
in abundance. Alder thickets are denser near Cottonwood
Creek than around Eastland Creek. Alder thickets are not
uncommon elsewhere; they form a subsystem to many vegetation
types throughout Cook Inlet (Selkregg, 1974).

Dry Meadows: Dry meadows are scattered throughout the study
area, but are most numerous around Eastland Creek. Some of
the meadows are fairly large and have trees scattered through
them, often cottonwood and.Kenai birch. Tall grass, probably
bluejoint, is the major plant present in the dry meadows.
Other plants include fireweed, monkshood, dandelion, lupin
and raspberry.

Some meadows in the area command impressive views. Notable
ones are located at the mouth,of Cottonwood Creek and upland
@areas around Eastland Creek.

Wet Meadows: Wet meadows are less common than dry meadows.
But, one 1-5ng thin strip of meadow lies under a powerline
passing.through the area. Evidently, wet meadow ecosystems
often result when trees are cleared for powerline corridors
and other purposes. Other wet meadows are located around
some of@the upper portions of creeks in the area. The most
obvious plants in the wet meadows are the wild flowers such
at cottongrass and bog star.

:37

Impl ications

1. A diversity of vegetation types is more desirable.than
a single and continuous vegetation type for most recrea-
ti0hal activities. The study area has this diverse
vegetation quality.

Recommendations

Existing vegetation should be used to block highways or
aesthetically unpleasing land uses from recreational
activities. Conversely, buffers of vegetation should
be'used to block recreational activities which may be
considered unaesthetic from the view of residents.

2. Vegetation should be protected by prohibiting off road
vehicle use in the area.

Mammal s

Mammals inhabiting the area include moose, black bears and
red squirrels. Other mammals probably inhabit the area, but
this has not been verified. These mammals'include the
following: snowshoe hares, lynx, mink, weasel, coyotes,
voles and porcupines. All these mammals are discussed on
the following pages.

Moose: Generally, moose inhabit the Cottonwood/Eastland
Creeks area from spring through fall, and leave the area to
winter at lower elevations where food is more plentiful.
Wintering areas include the Homer vicinity, the Fox River
Valley, and probably a large year around concentration
center farther to the north between Clam Gulch and Swanson
Lakes. However, during mild winters, moose will remain in
the area,.and even in normal winters the area will not be
completely free of moose; a limited number of moose will
pass through the area and find some forage (Dave Hardy,
personal communication, 1978).

Moose generally feed on brush species. They prefer to eat
willow, but they will also eat other plants including cottonwood
foliage and grasses. It also seems that moose will occasionally
eat alder; however, this is a controversial point (Dave
Hardy, personal communication, 1978).

Not only do moose feed in this area, but they also bear
their young here in the spring. The bluffs, and particularly
those east of Eastland Creek, are important calving areas.

Bears: Black bears are commonly found in the area, and
brown bears to a much lesser extent. In November both black
and brown bears begin'a long period of dormancy,which lasts
until April or May. In the area of the Creeks, bears can be
expected to winter almost anywhere. For example, bears have
been known to take over marmots' dens and enlarge them for
their own use. More commonly, they dig their own dens, or
simply crawl under the dense, low branches of spruce trees
(Dave Hardy, personal communication, 1978).

During their winter dormancy, bears lose considerable weight.
This weight loss -- especially in the males -- continues
until July, even though they have opportunities to feed in
the spring. This is because breeding activities, which last
from late May until early July, take time away from feeding.
When July comes and the breeding season is over, the bears

begin heavy feeding which lasts until October. During this
period, they regain the weight which was lost earlier.
(Ddve Hardy, personal communication, 1978).

Black and brown bears are omnivors which means they will eat
both plants and animals. Except when the salmon are running
their diet consists mainly of berries, roots, sedges and
grasses. For example, in the spring they feed heavily on
the new shoots of fiddleheads, a type of fern. During
salmon runs, bear are frequently found feeding on salmon.in
nearby streams.

To feed on salmon, the bears must leave the area because
Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks do not support salmon runs.
gears also prey on moose calves, especially in the spring.
However, it is interesting to note that bears will rely more
on,plants for food than on meat.

Snowshoe Hares: Snowshoe Hares prefer forest and wetlands,
ere they feed on grass, twigs, bark and roots. Breeding
is in the spring'and summer. Gestation is forty-one to
forty-seven days, and the litter size is from one to eight.
Hares are prey to a wide variet of predators (e.g.., eagles,
hawks and coyotes) (Caras, 1967 The snowshoe hare population
is currently at a low point in its cycle in the area of
Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks (Dave Hardy, personal communi-
cation, 1978).

Lynx: The lynx is the only cat native to Alaska. Normally,
it.is nocturnal, but in Alaska it is sometimes forced to
hunt in full light because of the long summer days. Mating
occurs in,March and April, and one to ten kittens are born
two months later.

4ynx usually inhabit spruce forests and wetlands; both
habitats exist in the area of the Creeks. Snowshoe hare or
varying hare are the lynx's major prey, and a classical,
predator/prey relationship exists between these two species.
When the hare population increases, a corresponding increase
takes place in the lynx population. Similarly, when the
hare population drops, the lynx population also drops.
Currently, the hare population is at a low point, and as a
result the lynx population is correspondingly low (Berrie,
no date).

Mustelids': Mink, river otter and least weasel may occur in
the vicinity of Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks. Mink and

.otter prefer stream borders, estuaries and shoreli nes, while
the least weasel prefers brushy areas and open woodlands.

Mihk are good swimmers and often feed on intertidal invertebrates,
such as.sea urchins, dungeness crabs and clams. In the
Prince William Sound area, mink winter on 6 very narrow
beach zone. Mink may also prey on birds, rodents.and insects
(BLM, 1976). Mink are fiercely agressive and emit a strong
odor when attacked, but this does not prevent them from
falling prey to some animals such as the lynx (Caras, 1967).

Mink breed in January and March, and give birth after a
gestation period of 39-76 days. Mink give birth to their
young in dens which they establish in any sheltered area
(Caras, 1967).

River otters are also opportunistic predators. They can
inhabit both fresh and,salt water. Their primary foods are
fish, shell fish and birds. River otters are well adapted
to the aquatic environment; their nose and ears seal tight
when diving, and their feet are webbed (Caras, 1967).

River otters breed in the winter and spring. After ten to
thirteen months of delayed gestation and development, the
female bears one to five young. River otters take over the
dens of other animals and burrow into river banks (Caras,
1967).

The least weasel is a small, hyperactive mammal which preys
on small rodents, eggs and insects. It is in turn preyed
upon by lynx, eagles,.owls and minks (Caras, 1967).

The least weasel establishes its den in stumps, logs and
rabbit burrows among other places. It breeds during most
most months; the gestation period is long, about 279 days,
and the litter size varies from three to ten (Caras, 1967).

Canids: Coyotes are possible inhabitants of the Cottonwood/East-
Tand Creeks area. Coyotes were first noted in Alaska shortly
after the turn of the 20th century, and some of the densest
populations occur on the Kenai Peninsula (Cornelius, 1977).

Coyotes are opportunistic feeders. Snowshoe hares, small
rodents, and carrion comprise the bulk of the coyote's diet.
They will also eat marmots, squirrels, birds, fish and
insects. Coyotes hunt singly, in pairs, and occasionally in
packs (Cornelius, 1977). Coyotes breed in February and

March. Mated pa irs stay together through the spring and
share parental duties after the pups are born. Shortly
before whelping, they prepare one or more dens for the
litter., Coyotes give birth to an average of five to seven
pups (Cornelius, 1977).

Domestic dogs are also likely inhabitants of the area. They
will compete with natural predators for space and prey,
displacing some predators to more remote areas.

Rodents: Red squirrels, porcupines and northern red-backed
voles probably inhabit the area. Red squirrels are small,
highly territorial animals. Both male and female squirrels
defend a territory throughout the year. Males enter the
female's territory during a very short period, approximately
two days, when she is in heat. At this time, females stop
defending their territoryi The squirrels feed on pine cones
and fungi, both of which are stored for the winter.

The size of the squirrel's territory depends on the available
food supply. When food is plentiful, squirrels do not have
to cover large areas to find food; therefore, they establish
small territories. When food is scarce, squirrels must
cover more area to find food; and therefore they must establish
larger territories. As squirrels establish large terri.tories,
weaker individuals are displaced, but the efficient utilization
of the food supplies is insured, and the maximum number of
squi*rrels survive (Smith, 1974).

Porcupines are woodland animals. In winter, they feed on
spruce bark, and in summer they eat green leaves, buds and
aquatic plants. They obtain calcium and phosphorus by
chewing on discarded antlers and the bones of dead animals.
In some areas porcupines have become a nuisance by destroying
valuable timber (Caras, 1967).

Porcupines breed in the fal or early winter. One, or on
rare occasions two, young are born 209 to 217 days later in
April or June (Caras, 1967). They establish their dens in
naturaltcavities, such as in rocks, under dead fallsl and in
hollow logs.

Northern red-backed voles resemble common mice, and they
fill similar ecological niches. Like mice, voles consume
grasses, leaves, insects, etc. Also like mice, voles provide
various predators with food. In the Cottonwood and Eastland
Creeks area, probable predators include lynx, raptors and

canids. Voles are very prolific animals because their
gestation period is short, they breed all year, and female's
tan breed by the time they are 25 days old (Caras, 1967).

Implications
1i The wildlife of the area provide many opportunities to
observe and appreciate this important component of the
natural system. For example, people have the chance to
photograph animals in their natural setting, and bird
watchers can view and study the variety of birds found
in the area.

2. Unless human use of the area is properly controlled,
wildlife in the area may be displaced as human use
increases. This process of wildlife displacement is
probably occurring on nearby private lands which are
undergoing development. In the long run, establishing
a park may save wildlife even though it receives heavy
use by the public. In other words, a park would contribute
to,the problem of wildlife displacement to a lesser
extent than other types of development..

3. Bears.in the area could present some danger to park
visitors. It is a fact that bears have a great destructive
potential, but in actuality relatively few injuries and
fatalities result from bear/human confrontations.
Nevertheless, the danger, even though small, is real,
and-methods to reduce this danger should be investigated.
These will be discussed in the next section.

Recommendations:

For the near future, hunting away from developed facilities
is probably acceptable. There may come a.time, however,
when firearms should not be allowed in the recreation
area. If the area starts receiving high use, the
chance of an accidental shooting would become too
great.

2. Information on how to prevent.bear attacks should be
posted in an obvious place. Also this information
should be made available in the form of leaflets.
Basically, the posters and leaflets should contain the
following advice:

Stay clear of bear cubs;
2), Make lots of noise when hiking in the park. Carry
a bell, talk, or invent your own method;
3) Don't leave odorous food or garbage lying around
your camp; and
4) Keep clothing, face, and hands as clean as possible.

3. Refuse dumpsters, rather than garbage cans, should be
utilized at all automobile accessible areas. Pick ups
should be frequent and lids on all refuse containers
are advisable.

Birds (Marine and Terrestrial)

Many,species of birds frequent orinhabit the study area.
in' the-following pages these species have been organized
into 'nine major groups: 1) ducks, 2) shorebirds, 3) gulls
4) eagles and hawks, 5) owls, 6) titmice, and 9) grouse.
Species which have been sighted in the area by knowledgeable
persons, or have been indicated as being in the area by an
authoritative source book are described. Also, insome
sections, those species which are likely to frequent the
area but have not been verified in some way are mentioned
briefly. All the species of birds mentioned in this report
are contained in two bird lists prepared by local birdwatchers.
These lists are contained in figures 9 and LO

Ducks: Ducks are often the most common birds inhabiting the
nearshore marine waters of the study area, especially during
the spring and fall migrations. These ducks include the
following species: oldsquaw, Barrow's goldeneye, white-
winged scoter, surf scoter, black scoter, common eider and
Stei'ler's eider (Erickson, 1976).

The scoters appear to be the most common, at least in the
summer. All species of scoter and the common eider are year
round residents of the Lower Cook Inlet, but the Barrow's
goldeneye, Steller's eider, and oldsquaw are only winter
residents in Lower Cook Inlet (Erickson, 1976). As a result
of the year around and winter resident ducks, there is a
high likelihood that ducks can be seen throughout the year
from the bluffs and beach in the study area.

Ducks use the north shore waters of Kachemak Bay for staging,
resting, and perhaps feeding. Ducks probably do not breed
in the nearshore waters of the study area (Erickson, 1976).
.,Ducks feed on mollusks, crusteaceans, fishes, and plant
matter (Gabrielson, 1959).

Shorebirds: Shorebirds also frequent the study area. One
Tikely seasonal inhabitant is the semipalmated plover. This
bird is a common migratory species in Lower Cook Inlet
(Erickson, 1976).

The semipalmated plover usually inhabits rocky shores,
beaches and tidal flats (Erickson, 1976). The plover probably
feeds on mollusks, crustaceans and marine plants, as do most
shore birds. Other shorebirds likely to be found in the
area include the following: least sandpiper, Baird's sandpiper,

FIGURE-9: BIRDS OF KACHEMAK BAY AND VICINITY

Shorebirds And Seabirds

semipalmated plover wandering tattler
black-bellied plover spotted sandpiper
American golden plover bar-tailed godWit
surfbird whimbrel
ruddy turnstone common snipe
black turnstone northern phalarope
western sandpiper pelegic cormorant
least sandpiper redfaced cormorant
Baird's sandpiper homed puffin
pectoral sandpiper tufted puffin
sharp-tailed sandpiper common murre
rock sandpiper pigeon guillemot
dunlin marbled 6urrelet
lesser yellowleggs Kittlitz's murrelet
sanderling glaucous winged gull
dowitcher sp. blacklegged kittiwake
greater yellowlegs double crested cormorant

Ducks,_Geese, and Swans

whistling swan greater scaup
Canada goose lesser scaup
black brandt common goldeneye
white fronted goose Barrow's goldeneye
snow goose bufflehead
mallard oldsquaw
gadwall harlequin duck
pintail Steller's eider
green-winged teal white-win'ged scoter
American wigeon surf scoter
northen shoveller black stoter
canvasback red-breasted merganser

Common Land Birds

goshawk marsh hawk
sharp shinned hawk merlin
red-tailed hawk great horned owl
bald eagle hawk owl

(continued on next page)

Common Land Birds (continued

short6ared owl ruby-crowned kinglet
boreal owl bohemian waxwing
belted kigfisher northern shrike
hairy woodpeker orange-crowned warbler
downy woodpecker yellow warbler
northern three-toed yellow-rumped warbler
woodpecker Townsend's warbler
olive-sided flycatcher blackpoll warbler
violet-green swallow Wilson's warbler
tree swallow pine'grosbeak
bank swallow common redpoll
cliff swallow pine siskin
gray jay white-winged crossbill
Steller's jay savannah sparrow
black-billed magpie dark-eyed Junco
common@raven white-crowned sparrow
nortwestern crow golden-crowned sparrow
bl,ack-capped chickadee fox sparrow
boreal chickadee Lincoln's sparrow
red-breasted nuthatch song sparrow
brown creeper spruce grouse
American robin dipper
varied thrush willow ptarmigan
hermit thrush rock ptarmigan
gray-cheeked thrush white-tailed ptarmigan
golden-crowned kinglet

Source: MacIntosh, Rich, 1974.

FIGURE 10: BIRD LIST.OF THE HOMER AND KACHEMAK BAY AREA

common loon sharp-shinned hawk
yellow-billed loon red-tailed hawk
artic loon golden eagle
red-throated loon bald eagle
red-necked loon marsh hawk
horned-grebe merlin
northern fulmar spruce grouse
sooty shearwater willow ptarmigan
short-tailed shearwater sandhill crane
fork-tailed storm-petrel black oystercatcher
double-crested cormorant semipalmated plover
pelagic cormorant American golden plover
red-faced, cormorant black-be'llied plover
great blue heron surfbird
whistling swan. ruddy turnstone
trumpeter swan black turnstone
Canda goose semipalmated sandpiper
brant western sandpiper
emperor goose least sandpiper
white-fronted goose Baird's sandpiper
snow goose pectoral sandpiper
mallard sharp-tailed sandpiper
gadwall rock sandpiper
pintail dunlin
green winged teal red knot
American wigeon sanderling
northern shoveler short-billed dowitcher
canvasback long-billed dowitcheir
greater scaup greater yellowlegs
lesser scaup lesser yellowlegs
common goldeneye solitary sandpiper
Barrow's goldeneye wandering tattler
bufflehead, spotted sandpiper
oldsquaw bar-tailed godwit
harlequin duck huds.onian godwit
Steller's eider whimbrel
common eider bristle-thighed curlew
king eider common snipe
white-winged scoter northern phalarope
surf scoter prasiti,c Jaeger
black scoter glaucous gull.
common merganser glaucous-winged gull
red-breasted merganser herring gull
goshawk glaucous-winged herring
hybird
(continued on next page)

BIRD LIST OF THE HOMER AND KACHEMAK BAY AREA (continued)

mew gull brown creeper
-Sabine's gull dipper
black-legged kittiwake winter wren
artic tem American robin
alleutian tem varied thrush
common murre hermit thrush
thick-billed murre Swainson's thrush
Pigeon guillemot gray-cheeked thrush
marbled murrelet golden-crowned kinglet
Kittlitz's murrelrt ruby-crowned kinglet
ancient murrelet water pipit
homed puffin norther shrike
tufted puff-1-i-ry. orange-crowned warb I e r,
great homed owl yellow warbler
snowy owl yellow-rumped warbler
hawk owl Townsend's warbler
boreal owl blackpoll warbler
saw-whet owl northern waterthrush
rufous hummingbird Wilson's warbler
belted kingfisher Red-winged blackbird
common flicker rusty blackbird
downy woodpecker pine grosbeak
black-backed.three-toed gray-crowned rosy finch
woodpecker common redpol 1
northern -three-toed pine siskin
woodpecker red crossbill
alder flycatcher white-winged crossbill
western wood pewee savannah sparrow
.olive-sided flycatcher dark-eyed junco
Violet-green swallow tree sparrow
tree swallow white-crowned sparrow
bank swallow golden-crowned sparrow
gray i ay. fox sparrow
Steller's Jay Lincoln's sparrow
black-billed magpie song sparrow
common raven snow bunting
northwestern crow
black-capped chickadee
boreal chickadee
red-breasted nuthatch

SOURCE: Davidson, Mairiis, 1977.

rudy turnstone, black turnstone and common snipe.
Gulls: The glaucous-winged gull is the bird that most
7-
peo7pe recognize as the common sea gull. It probably frequents
the study area quite often because it is found in great
abundance in many locations around the study area. For
example, Erikson's, Spring of 1976, aerial survey of the
Kachemak Bay area revealed 735 glaucous-winged gulls at the
head of Kachemak Bay just northeast of the study area.
Other locations such as Halibut Cove to the south of the
study area also contained gulls (Erickson, 1976).. These
aerial surveys indicate that the common sea gull at least
frequents the study area.

Other possible gulls frequenting the study area include the
large gull, herring gull, and mew gull. 'Gulls are abundant
year around residents of Lower Cook Inlet (Erickson, 1976).

The sea gull is a colonial bird which feeds mainly on carrion
and decaying organic matter. They 'serve the important
ecological function of cleaning the beaches and recycling
nutrients back to primary producers, such as algae @Gabrielson,
1959).

Eagles and Hawks: Bald eagles are common resident birds in
Lower Cook Inlet (Erickson, 1976). Two eagles were observed
in the study area during September of 1978. There are two
eagle's nests in the study,area, one near the mouth of
Cottonwood Creek and one near the mouth of Eastland Creek.

Bald eagles tend to inhabit coastal areas where they feed
mainly on carrion in the vicinity of beaches and streams.
Bald eagles also may prey upon other birds including gulls-
and shorebirds. Like gulls, bald eagles aid in cleaning-the
beaches and-recycling nutrients to lower levels of the
energy pyramid (Gabrielsen, 1959).

The goshawk is another predatory bird which may frequent the
stVdy area, but this has not been adequately confirmed.

Titmice: The most well known members of this family, and
common residents of the study area, are the chickadees.
There are probably two species of chikadees in the study
area; these are the black-capped and boreal chickadees.

Chickadees are forest birds.. They make their nests by
excavating holes in rotten trees. Chickadees feed on insects,

insect larva, insect eggs and seeds. They serve the valuable
ecological function of controlling,-insect pests (Gabrielson,

Crows and*Jays: Members of this family that probably inhabit
the area include the common raven and the black-billed
magpie. Ravens occupy coastal areas and are common year.
around residents of Lower Cook Inlet (Erickson, 1976).
Ravens, are omnivorus birds eating other bird's eggs, o ng
birds, c@arrion, berries and insects (Gabrielson, 1959

Magpies probably inhabit the area as birdwatchershave
reported seeing this bird in the East End Road area. Magpies
like raven *s are omnivorus birds eating carrion, eggs, young
birds, fruits and insects (Gabrielson, 1959) Ma i
t ?pies are
common year around residents of Lower Cook I@le Erickson,

Woodpeckers: The downy woodpecker and other woodpeckers are
probably year around residents of the study area. Local
bird watchers have seen these birds in the East End Road
area. Woodpeckers feed mainly on insects and insect larva.

Grouse: Spruce grouse inhabit the area year around. They
belong to the same family as the quail and ptarmigan.
Spruce grouse eat insects, seeds, berries And leaves. The
spruce grouse is a valuable game species throughout much of
Alaska (Gabrielson, 1959).

owls: Owls including the great horned owl may frequent the
study area. However, this is difficult to confirm because
they are,nocturnal (i.e., they feed at night and are inactive
during.the day). Owls are hunters feeding on squirrels,.
other small rodents, ducks, song birds and domestic poultry.
They serve the important ecological function of controlling
rodent populations (Gabrielson, 1959).

Impl i cations

1. The birdlife of the study area provides excellent
opportunities for wildlife observation.

2. Bald eagle nests located near the mouths of Cottonwood
and Eastland Creeks are sensitive to human disturba.nce.

Recommendations

Because the shoreline zone offers highly favorable edge
conditions for birds, every effort should be made to
protect the vegetation in these areas.

2. Interpretive programs to assist birdwatchers should be
considered.

Trails or other facilities should not be located in
such a manner as may prove disruptive to eagle nesting
areas.

4. Dead snags and trees with nests should not be cut,
,unless they present a direct threat to visitors, as
these trees provide important habitat for birds.

Marine Life

Kachemak Bay has been described as one of the most productive
Bay and @stuary ecosystems in the world. There are an
abundance of marine species in the bay. The following is a
summary of organisms which represent the major components in
the marine.ecosystem. These components include the producers,
decomposers, consumers,, herbivore, first order carnivors and
higher order carnivors. The producers (e.g., phytoplankton)
convert raw nutrientslo compounds necessary for life. They
perform the same function in the marine environment as
plants do in the terrestrial environment. The decomposers
consume decaying plant and animal matter. In so-doing, they
speed up the recycling of nutrients back to the primary
producers. The consumers eat the producers. In terrestriaI
ecosystems, common consumers Are cows and rabbits; in marine
ecosystems, common consumers are microscopic, or barely
visible, zooplankton,. First order carnivors feed on the
herbivors, and they in turn are fed upon by higher order
carnivors. In reality, t 'he system is much more complex than
it is presented hero. The following pages will expand on
these general principles.

Phytoplankton: Phytoplankton are unicellular photosynthetic
organisms. Through photosynthesis phytoplankton convert
carbondioxide and water to glucose and other molecules
necessary for life. Light supplies the energy for this
conversion. Phytoplankton use the products of their photo-
synthetic reactions to grow and reproduce.

Phytoplankton are food for larger organismst and ultimately
support most of the marine ecosystem.

Diatoms are the most abundant form of phytoplankton in Cook
Inlet including Kachemak Bay. Dames and Moore (1974) identified
fifty five species of diatoms in Lower Cook Inlet. Diatoms
require silica to form the protective shell around their
cellular protoplasm. The waters of Cook Inlet and Kachemak
'Bay contain high concentrations of silica because glacial
rivers carry this substance, which was scraped loose from
the earth's surface by glaciers, to marine waters. This in
part may explain the abundance of diatoms in Lower Cook
Inlet (BLM, 1976). Also, upwelling is important because it
keeps the diatoms floating near the surface where they can
receive sunlight for photosynthesis.
Zooplankt6n: Zooplankton are often the second step in the

marine food web. These organisms include three main groups:
1) herbivors which feed on phytoplankton, 2) first order
carnivors which feed on zooplankton herbivors and 3) an
iIn i
distinct group which feeds on the larva and eggs of other
organisms. Figure ft lists those zooplankton likely to be
found in Kachemak Bay (BLM, 1976)

Crab: King, tanner and dungeness crabs all have similar
life.histories. Adult crab spend fall and early winter in
deep ocean waters (70-200 fathoms or 128-366 m. or 420-1200
feet). 'In late winter and early spring, they move into
shallower water to spawn. Eggs which were fertilized during
the previous year's spawning activities are hatched and
released into the water. The larva are planktonic for 40-
120 days. During this time, they go through four molts
after which the larva metamorphose into the adult form and
settle to the bottom. They spend from one to six years in
shallow waters and estuaries before reaching maturity (Trasky,
1977)'.

Crabs feed on marine worms, algae and various other crustaceans;
also'they scavenge decaying plant and animal matter (BLM,
1976). Crabs perform a valuable function in the marine
ecosystem in that they liberate nutrients by metabolizing
decaying organic matter.. Juvenile crabs are eaten by halibut,
cod herring and various species of diving seals (BLM,
1979).

Pos t-Larv'al King Crab,are found throughout Kachemak Bay;
however, crabs are much more abundant in the outer bay than
in the innerbay. The same is true for dungeness and tanner
crab.-The outer bay is a major king and tanner crab spawning
area (ADF&G, 1976).

Shrimp: There are five species of shrimp in Kachemak Bay
aTT -of which are commercially important. Their common names
ar pink., humpy, spot,.side-stripe and coonstripe shrimp.
All five species belong to the genus Pandalus (Trasky,
1977).

Shrimp spend their adult phase on mud and sand bottoms where
they feed on detritus.and benthic organisms (Crow, 1977).
Like crabs, they metabolize decaying organic matter and
releasenutrients in the form of body waste back into the
marine environment. Pandalid shrimp generally remain males
from their larval stage through their fourth year of life;
then there is a sex transformation, and males become females.

5 7

FIGURE 11: ZOOPLANKTON RECORDED IN COOK INLET AT NIKISKI

PhylUm Order Number of Taxon

Protozoa Radiolaria 2
Col lenterata Hydrozoa 9
Schyphozoa 1
Ectoproctoa 5
Nematoda 1
Annelida 6
Mollusca Gastropoda 1
Uni den ti f ied 1
Chordata- 2
Anthropoda Copepoda 6
Cladocera
Ostracoda 1
Amphipoda 9
Isopoda p 1
Mysidacea 4
Euphausiacea 3
Decapoda 5
Cumacea 3
Pycnogonida 4
65

SOURCE: Hood, 1968 and Rosenberg, 1969

Spawning occurs in fall, and hatching of the eggs follows in
the spring. Shrimp spend 60-90 days as planktonic larva
before they matamorphose into the adult form and settle to
the bottom (Trasky, 1977). Shrimp are present throughout
Kachemak Bay; however, spawning areas are generally restricted
to the outer bay (ADF&G, 1976).
Herring: Herring spawn in'Kachemak Bay in the spring and
mer. Females deposit their eggs on solid surfaces such
as. eelgrass. After the female deposits theleggs, the male
fertilizes them. After hatching, young herring collect in
schools and move seaward to the mouths of bays. Most schools
move to the open ocean by fall (BLM, 1976).' Herring feed
and spawn along the entire south shore of Kichemak Bay and
around Homer Spit (ADF&G, 1976).

Herri,ng feed on small zooplankton such as copepods. Herring
along with smelt, walleye pollock, tom cod,land others are
of majorecological importance because they'provide the
major source of food for marine mammals, birds, and fishes
such as-salmon (Trasky, 1.977).

Flatfish: Halibut, flounder and sole spawn after forming
Te-nsesch-ools. They release their gametes directly into the
water where fertilization of the eggs occurs. Once fertilized,
the eggs become positively buoyant causing them to float at
or near the surface. After.the eggs hatch, the young remain
at on.near the surface of the water. When metamorphosis
occurs, the young fish return to the ocean bottom where they
feed and grow to maturity (Trasky, 1977). Flounder and
halibut,are present throughout Kachemak Bay (ADF&G,,1976).

Clams:, The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has no quanti-
tative information on clam densities in the intertidal zone
of the study area. From McNeil Canyon to the head of Kachemak
Bay, clamdensities probably decrease. However, there could
be higher clam densities in deeper waters along the shore.
Probable species of clams present include butter clams,
cockles and macoma clams (Loren Flagg, personal.communication,
1978).

Clams subsist by filtering marine water for food which
includes bits of decaying matter and living plankton (BLM,
1976). Clams reproduce by releasing many sperms and eggs
into the water where the eggs are fertilized. The eggs
hatch into small free swimming larvae. After a few months,
the larva settle to the bottom and begin forming a shell

(BLM, 1976).

Salmon': Several species of salmon pass the mouths of Cottonwood
and Eastland Creeks as they head to spawning streams at the.
head of Kachemak Bay. Species of salmon include Coho,
Sockeye, Pink and Chum salmon. The principle spawning areas
for these species are the Fox River, Fox Creek, Sheep Creek,
the Martin River. None of the creeks in the study area
contain salmon runs (ADF&G, 1976).

The specie.s of salmon mentioned above have similar life
histories. Adult salmon spend most of their life in open
ocean, but return to freshwater to spawn. Spawning occu'rs
from June to September with Pinks spawning first and Cohos
spawning last. The females excavate nests, called redds,
where they lay theireggs. After the eggs have been deposited,
themales fertilize'them, and the female covers them with
gravel (Trasky, 1977). The period of egg incubation depends
primarily on the temperature of the water flowing through
the.redd. Under normal conditions, the incubation period,
varies from 80 to 140 days. ..In the spring--April and May--.
the eggs hatch and fully formed, free-swimming fry emerge
from the gravel. Water temperature also determines the time
of hatching (Trasky, 1977).

Seaward migration usually.occurs in May to mid-June. Juvenile
salmon will generally remain in shallow marine water for
several weeks, feeding on plankton and marine invertebrates.
The young salmon gradually move to deeper waters as they
mature. Total residence time in Kachemak Bay may be as much
as 90 days. Adult salmon feed on other fishes such as
herring and smelt (Trasky, 1977).

Subsistence set.net fishermen in the area report that they
have had some success catching salmon. There is at.least
one subsistence set net fisherman using the intertidal zone
wi.thin the study area.

Harbor Seal The harbor seal is the most conspicuous marine
mammal in Kachemak Bay near the study area.

In Kachemak Bay, harbor seals breed on isolated sandy beaches,
sand bars or rocks along the mainland and offshore islands.
Harbor seals give birth to young in June and the first half
of July. One pup is born at a time and is nursed for three
to four weeks.. Harbor seals will sometimes abandon their
pups if hunted or disturbed by other human activities (Klinkhart,

1969). There ate no breeding areas within the study area;
and probably the nearest breeding area is Aurora Lagoon
across Kachemak Bay from Cottonwood Creek (Loren Flagg,
personal communication, 1978).
Seals frequent the northeast side of the bay (including the
vicinity of Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks) and the head of
,the Bay for the purpose of feeding (Loren Flagg, personal
communication, 1978). Harbor seals feed mainly on fish and
crustaceans. Species which may be preyed upon by harbor
seals in Kachemak Bay including the following: smelt,
herring, small crabt,-shrimp, salmon and flounder (BLM,
1976).

Other than man, the harbor seal's only major predator appears
to be the killer whale although some seals may be taken by
sharks and.wolves (Klinkhart, 1969).

Other'Marine Mammals: Beluga whale, killer whale, and sea
otters are present in outer Kachemak. The whales migrate
through the area, and the sea otter is a year around resident.
Beluga whales may occasionally frequent the north shore of
Kachemak Bay near the study area. Killer whales and sea
otters do not frequent the north shore waters of inner
Kachemak Bay. If one of these species were sighted, it
would be extremely unusual.

Implications

1. Because of the salmon migration past the study area,
there may be some sport fishing opportunities in the
areals marine waters.

2. 'There is a high*likelihood that harbor seals often
could be sighted from the beach or bluffs within the
study area and on rare occasions beluga whales may be
seen from the beach or bluffs within the study,area.

(o2

Recommendations

1. Opportunities for the public to learn about the marine
life should be explored. This might be accomplished by
making a small informational booklet available to the
public.

SOCIOECONOMIC SYSTEM INVENTORY

Certain aspects of the socioeconomic system can determine
the feasibility of establishing a recreation area. For the
purpose of this report, the socioeconomic system includes
the following aspects: human history, land use, land status,
demography, economy, transportation, and other plans'And
proposal's. Most of these aspects have*potentials for, or
constraints on recreational opportunities. These potentials
and constraints are listed at the end of each of ,the following
sections (i.e., human history, land use, etc.) under the
heading "Implications." This listing is by no meahs,com'plete;
it is simply an attempt to highlight the recreational possi-
bilities and constraints.

Human History

Archaeology and Native Prehistory: The study area contains
two arch'aeological sitis, one at the mouth of Eastland Creek
and one at the mouth of Cottonwood Creek. The Cottonwood
Creek site'is probably more significant than the Eastland
Creek site. This is because the Cottonwood Creek site is
larger, and therefore probably contains more remains (Workman,
1978 and Alaska Division of Parks, ongoing inventory).
Furthermore, the Cottonwood Creek site supplied part of the
evidence used by Fredrica de Laguna to formulate her Kachemak
III Phase which will be explained later. Experts in Alaskan
archaeology consider the Cottonwood Creek site extremely
important, and they have expressed this by nominating it to
the National Register.of Historic Places (ADP, 4/29/76).

The archaeologic record of Kachemak Bay begins with a single,
uncertain radiocarbon date of 750 B.C. The Great Midden
site on Yukon Island yielded this date which begins a sketchy
picture of the Bay's prehistory. Frederica de Laguna (1934)
has divided the prehistory of the Bay into four phases:
Kachemak I, II, sub III, and III. The Pacific Eskimo was
the dominant group during Kachemak times. Then, the Eskimo
was replaced by the Athapaskan Tanaina at some time between
the end of Kachemak III times and the beginning of the
Russian intervention (Workman, 1978). ,

The Kachemak I phase (second millennium B.C.?) of culture is
known only from the lowest levels of the Great Midden site.
The inventory of artifacts includes a primitive hand thrown
harpoon, barbed bone points, a simple stone lamp ound
fish hook barbs , labrets (an ornament worn in th; C177, and
naturalistic art. Animal bones indicate that a variety of
.land and sea animals were exploited including harbor seal,
porpoise, marmot and lesser whales. An "Eskimo" dog was.
a'lso indicated. "Nothing is known about burial practices or
housing" (Workman, 1978).

The Kachemak II Phase (?.1200 B.C. to 400 B.C.), like the
Kachemak.I.phase, is known from evidence collected on Yukon
Island. Houses were constructed of stone, whale bone and
wood. The Pacific Eskimos of this time period made many
flaked stone projectile points and tools. Flexed burials
(burials with the body placed in the fetal position) are
common, and grave goods (possessions such as jewelry buried
with body) are often present. Food preferences were evidently
the same as they were in the Kachemak I phase (Workman,

cv. swmwl, -1 41
44;

"@,LY

It
MOO, P0
e
".6 ChugKhik,,,m
;<

TWsi
T" C2
T 6

p, fwidlnS
%

-4-
A P, to

0,11

C
K

cah

P&I M..k...h
0

Nmt p%fth 4

c_
Z,

%
English Bay r

4.1,
J,

I^A
HISTORA..AML PND

(DATED OR LOCATED ARCHAE=GICAL SITE
HISMW SrM PREHISTMC SME LACKING EVIDENCE OF ELRDPEAN INPLIJE14CE)

SOURCE- Alaska Division of Parks. HERITAGE RESOURCE SURVEY

FIGURE 12

1978).

The kachemak Sub 111 (400 B.C to 0 A.D.) Phase was based on
finds at Yukon Island and Chugachik Island. Food preferences
again appear to be the same, but weapons have improved,
e.g., multiple barbed arrow heads. "Analysis of bird remains
strongly suggests that the site was occupied in spring and
early summer" (Workman, 1978).
The'Kachemak III Phase (A.D. 0 to A.D 800)1 is based on
finds at Cottonwood Creek and Yukon I;land. Kachemak III
remains are the most common in the Bay area. Characteristics
of this phase are exotic burial practices, decorated stone
lamps, and semi subterranean houses. The Pacific Eskimos of
this period continued to be tied to the sea, which is shown
by the remains of shellfish, fish, and marine mammals in.
their middens (Workman, 1978).

The Cottonwood Creek site has contributed greatly to the
understanding of the Kachemak III phase, particularly with
regard to burial practices, the biology of the Eskimos, and
the diet of the Eskimos. Buriallpractices can be described
as bizarre. For example, a woman in her 50's was buried
with 3,000 tiny bone beads which were evidently sewn to a
parka. Also, a multiple burial of three women who had parts
of their bodies dismembered was found (Workman, 1977).

The Cottonwood site also provided evidence showing that the
aborigines endured great hardships. Many skeletons at the
site showed signs of degenerative bone diseases. Growth
arrest lines and enamel hypoplasia of the teeth, are attributed
to periods of malnutrition. There are also indications of
cannibalism at the site (Workman, 1978).

Faunal remains at the Cottonwood site are composed almost
entirely-of shellfish. The absence of large marine mammals
is unusual. in Pacific Eskimo remains. Because of the absence
of large mammals, archaeologists believe that the site was
used as a winter and early spring hunger camp. Here Pacific
Eskimos supposedly gathered when other areas could not
supply food. The use of shellfish as a backup food source
makes sound sense because shellfish can be gathered in bad
weather,,and the number of shellfish would not change greatly
,with the changes in climate (Workman, 1978).

Some time after Kachemak III times, the Pacific Eskimo was

replaced by the Tanaina Indians. The uncertainty over the
time and reason for this replacement results from similarities
in the Artifacts of the.two groups. If the artifacts cannot
be distinguished then cultural transition cannot be i.dentified
(Reger, personal communication, 1978).

Their artifacts are similar for two main reasons. First,
both groups made their'livings mainly from the sea where
they hunted large marine animals. Therefore, they developed
simil,ar implements, such as boats, waterproof clothing and..
harpoons. Secondly, there was probably some contact between
the two groups, which allowed them to learn each other's
ways.

Implications

1. The Cottonwood Creek site, an archaeological site of
extreme importance, exists in the study area.

Recommendations

1. it is recognized that a complete excavation of the-site
may never be possible, but archaeologists should undertake'
to complete as much excavation as possible in the very
near future.

2. Recreational facilities should not be constructed in
the vicinity of these sites until more complete excavations
have been completed.

The Russian and American Occupation: The area of Cottonwood
and Eastland Creeks is fairly remote from the areas settled
by the kUssians. However, the Russians did establish settlements
at English Bay and on the mouth of the Kasilof River (Alaska
Division of Parks, 1976). They eventually reduced many
populations of fur bearing animals to dangerously low levels.
Not only did this threaten some species of wildlife, but it
also depleted some of the native food supply. The loss of
game and the introduction of European diseases disrupted the
cultu.re of the local Tanaina Indians (Workman, 1975).

After the Russian trappers established settlements, missionaries
from Russia came to Alaska. Again, disruption occurred to
the Tanaina culture because the process of Christianizing
the natives involved the destruction of some native cultural
traditions (Alaska Division of Parks, 1976).

In addition to their trapping, the Russians were involved
with mineral extraction. In the late 1700's, they began
limited mining of the exposed coastal coal seams along
Kachemak.Bay for heating and blacksmith forging. On the
mouth of McNeil Creek there are two long-abandoned mine
entrances that could date back to the Russian era. Russian
mining activities escalated; they shipped sizable amounts of
coal to Kodiak for iron smelting; later, more sizable amounts
of coal were shipped to Sitka for forging iron, fueling a
brass foundary, generating steam power, bu 'ildi'ng ships and
supplying heat. Because the fur trade was continuing to
decline, Peter Doroshin, a Petersburg Imperial Mining School
Graduate, recommended a shift to coal mining to compensate
for economic losses caused by the declining fur trade.
Planning-to sell their coal to markets in California, the
Russians brought in,heavy mining equipment and German coal
miners. Then they began mining at Port Graham near Kachemak
Bay. Despite their investments less than 3,000 tons of coal
were mined and.the mines closed in 1864, thus ending Russian
coal exploitation in Alaska (Kennedy, 1976).

The Russians never had another chance at coal development
because Alaska was purchased by the U.S. in 1867, thus
beginning the American Occupation. A period of inactivity
ensued, with some shift to fisheries, fur-farming, and
limited homesteading. However, in 1886 an extensive renewed
interest developed in coal with the formation of the Cleaveland
Mining District. Four coal companies were organized. One
of these companies, the Alaska Coal Company, began a mine
near Fritz Creek just southwest of the study area. In 1904,

the North Pacific Mining and Transportation Co. began development
in Eastland Canyon. In the late 1800's the largest coal
mining Company of all, Cook Inlet Coal Fields Company,.begon
mini,ng near Homer* From 1899 to 1902 they built a railroad
a large dock, and constructed 28 buildings on and near Homer
Spit. However, the operation failed, and by 1904 all coal
mining ventures were inoperative (Kennedy, 1976).,
Between 1920 and 1930, 150 homesteads had been staked.in the
Kachemak Bay Area. Many of these homesteading ventures
failed'because of the problems commonly associated with
agriculture in Alaska such as lack of markets, poor communi-
cations, physical hardships and bad roads.i Furthermore,
many homesteaders moved away because they could not find
jobs. When World War 11 came even more homesteaders left to
work in construction and armed forces jobs (Kranich, 1976).
The largest era of homesteading followed World War II. Much'
of this homesteading occurred north and east of the mouth.of
McNeil Creek on Kachemak Bay (Kennedy, 1976).

One of'the World War II era homesteads lying within the
study area has been nominated to the National Register of
Historic Places. This is Mr. Yule Kilcher's homestead on
the west side of McNeil'Creek. In 1944, Mr. Kilcher purchased
150 acres near the creek from Harry,White who homesteaded
this land in 1920. Mr..White had used his land for fox
farming. After acquiring Harry White's land, Mr. Kilcher
.homesteaded an additional 160 acres, adjacent to his purchased
property.(Kennedy, 1976).
Mr. Kilcher was a State Constitution Delegate in 1955-56
and has served in the State Legislature. Mrs. Kilcher Is a
poet who has published her work. She now lives in Arizona.
Today Yule Kilcher is.working towards his original hope of
establishing an.educational colony and emphasizing arts and
functional skills such as weaving, wood work and ceramics.
Living off the I-and and close to nature is an integral part
of his philosophy (Kennedy, 1976).

7 2

Impl i cAti ons
1, From the beginning of.the Russian occupation, human
habitation and natural resources development has increased
almost steadily in the Kachemak Bay area,.

7-3

Recommendations

I. the history of the Kachemak Bay area should be interpreted
for park visitors..

Land Use
The Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission (JFSLUPC)
conducted a general study in which they found large portions
of the Cook Inlet area to be favorable for settlement.
Their graphics indicate that more than fifty percent of the
study area is capable of supporting rural and urban development.
Specific land uses are discussed below.

Agricultural Capabilities: The land in the East End Road
area, including portions of the study area, is capable of
supporting a high level of agricultural development. While,
there is very.little reliable data on crop yields, farmers
in the area apparently have attained high yields. Twenty
.,tons of potatoes per acre have been attained with advanced
agricultural techniques and good weather (Sours, personal
communication'. 1978).

The most common crop in the East End Road area is hay.
Yields a'verage one ton.per acre. Larger yields could be
att'ained, but this is.not attempted because the hay cannot
dry properly in densely grown fields (Sours, Personal Communi-
cation, 1978).

Farmers in the East End Road area supply much of Homer's
potatoes and vegetables during the summer (Sours, personal
communication, 1978).

One possible constraint on agriculture is the need forand
price of fertilizer. Generally, to start farming I nitrogen,
phosphorus and potash must be supplied to the soil (Sours,
personal communication, 1978). The need for fertilizer
should not be overstated because this need is typical.for
agriculture throughout the state.

Economic.factors may also be a.constraint on agriculture in
the East End Road area. This is largely because of competition
from producers in other parts of the United States. Also,
the local market may not be large enough to consume more
agricultural products. Therefore, while the area is capable
of supporting more agricultural development, the economics
of.increasing the land base under cultivation and increasing
yields is generally not favorable.

Residential Capabilities: Portions of the area are capable
of.supporting residential development for the following

reasons:

0 The soils generally offer fi rm support for con.-
struction.
The area is readily accessible by roads.
3) The scenic qualities in the area make it a desirable
place to live.
4) People can to a degree make up for the lack of
employment opportunities in the area through
subsistence activities.

Roads and Transmission Corridors: There are transmission
lines in the area. This constTt-ites a land use because a
corridor through the forest is cut to make room for the
transmission line (or utility line).

East End Road is the major road in the area, but short
private roads connect with.East End Road in many places.
Theseroads constitute a significant commitment of land
which cannot be used for other purposes.

Grazing: Private land near the study area is being.used for
graz ng cattle and horses. Some of the lands within the
study area, if cleared, could be suitable for grazing.

Timber Production: There are no large stale logging operations
in the vicinity o the study area, but small scale timbering
operations do occur in the area. One local resident cuts
logs into boards with.a portable power saw. Often sawmilling
operations occur in conjunction with some other activity
such as clearing trees for'transmission corridors, roads or
farm land. These cleared trees are salvaged and sawed into
lumber", or used for house logs.

-76

Implications

Because of the variety and uses that the land can
support, land use conflicts are going to arise. These
conflicts include the following:
1) Residential versus Agriculture,!
2) Residential versus Recreational, And
3) Recreational versus Agriculture.

Land Ownership
Unlike other portions of the state,, the East End Road area
contains a high percentage of privately owned lands. The
majority of these privately owned lands were obtained from
the federal government through its homestead program.
However, reasonably large tracts of public land do still
exist. Two of these publicly owned tracts are the subject
@of this study. Figure I 3shows the locations of public and
pri vately owned lands in the study area. Land ownership,
for the purposes of this study, is divided into private and
public surface ownership, subsurface land status, and other
interests.

Private Surface Ownership: Privately owned lands in the
area are generally still owned in parcels of greater than 40
acres in size. However, several owners in the area are
currently in the process of subdividing the lands into
smaller residential lots. These lots range in size-from 2
to 10 acres in size. Privately owned parcels are shown in
f igure i

Public Surface Ownership: Publicly owned lands within the
study area are all state owned. However, the Kenai, Peninsula
Borough has filed selections on a majority of these lands
under the provisions of AS 29.18.190. These selections were
filed on September 17, 1971. The recently enacted Municipal
Land Selection Act (AS 29.18.201-29.18.213) has fixed the
Borough's entitlement at 155,780 acres of state land within
the Borough boundaries. While the new selection act honors
selections made under the prior statute, AS
makes available to the Borough for selection, lands that
were previously Mental Health and School Trust Lands.

Since many of these trust lands, which were not available to
the Borough in 1971, are of high value for development, it
is reasonable to assume that the Borough may reevaluate the
1971 selections in this area. Borough selections are shown
in figure 1q

A 40 acre parcel of University Trust Land is located within
the larger parcel of public land at Eastland Creek. A small
parcel of School Trust land is also located in this general
vicinity.

In 1976, the Division of Parks, after completing its study
of the West Kenai Peninsula (ADP, 1976), requested of the

-79

m
Ml ..............
-::N:::m
.......... ...
........... . ........... ......
AF
............................
.. . ........................
HMM:

. . . . .... .....

...........

............
...............
M ...

8,
14

101y @l

M
in

Ille
M:
ME U

U 1: r

PRIVATE
L 11\1 J`

NOT EVALUATED
J M' -

MDY MEA BOUNDARY

TENTATIVE PAW. BOUNDARY SOURCE: Kenai Penimla Borough, Tax RecoNs

FIGURE 13

... . . .......
............ ...
. ............ ......
"M
.. ........... ............
M.... D ... .... ... ::::.1.1:
M .............
............ .... ..

... ........... ......................
.......... I........ ...........

.... ...... ... ............. .. .... ..................
........... ..... ...... ........ .. ..........
.. ..... ...........
.. ..... ... I.......

.............
................. .... .........
....... ......... . ................. ...... ......
.. ...........

..................
@iiiil -R,

..............

............... ........
.............................
...........
..... .........
.......................
...... ........
...............
............ ...............
iminiiinii:
......................... .. .............
...................... ..... ......... .. ............. .......... ........
....... ........

.................. .
...............
............... ........
N ....
....... ......
:0
M
............
...........
M3 It
...........
.............. .. ........ ...... .. ........

.............
N......
..........
... .... ni
ljf-
C: n: ...
............
M
.............
.......... .
H!
......... .......... ...
.. ...... .......... M:iom
UN
.. ........
............ ... ...... .......
........... .........
......... .......

.............

..........
............
. ............... .............
........ SCHOOL.&'
TH.:H:-* ......
. .. ...........
LMVEFrorrY LAND'
1/2 0
....... ... M il!"i,
n@les noT

Public Recreation Request

Borough Selection Application

Area excluded from Borough Selection Application
& Public Recreation Request

STUDY AREA BOUNDARY University Land

7
School
TENTATIVE PARK BOUNDARY State Division of Lands, Land Status Plats
........ .........
..... . .. .....

FIGURE 14

Alaska Division of Lands to classify certain lands in the
Cottonwood and Eastland Creek area for public recreation
purposes. Figure 14 shows the locations of trust lands and
th e Division of Parks public recreation classification
requests. The Division of Parks made this request on March
14, 1977.

Subsurface Lands: Subsurface ownership of lands in the area
involve oil and gas leases and one coal prospecting permit.
These subsurface encumbrances focus on lands in the Eastland
Creek area. In this area, a majority of the lands have been
leased for their potential oil and gas resources. Four
leases are involved, each to a different individual. The
coal prospecting permit involves lands both east and west of
East End Road. Approximately 640 acres within the tentative
recreation area boundary are involved. Most lands in the
Cottonwood Creek area are free of subsurface encumbrances.
Figure 16 illustrates the locations and types of subsurface
land interests.

Other Interests: Over the years since the state gained
.ownership o-T-7ands in the area from the federal government,
var 'ious individuals have formally expressed an interest in
having the state sell or lease these public lands. These
requests have included land sale and lease applications and,
grazing lease applications. It should be noted that,these
applications are only requests and do not vest any interest
in the land by the person making the request. Figure 16
shows the'locations and types of applications which have
been made on public lands in this area.

- - -- - - - - - - - --

IS?,

Fsl
4

miles

MAP NUMBER STATUS NAME

Oil & Gas Lease Buckley

2 Oil & Gas Lease Langly
3 Oil & Gas Lease De Junker

4 Oil & Gas Lease Carson
z 5 Coal Prospecting Moening-Grey
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY Permit A Associates, Inc.

TENTATIVE PARK BOUNDARY SOURCE: State Division of Lands. Land Status Plats
J'

FIGURE

..............
............
... .........

NU
wii
H.
MRS=
19

...........

@.A

J-7'
j,

PMAWI 5"'.
r

Milos

ILand Lease Application 11 Land Sale Application
2Land Sale Application 12 Land Lease Application

3Land.Sale Application 13 Land Lease Application
4Land Sale Application (pref.) 14 Land Lease Application
5Land Sale Application 15 Grazing Lease Application
6Land Sale Application (pref.) 16 Land Sale Application
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY 7Land Sale Application 17 Land Sale Application
8Grazing Lease Application IS Land Lease Application
7
0 . 9Land Sale Application 19 Grazing Lease Application
TENTATIVE PARK BOUNDARY 10 Land Sale Application SOURCE: State Division of Lands, Land Status Pla.ts

FIGURE 16"

Demography
Cit@,of Homer: Homer is located only fourteen miles from
the study area and is the largest city in the lower portion
of the Cook Inlet region. Homer is a rapidly growing community.
The population of Homer increased by 42% between 1970 and
1976 (BLM, 1976),plThe City's most recent population estimate..
is that 2,055 pe e 'now live within Homer's city limits
(Steve Baker, personal communication, 1978

Homer s unique location at the end of the Sterling Highway
and Marine Highway System make it an important trade center.
Because of this, a large portion of Homer's population.is
employed in the trade sector. In 1976, 160 people, or 21%
of Homer's population, was employed in trade related occupations
OLM, 1976). Homer's Comprehensfve Development Plan (1978)
states that the city serves a trade area of at least 3,000
people, in addition to those living withinithe city limits.

Homer has a post office, Kenai Borough Schools, a health
center, a library, a.newspaper, two banks and several hotels.
The city has'a municipal water system and a sewer system.
The Homer Electric Association supplies electricity, and the
Glacier State Telephone System supplies phone service.
The East End Road Area:. the closest population figures of
the countryside that contains the study area are those.
contained in a 1978 census of the Fritz Creek voting district.
this district begins at the City of Kachemak city limits and
extends to the head of Kachemak Bay. In this area there
were approximately 872 people in,1978. This is an extremely
large number of people considering that in 1970 only 27
people 1'ived in this area (Steve Baker, personal communication,,,
1978 and.Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs,
1974).

Implications
1. gecause of the rapid population growth rate in the
Homer/East End Road area, there is a need for more
public services including recreation facilities.

Economy

The economy of the East End Road area is closely associated
with the economy of Homer. This is because many East End
residents work in Homer on a daily, or periodic basis.
Furthermore, some residents, such as farmers, sell their
products, and/or buy consumer goods in Homer on an intermittent
basis. The cornerstone of Homer's economy is fishing.
,Other important activities (not arranged in any specific
order) include the following: tourism, government, construction,
manufacture, industry, trades, services.and timber.

Commercial Fishing: Homer',s economic emphasis on fishing is
a natural outcome of its strategic location on Kachemak-Bay.
This location allows Homer to be the major seaport on the
shore of what has been described as the most productive
marine area in Alaska (BLM, 197.6).

The Southern District of Cook Inlet which contains Kachemak
Bay and the waters immediately outside'the Bay produces over
60%.of the total Cook Inlet shellfish harvest (Trasky,
1977). Figure 17 contains information on the fish harvest
of Kachemak Bay. Commercial fishermen earned an estimated
$2,931,684 on the 1976 harvest (Trasky, 1977). The fishing
industry provides a source of direct and indirect income to
the local-economy (Homer, 1978).

As many as 120 persons cou Id have been employed in the Iocal
fishindustry in 1976 (BLM, 1976). Homer's fish processing
facilities employ the majority of persons working in local
manufacture. The fishing industry is not,without drawbacks;
namely, its is highly.seasonal, like the tourism industry,
creating large variations in employment and unemployment
statistics (BLM, 1976). The future of Homer's fish industry
is bright. -The industry will probably be expanded because
of the new 200 mile territorial limit, and probable development
of the bottomfish industry (Homer, 1978).

Tourism: In recent years the economy of the Kenai Peninsula
has shown a strong movement towards tourism. A recent study
by the Department of Environmental Conservation showed that
the economic benefit of tourism to the towns of Homer,
Kenai, Soldotna, and Ninilchik was heavy. Furthermore, a
1973 study showed that there were almost 2.1 million recreatibn
days spent on the Kenai Peninsula that year (Stenmark,
1973). In 1972, sport fishermen spent over two million
dollars pursuing salmon in the waterways of the Kenai Peninsula.

FIGURE 17: ESTIMATED VAULE OF 1976 KACHEMAK BAY COMMERCIAL FISH
HARVEST

1976 Catch Average Price Value
in Pounds Per Pound to Fishermen

King Crab 1,682,702 .75 $1,262,026

Tanner Crab 1,913,140 .30 573,942

Dungeness Crab. 131,355 .35 45,974

Trawl Shrimp 5,769,198 .10 567,920

Po@,.Shrimp 432,055 .40 172,822

.Salmon 600,000 .50 300,000

TOTALS 10,528,450 $2,931,684

SOURCE: Trasky, et al., 1977.

Sport fishing is not the only attraction. Other recreational
pursuits include canoeing, hiking, beachcombing, picnicking,
clammingi camping, hunting and observing wildlife. The
Joint Federal-State.Planning Commission for Alaska, estimates
that tourism could rise by 8% a year on the Peninsula (BLM,
1976).
One economic advantage of tourism over other industries is
that tourism is highly labor intensive. Because of this,
tourism,could be expected to produce greater employment
than capital intensive industri,es.(BLM, 1976).

As suggested earlier, tourism plays a major role in Homer's
economy. Homer operates a forty acre campground containing
34 campsites. Campground fees provide a direct source of
municipal revenue. A second campground facility is located
at the distal end of the spit where the city has leased land
to. a private party to operate and maintain a campground and
trailer park. Tourists using these facilities spend money
.in town, and therefore contribute to the support of the city
through sales taxes (Homer, 1978).

For the,future, Homer has designated an area on the west
side of the spit as a future camground site and the city is
considering the possibility of expanding the small boat
harbor-at the end of the spit (Homer, 1978).
The effects of tourism are not all positiv e. For example,
overcrowding by-trailers and motorhomes can reduce environmental
quality (Homer, 1978). Also, tourIsm related employment,
like fishing, is seasonal.

Government.: 'Government is.also an important part of Homer's
economy. The City employs thirty one people full time, and
it has eighteen Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA)
employees on a temporary basis. Other State and federal
jobs programs become available to thecity on an intermittent
basis (Homer, 1978).

State and Federal employees are also based in Homer on a
full time basis. These include Federal Aviation Administration
employees, Alaska Department of Fish and Game employees, and
Division of Transportation employees. These people buy
consumer goods in Homer, and pay property taxes, and therefore
help support City government and the local economy.

Construction: The construction industry is doing well in

Homer. In 1977, a National Bank of Alaska study showed that
approximately 10% ofHomer's residents,who considered themselves
full time employed were employed in construction. The City
of Homer expects the construction industry to grow in the
years to come (Homer, 1978).

Industry:. Industrial.activity in Homer is presently limited
io fish processing and a limited amount of light manufacturing
and fabrication (Homer, 1978).

Trades and Services: Trades and services are showing a high
rate of growtF-w-Fi-ch would be further increased by OCS
development (Homer, 1978). Tourism also plays a part in the
trades and services sector of Homer's economy.

Timber: As with the rest of the Kenai Peninsula, timber
harvesting is of minor economic importance. Near Homer,
s,ome commercial logging is done on a limited basis (Homer,
1978; and BLM, 1976).

Some people in the Homer area are using the area's timber
rIesources without actually buying or selling timber. -For
example, they may use-the trees on their property to build
their house. This kind of activity could make.timber more
valuable than statistics indicate. Also, firewood is used
as a primary or secondary heating source in some homes.

89.

Implications
1. Mide from the possibility of an oil related economic
.boom on the Kenai Peninsula, fishing and tourism will
probably remain the mainstays of the Homer area economy.

2. The designation of parklands and the construction of
recreation facilities wouldbe an asset to the area's
tourism industry.

Transportation

The dominant mode of transportation to the Cottonwood and
Eastland Creeks area is via East End Road originating in
Homer. This road is maintained throughout the year by the
Alaska Department of Public Transportation through its
maintenance station in Homer.

Homer is accessible by a variety of means. Land transportation!
to Homer is accommodated by State Route 1, the Sterling
Highw6y.''This road is a hard-surfaced, year round highway
which connects Homer'with.Kenal, Soldotna, Anchorage and the
Alaska State Highway System. Sea transportation to Homer is
provided by the Alaska Marine Highway System. The Tustemena,
a large sea going ferry, carries automobiles and 'walk on
passengers between the ports of Homer, Seward, Seldovia,
Port Lions, Valdez, Cordova, and Kodiak Island. Because the
Tustemena carries automobiles, vehicular traffic can flow
from the cities mentioned above to Homer and the Sterling
Highway,(Homer, 1978). See figure 10
Air transportation to Homer is provided by two commercial@
airlines, Alaska Aeronautical Industries (AAI) and Wien Air
Alaska. AAI connects Homer with Kenai, Soldotna, Seward,
and Anchorage. During the summer there are seven flights
into Homer and eight flights out. The additional outgoing
plane is provided by a plane which carries freight into
Homer airport. During the winter months AAI reduces its
service to four or five daily flights. Wien Airlines connects
Homer with Anchorage, Kodiak and Seattle, but it only stops,
in Homer twice per week. Because Homer is connected-to
world wide air routes passing through Anchorage, tourists
from many countries find their way to Homer. In addition to
the commercial airlines, many private plane owners use the
Homer airport, and several private air.charter companies are
based in Homer. The private carriers include Cook Inlet
Aviation, Homer Air and Kachemak Air Service.

From,Homer, the only convenient form of transportation to
Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks is by automobile via East End
Road. The only direct point of access to the state owned
land under study is seventeen miles from Homer. The first
ten miles. of the road are paved, and the following seven
miles are gravel. Because of the gravel surface and some
winding sections of the road, the trip to the state owned
land (at about mile 17) takes approximately thirty minutes.
The gravel road extends past mile 17 for four or five miles.

V-A I &-Z.

4wow

Romer

Awl
Fiouft
.00

ROADS:

AIR ROUTES

FERRY SYSTEM
ROUTES

TRANSPORTATION ROUTES

FIGURE 18

See figure :19. The Alaska Department of Public Transportation
currently does not have any plans for paving the gravel
portion Of East End Road.

Transportation by boat up Kachemak Bay from Homer to the
creeks is not practical because of shallow water and the
presence of numerous offshore rocks. Landing along this
shoreline would require a long walk through the mud flat
which lines the coast (Workman, 1977).

Transportation to the creeks by float plane is not practical
because there are no large bodies of water within the study
area, and landing in Kachemak Bay would present the same
problems as a boat landing. Landing plane on the beach is
possible but requires a high degree of skill.

-93

C4 - ass
-A
06.
Al

A
s

Wow
VYJ

sip
t

Iwo

Batd,,'
7@"'@M6untmin

h 'P r
:@@, . i ugmhsk Island'..

Ph, SWr ISIand' 4

Aulof si,
Si
5 S. A.
T

0
sie
matiffm
qOluff Poi
Landing

Glacier
Spiv.,",

%Iht

Ismailof Q/-
to ar
Atchima-&- al Point Peterson IsI e1v
Shoals Light fall

=Ihae
A C
,K
Cbhen I.slandO p4xh

Yukon
Island

Hesketh Island
Grow, 191
Barabarm ftnt HaTing Is. ..a
Nubble Fb' f

TW
Seldovia Point

.owhak

iMA;
r@l n

OL
A OL
-7,

FIGURE ig

Implications

1. Automobile transportation from Homer to Cottonwood
Creek is easy and convenient. As a result, there are
no barriers to access to this area for the general
public.

2. The numerous air and sea lines through Homer make the
Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks area accessible to a
wide spectrum of the public.

3. While East End Road is well maintained at current
traffic volumes, a strong increase in traffic because
of either recreational use generated by a recreation
area or increased recreational development in the area
could lead to a deterioration of the road or the need
for up grading and rebuilding the road.

Recommendations

Ii Recreation development by phasing should be closely
coordinated with the Department of Transportation to
.prevent overuse of the East End Road.

Other Plans and Proposals

The plAng and proposals of both public agencies and private
organizations will have a major effect on future land use
patterns in the Homer/East End Road area.@ Recreation as a
land use will both affect and be affected by these other
plans and proposals. Plans and proposals of particular
importance to the area include the following: off shore oil
and gas development, bottom fish exploitation, the Tustemena
,Loop Road, Homer spit developments, the cross Kenai trail,
and City campgrounds development.

Off-Shore Oil and Gas Development: The Department of the.
Interior leased, in 197 , 152 off-shore oil and gas tracts
in an area of approximately nine million acres. The estimated
recoverable oil from these tracts ranges from a high of 2.6
billion barrels to a low of .09 billion barrels. The amount
of gas in these tracts is estimated at somewhere between 3.3
trillion cubic feet and .6 trillion cubic feet (BLM, 1976).

The Department of the Interior, using a high development
scenario, predicts that the project would require the following
facilities: 23 off-shore platforms, 84 exploratory wells,
420 development wells, 300 miles of pipe, two on-shore
terminals, one liquified natural gas plant, and two on-shore
treatment plants. Potential sites for the support facilities
include the following towns: Kenai, Homer,,.Port Graham, and
.English Bay. Potential terminal sites may be near the
following: Port Graham, Homer, Anchor Point, Nikiski, Cape
Douglas, and Drift River. Furthermore, a liquified natural
gas plant might be located near Nikiski, Kenai, or on the
coast north of Anchor River (BLM, 1976).

...[T]he.Department of the Interior s lower Cook Inlet oil
and gas lease sale will increase recreation demand (by
increasing employment in the area) and decrease the land
base upon which coastal recreation does or might occur"
(ADP, 197.6).

Bottomfish Exploitation: The Office of the Coordinator of
e bottomfish industry is considering several locations foe
the siting of a bottomfish processing plant. Homer is one
of these locations. Bottomfish within the 200 mile limit
include the following species: yellow-fin sole, pacific
ocean perch, black cod and walleyed pollock. The coordinator's
goal is to manage the fish resource so as not to deplete one
or more species; he also wants people to be employed over a

long period of time.
if a bottomfish processing plant is built in or near Homer,
it would boost the economy of the area and increase the
areals population. This would increase the demand for'
recreational, facilities as well as other public facilities
services.

The Tustemena Loop Road:. The Alaska Division of Highways
has a.long range planning map indicating proposed extensions,
of the land transportation system. One section.of the
proposed road system is referred to as the Tustemena Loop
Road. This proposed road begins at the end of East End
Road, continues past Tustemena Lake, andeventually joins
the Sterling Highway near.Clam Gulch (BLM, 1976).
If this road ts. ever constructed, it would be relatively far
in the future, at least five years. However, if it is
built, many recreationists would choose to drive thi's road
as an alternative to the Sterling Highway. There would be a
strong tendency for these people to pull off the road anywhere
including off the road onto private property -- to camp
unless adequate camping facilities are provided.

City of Homer--Spit Plans, and Recreation Plans: The City
of Homer presently operates two camping areas. One of these
is located above the Homer business.district, while the
other is located on Homer Spit. The Homer Spit Camping area
is located on City lands whi-ch are zoned for industrial use.
if off-shore oil development occurred and Homer was used for
industrial purposes, this camping area could be eliminated.
The@effect of this action will be to displace a large number
'of,campers. Presumably, these campers will.seek out other.
City and State,facilities.

The Cross.Kenai Trail: The Heritage Conservation and Recreation
--Te-partment of the Interior is conducting a
Service of the
study on the feasibility of establishing a hiking trail from
,@Hope to Eagle Lake. The town of Hope is located on the
south shore of Turnagain Arm and Eagle Lake is located
twenty-one miles northeast of Homer off the East End Road.
The trail.would cross most of the Kenai Peninsula. Twelve
miles of this trail would cross state owned land just north
of Eagle Lake (Alan Meiners, personal communication, 1978).*

The effect of this trail would be to bring more recreationists

into the Homer/East End Road area. To prevent trespass
camping on private land, a recreation area with camping
facilities would be desirable.

REGIONAL NEEDS ANALYSIS

The population of Alaska is growing. In 1970, thepopulation
of,the,state was 302,000. In 1976 it had risen to 413,000
(Alaska Department of Labor, 1978)60OBy 1985, the population
of Alaska could be as much as 530, (Teal, et. al., 1978).
Tourism is also growing in the state. In 1975, 260,000
tourists visited the State; the following year the number of
out-of-state tourists had risen to 300,000. By 1980, there
may be as many.as 500,000 tourists visiting Alaska each year
(ADP, Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1976) * Because of the
growth of Alaska's population and .tourist industry, along
with other factors, there is a growing need for the following:
1) easily accessible recreation lands, 2) shoreline access,
3) wildlife habitat protection, 4) open space, and 5) economic
stabilization and enhancement.

100

Easily Accessible Recreation Lands

The types of recreation that people participate in most are
,the ones that requite the least time, personal sacrifice and
financial investment. These types of recreation include
hiking, sightseeing, pleasure drivi-ng, picni6king and fishing.
Recreational activities which are not.of this type Include
camping (long duration), backpacking (extended trip), hunting
and flying for pleasure. These activities require more
effort.and expense than the previously mentioned ones; and
as statistics indicate, these activities are less popular
than those first mentioned (see figure 2.0).

Parks which can provide recreational activities that are
easy to enjoy must be accessible by automobile and fairly
close to towns, cities or popular tourist areas. There is a
need for these parks along the Sterling Highway (State Route
1) and near Homer. For example, during salmon runs, recreation
generated traffic could be doubling traffic volumes over the
daily average traffic flow on the Sterling Highway (Kenai
.Peninsula Borough, 1978).

Shoreline Access

Shoreline zones are public domain; yet the public often
cannot use these areas unless Federal, State or local governments
reserve public lands for road or trail beach access. State
Waysides along the Kenai Peninsula presently provide public
beach access; however, these recreation areas.are far apart.
Furthermore, between Homer Spit and the head of Kachemak
Bay, there is no beach access suitable for the general'
public. This is because there are no recreation. areas along
this stretch of coastline, and places where the public could
reach the beach without crossing private land are not common
knowledge. In conclusion, beach access needs to be provided
for the public, and the designation of recreation areas is
one way to satisfy this,need.

Wildlife Habitat Protection

As the population of the state, and tourism increases, more
pressure is placed on wildlife habitat. While there are
large areas such as the Kenai National Moose Range designated
for wildlife, habitat protection is important elsewhere.
This is because some animals such as eagles are located
outside large habitat preserves. Furthermore, large wildlife
habitat areas serve their purpose better if human presence

10.1

FIGURE 20: RECREATION PARTICIPATION BY ACTIVITY AND REGION

AVERAGE ANNUAL PARTICIPATION DAYS PER CAPITA

(residents only)

South- South
Activity eastern Centeral Statewi'de

Trail-Related Activities 80.9 46.6 60.1

Slghtseeing 35.6 19.5 20.9

Driving For Pleasure 35.5 27.0 23.6

Picnicking 16.1 11.7 11.8

Fishing 13.4 10.8 10.1

Boating 11.4 5.7 8.0

Camping 3.2 5.3 4.9

Swimming 8.8 6.1 6.4

Hunting 4.6 5.8 6.4

Outdoor Games And Sports 7.9 6.0 6.0

Ice Skating 1.5 2.7 2.5

Snow Play 1.4 2.0 2.0

Flying For Pleasure 1.5 1.4 1.8

Alpine Skiing 0.7 1.5 1.3

SOURCE: Alaska Division of Parks, Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan:

'ISummary 1970.

102

As kept to a minimum. Therefore, less critical areas that
still offer wildlife viewing opportunities can serve to
attract large numbers of people away from large, critical
wildlife habitats. There is another drawback to large
wildlife areas; namely, they are not always conveniently
located. People cannot always drive to one'of these large
areas,to enjoy outdoor recreation because of traveling time
and expense. Small natural areas need to be located,near
population centers and tourist areas for.easy accessibility.

In conclusion, as human presence increases, wildlife.habitat
becomes more threatened, and its protection for recreation,
as well as for its own.sake, becomes more important. Existing
large wildlife areas are not completely satisfactory for
habitat protection; therefore, small recreation and wildlife
habitat areas need to be established and managed to.protect
wildlife habitat.

Open Space

Diverse landscapes are scenic and productive. If the edges
of cities blend into natural areas, there it a reasonable
balance between man and nature. Areas that are completely
urban lack outdoor recreation opportunities; areas that are
completely natural make physical existence demanding. If
neither.of these situations is desirable, then it seems
logical to strike a compromise between the natural and the
man made., Establishing parks or recreation.areas as open
space is one way to accomplish this.

Economic Stabilization and Enhancement

Long term economic prosperity cannot depend entirely on.
resources extraction. For example, oil and gas development
boosts local economies. during the construction of wells,
pipelines and shipping facilities, but economic benefits to
"oil field communities" decline during the production phase.

Developing industries such as tourism can provide employment
on a long-term basis. Park or recreation lands help the
tourist industry by providing scenic and natural values
which tourists are seeking and willing.to indirectly pay
for. Thedisadvantage, in the case of tourism, is its
seasonal nature. However, trades and services such as
restaurants and hotels find the tourist season important
because during the profitable summer months they make. up for

103-

the slow winter months. On the Kenai Peninsula there is a
need for industries such as tourism which can provide long
term economic enhancement and diversity.

104

LOCAL ATTITUDES AND CONCERNS

The' attitudes and concerns of local residents are an important
component of any land use analysis. Duringthe course of this
study, the Division of Parks met and interviewed local residents,
and.held a public meeting in Homer, which was well- attended. .
The analysis of local concerns has led to the development of four
topics. These are the maintenance of rural quality, the 'desire
to see more public lands become available for private ownership,
and the adverse social and environmental impacts associated with
tourism and recreation. The following is a discussion of these
concerns and the probable effect of establishing a recreation
area on each concern.

105

Maintenance of Rural Quality
Some East End Road area residents have commented that the
area,is becoming too developed. They prefer the self reliance,
freedom and open,ness of rural living over the hurried and
crowded conditions of developed areas. Furthermore, some
people have commented on the deterioration of the area's
wildlife val-ues. For example, as the level of development
in the East End Road area has increased, wildlife has been
displaced which makes the viewing, or taking, of wildlife
more difficult in the area. Another plaguing problem frequently
mentioned in the area is the lack of beach access.

Since rural quality is highly dependent on the pretence of
large relatively undeveloped areas, the area's rural quality
will tend to decline as the area becomes more developed.
The establishment of a recreation area near Cottonwood and
Eastland Creeks would not guarantee or maintain a true rural
character in the East End Road area. However, it would
preserve an undeveloped area of significant size which would
provide opportunities to observe wildlife or simply spend
several hours hiking through a natural landscape.

To the extent that the area would be oriented towards nonlocal
recreation use, a lessening of the area's rural quality may
occur. This effect will be dependent on the type of recreational
development (e.g., campgrounds, roads, size ' and timing of.
their development). Should large campgrounds be built
before Ea-st End Road is upgraded, the resultant increase in
traffic volume would result in increased dust and traffic
congestion problems. However, should%this development occur
after paving, the impact of such use would be substantially
reduced.

The development of a recreation area may reduce trespass
from current nonlocal recreation use.

Transfer of Public Land into Private Ownership

There is currently a demand.for land in the Homer East End
Road area. Some people have expressed, that a recreation
area would "lock up" land making land acquisition more
costly. Additionally, they conclude that by lessening the
supply of land it will allow real estate salemen to make
unjustifiable profits on their land sales at the expense of
land buyers. Other people believe that a recreation area

will make too much public land unavailable for future agricul-
tural needs.

The demand forNland in the East End Road area will probably
always be great. This will result in ever rising land
prices. It is assumed in this report that land under cons.ider-
ation for a recreation area, would, if not used for this
purpose, be sold by the State, Borough, or possibly the Cook
Inlet Region, Inc., should they acquire these lands under
the terms of the Cook Inlet Land Exchange.

The esiablishment,of a recreation area would take some land
off the future real estate market and would at least for the
foreseeable future be unavailable for agriculture. This
does not need to be an all or nothing situation; the amount
of land included in the recreation area could be decreased
to,increase the amount of public land available for private
acquisition. This effect would most likely be temporary.
Regardless of the size of the recreation area, the overall
land picture will not change; namely, the demand for land in
the East-End Road area will probably always exceed the
supply. Because of this, it may be better to set aside land
in a recreation area to enhance the quality of life for East
End Road residents of the future.

Social and Environmental Impacts
Associated With Recreation/Tourism

People living near and within the study area have commented
that there are many social and environmental problems associated
with recreation and tourism. Further, some have said they
do not want a recreation area established because of these
problems.

The social impacts of recreation and tourism in the area are
believed. to incude trespass, vandalism and traffic congestion.
The environmental problems associated with tourism in the
area include noise, dust and to a few individuals, fire..
Littering is also a potential problem. Both social and
environmental impacts resulting from tourism/recreation will
occur from recreation area designation. However, the nature
and severity of these problems will be related to the degree
to which land is developed for recreation and the level of
management of recreation use by the Division of Parks.

Other people living within the study area have commented
that having a park off East End Road may actually reduce at

107

least one of the problems mentioned above. They have experienced
tourists camping on their property in the past, and they
fleasdh that if people had a recreation area to camp in, then
they might not have to trespass to camp out.

The East End Road area is growing. Subdivisions and new
residents are commonplace. Residential development is
causing problems which are very.similar to those associated
with tourism. A car driving down East End Road causes the
.same amount of noise and dust, whether its driven by a
tourist or a local resident. While local residents may be
expected to have more respect for each other's property than
would tourists, vandalism will increase as population increases.-
For example, a visitor toAne person's home may vandalize
another person's home.

The fire hazard will increase because of residential development.
People living in the area often cut down the trees, which
results in fields of grass, and slash piles creating a
moderately high fire hazard.

If public lands fn the East End Road area are used for
recreation, there may be tourism/recreation related impacts
such as trespass. However, if these same lands are used for
residential purposes, there will also be social and environmental
impacts. Additionally, current adverse effects of recreation
and tourism in the area will continue and probably increase
with or without the establishment of a recreation area.

Tourism and recreation use resulting from a recreationarea
will be generally a weekend/seasonal occurrence while residential
development will be a daily/year around occurrence.

Recreation activities such as hiking and tamping pose some
fire risk. However, if these activities are properly managed,
the.fire hazard could be less than on private lands. This
is because mature spruce forests would be maintained. These
forests conserve moisture and are less susceptible to fire
than the grass and slash.which is common on private property.
Furthermore, campfires sites could be constructed and their
use regulated by park rangers in a recreation*area.

108

RECREATION USE ANALYSIS

if the study area was to be designated as a recreation area,
then it-should "fit" into the overall recreation picture of
the vicinity. "Fitting in" has one main requirement; namely,-
there must be a public desire for the types of recreational
activities that the study area can provide. This is not to
imply that the public.demand for recreation justifies the
designation of any state owned land for recreation use. It
means thatpublic lands should be designated for recreation
.uses for which there is a current or anticipated demand.

10 9

Current Recreation Use Patterns

The main area considered in this section includes the Kenai
Lowlands from Ninilchik to the Caribou Hills then south to
the north shore of Knhemak Bay. Other areas included are
the Fox River drainage, the south shore of Kachemak Bay and
Kachemak Bay State Park. Recreational opportunities sought
in these areas include hiking, beachcombing, camping, observing
wildlife, boating, clam digging, fishing, hunting, cross-
.country skiing and snowmobiling.

Recreationists use public lands that are both designated and
undesignated for recreation use. Some persons also trespass
on private land to camp, hike., fish or hunt. Areas designated
for recreation include the State Waysides, Kachemak Bay
State Park and the City of Homer's campgrounds. Undesignated
public lands used for recreation include the Fox River and
Sheep Creek drainages, portions of Homer Spit, the Caribou
Hills, the Bald Mountain area and the Anchor River valley.
Recreational activities occurring in these areas, designated
and undesignated, will be discussed in the following pages.

State Waysides: The State Division of Parks operates nine
waysides, five of which have ocean frontage. All'the waysides,
except for Silver King Wayside, are less than fifty acres.in
size. As a result, salt water frontage is minimal. Recreational
activities at the waysides include fishing, beachcombing,
clam digging, boating, canoeing, camping, picnicking and
hiking. The five coastal waysides contain sixty-seven
designated camping units. During peak and normal usage
periods, overflow camping occurs at all five waysides,
which results in persons camping on beaches, on other private
and public lands and along access roads.

Wayside parks relatively close to the-study area are Anchor
River, Silver King, Stariski, Deep Creek and Ninilchik
Waysides.. At Anchor River Wayside, summer recreational
activities include salmon fishing, and camping. Fall activities
center mainly around steelhead fishing and camping. There
is-almost no winter recreation such as cross country skiing
and snowmobiling at the wayside. Silver King Wayside,
during the summer, is used mainly in connection with salmon
fishing, but it also provides beachcombing, camping and
hiking opportunities. Silver King Wayside is used into the
fall or winter for fishing until the river freezes over.
Stariski Wayside is used mainly for automobile oriented
camping and picnicking of short duration throughout the

summer. Currently, there is no beach access at Stariski.
Stariski is the only wayside that is not frequently overused.
Deep Creek Wayside is used most heavily in the summer for
fishing, boating and camping. In the winter, Deep Creek
Wayside is used very little; however, some people use it as
a starting point for gathering coal along the beach. Lastly,
Ninilchik Wayside is used primarily by salmon fishermen,
campers,.and to a lesser extent clam diggers during summer.,
After the slow winter period, spring use starts in May.
Ocean.trolling for king salmon has traditionally been the.
first activity to begin the spring season.

City of Homer Recreation Areas: The City of Homer operates
a campground north of the downtown area. This.campground
has 30 campsites. On Homer Spit, the City leases a tract of
land to a private campground operator. Also, the City
permits camping on city owned property on the spit. The
campground above the downtown area is used heavily by nonlocal
automobile oriented recreationists. Also adjacent to this
campground, there is a City recreation area which is used
for-community recreational activities such as baseball,
football, soccer, and picnicking. The privately operated
campground and City owned lots on Homer Spit are overused
for camping. This results in overflow camping on the beach
that parallels the Homer Spit Road. This beach is not
formally designated for camping and sanitation facilities
,are nonexistent.

Kachema k Bay State Park: Kachemak Bay State Park is undeveloped
at this time. However, it does provide hiking, fishing and
hunting opportunities. The park is inaccessible by road
from Homer or Anchorage. Therefore, it cannot help alleviate
the heavy recreational pressure being felt on the Kenai
Peninsula from automobile oriented recreationists.

Recreational Activities Occurring in Other Areas: Recreational
activities occurring in other areas include cross-country
skiing, snowmobiling, hiking, backpacking, fishing and
hunting.

Cross-country skiing takes place throughout the area; however,
on the Kachemak Bay side of East End Road snow conditions
are often poor, according to local residents. Snowmobiling
takes place northeast of the East End Road. In the Bald,
Mountain and Caribou Hills area, snowmobiles are often used
for pleasure riding and to gain access to hunt ptarmigan and
other wi 1 dl i fe.

Hiki'ng is a recreatio nal activity that takes place almost
anywhere that there are trails or easily,traversed terrain
add scenic opportunities. People hike in the hills above
the City of Homer, along the beaches of Ka'chemak Bay and
elsewhere on the Kenai Peninsula.

Recreationists also go backpacking in a few places in the
Kachemak Bay Area, including Kachemak Bay State Park, and to
a limited extent in the Fox River delta and Kenai Mountains.

Sport fishing is popular in Kachemak Bay, Anchor River, Deep
Creek, Ninilchik River, Fox Creek and off Homer Spit. Fish
sought in'Clude dolly varden, salmon and halibut.

Hunting is common in many areas. Moose are.hunted all along
East End Road, around Eagle Lake, in the Caribou Hills and
in the Bald Mountain area. Black bear are hunted along
,Swi,ft, Fdx and Falls Creeks. Also, black bears are hunted
in the Fox River and Sheep Creek River basins. Brown bear
hunting is not as widespread as black bear hunting. Brown
bears are hunted mainly in the upper portions of the Anchor
River. Dall sheep and mountain goat hunting occurs in the
mountains bordering the south shore of Kachemak Bay, and the
extreme upper portions of the Fox River and Sheep Creek
drainages.

Spruce grouse hunting occurs along East End Road and in the
Homer vicinity. Ptarmigan are currently at a low point in
the population cycle, but they are hunted in the Bald Mountain
and Caribou Hills area (Dave Hardy, personal communication,
1978).

112

Projected Use Patterns

The most -popular recreational activities in Southcentral
Alaska in order of participation rates are the following:
trail-'related (e.g., walking for pleasure, bicycling, hiking,
snowmoblling, cross-country skiing, etc.), sightseeing,
driving for pleasure, picnicking, fishing, boating, camping
and hunting. For more detailed information, see figure
In the future these activities will probably continue to be
the most popular.

In 1973, the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission
estimated that tourism will increase by eight percent per
year (Stenmark, 1974). This estimate is supported by increased
levels of tourism in recent years. In 1971 only 130,000
tourists visited the state; however, in 1975 260,000 tourists
visited the state (ADP, Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan,
1976).

Increasing recreation and tourism from Alaska residents and
out of State visitors, has shown strong rates of growth at
the State waysides. Of the five waysides within a thirty
mile radius of the study area, three are being over-used.
The ones being overused are Ninilchik Wayside, Deep Creek
Wayside and Silver King Wayside. At these waysides, overflow
parking and camping occurs every weekend from mid-May to
mid-June. The remaining two waysides in this vicinity,
Stariski and Anchor River, are being used heavily, but
overuse has not become a chronic problem as in the other
waysides.

The City of Homer has also experienced the effects of increasing
recreation and tourism,use. From late May to early September,
large numbers of tourists place a heavy demand on city
services--including policei sewer, water and medical aid.
Furthermore, tourists crowd on to the Homer Spit in such
numbers that the Spit becomes unpleasant and almost,@hysically
unavailable to Homer residents (Homer, City of, 197

in conclusion, increasing numbers of recreationists will
continue to come to the lower portion of the Kenai Lowlands.
As mentioned earlier, they will seek many types of recreational
experiences, especially trail related activities,-sightseeing
and driving for pleasure. Therefore, more recreational
pressure will be placed on all the following areas and
facilities: State waysides and parks ' city campgrounds,
private campgrounds, inns, private land (e.g., trespass
camping), publ.ic lands and beaches.

Role of the Study Area
Alask6ns and out-of-state tourists recreate in many different
ways including hiking, fishing, hunting, sightseeing, camping
and pleasure driving. Because of the large numbers of
recreational activities engaged in, the Alaska State Park
System must be diverse. Diversity in a park system means
having a wide range of parks from wilderness parks to small,.
automobile accessible parks.

Large wilderness parks,provide for recreational pursuits
which have a minimal effect on the environment. These
recreational pursuits include backpacking, bird watching,
fishing, hunting and photography. Large state parks provide
some of the same opportunities as wilderness parks, but they
also permit higher impact recreational activities such as
automobile oriented camping and snomnobiling. Smaller state
parks and state recreation areas are important for recreational
activities involving day use or weekend use. These recreation
areas and parks are easily accessible, and allow people to
recreate without large expenditures of time and money.

At present small accessible parks are the kind most
lacking in the state. There are two reasons for this.
First, the small automobile accessible park must be located
close to roadways and population centers. In these areas
parks are 'latecomers." Much of these lands have already
become private, or have been committed for other land uses,
leaving little public land for park designation. This is
particularly true of coastal areas which are especially
desirable for recreation use.

The second reason that easily accessible recreation areas
are hard to establishis that establishing a series of small
parks often requires many more staff hours of planning
effort than establishing one or two large parks. Establishing
small parks in populated areas requires a detailed consideration
of local attitudes and local socioeconomic factors. This is
not true to the same extent in planning parks for more
remote areas.

Because the problems mentioned above are never going to
disappear, it is important to establish smaller parks now.
This is where the Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks study area
enters the picture. The 'Study area has the-potential to
fulfill the need for a small, accessible park. The purpose

is not to turn the entire area into a parking lot for campers,
but to provide accessible recreational experiences in a
natural setting to a relatively large number of people. The
recreational opportunities that the area could provide
include hiking, picnicking, camping, observing wildlife,
sightseeing and beachcombing.

EVALUATION OFALTERNATIVE BOUNDARIES

AND DEVELCPMENT INTENSITIES

The magnitude of the benefits and problems of establishing a

recreation area will largely depend on the size and shape of.
the park boundary chosen. Four possible boundaries--labeled

A, B, C and D were considered. They are contained in figures 21

through 29. Alternate A contains-the least area at 630

acres; 8 is the next largest at 1295 acres; and C is. the
largest at'302-0 acres. Alternate D is intermediate in size

between B and C at 1925 acres. In addition to these alternate

boundaries, "no park" is.an alternate which will be considered

separately at the end of this section. In order to compare
the advanta ges and disadvantages of each aSlernate boundary,
the various boundaries are considered together in regard to
the following: 1) The amount of public land required (which,

as a result, will not be available for other uses), 2)

Operation and maintenance, 3) Trail systems, 4) Beach access,

5) Wildlife habitat protection, 6) Protection of the Cottonwood
Creek. archaeological site, and.7) Local public attitudes.

ZpC

-31-11
32 33 3,Y
-j

T4-@

6 @5

Hike-in

LEGEND

Recreational
Facility
P4 f
Trail

'12
500
wTrth
miles
6430
0 r&eA
rA\8

FIGURE 21

Q@4 f
c)

CP
T 32 3 3 3

-5

H&eAn

'At

J\,, LEGENb

Recreational
Facility
-24 J
Trail

Road

'/2 0

miles
rnote A2 6:5(0 oc re 45

FIGURE 22'

Aa
f

32 33
OCP
3 @j

45
T4 7--

C-porou

.L2

18
PO

LEGEND

Recreational
Facility

Tra i I
0""'0 Road

'12 0 140%6
A
miles northi

Adak,
1255
F-5
"P

FIGURE 2Y

j1Z

33 3

ly
T44
T. no
CAV-1

10/

Cb. Mike- -In

)00
j f

LEGEND
000,
Recreational
Faci 1 i ty

Trail
C)
'-0 Road

1/2 0 1

M
-S
iL rorth
altern 1205 ccrr=16

FIGURE 24

'N
)P
32

T 4 ------
T4 po'"

FICA Are#-

Mi I
J

ki
CL:

LEGEND

Recreational
Facility

Trail

Road

'12

miles north

1 6 2 70 pv

FIGURE 25

. ..............
dcp
31
3 3
,wvhAle-
C4ynp jp@

T 4
Tj PO

1(, Ar

rr ce

LEGEND

Recreational
Facility
4#* i I
#!P Trail

Road

72 0

miles north

ar. r LA
le,66 .270 6r-vi---5 py@iva+e

FIGURE 26

7b,

0CP
3

1,4 aw4ei
------ - -----

I f

XL
Recreational

-
4 Facility
2

Trail

V2 0

miles rx)rth
D 1 1925

FIGURE 27"

_jj

@z-, rp
3 3

T4
T4

tj,

'000

LEGEND

-JS)
f
Recreational
Facility

Trail.

Road

V2 0 1

miles rurth.
no D2 192 Ocr

FIGURE 28

The Amount of Public Land Required: The public land under

consideration is the last remaining large parcel of state-

owned land that has beach frontage and road access on the

bay side of East End Road. There are approximately 2,790

acres Involved.. Many individuals would like to acquire

these lands for their own private use. Depending on the
boundary chosen, assuming a recreation area is established,

some or all of this land would become unavailable for private.

use. Boundary alternative A (containing 630 acres) includes

the least acreage, and therefore leaves the most land available
foe other uses. Alternative B (containing 1,295 acres)

includes the next smallest acreage; Alternative D (containing

1,925 acres) includes more land than B, and Alternative C

(containing 3,020 acres) would include almost all the'public

land under consideration. In conclusion, Alternate A would

leave more land available for other uses than the other

alternates. and therefore A would be the best ch91ce in

this reqard.

Operation'and Maintenance: Alternate A would probably make

operation and maintenance comparatively easy because of its

small size and becauselt does not contain the Cottonwood

Creek Archaeological site. The small size would allow

rangers to reach any part of the park quickly to respond to

emergencies such as visitor injuries. Not havingthe Cottonwood
Creek Archaeological site within the park would eliminate

the responsibility of Alaska State Parks to protect this

site on a daily or weekly basis.

Alternate B would be similar to A in regard to operation,

but because a trail passes fairly close to a completely

enclosed piece of private property in section three, there

may be conflicts between the residents and park visitors.

Rangers would have to respond to these conflicts, making

park operations more difficult.

Alternate C and D would provide the greatest operation. and

maintenance costs because of their large size, extensive

trail system, remote campsites and the archaeological site.

All these features would mean more work for park rangers,

especially since the archaeological site would require

surveillance to prevent artifact looting, if it is not

excavated before park development occurs.

In regard to operation and maintenance, A and B would probably

be better choices than C and D, and A would probabll be the

best choice.

Trail Systems: Alternate A would be able to contain approxi-

Mately two miles of upland hiking trails; Alternate B would

be able to provide about four miles of upland trails.

Alternate C could provide about eight and one half miles of

upland trails without any acquisitions of private land.

However, with the acquisition of the property which divides

the two parcels of public land, Alternate C could provide

about nine miles of trails. Alternate 0 could provide about

seven and one half miles of upland hiking trails. Because

Alternate C provides the longest trail system, it would be

the best choice in regard to hiking trails. D would.be

second; B third; and A would provide a minimal trail system.

Beath Access: In all the alternates, beach access will pose

some problems because of steep slopes and poor soils.

However, trail construction seems possible near each of.the

creek mouths. Falls Creek would probably be the best because

it offers the gentlest slopes. Alternate A does not provide

beach access unless the private land blocking the trail

route was acquired. Between B, C and D, Alternate C is the

best because if an upland trail system could be built from
Eastland Creek to Cottonwood Creek, there would be three

possible routes to the beach. Such an upland trail system

islonly possible in Alternate C.

1 7c7

Wildlife Habitat Protection: Alternate C and D would both

protect the two bald eagles' nests in the area and provide a

large amount of other wildlife.habitat protection. Their

large size helps in two ways: first it provides mo,re browse

and cover, and second it distributes human presence over a
larger a@rea, therefore reducing human impact on wildlife

habitat as a whole'. Alternate D and C without the acquisition

of the private land between the two large parcels of public-

land are divided into two separate blocks. This provides

the opportunity to maintain the Cottonwood Creek parcel *as a
low impact area because people would have to walk all the

way down the beach from Eastland Creek to reach Cottonwood

Creek.

Alternates A and 8 would provide less habitat, concentrate

visitorslinto a smaller area., and would not offer any

'protection to the Eagle's nest near Cottonwood Creek. As a

result, Alternates C and D would protect wildlife habitat

better than Alternates A and B, and Alternate C would be the

best choice in this regard.

Protection of the Cottonwood Creek Archaeological Site: The

Cottonwood Creek Archaeological Site is contained within the

boundaries of C and D, but not within the boundaries of A

and B. If residential development continues in the area,
this site may be very close to residential development, or

privately owned land in the future. Establishing Alternates

C and D would prevent,this and facilitate surveillance of
the site by park rangers. As a result, Alternate C or D may

offer some protection to the site even though it would also.

mean recreational use in the area. Therefore. Alternate C

or D would be the best choice in regard to protecting the

archaeological site.

Local Public Attitude: At a public meeting in Homer concerning

the Cottonwood and Eastland Creek Recreation Area feasibility

study on September 12, 1978, a questionnaire was passed out

to measure public attitudes toward recreation area designation,

andthe development of facilities in the study area.

The analysis of the returned questionnaires indicated that

most of the local residents (over 80%) were in favor of

establishing a recreation area. Furthermore, there seemed

to be a strong preference for a large park because 56% of

the respondents chose Alternate C and 16% of the respondents

chose Alternate D. As mentioned previously, C and D are the

largest of the Alternates. For more detailed results of the
questionnaire, the results are contained in figures 29,

Figure a9 Attitudes Towards Recreation Area Designation by

Place of Residence

Place of Residence In Favor Opposed

Number % Number %

East End Road, 18 82% 4 18%

Homer 5 71% 2, 29%

Elsewhere 2 100% 0 0%

TOTALS 25 81% 6 19%

of all respondents)

Number of Responses 31

One response not codable.

,ISO

F4-gure 30: 'Attitudes of Persons Wanting a Park Towards Various Area Boundaries

Boundary Alte7n-at-ive

A B C D Totals

N%mber of

Respondents 4 3 14 4 25

Percent of Respondents 16% 12% 56% 16% 1007.

Number of responses 25

One person selected "B or D". This was count.ed as two responses.

Figure Attitudes Towards Boun dary Alternatives and Development

Concepts

Boundary Alternative and Number of Respondents Attitude of Respondents

Development-Concept Prefering Each Boundary 'Towards Proposed Le*vels

Alternative and of Development

Development Concept of Respondents)-

Not Intensive Just Right Too

Enough Intensive

Al 2 0

A2 2 0

Bl .0 0 0

B2 1 0 0

cl 3 3 5

C2 0 2 0

Dl, 2 0

D2 0 0 0 0

Totals 20 5 8 7

Number of codable responses 20

Uncodable/no response

FIGURE 32:
Written Comments Submitted at PARC Public Meeting, September 12, 1978

Most of the people who attended the PARC meeting submitted written

comments in the space -provided on their questionnaire. The following is

a.listing of those comments. The number of times the comment was made

is given in parenthesis after each comment. The comments are arranged

in order from most common to least common.

1) State Parks should provide only foot trails for public access into

the park, and no facilities other than vehicle parking near East

End Road (8).

2) The Park should be as large as possible (3).

3) No park should be established. But, if a park is established, it

should be one with minimal development (2).

4) If a park is established, people's dogs will chaseand kill moose,

cattle, and horses in the winter. Steps should be taken to prevent

this (1).
5') There is a demonstrated lack of land for individuals private use,

for agriculture or for whatever purpose. The park would threaten
the quality of life now available to residents (1).

(continued)

133

(FIGURE Z--continued

6) The designation of these lands as a park is imperative, particularly

in light of the current emphasis on private land development by
I&hd d"Whers in the East End Road area. Everyone (or at least many
people) want to own their piece of land, but realistically there

isn't enough to go around. Land set aside for public use makes

good sense (1).

7) ;The park would be-good but the impact on East End Road would be too
great. Paving East End Road is not a good solution to the problem

8) Properly maintained recreation areas are imperative, but proper

s,urveilance is a must (1).

9) A small park should be established but some land should be left for

private ownership and for the.borough (1).

10) The land should be left for limited use

11) A wilderness park with no development should be,established (1).

12) Some area of the park should be set aside strictly for wildlife

preservation (1).

13) Set aside a park so that tourists don't have to.camp on private

property (1).

14) The park would prov ide local people with beach access (1).

1 -3 _4'

3 0 3 j. and 32 Therefore, in regard to public attitudes
Alternate C with a low level of development would be the

best choice. The public desire for a low level of development
was indicated:by written comments (Figures 32 a"- and

figure 31 .

In summary, Alternate C would provide the best

recreation area.. This is because it provides the most

.wildlife habitat protection, the best upland trail system,

and more points of beach access. Furthermore, local attitudes

support this alternative.

13 Sr

Not Establishing a Recreation Area (The "No Park Alternative):

Establishing a recreation area in the East End Road area is

not a foregone conclusion. Recreation area designation is a

large undertaking with many possible consequences. Certainly,

there.would be at least on.e advantage in not having a park

in the area; namely, the land would remain available for

agricultural and residential uses.

The disadvantages of not establishing a recreation area have

already been mentioned. These include a loss of wildlife

habitat, open space, and recreational experiences such as

hiking and sightseeing. All these losses.will result from

the present trend of residential development in the area.

Lastly,-the trend towards residential development will cause,
many of the same problems as would recreation area designation.

For example, traffic on East End Road will increase as more

houses are built off East End Road, and more people move

into the area. If a recreation area is designated, traffic

will also increase because recreationists will use East End

Roadto reach the park. The.environmental impacts of these

two sources of traffic will not be identical; however many

of the same impacts (e.g. noise and dust) will occur.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Park Boundary

Based on theprevious discussion of the area and its opportunities and

constraints-for outdoor recreation use, it is recommended that a

recreation area be established comprising both the Cottonwood and

Eastland,Creek drainages as shown in alternate Cl on page 121 in

Figure 25.

Park Development

While the development of recreational facilities will provide numerous

benefits to the public, it will also result in generating some negative

impacts which have been previously discussed. The timing and scope of

recreational facility development will greatly affect the nature and extent

of these impacts. For example if the recreation area was established but

undeveloped, negative impacts such as the introduction of additional

traffic on East End Road, increased numbers of non local persons in the area,

or the distrubance of wildlife due to hiking activities, etc. will generally

be minimal. However, some use of the area will occur simply because it is

designated a park or recreation area, although this level of use would be

expected to be quite low.

It is recommended that the area not be developed with recreationalfacilities.

until 1983. Moreover, the Division of Parks should conduct a new impact

assessment at that time to reappraise the probable impacts of such development

on the East End Road area. When developed, development alternate Cl is recommended.

Review of the proposed development

should include public meetings held in the Homer Area. The

devel6pmOt, would include the construction of a 20 unit

campground, 7 picnic sites, 5 miles of trail, 1000 feet of

gravel road, 10 hike-in camp/picnic sites with tent, pads,

one water well, several toilets, miscellaneous signs, and

related facilities. A cost breakdown for these facilities

is found in.Appendix B.

Archaeological Sites

It is recommended that the archaeological site at the mouth

of Cottonwood-Creek be fully evaluated, and excavated if

necessary, prior to the development of trails or other
fa cil.ities.in proximity to this site. Should the property

at the mouth of Eastland Creek be acquired, similar treatment

should also be given to the archaeological site at that

location*.

Hunting and Trapping

These activities should be all1owed-to continue until such

time as they become a hazard to park visitors or threaten

the well being of the wildlife resource.

13 e

Trai 1 s

Trails should be constructed away from private property (at
least 300 to 400 feet) to reduce the possibility of trespass

on private property. Trail construction should be in

conformance with the Division of Parks Policy Guideline #5

found in Appendix A.

Off-Road Vehicle Use

Motorcycles and all terrain vehicles (ATV's) should not be

permitted in the area because of an insufficient land area

to avoid conflicts with other park users. Additionally,

vegetation and soils could be seriously impacted from such

,use.

Snow conditions may not be adequate in the area for snow-

mobiling and skiing. However, snowmobiling should be per-

mitted if there is adequate snow cover to protect vegetation.

Because of the relatively small size of the area, conflicts

between cross country skiers and snowmobilers may eventually

occur. If this does occur, snowmobiling should be restricted

to a specific area.

Fire(Suppression

Park development should be coordinated with the Forestry,
Section of the Division of Forest, Land and Water Management

which is responsible for fire management on these l.ands to

insure maximum fire protection.

Park Signing

Several natural hazards in the area should be indicated with

signs. These include the following:

1) sea cliffs and canyon walls;

.2) fire prone areas; and

3) bears.-

All park and private land boundaries should also be signed.

Staffing and Headquarters

Both ranger and maintenance staff will be needed to manage

the area. This staff could be based in Homer to serve both

the Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks area as well as Kachemak

Bay State Park and Kachemak Bay State Wilderness Park.

Acquisition of Private Land

Boundary alternate C can be established with or without the

acquisition of private land. Since the Division of Parks is

only able to acquire land on a "willing seller.basis" every
effort should be made to contact landowners early. The

Division should consider acquiring "first right of refusal"

rights or life tenture arrangements with the owners.

Figure 33 shows the lands to be acquired and the priority in

which acquisition should occur.

4-1

r'7

ol/// ///o"///o1//
L- - -
................

.............

lel
...............................
..........
...........................
4
................
.............................
/10
'w.

.... M.MN:

... ............ 3
"o
4.4

'ely
2
el
Me;

.1o
I o

.. .........

A.M

. ........... . .

..........
...............
....... ......
SURECE'..-
ITT-
.......... .4
OWN
............
4/2

miles

PRI;ATE
L, \11 J

NOT EVALUATED

STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

TENTATIVE PARK BOUNDARY SOURCE: Kenai Peninsula Borougko, Tax Recoros

FIGURE 33
1 '4

APPENDIX A:
All Employees November 4, 1975
Division of Parks

Russell W. Cahill
Director

POLICY GUIDELINE NO. 5

In the past, various trails have been constructed to varying config-
urations and specifications, some with good results and some not so
good. The purpose of this guideline is to establish criteria for
conformance in trail construction on a statewide basis.

After the need for a trail has been established and the trail is de-
termined to be consistent with planning objectives in the master plan of
the park area or the statewide trails program, a field study team should
be assembled to locate and mark the desired trail. This field team
might consist of the District Superintendent, District Ranger, Chief of
Park Development and the supervisor of the trail construction crew.

The foll6wing-criteria should be adhered to during the location.and
construction of trails within State parks:

1. Every effort should be made to locate the trail in such a manner
that it will blend harmoniously with the natural topography and
vegetation of the area.

2. The alighment of a trail should not necessarily be designed for
expediency,.but rather to provide the opportunity for interesting
viewing or to reach an interpretive or natural feature along an
aesthetically pleasing route.

3.1 The grade of a trail should not be steeper than 15%, except in
extreme cases, and should when possible, be held to a maximum of
10%. In short stretches of not over 150 feet and in very excep-
tional cases a grade up to 20% may be permitted, but only after it
has been determined that other alternatives are too costly in terms
of price or environmental-considerations.

4. The attached figure on clearing requirements for trails should be-
adopted in practice. In some cases, trail width will necessarily
vary, due to terrain features or unusual circumstances, but for the
most part, the trail should be cleared for a width of four feet.

The trail should be cleared as high overhead as can be reached. It
is desirable, however, to leave a high overhang of branches whenever
the type of forest growth will permit. An occassional low branch
or other feature that may enhance the beauty of the trail may be
left uncut provided that the feature is not a safety hazard. As in
the case of trail width, discretion is needed.

6. Large trees should be cut only when it is impracticable to build
around them. Trees and brush should be cut as close to the ground
as possible. This practice will discourage resprouting and mini-
mize tripping hazards.

November 4, 1975
Page 2

7. ttush and logs from clearing should be dis Iposed of or cut,.removed
and stock-piled for future usage as firewood, etc. Cut vegetation
which cannot be utilized should be disposed of farther into the
woods. It is essential that all evidence of construction outside
of the trail prism be held to a minimum.

8. Precipitation and run-off characteristics in a locality should be
observed to properly determine the methods best suited for the
disposal of drainage water. A dip in the grade of a trail is one
means of-disposing of drainage water. Where it is not practical to
dip the grade, waterbreaks or culverts should be provided.

q ly

APPENDIX C DRAFT REPORT MAILING LIST
Sam Miller Tray Jones
Steve Gibson
P. 0. Box 1098 SRA Box 50-D SRA Box 49AA
Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603

Linda J. Jones Dean Feetham Royce Perkins
SRA Box 49AA Box 626 Box 1457
Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603

R. W. Tyler Lois R. Irvin Jerry Johnson
Box 1281 Box 878 SRA Box 48-D
Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603

Erle Cooper Derek Stonorov Joe Bernett
Box 177 SRA Box 44B Box 911
Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603

Bill Phillips Brother Airaiah Jane Gabler
Box 135 P. 0. Box 504 K. P. Borough
Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603 P. 0. Box 850
Soldotna, AK 99669

Tom Brown Jerry Frederick Steven B. Smiley

P. 0. Box 595 Box 973 S. R. A. Box 41-C
Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603

T. C. Laing Chris Laing David Mumy
SRA Box 47-B SRA Box 47-B SRA Box 47-B
Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603

George Ripley Fay Barber Larry Smith
Box 484 Box 1011 Box 23-B SRA
Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603

L. Stockfurth R. Hubbard B. Hubbard
SRA Box 60A SRA Box 47 SRA Box 47
Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603

Ann Gillas Glenn Green Cecil R. Jones
SRA, Box 44 SRA Box 49A-1 SRA Box 49A
Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603 Homer, AK 99603

144a

Larry Dutton Clay G. Beale, Forest Supervisor Paul Lowe
Div. of Forest, Land & Water Chugach National Forest AK Center for the Environmer
.3327 Fairbanks Street 2221 East Northern Lights 1069 West 6th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Anchorage, Alaska 99501

Micheal Lee Loren Flagg Homer Chamber of Commer
Alaska Division of Parks Alaska Dept.,of Fish &'Game Box 541
Box 1247 P.O. Box 234 Homer, Alaska 99603
Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Homer, Alaska 99603 Attn: Bill Butler, President

Ted Smith, Director Outer Continental Shelf Office Fred Elvsaas, President
Div. of Forest Land & Water Bureau of Land Management Seldovia Native Assoc., Inc.
323 E. 4th Avenue P.O. Box 1159 P.O. Drawer L
Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Seldovia, Alaska 99663

Jack wiles Kyle Cherry Mr. Roy Huhndorf
Div. of Forest, Land & Water Department of Environmental Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
3327 Fairbanks Street Conservation P.O. Drawer 4-N
Anchorage, Alaska 99503 338 Denali St., Rm 1206 Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Anchorage, Alaska 99501

Steve Reeve Keith Schreiner, Area Director Sam McDowell
Div. of Research & Development U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Izaak Walton League
323 East 4th Avenue 1011 E. Tudor Road 336 E.. 23rd Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Anchorage, Alaska 99503

Robert LeResche, Commissioner "Leo Rhode, Mayor Kachemak Bay Conservation
-Department of Natural Resources city of Homer Society
Pouch M P.O. Box 335 Box 484 0
.Juneau, Alaska 99801 Homer, Alaska 99603 Homer, Alaska 99603
Attn. Frank Tupper

Donald E. Gilman, Mayor Ken Castner, Chairperson Bill Shrier, President
Kenai.Peninsula Borough PARC, Kachemak AK Conservation Society
P.O. Box 850 c/o Quiet Sports P.O. Box 563
Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Homer, Alaska 99603 Soldotna, Alaska 99669

Tom Trent, Fegional Supervisor Phil Phillips
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game Central Peninsula Parks &
333 Raspberry Road Recreation Council
Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Box 1247, Soldotna, AK 99669

Laurence H. Kimball, Jr., Dir. Lou Carusel, President
Community Planning Division Anchorage Audubon Society
Pouch B SRA Box 4051-B
Juneau, Alaska 99801. Anchorage, Alaska 99502

Commissioner Jack Hession
Dept. of Transportation & Sierra Club
Public Facilities 545 E. 4th Avenue, Rm 5
Pouch Z, Juneau, AK 99811 Anchorage, Alaska 99501

Dave Hardy
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game
Subport Bldg.
Juneau, Alaska 99801 144b

.Tom Kizzia Jack R. Vandenberg Randy Tavenner
Box 635 c/o Jack White Company SRA Box 41-A
Homer, AK 99603 3201 "C" Street Homer, AK 99603
Anchorage, AK 99503

Loyd Shady @Mike Flora John Rate
Rou'te 5 Box 291 Homer, AK 99603
Rupert, Idaho 83350 Nenana, AK 99760

Louise Crane Norma Dudiak
1633 W. 15th, Apt. 2 Box 2580
-Anchorage, Ak.' 99501 Homer, Ak. 99603

144c

Public Response to Draft Report

To facilitate the reviewer's response to the draft report a,short que stionaire-w@
Is
t am elk
.sent to each person on the mailing list.. Also included was a pre addressed and s
envelop. A copy of the questionaire and tabulation of the responses is shown in this
appendix.

Question number four allowed for other,comments to be expressed by the reviewer. The
responses to this question are listed below:

*I am a property and homeowner living on the west side of McNeil Canyon within a mile of
the proposed park lands. I encourage you to actively push for park development and I
will support you on the local political level.

*My preferences are for a small park with some road access a short way into the park.
A campground area should be built at the end of the road and a trail system from there
to the scenic spots. I favor a park strip (green belt) 200-300 yards wide along the
bluff between Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks. I don't feel that it needs to be, or
should be any wider than that because the main scenic vistas are on the bluff and because
if that belt is any wider it will be cutting into good homesite land of which there is
little in this area. It is important to protect the bluff's edge from being built on,
but it is also important to let folks have land.

I
*This should be the site for a road to the water's edge. This is necessary to provide
access to the water itself and provide opportunities to connect spur roads both east
and west. This is some of the best agricultural land in the state with.respect.to
climate, soil and access to a population center and transportation facilities. Also,
I'm sure you know that 90% of-the visitors to the Homer area depend on roadway to get
them within reach of ca-mpsites, etc. The Kachemak Bay State Park accross the bay shouo
provide plenty of wilderness experience. On the Homer side we should perhaps have facil-
ities for those of us who are not so agressive. You should be aware that the "lock up"
attitude as shared by most of those whose comments you received at your meeting in Homer.
I doubt seriously if they are really representitive of Homer or the Southcentral Region.
More than a few own land on the park boundary and are looking to the value of their real
estate holdings, not the welfare of the people.

-Thank you good folks for the great work you are doing to help the people. Our love and
positive desire is with you.

*As owner of adjoining property to Alternative C, I would very much like to have the park
developed .... the sooner the better.

*I prefer a small park in this area for a number of reasons. For one thing there just
-simply is no sound reason for tying up the whole area in park -land. People can go
backpacking in any part of this state that is a lot more interesting country. The area
right around the bluff of Cottonwood and Eastland (creeks) is a good place for a park.
The rest of it is much better suited for residential and agricultural purposes. It just
doesn't make sense to tie up this much land in a park when people need accessible,land to
live on in this area. The state should set aside some land in this area for future needs
such as schools, disposal sites (garbage dumps), airports, etc. I say keep it small and
leave room for something besides parks. This area is growing fast. Let's look to the
future and leave room for expansion.

144d

-Keep roads to the least amount.--Possibly have areas for snowmobiling-?? Alternative
C seems that it would be possible for snowmobiles, although skiiers may not appreciate
that. Maybe different routes could be established?? I like alternate C for the following
reasons: 1) amount of acreage 2)less roads 3) less campground 4) beach availability
5) wildlife and archaeological sites.

*Would like to see modified DI with Cottonwood Creek sectio n remaining wilderness area
with no trails. Ideally I would like to see 3,020 acres in State ownership. I would like
to see it not developed in anyway. I feel that the State should develop campsites on
the Spit rather than on East Road. This is a very poor report for a variety of reasons:
1) It fails to augument the possible influence of the Fox River Land Disposal Project on
the proposed park, i.e. will East End Road be continued. Will population density become
higher? etc. etc. 2) It fails to mention Dept. of Highways plans for East Road if the
State makes a recreation development. 3) It fails to mention that the Bradley Lakes
Hydro. Electric Project (sic). Would a recr 'eation development 18 miles on East Road be
fuel for a continuation of East Road to Bear Cove accross the head of the bay.' -I still
think your reports or studies are poorly done (see earlier letter to LeReshe and Terry
McWilliams. They are very development oriented, and cast the Division of Parks in a
very narrow role. Why do you crowd an evaluation of this type with a natural systems
inventory when what you obviously seek is a response to the social impact?

--Eventually their should be permanent public exhibits at the-archae6logical sites. Sorry,
I thought I'd sent an answer or at least you had my input from the meeting. 'The draft repo
is in my cabin in Homer and I am out here in California at the moment- hence the vague
answers above.
0* 1 favor the larg est acreage possible fora park especia lly to protect moose calving.
Also, I choose hiking; camping, only, no roads or motor vehicles.

*I'm in favor of a wilderness park with no development. Once development begins it ruins
the original beauty and becomes another "state park". East Road barely-is suitable for
local traffic now. If R.V. traffic is encouraged, there will be a fatal accident which
if the State encourages more traffic, I feel the DNR should be responsible.

*Iprefer that vehicles be kept near the highway.

*My property and home adjoins Eastland Creek, and naturally, I do have some reactions-
to the plans being proposed. I.have walked through the timber and meadows along the
bluffs .... it is a beautiful area. The best use of this land would be a low intensity
hiking trail network- with a simple pull off for vehicles and facilities,near the road
for picnicking, etc. Camping probably would not be too good due to the fire hazard.
There is a lot of old growth and blowdown trees and high grass. I guess I feel the area
is too special to be "ground-under-foot" as is the case with multi-purpose campgrounds and
overnight facilities.

.*I am a resident near the park. The land is ideal for a park- as state or private
.development (say for a subdivision) would be costly, as the terrain makes it difficult.

*1 don't believe that many park visitors will be attracted without vehicle access to the
beach, which would be difficult. I also have reservations about the impact a park might
ave upon adjacent landowners.

144e

KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH

ri BOX 850 SOLDOTNA.ALASKA99669
PHONE-262-4441
DON
MAYOR
GILMAO

August 27, 1979

Ms. Terry McWilliams
Director
Alaska State Park System
Suite 210
619 Warehouse Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501

Re: Comments on Preliminary Draft of the Evaluation of Cottonwood
and Eastland Creeks Area for Recreation Use.

Dear Ms. McWilliams:

Thanks for the opportunity to review the referenced. draft.

The Kenai Peninsula Borough has selected the land which is the
subject of the referenced draft. At this time, the Borough has
not finalized plans for the use or disposal of the land. If the
selection is approved, the Borough will finalize plans for the
area under our land management and disposal procedures. Your
evaluation of the recreation potential of the area will be consid-
ered at that time.

Sincerely,

D014ALD E. GILMAN'Mayor
Kenai Peninsula Borough

DEG:IDW:kg
ES

144f

ell

:11 v

jr
iv
Ifl,

ry
Ir

77 77 7.7 r

SAMPLE QUESTIONAIRE AND RESULTS FROM QUESTIONAIRE SENT TO REVIEWERS

Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks Park Study Area Questionnaire #2
Alaska Division of Park
December 11, 1979

1) Do you favor a park or recreation area being established in the
Cottonwood and Eastland Creeks area?.
yes -18

2) If so, what alternate boundary do you pre-@I-er? (please refer to pages
116 to 136 of the report mailed to you this last fall).

7
Alternate' A

Alternate B

Alternate C 6

Alternate D

other, please describe

most acres possible 2
3) If you'respond yes to ques'tion number' 1 ,what development concept do
you prefer?

-ernate "I e
Development Alt 13 (low int nsity)
Development Alternate 7--.2 2 (moderate intensity)

Other, please describe

4) Please use this space and the backside of #the questionnaire for any other
comments you may wish to express?

SEE PAGE 144d and e FOR RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION-

Optional
Name

Address

THANK YOU.

APPENDI-X B: Construction Costs (1979 Dollars)

Development No. of Cost Total Cost
Component Unit Units of Unit of Unit

Access Road Gravel Road, 24' wide, 1,040 ft. $ 128/ft $133,120
TOTAL $133,120

Campground Campsites 20 5,750 115,000
Double Vaulted Latrine 1 9,400 9,400
Double Entrance Gate 1 1,100 1,100
Entrance Sign 1 475 475
Wood Signs 10 25/sq.ft. 250
..Bulletin Board 1 300 300
Water Well 1 23,000 23,000
TOTAL $149,525
Day Use Area Gravel Parking Spaces 7 1,150 8,b5O
Gravel Road (24', 2-way) 20 ft. 128/ft 2,560
Picnic Shelter 1 14,500 14,500.
Picnic Tables 7 300 2,100
Fireplaces 7 225 1,575
Wood Sign 4sq.ft. 25/sq.ft. 100
TOTAL $ 28,885

1,ail System Trail (I 1/2ft) 5miles 3,500/mile 17,500
Board Walks (20 ft.) 7 200/ft. 1,400
Boundary/Private Land
Signs (every 150 feet) 290 25 7,250
interpretive Sign 1 600 600
Tent Pads 10 50 500
Benches 20 100 .2,000
Fireplaces 10 225 2,250
Pit Latrines 2 1,375 2,750
Bulletin Board 1 300 300
TOTAL $ 34,650

To.tal Construction Cost: Road, Campground, Trail System and Day
Use Area $346,080

Includes materials and installation
"Campsites" include the cost for the following: 1 table, 1 fireplace,
'l bumper log, 1 pull-in, 1 drain and a portion of interconnecting road.
Additional Costs _(1979 Dollars)

Site Planning, 5% of total Construction Costs $17,304

Design Engineering, 10% of total $34,608
Co.u-struction Engineer, 15% of total $51,912

Contingencies, 5% of total $17,304

Total Additional Costs $121,128

GRAND TOTAL (Additional Costs plus Construction
Costs, 1979 Dollars) - - - - - - - - $467,208

.REFEkENCES

Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affai rs (1974)..
Selected 1970 Census Data For Alaskan Comm*unities, Part 5--
Southcenteral Alaska, Alaska Department of Communi@y and
Regional AffaiFs, Division of Community Planning, Juneau,
Alaska.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1976). A Fish and Wildlife
Resources Inventory of the Cook Inlet-KoUfa Areas, prepared
under contract to the Alaska Coastal Management Program-
Division of Policy Development and Planning-, Anchorage,
Alaska.

Alaska Department of Labor (1978)@. Unpublished files, Alaska
Department of Labor, Anchorage, Alaska.

AlaskA:Division of Parks ( no date). Alaska Heritage Resource
Inventory (on going), Alaska DiviTi-on of Parks, Mice of
Ristory and Archaeology, Anchorage, Alaska.

Alaska Division of Parks (1976). Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan
(1976,4980), Alaska Division of Parks,'Anchorage, Alaska.

Alaska Division of Parks (1976). Coastal Recreation Resources:
West Kenai Peninsula, AlaskaL, prepared forthe Alaska toaital
Management Program by Alan Meiners.

Alaska Division of Parks (4/29/76). "Historic Preservation Material,
National Register Nomination: Cottonwood Creek Arcaeologica'1
Site," Alaska Division of Parks, Office of History and Archaeology,
Anchorage, Alaska.

Baker, Steve (1978). Plann.ing Assistant, City of Homer. personal
communications.

Berrie, Peter M. (no date). "The Lynx in Alaska,"in Wildlife
'A--ho rage ,
Notebook Series, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, nc
Tlaska.

Burea of Land Management (1976,). Draft Environmental Impact Statement:
Oil and Gas Lease.Sale Proposal, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf
Uf-fice, Anchorage, Alaska.

Caras, Roger A. (1967). North American Animals, Galahad Books,
New York.

1 41 io

CorhOliUs, Donald A. @1977). "The Coyote In Alaska," in the Wildlife
Notebook Series, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage,
Alaska.

Crow, John H. (1977). "Food Habits of Shrimp in Kachemak Bay, Alaska,"
in Envi.ronmental Studies of Kachemak Bay (volume 6), Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska.

Dames and Moore (1974). Detailed environmental analysis concerning
a proposed liquified natural gas project for Pacific LNG Company..
Docet No. CP75-Exhibit Z-IV.

Davidson, Mairiis (1977). "Bird List of the Homer and Kachemak Bay
Area," Unpublished Bird List.

Erikson, David (1971). "Distribution, Abundance, Migration, and Breeding
Locations of Marine Birds, Lower Cook Inlet," in Environmental Studies
of Kachemak Bay and Lower Cook Inlet (volume 8T, Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Alaska.

Evans, S.C. et al. (1972). The Cook Inlet Environment: A Backround
Study of Available Knowledge, Artic Environmental Inf6m@ation and
Data-Center, Anchorage, Alaska.

Flagg, Loren B. (1978). Fish and Game Biologist, Alaska Department
of Fish and Game,Homer, Alaska, personal communications.

Gabrielson, Iran and Frederik C. Lincoln (1959). The Birds of Alaska,
The Stackpole Company, Harrisburg, Pennsylvan

Griswold, Carol (1978). "Cottonwood Creek Plant List, A Tentative List
of Probable Plants," Pratt Museum, Homer, Alaska.

Hardy, Dave (1978). Fish and Game Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game (Homer), personal communications.

Hayes, Miles 0., et al. (1977). "Coastal Morphology and Sedimentation,
Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska," in Environmental Studies of Kachemak
Bay Wlume II), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, AnER-rage,
Alaska.

Homer,City of, (1978). Revised Comprehensive Development Plan, City
of Homer, Homer, Alaska.

Hood, D.W., et al. (1968). Summary 'Report on Collier Carbon and Chemical
Corporation Studies in Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska, Inst. Mar. Sc.,
Univ. of Ak,College, Ak.

1 14

Kenai Peninsula Borough, Soldotna, Alaska, Tax Records (1978).
Kenai Pononsula Borough (1978). Unpublished (draft) report o6recreation
and tourism in the Kenai Peninsula Borogh.

Kennedy, Michael S. (1976). National Registor of.Historic Places Inventory--
Nomination of the Kilcher Ranch, contained in the files of the Office
of History and Arcaeology, Alaska Division of.Parkt, Anchorage,
Al.aska.

Kli khart Edward (1969). "The Harbor Seal in Alaska," in the Wildlife
Not@book Series, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, A aska.
Kranich, Arleen (1976). "Homer," in A Small Historz of the Western
Kenai (Walt and Elsa Pederson, eUTt-ors and publishers), PedFr-son
ProTects,,' Post Office Box 28, Sterlingi, Alaska 99672.

Lee, Michel-D.'(1978). Superintendent, KenAi-Kodiak District,, Alaska
Division of Parks, personal communication.

MacIntosh, Rich (1974). "Birds of Kachemak Bay and Vicinity." in
Environs, October 29,1974.
Meiners, Alan H. (1978). Park Planner, Alaska Di'vision of Parks,,
personal communication.
Mumma, Susan (1973). Tourism Survey (Kenai Peninsula.), Kenai Peninsula
Borough, Planning be-partment,,Economic Development Office,
Soldotna, Alaska.

Public Meeting in Homer, September 12, 1978.

Reger, Douglas R..(1978). State Archaeologist, Alaska Division of Parks,
Office of History and Archaeology, personal communication.

Reger, R.D. (1978). Alaska Open-File Report 111A, Pho ointerpretive
Map of the Surficial Geolo9z of the Southern Kenai Lowlands,
Alaska, Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys,
Anchor ge, Alaska.

Reger, R.D. (1978). Geologi.st, Alaska Di,vision of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks, Personal communications.

Rosenburg, D H.., et al. (1969). Summarry Report on Collier Carbon
and Chemical Cor' oration.Studies in Cook Inlet, Alaska. 'Parts.
p
I and II, Report No. 69-13. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univesity of Alaska,,
College,, Alaska.

@elkregg, L. (ed.) (1974). Alaska Regional Profiles, Volume I,
Southcentral Region, Arctic vironmental Information and Data
center, 7nchorage, Alaska.

Smith, Robert L. (1974). Ecology and Field Biology, Harper and Rowe
Publishers, San FrancTs_c_o_,_C_aTjfornia.

Soil Conservation Service (1971). Soil Survey: Homer-Ninilchik
Area, Alaska, Soil Conservation Service in Cooperation with
the Alaska Agricultural Experiment@Station.

Sowers, W.M. (1978). District Conservationist, Soil Coservation
Service,.Homer Field Office, personal communications.
Stenmark, Richard J., et al. (1973). Inventory, Southcentral Region:
Recreation and Preservation Oppertinities, Joint Federal-State
Land Use Planning Commission, Anchorage ' Alaska.

Teal-, David, et al. (1978). Alaska Economic Outlook to 1985, Alaska
Department of Labor, Anchorage,-A-Taska.
Trasky, Lance L. et al. (1977). "Impact of Oil on the Kachemak
Bay Environment," in Environmental Studies of Kachemak Bay and Lower
Cook Inlet (volume I), Alas@a Department of Fish and Game,
Anchorage, Alaska.

United States Geological Survey (1978). Well logs of the East End
Road Area (unpublised files), Anchorage, Alaska.
Workman, Willam B. (1978). Continuity And Change In The Prehistoric
Record From Southern Alaska, Presented at the Taniguchi Foundation
Symposium on Alaska Native Cultures, Osaka, Japan.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Author., Vincent Radosevich, Intern Park Planner

Project Supervisor: Alan H. Meiners, Park Planner

Review Editing: Nell C. Johannsen, Chief of Planning
Pete K. Martin, Park Planner

Typing: Phyllis A. Gervell

For providing important insight and information, special thanks to:
Dr. Robert Baker, Alaska Division of Parks
Dr. Douglas Reger, Alaska Division of Parks
Mike Lee, Alaska Division of Parks
Richard Reger, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys
Dave Hardy, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Carol Griswold, Pratt,(Homer) Museum
Larry Farnen, City of Horner City Manager
Steve Baker, City of Homer
Mairiis Davidson
Art Davidson
Glen Green
Yule Kilcher

36668 14103 7319