[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
PHASE 1 COMPLETION REPORT MATAINUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HT MAY 1981 393 A42 MAYNARD AND PARTCH 1981 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Matanuska-Susitna Borough C16astal Management Program.,x Phase 1 Completion Report Prepared by Maynard and Partch Woodward-Clyde Consultants May 1981 :q- Alaska Coastal Management Program The prepa rat i on of th i s Phase I report was f i nanced i n part by funds from the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce, administered by the Division of Community Planning, Department of Community and Regional Affairs, and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly. Matanuska-Susitna Borough ASSEMBLY EDNA ARMSTRONG CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM Palmer JAY BERKSTRAND BOB BARRY JIM BIRD Palmer Co-Chairperson DORTHY JONES Talkeetna JACK COREY BARBARA LACHER RUSS COTTON Palmer LARRY ENGEL RON LARSON, MAYOR Palmer BUD GOODYEAR Co-Chairperson JOHN MUSGROVE Palmer MITCH HENNING GARY THURLOW JAMES HERMON Borough Manager BOB HURLEY PLANNING COMMISSION BARBARA LACHER KEN DeCAMP AL LARSON LEONARD SINES BOB LUNDELL ELSIE OfBRYAN ROBERT TUCKER VERN UNGERECHT GARY SILVERS GUY WOODINGS MYRON STEVENS Chairperson VERN UNGERECHT PLANNING DEPARTMENT GUY WOODINGS LEE WYATT Director RODNEY SCHULLING RICK FELLER TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iii LIST OF FIGURES 1v LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF MAPS ix INTRODUCTION I Mat-Su Borough Coastal Perspective 2 Scope of Phase 1 4 Scope of Phase 11 5 ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS Coastal Management Program Elements 8 Standards for Land and Water Uses and 12 Activities, Coastal Habitats, and Resources in the Coastal Zone Areas Which Merit Special Attention 16 Uses of State Concern 16 Coordination and Review 18 ISSUES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES 19 MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT AREA 25 Inland and Seaward Coastal Boundaries 25 COASTAL RESOURCE INVENTORY 30 Natural Resources and Coastal Habitats 30 Physical Characteristics and Resources 52 Geophysical Harzards 63 Human and Cultural Resources 98 Table of Contents, continued PAGE RESOURCE ANALYSIS AND COASTAL SENSITIVITY 139 Natural Resources and Coastal Habitat Analysis 139 Physical Characteristics and Resources Analysis 162 Geophysical Hazard Analysis 164 Human and Cultural Resource Potentials 172 Preliminary Management Areas 179 SUBJECT USES 182 AREAS WHICH MERIT SPECIAL ATTENTION (AMSA) 186 Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site 189 Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain 192 Susitna Flats State Game Refuge 196 Goose Bay State Game Refuge 199 Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge 201 Other.Potential AMSA's 204 POLICY DEVELOPMENT 205 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 210 APPENDIX 213 BIBLIOGRAPHY 273 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AAC Alaska Administrative Code ACMA Alaska Coastal Management ACt ACMP Alaska Coastal Management Program ACPC Alaska Coastal Policy Council ADCRA Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources ADT/PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities AEIDC Alaska Environmental Information and Data Center AMSA Areas Which Merit Special Attention ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act BLIA Bureau of Land Management COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CZMA Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 DGGS Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys DPDP Division of Policy Development and Planning F&WS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 0CM Office of Coastal Management (Alaska) OCZM Office of Coastal Zone Management (Federal) SCS U.S. Soil Conservation Service USGS U.S. Geologic Survey LIST OF FIGURES Page I Mat-Su Borough Coastal Biophysical Boundaries 27 2 Seasonal Distribution of Monthly Mean Discharges for the Little Susitna River near Palmer 54 3 Annual Water and Sediment Variation in the Matanuska and Knik River 57 3a Mean Annual Temperatures 60 3b Mean Annual Precipitation 61 4 Plate Tectonics Relationships in the NE Pacific Ocean 64 5 General Geologic Map of Matanuska- Susitna Borough Coastal Management District 66 6 Legend for General Geologic Map of the Matanuska--Susitna Borough Coasta( Management District 67 7 Typical Wind Patterns Potentially Affecting the Coastline of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management D istrict 93 8 Location of Enumeration Districts in Mat-Su Borough 101 9 Schematic Diagram Illustrating the Concept of a Floodway 168 10 Areas Which Merit Special Attention 188 11 Coastal Management Policy Development 207 12 Citizen Participation Process 212 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Special Composition of Ducks Using the Matanuska-Susitna Wetlands 34 2 Numbers and Densities of Breeding Ducks in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Wetlands and Associated Tideflats 34 3 Number of Waterfowl (other than ducks) Utilizing Matanuska-Susitna Borough Wetlands and Associated Tideflats 35 4 Birds Which May Occur in the Knik Arm Wetlands Study Area, Alaska, Wetlands and Tideflats 36 5 Mammals Which May Occur in the Knik Arm Wetlands Study Area, Alaska, Wetlands and Tideflats 39 6 Rivers Identified on ADF&G Resource Maps as Critical Habitat 41 7 Lakes Stocked in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough 43 8 Peak Salmon Escapement Counts for Selected Mat anuska-Susitna Streams 45 9 Mammals Which May Occur in the Knik Arm Wetlands Study Area, Alaska, Upland Habitat 48 10 Upland Birds Identified in Knik Arm and Which Probably Occur Throughout Matanuska-Susitna Uplands 49 11 Average Measured Discharge of Gaged Streams in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management District 53 12 Break--Up and Freeze-Up Dates Determined from Stream Flow Measurements 55 12a Climatic Data for Selected Areas in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management District 59 13 Cook Inlet Glacial Chronology - 71 v List of Tables, continued Table Page 14 Maximum Known Flood Discharge on Streams in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management District 81 15 Estimated 100-Year Flood Discharges for Streams in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough 82 Coastal Management District 16 Estimated Flood Damage in the Matanuska- Susitna Valley Caused by Heavy Rains in 85 August 1971 17 Summary of Documented Flood Hazard Potential in Communities in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal 87 Management District 18 Calculated Wave Characteristics for 91 Three Proposed Bridge Sites in Knik Arm 19 Population Distribution in Mat-Su 100 Borough 1970-1980 102 20 Comparative Population Growth 21 Mat--Su Borough and Alaska by Race/Ethnic 103 Background - 1980 22 Alaska: Retail Sales 1972-77 105 23 Mat--Su: Retail Sales 1972-77 105 24 Business Type and Location -- Mat-Su Borough 106 25 Gross Business Receipts -- Mat-Su Borough 107 26 Comparative Unemployment Statistics 1975-1979 108 27 Unemployment Breakdown by Race - 1978 109 28 Ratio of Applicants for Job Openings - 1979 1 10 29 Employment by Industry in Mat-Su Borough 110 30 Employment by Industry in Mat-Su III Communities - 1980 31 Place of Employment by Community - 1980 111 32 Mat-Su Borough Income - 1970-79 112 33 Household Income -- Survey'Drived: 113 Mat-Su Borough vi List of Tables, continued Table Page 34 Income by Community -- Survey Derived: 113 Mat-Su Borough 35 Mat-Su Income vs. United States Income 114 36 Average Entry Wages 115 37 Urban Family Budgets -- Autumn 1978 l16 38 Annual Budget for a Four Person Family -- 117 Anchorage, Alaska 1978 39 Mat-Su Borough Family Budget Requirements 118 40 Family Budget Requirements Index for a 118 Moderate Standard of Living -1978 41 Adjusted Per Capita Income -- Mat-Su 119 Borough 42 Soil Rating of Alaskan Land by U. S. 119 Soil Conservation Service 43 Agricultural Production in the Mat-Su 121 Borough --- 1953-1975 44 Summary of Mineral Resource Deposits in 122 Mat-Su Borough 45 U. S. Forest Service Estimate of Forest Lands in Alaska -- 1967 123 46 Timber Stands of Commercial Value in 124 Mat-Su Borough 47 Mat-Su Recreational Facilities 126 48 Mat--Su Borough Revenues 127 49 Mat-Su Borough Expenditures 127 50 General Obligation Bonded Debt -- Mat-Su 128 Borough 51 Municipal Tax Rates for Mat-Su Borough 129 52 Housing Distribution in Mat-Su Borough 132 53 Mat-Su Housing Characteristics by Housing 132 Type (1980) 54 Owner/Renter Distribution 1980 -- Mat-Su 133 Borough vil List of Tables, continued Table Page 55 Frequency of Trips to Anchorage (1980) 135 56 Primary Reason for Anchorage Trips (1980) 135 57 Mat-Su Borough Public Facilities 137 58 Mat-Su Public School Enrollment 138 59 Recreational Use of Cook Inlet State 141 Game Refuges 60 Waterfowl Hunter Days and Average Harvest 142 Per Day on Cook Inlet Refuges 61 Cook Inlet Refuge Duck Harvest 143 62 Cook Inlet Refuge Goose Harvest 144 63 Results of Opinion Survey on the Use of 145 Mechanized Vehicles in Refuges 64 Knik Arm Drainage Sport Fish Harvests 149 65 East Side Susitna River Drainage Sport 150 Fish Harvests 66 West Side Susitna River Drainage Sport 151 Fish Harvests 67 Fish and Wildlife Habitats, and Recreational Reservations on Public Lands 155 in the Upper Cook Inlet Lease Sale Area 68 Moose Harvest in Game Management Units 156 14a, 14b, 16a, and 16b 69 Verified Moose Mortality in GMU 14A 157 70 Verified Moose Mortality in GMU 14B 158 71 Summary of Basic Development Constraints Associated with Geophysical Hazards in the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management 171 District viii LIST OF MAPS Map A Matanuska-Susitna Borough Biophysical Coastal Boundaries B Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Habitats C Special Habitats and Anadromous Fish Streams D Geophysical Hazards E Human and Cultural Resources F Preliminary Management Areas G Areas Which Merit Special Attention ix I I I I 114TRODUCTION I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I INTRODUCTION Competing demands upon the natural, commercial, recreational, ecological, industrial, and aesthetic resources of the coast have increased significantly since 1960. Until recently, this increased demand upon coastal resources was met with insufficient planning and regulatory authority at the local, State, and federal levels. The result was a piecemeal short-term management approach to the allocation of limited coastal resources and use of coastal areas. In 1972, recognizing the national need for a coordinated governmental approach to the balanced utilization of coastal resources, Congress passed the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, (CZMA). The CZMA established a national program for the management, beneficial use, protection and development of the. land and water resources of the coast. The federal program was designed to assist states in exercising their management responsibilities over land and water resources through the development and implementation of state coastal management programs. The intent of Congress was to achieve wise use of land and water coastal resources while giving consideration to ecological, cultural , historical , and aesthetic values, as wel I as the needs for economic development. Al I of the intense pressures on coastal resources which prompted Congress' to enact the CZMA were present and, in some ways, more severe in Alaska. Advances in o i I and gas exploration and mineral extraction technologies, increased demands for fishery resources, and rapid growth and development along coastal regions of Alaska resulted in substantial economic, social, cultural, and environmental impacts on coastal resources, coastal communities, and their local residents. The size and diversity of Alaska's coastal area and wealth of coastal resources required specially adapted organizational arrangements for coastal management. Those specialized needs were reflected in the passage of the Alaska Coastal Management Act of 1977 (AS 44.19.891-894 and 46.40), which provided for a State coastal management program methodology based on the partnership of shared State and local management responsibilities for coastal areas and resources. The Alaska Coastal Management Act created, in the Office of the Governor, the Alaska Coastal Policy Council. One of the initial duties of the Council was to adopt use, habitat, and I resource standards for the Alaska Coastal Management Program and gu i de I i nes f or the deve I opment of d i str 1 ct coasta I management programs. The standards and guidelines were subsequently approved by the Legislature and accepted into the Alaska Administrative Code, serving as the minimum requirements for coastal management in Alaska. Both the local coastal resource districts and State agencies are bound by the standards when considering uses and activities in coastal areas, coastal habitats, and specified coastal resources. The guidelines of the Alaska Coastal Management Program outline the planning process which local coastal resource districts wi I I utilize in preparing a district coastal management program. The Alaska Coastal Policy Council is responsible for State-wide oversight and coordination of coastal management efforts. Local coastal districts, such as the Mat-Su Borough, are responsible for developing district coastal management programs that meet State requirements and are specific to the desires and aspirations of local residents, land and water uses and activities along the coast, and the coastal resources contained within a district. These district coastal management program serve as building blocks of the Alaska Coastal Management Program, through which local, State, and federal governments, and the private sector operate to manage Alaska's coastal resources and promote their wise use and development. MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL PERSPECTIVE The Mat-Su Borough coastal area extends for approximately seventy mi I es f rom the Kena i Pen i nsu I a Borough i n the west, along the extreme northern shores of Upper Cook Inlet and Knik Arm, to the mouth of the Knik River and the Municipality of Anchorage in the east and includes all offshore and estuarine areas, tideflats and wetlands, vegetated coastal bluffs, rivers, streams and lakes, and important upland habitats which have a significant impact on coastal fish and wildlife. Contained within the Mat-Su coastal area is a wealth of natural, cultural, aesthetic, and economic resources which support a variety of coastal land and water uses and activities. Examples of such coastal uses and activities include, but are not limited to, residential housing, tourism and recreation, industrial and commercial activities, petroleum exploration and development, port development, wildlife management, mining and mineral processing, timber harvesting and processing, and agriculture. New economic development, population growth, and expanded resource extraction and utilization in the Borough has and will continue to place increas6d demands on coastal areas 2 and resources. The Mat-Su Borough, I i ke many other coasta I communities in the State of Alaska is faced with the challenge of how to allocate valuable coastal lands and resources and plan for growth through a process that maximizes the benefits of available resources while minimizing the potential impacts of development. I n order to plan for sound growth and preserve the values of their coastal resources, the Borough initiated a coastal management effort. Development and implementation of the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program provides a framework for guiding the dynamic elements of the planning and policy making process with respect to complicated coastal land use and resource allocation issues. The coastal management planning and policy making process is based on a thorough inventory of natural, human, and cultural resources present and facilitated by a locally expressed coastal goals and objective statement which takes into consideration the unique economic and social environment in the Mat-Su Borough. Local benefits that would be derived from the development and implementation of the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program include, but are not limited to, the following: � Strengthening of Borough and areawide planning and management capabilities; � Increased coordination of Borough planning and management efforts with appropriate State agencies, Federal agencies, and the private sector; � Improved opportunities for Borough residents to constructively influence land and water management decisions that affect their lives; � Balanced consideration between the needs for economic resource development and conservation of Borough fish and wildlife, cultural, and aesthetic resources; and 0 Provide for effective long-term management of the Borough's coastal resources. 3 SCOPE OF PHASE I The primary objective of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program is to provide effective long-term local management of the Borough's coastal resources with an eye toward meeting local needs. The Phase I scope of work was designed to build a foundation and framework of scientific and technical analysis in conjunction with community-identified issues, goals and objectives, that will help shape the coastal management program, plan, and implementation policies to follow. The identification of coastal issues, goals and objectives are particularly important in the Mat-Su Borough where studies for various resource developments, Point MacKenzie Industrial Port development, and State, Borough, and ANSCA land selections interrelate in the context of the coastal zone. Coordination efforts have also acknowledged that State and federal agencies have concerns in coastal management issues, and through which, cooperation will provide the mechanism for resolving conflicts prior to the program approval process. Resource inventory and analysis was a major scientific endeavor conducted during Phase 1. The effort encompassed the evaluation of existing literature, remote imagery interpretation, technical materials from State and federal agencies and the Mat-Su Borough, and the knowledge of local residents. Interim coastal boundaries identified in the Annual Progress Report (1978) were reviewed to determine their appropriateness. Final boundary determination will depend on the integration of the results of the resource inventory and analysis, certain program issues, goals and objectives, and policied related to program implementation considerations. A coastal area classification system based on sensitivity/capabil-ity criteria allows effective determination of coastal management policies used to evaluate appropriate uses. The resource analysis and sensitivity/capability criteria utilized measure existing or potential uses and activities- within specified development, conditional development, and conservation areas. These uses and activities included uses of State concern and national -interests such as a port, energy facilities, navigational facilities and systems, national defense and resource development of federal lands. The potential of the Dow-Shell alternative at Point MacKenzie must await the feasibility study results to be released in September. (Early in Phase 11.) 4 Due to the extensive coastal zone within the Borough, combined with the expressed desire to develop an industrial port at Point MacKenzie and related resource extraction and processing activities, the potential for conflict between competing coastal uses and activities is high. The identification of areas which merit special attention provides a mechanism for focusing management options in specific geographic areas while attempting to minimize conflicts and preserve values. Policy development is the connecting link between community goals and objectives and the implementation of the Borough's coastal management program. It is the means for the Borough to evaluate the suitabilities of certain proposals for land and water uses and activities that will be subject to the coastal management program, thus, taking a major stride in achieving local management and control objectives. The policy development process emerges in Phase I and will be a significant portion of Phase 11 efforts. The Planning Commission and Citizen/Agency Joint Forum identified issues and assembled goals and objectives that reflect the concerns of Borough residents and government agencies regarding coastal development. Through discussions and understanding of the characteristics, values and roles of coastal areas, the participants viewed the coastal program as a means of managing activities within the coastal area to meet the expressed public good. Through the encouragement of input, understanding, and feedback, the Planning Commission and Citizen/Agency Joint Forum have directed progress during Phase I toward achievement of community objectives. S(-,'OPE OF PHASE 11 An uni nterrupted continuation of work and programming is anticipated for Phase 1 1, following the overall outline. The principal task elements will include further policy developments, with associated implementation measures, focusing toward the draft and concept approved Borough Coastal Management Plan and Program. The deta i Is of the Susitna Area Study progress will become available and any heretofore unknown qualities or issues wil-I be assessed for impacts on the finalized versions of issues, goals and objectives; resource inventory and analysis; and various subject uses previously identified. The policy development process will acknowledge the interests and concerns of individual local communities and evaluate the suitabilities of various proposals for land and 5 water uses and activities within delineated geographic units described for development, conditional development and conservation. Policy makers will also evaluate methods of coordination with the Borough Comprehensive Development Plan to insure consistency and appropriateness. These Borough policies, combined with the proper/improper uses identified, will provide the conceptual framework for decisions regarding uses, activities, and the permissibility of projects and development proposals within the coastal management district. Successful local management of the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program over time will require consistent application of legal and. administrative procedures for achieving incremental objectives in coordination with the overall Comprehensive Development Plan. The regulations and permit systems presently in place can greatly assist the Borough in the achievement of coastal management objectives, providing appropriate coordination and review procedures are arranged between the various authorities. The implementation program measures wi I I recognize the adopted goals and policies of the Mat-Su Borough through identified administrative arrangements, ordinance modifications, and a permitting and monitoring systems that will provide the assembly, planning commission, and administration with the tools of management that will assure consistent and coordinative guidance to achieve Borough objectives. The principal elements of the implementation program will include an interagency memorandum of agreement providing a coordination mechanism for local, State, and federal review and permit issuance processes consistent with agency and governmental requirements. The Borough will also review and discuss new incentive based management tools that will provide flexible use intensity provisions, performance standards, and criteria for development. The preparation of the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program and Plan for concept approval by the Borough Assembly is a continuous, interactive process throughout the latter part of the study. The final program format will be determined by the Borough during Phase 11. Preliminarily, the program elements will describe district b,,undaries; certain goals, policies, and objectives; an incentive based implementation program; identification of areas meriting special attention; memorandum of understanding between the Borough, State and federal agencies; and appropriate narrative, maps, and other supporting graphics to depict the Borough's Coastal Management Program. Throughout, the Mat-Su Borough is maintaining a program of coordination and review with federal, State and loca'I government agencies. This process was initiated by the Mat-Su Borough Planning Department, the Citizen/Agency Joint 6 Forum' and consultants during Phase I and wi I I be carried out to the concept approval and submittal stages. The results of meetings and summarization of public and agency comments to date are presented in the appendix of this Phase I Completion Report. The Mat-Su Borough has developed a creative public participation effort reflecting the. concerns of Borough residents and government agencies regarding coastal development. The Citizen/Agency Joint Forum has encouraged input, understanding, and feedback through a participation process that facilitates discussion, technical review, evaluation, and coordination of program elements. Future workshops and public hearings will be utilized by the Planning Commission and Joint Forum to present and discuss implementation measures and the draft Coastal Management Program and Plan. 7 I I I GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS I - I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS The Alaska Coastal Management Act provides for local coastal programs to be developed in conformity with the general guidelines and standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Program, as approved and adopted by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council. The procedural guidelines for district coastal management program development are found in Title 6, Chapter 85 of Alaska's Administrative Code (6 AAC 85.020-110). COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ELEMENTS Ten coastal management program elements form the core of the district program. These elements need not be completed in sequential order, nor set our as discrete parts of the district program. The Mat-Su Borough Coa@tal Management Program demonstrates compliance, through an appropriate local approach, with the requirements of the Act and the Alaska Coastal Management Program. Needs, Objectives, and Goals (6 AAC 85.020) The identification of coastal management issues, needs, objectives, and goals are desirable for proper district coastal management program development. The citizen participation process for the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program has evolved a statement of coastal issues, goals, and objectives that are unique and reflective of coastal resource utilization perspectives in the Mat-Su Borough. Organization (6 AAC 85.030) Coastal districts are to include a description of the district program organization, budgetary and staff needs, and any schedule for reorganization that would be necessary to implement and carry out a coastal management program. Boundaries (6 AAC 85.040) Each coastal district is to include a map of the boundaries of the coastal area within the district subject to the 8 district program. The Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Boundary takes into consideration uses and activities that may have a direct or significant impact on marine coastal waters and includes all transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, and saltwater wetlands. Resource Inventory (6 AAC 85.050) Each coastal district is to include a resource inventory which describes natural, cultural, and socioeconomic resources within the district in a manner sufficient for coastal management program development and implementation. The Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program resource inventory describes and includes: 1. Coastal habitats within and adjacent to the Borough; 2. Major cultural resources within and adjacent to the Borough (e.g., demographic dnd financial resources, man-made facilities, utilities, and recreational and transportation facilities); 3. Major land and water uses and activities conducted within and adjacent to the Borough; 4. Major land and water resource ownership and management responsibilities within and adjacent to the Borough; and 5. Major historic, prehistoric, and archaeological resources within and adjacent to the Borough. Resource Analysis (6 AAC 85.060) A resource analysis of the natural, cultural, and socioeconomic resources described in the resource inventory is to be presented by coastal districts and utilized in coastal management program development and implementation. The Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program resource analysis describes: 1. Any significant changes in the conditions identified in the resource inventory; 2. An evaluation of the environmental capability and sensitivity of both natural and cultural resources and habitats within the Borough coastal area; and 3. An assessment of present and anticipate needs and demands for coatal habitats and resources. 9 Subject Uses (6 AAC 85.070) A description of land and water uses and activities subject to a coastal district program is to be included as an integral part of program development. The Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program, in accordance with 6 AAC 80.040-.120, addresses uses and activities subject to the Borough *Coastal Management Program. Subject uses and activities addressed include: 1. Coastal development; 2. Development in geophysical hazard area; 3. Recreation; 4. Energy facilities; 5. Transportation and utilities; 6. Fish and seafood processing; 7. Timber harvesting and processing; 8. Mining and mineral processing; and 9. Subsistence. In addition, the Borough Coastal Management Program addresses all uses and activities that may affect habitats and resources mentioned in 6 AAC 80.130-150, including: 1. Coastal habitats; 2. Air, land, and water quality; and 3. Historic, prehistoric, and archaeological resources. Proper and Improper Uses (6 AAC 85.080) District programs, within a district coastal area, are to include a statement or description of proper and improper uses and activities and are to incl*ude uses of State concern. The Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program bases determination of proper and improper uses, in part, on the statement of Borough coastal issues, goals and objectives and on the resource analysis and sensitivity/capability criteria established for the Mat-Su Borough coastal area. Policies (6 AAC 85.090) District programs are to include a summary or statement of the policies applicable to land and water uses and activities subject to the district program. The summary or statement is to include the process which will be used to determine whether specific proposals for land and water uses and activites will be allowed. Mat-Su coastal management policies,will be completed during Phase ll of Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program development. Implementation (6 AAC 85.100) District programs are to include a description of the methods and authority which will be used to implement the district program. Mat-Su Coastal Management implementation procedures will be completed during Phase 11 of Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program development. Public Participation (6 AAC 85.110) District programs are to include evidence of significant and effective opportunities for public participation during program development and implementation. The citizen participation process is extremely important in developing a district coastal management program that truly reflects local needs and aspirations. The aim of citizen ,participation in the development of the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program is: 1. Assemble goals and objectives that reflect the concerns of Borough residents and appropriate governmental agencies, regarding use of coastal resources; 2. Establish an educational process that considers and understands the characteristics, values, and roles of coastal areas. 3. Provide Borough residents, Borough officia-Is, and agency personnel the opportunity to share data and exchange ideas on a personal basis; and 4. Facilitate the administration of the Borough coastal management plan and program by encouraging input, understanding, and feedback by the public. STANDARDS FOR LAND AND WATER USES AND ACTIVITIES, COASTAL HABITATS, AND RESOURCES IN THE COASTAL ZONE In addition to the coastal management program elements, the Alaska Coastal Policy Council has approved and adopted standards for major land and water uses and activities, coastal habitats, and'resources in the coastal zone. These standards have the force and effect of law and are found in Title 6, Chapter 80 of Alaska's Administrative Code (6 AAC 80.040-150). Both coastal resource districts and state agencies are bound by the standards. The nine major land and water uses and activities are considered as subject uses (6 AAC 85.070) under the coastal management program elements. Coastal Development (6 AAC 80.040) This standard addresses the problem of limited usable waterfront space and the effects of dredging and filling. In planning for and approving development in coastal areas, both the Mat-Su Borough and State agencies are obligated to give highest priority to water-dependent uses and activities; secondary priority to water-related uses and activities; and lowest priority to uses and activities which are neither water-dependent nor water-related. Geophysical Hazard Areas (6 AAC 80.050) This standard is specific to the problem of development in identified geophysical hazard areas. The Mat-Su Borough, in cooperation with State agencies are to identify known geophysical hazard areas. Development in hazard areas may not be approved by State agencies or. the Borough until siting, design, and instruction measures for minimizing property damage and protection against loss of life is provided. Recreation (6 AAC 80.060) This standard obligates coastal districts to provi'de for recreational and tourist needs of their areas by designating areas for recreational use. Minimum criteria that the Mat-Su Borough can utilize in designating recreational areas are: 1. The area receives significant use by persons engaging in recreational pursuits or is a major tourist destination; or 12 2. The area has potential for high quality recreational use because of physical, biological, or cultural features. Both the Borough and State agencies are to give high priority to maintaining and, where appropriate, increasing public access to coastal waters. Energy Facilities (6 AAC 80.070) This standard obligate@3 coastal districts and appropriate State agencies to identify suitable sites for energy facilities. The identification of suitable energy facility sites in the Mat-Su coastal area does not necessarily mean a facility will be built. The standard will help to eliminate uncertainty as to where and actual energy facility can or cannot be located, should the need arise. In addition, the standard provides a list of siting criteria against which site proposals will be judged as to the-ir appropriateness in the coastal area. Transportation and Utilities (6 AAC 80.080) This standard recognizes that the siting, design, and construction of transportation and utility routes and facilities in coastal areas should be compatible with properly expressed local desires. Mat-Su Borough coastal management goals and objectives specifically address the issues of transportation and utilities. Consideration must be given to the fact that transportation is considered a use of State concern. Transportation and utility routes and facilities are not high priority uses of the coast. Borough planning should reflect this concern unless no feasible and prudent inland alternative exists to meet the public need for the route or facility. Fish and SeafoodProcessing (6 AAC 80.090) This standard obligates coastal districts to recognize the fishing industry and the need for shoreside facilities to support the fishing industry. There are currently no commercial fish processing facilities within the Mat-Su Borough coastal area, however the Borough retains the option to designate, if applicable, those coastal areas suitable for facilities related to commercial fishing and seafood processin'g. 13 Timber Harvest and Processing (6 AAC 80.100) This standard addresses the major issues involved with commercial timber harvest activities in coastal areas. In addition, the standard outlines criteria to be followed for commercial timber harvest activities conducted in coatal areas and commercial timber transport, storage, and processing activities in coastal areas. Mining and Mineral Processing (6 AAC 80.110) This standard states that mining and mineral processing activities should be conducted so as to be consistent with other standards for land and water uses, State and national needs, and district coastal management programs. Sand and gravel extraction from coastal waters, intertidal areas, barrier islands, and spits are considered a low-priority use of the coast, unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to coastal extraction which will meet the public need for sand and gravel. Subsistence (6 AAC 80.120) This standard obligates coastal districts to recognize and, if applicable, assure opportunities for subsistence usage of coastal areas and resources. The Mat-Su Borough has the option of designating and managing subsistence areas for the benefit of subsistence users. Standards for coast 'al habitats and resources apply to the designated habitats and resources regardless of the use of activity under - consideration. Thus, in addition to satisfying an applicable use standard, a use or activity affecting a specific habitat or resource must meet the relevant habitat or resource standard. Habitats (6 AAC 80.030) The aim of this standard to to protect habitats that are essential to coastal fish and wildlife species. Habitats in the coastal area subject to the Alaska Coastal Management Program include: 1. Offshore areas; 2. Estuaries; 3. Wetlands and tideflats; 4. Rocky islands and seacliffs; 14 5. Barrier islands and lagoons; 6. Exposed high energy coats; 7. Rivers, streams, and lakes; and 8. Important upland habitats. The above habitats are to be managed so as to maintain or enhance biological, physical, and chemical characteristics of the habitats which contribute to its capacity to support I iving resources. The A I aska Coasta I Po I i cy Counc i I has estab 1 1 shed cri ter i a to be used i n the management of the respective coastal habitats. Uses and activities in coastal areas which do not conform with the management criteria of the respective coastal habitats may be allowed by the Borough or appropriate state agencies if the following are established: 1. A significant public need exists for a proposed use or activity in a coastal habitat; 2. There is no feasible prudent alternative to meet the public need for a proposed use or activity and still conform to the management criteria set out for a specific coastal habitat; and 3. All feasible and prudent steps to maximize conformance with management criteria for coastal habitats are taken. I I Air, Land and Water Quality (6 AAC 80.140) This standard incorporates the regulation of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation on air, land and water quality into the Alaska Coastal Management Program. Historic, Prehistoric, and Archaeological Resources (6 AAC 90.150) This standard obligates coastal districts and appropriate State agencies to identify areas of the coast important to the study, understanding, or illustration of national, State, or local history or prehistory. Evaluation of the Mat-Su Borough's cultural and historic resources was undertaken in conjunction with the resource inventory. 15 AREAS WHICH MERIT SPECIAL ATTENTION (AMSA) An important coastal management program aspect which must be specifically addressed by coastal districts is the designation and development of management policies for areas which merit special attention within district coastal area boundaries. In general, the AMSA designation denotes a higher degree of planning and management effort for a specified coastal area as a result of unique social, economic, or environmental values present. The complete definition of areas which merit special attention is found in Section 46.40.210(l) of the Alaska Coastal Management Act. The standard for areas which merit special attention is found in Title 6, Chapter 80 of Alaska's Administrative Code (6 AAC 80.150). Areas suitable for designation as AMSA's are to be identified early in program development by coastal districts, appropriate State and federal agencies, and local residents. For each AMSA designated by a coastal district, the following information must be provided: 1. The basis for designation; 2. A map and description of the area; 3. An analysis of existing ownership, jurisdiction, and management status of the designated AMSA and adjacent areas; 4. A description of present and anticipated conflicts between uses and activities within or adjacent to the AMSA; and 5. A proposed management scheme for the AMSA which includes: a. A description of proper and improper uses of land and water in the area; b. A statement of the policies whi ch will be applied in managing the area; and C. Identification of the authority which will be used to implement the proposed management scheme. USES OF STATE CONCERN In addition to the standards for land and water uses and activities, coastal habitats, and resources, the Alaska Coastal Management Act specifies that there are particular 16 land and water uses which are of State concern, and which should not be arbitrarily or unreasonably restricted or excluded as a result of the requirements of district coastal management programs. In brief, uses of State concern are those land and water uses and activities which would significantly affect the long term public interest. The complete definition of uses of State concern is found in section 46.40.210 (6) of the Alaska Coastal Management Act. The Alaska Coastal Policy Council Resolution No. 13 outlines specific categories and criteria for uses of State concern. Use of State concern therein identified included; 1. The siting of major energy facilities; 2. Large scale industrial and commercial developments; 3. Transportation facilities; 4. Navigational facilities and systems; 5. New community development; 6. Defense and security facilities; 7. Management and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources; 8.. Conservation of established state game refuges, sanctuaries and critical habitats; 9. Conservation of anadromous fish w9ters; 10. Harvest of fish and wild life; 11. Disposition of land and water; 12. Disposition of forest resources; 13. Resource development on federal lands; 14. Disposition of energy resources; 15. Disposition of minerals and materials; 16. Agriculture development and protection; 17. Management of state parks, waysides, and recreational area; 18. Management of state historic, prehistoric, and archaeological resources; and 17 19. Management of air quality, water quality, and solid wastes. Coastal districts should assure in their coastal program that none of the listed uses of State concern are excluded or restricted unless the district provides evidence of compliance with Section 46.40.070 (c) of the Alaska Coastal Management Act. Section 46.40.070(c) allows for the Alaska Coastal Policy Council to approve a restriction or exclusion of a use of State concern if it finds: 1. The coastal district has consulted with and considered the views of appropriate federal, State, or regional agencies; 2. The coastal district has based its restriction or exclusion on the availability of reasonable alternative sites; and 3. The coastal district has based its restriction on exclusion or on analysis showing that the proposed use is incompatible with a proposed site. COORDINATION AND REVIEW District coastal management programs form the foundation of the Alaska Coastal Management Program through which local, State, and federal governments, local residents, and private .5ector interests operate to manage Alaskats coastal resources and promote their wise use and development. In order to develop a district coastal management program that reflects local issues, goals, and objectives while meeting the requirements of the Alaska Coastal Management Act, a thorough coordination and review effort by all participants is necessary throughout all phases of district program development. Alaska Coastal Management Program Standards 6 AAC 85.120-150 define the governmental process that coastal districts are to follow for proper public involvement, coordination and review, and final submittal and review by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council. 18 I I I I ISSUES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I ISSUES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES The i dent i f i cat i on of coasta I d i str i ct i ssues, goa I s, and objectives are important for completion of a coastal management program that reflects coastal resource utilization and development problems within a specific geographic area. In brief, an issue is anything which concerns a coastal district or could affect the livability, vitality, and economic well being of a district; a goal is a future vision or general end which the district aspires to achieve; and an objective is a target which provides specific incremental direction to help a district achieve identified goals. The identified issues, goals, and objectives serve as a foundation upon which coastal development policies and implementation strategies are based. The Mat-Su Borough Citizen/Agency Joint Forum, the coastal management citizen participation body, has evolved an overall coastal issues, goals, and objective statement through a series of workshops and* hours of deliberation. *The Mat-Su Borough overall coastal issues, goals, and objectives statement expresses local aspirations toward coastal management, resource utilization, land use, and economic development within the Mat-Su coastal area. The overall coastal issues, goals, and. objectives statement is based, in part, on general Borough wide goals and objectives developed for the Mat-Su Borough Comprehensive Development Plan, Goals Statement, (May 1978). The general Borough wide goals and objectives. Land use/environment, transportation, public facilities, and population/economy/government were reviewed and revised by the Joint Forum to reflect local concerns specific to the Mat-Su coastal area. 0 ISSUE: MANAGEMENT AND LOCAL CONTROL GOAL: To maximize local Borough control over coastal management issues through the implementation of an approved coastal management program and through Memorandums of Agreement with State agencies. OBJECTIVES: Minimize the impact from State and federal regulations in order to foster commercial and industrial development 19 and utilization of Borough natural resources. Simplify present application procedures to encourage development of Borough natural resources through timely processing of applications. Provide for a local permit coordinator to aid the public in various permitting procedures. Encourage public agencies to obtain all required permits for contracts prior to the granting of contracts to private firms. Promote a harmonious relationship between population growth, economic development, and natural resource utilization. Review and update the Borough's coastal management program every five years. Provide for conformance of coastal management program with local community plans. ISSUE: NATURAL RESOURCE UTILIZATION GOAL: To provide for balanced conservation, utilization and development of Borough natural resources (e.g. fish and wildlife, timber, minerals, water, etc.), in a manner which enhances the livability and quality of life in the Borough. OBJECTIVES: Plan for natural resource utilization in a manner which will provide the maximum long-term benefit to the Borough and residents. Facilitate and provide for increased mining and mineral processing, including oil, gas, and coal exploration and development activities in coastal areas. Facilitate and provide increased timber harvesting and processing in coastal areas. 20 Facilitate and provide for increased usage of land for agricultural and dairy production purposes. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife and recreational resources. 0 ISSUE: LAND USE AND USER DEMANDS GOAL: To accommodate multiple uses and activities in coastal areas, recognizing the finite amount of coastal land in the Borough. OBJECTIVES: Give priority to water-dependent and water-related uses in areas reserved for coastal industrial development (e.g. Point MacKenzie). Manage and dispose of Borough selected lands for the greatest benefit to the Borough and its residents. Accommodate the development -of compact community or neighborhood core areas for location of community commercial services and public facilities. Provide for adequate and appropriate industrial areas. Accommodate mining and mineral processing, including oil, gas, and coal exploration and development in coastal areas. Accommodate transportation and utility corridors in coastal areas. Accommodate timber harvesting and processing in coastal areas. Accommodate agriculture expansion in coastal areas. Accommodate recreational activities (e.g. hunting, fishing, hiking, viewing, etc.) and tourism in coastal areas. 21 Prov i de for the protection and conservation of natural areas in the Borough. Preserve natural and scenic areas of unusual value for the benefit of all. Preserve sites and structures of historic and archaeological significance. ISSUE: ECONOMIC STABILITY GOAL: To stimulate balanced economic development and growth in the Mat-Su Borough based upon sound planning and utilization of Borough resources. OBJECTIVES: Provide for a broad base of economic development and activities, thereby avoiding seasonal fluctuations in employment. Encourage development of Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site. Encourage timber harvesting and processing. Encourage mining and mineral processing, including oil, gas,- and coal development. Encourage expansion of tourism, tourist related facilities, and outdoor recreational services (e.g. hunting guides). Encourage expansion of dairy and agricultural production. Encourage the location and development of manufacturing industry in the Borough. 22 ISSUE: TRANSPORTATION GOAL: To improve and develop a Borough transportation system which is safe, efficient, and balanced. OBJECTIVE: Provide for development of arterial, collector, and local road networks. Provide for "a I ternat i ve" modes of personal transportation, such as air, water, snowmachine, dogsled, or bicycles. Maximize efficiency, safety, and scenic aspects of major arterial routes. Promote the development of convenient modes of public transportation. Plan for and develop rail and road system to service the Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site. ISSUE: POINT MACKENZIE INDUSTRIAL PORT SITE GOAL: Plan for and develop an industrial and deep , water port complex, support facilities, and adjoining townsite at Point MacKenzie. OBJECTIVES: Provide for an economic and political atmosphere in the Borough that is receptive to the needs of industrial development at Point MacKenzie. Plan for and develop rail and highway transportation corridors to service the Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site. Designate the Point MacKenzie location as an Area Meriting Special Attention, where development of facilities is dependent upon the utilization of, or access to, coastal waters. Encourage development of a Knik Arm bridge crossing. 23 Give priority to water-dependent and water-related development in the Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site area. 0 ISSUES: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND UTILITIES GOAL: To minimize direct and indirect costs to the public in the provision of public facilities and services. OBJECTIVES: Provide for adequate and appropriate defense against natural disasters and geophysical hazards (e.g. floods). Provide for adequate and appropriate outdoor recreational opportunities (e.g. campgrounds, boat launches, etc.). Plan for and develop efficient and environmentally compatible power generation and availability. Provide for adequate and appropriate communications. Provide for adequate and appropriate s'Olid waste management. Provide for adequate, safe, and high quality water supply. Provide for adequate, safe, and feasi.ble sanitary sewage. Ensure public access to all significant natural areas (not necessarily road access). 24 I I I I COASTAL MANAG"EMENT AREA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT AREA The Upper Cook Inlet region in Southcentral Alaska is a large basin enclosed by the Alaska Range, Talkeetna Mountains, and Chugach Mountains to the west, north, and east respectively. The Mat-Su Borough is located in the northern portion of the Upper Cook Inlet region and is bordered on the southwest by the west shore Cook Inlet side of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, on the south by Upper Cook Inlet and Knik Arm, and on the southeast by the Municipality of Anchorage. The coastal area of the Mat-Su Boro0gh extends for over seventy miles along the extreme northern shores of Upper Cook I n I et and Kn i k Arm; f rom one m i I e west of the Be I uga River mouth to just south of the Knik River mouth. The Mat-Su Borough coastal area marine environment is strongly influenced by the discharge of three major drainage systems in the Bo@ough; the Susitna, Matanuska, and Knik rivers. Other smaller rivers in the Borough coastal area include the Beluga, Theodore, Lewis, Ivan, and Little Susitna River. Such a large influx of freshwater contributes dramatically to the low salinities found immediately offshore from the Borough during summer months. Many of the rivers and tributaries which transect the Mat-Su Borough coastal area originate at glaciers located in the surrounding mountain ranges. The sedimentary products of these glaciers combine with terrestrial erosion to produce rivers which are heavily laden with silt, resulting in extensive tideflats and coastal wetlands. The coastal wetlands and tideflats in the Mat-Su Borough coastal area are highly productive environments important to the reproduction and rearing of birds, fish, and mammals. The most prominent of these coastal wetlands and tideflats are the Susitna Flats, Goose Bay area, and the Palmer Hay Flats. In addition, numerous lowland lakes and bogs in the Mat-Su Borough coastal area provide nesting and rearing habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, fish, and small mammals. INLAND AND SEAWARD COASTAL BOUNDARIES The preliminary inland and seaward extent'of the Mat-Su Borough coastal area is based on Biophysical Boundaries of Alaska's Coastal Zone published by the Office of Coastal Management and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game 25 (ADF&G)(Figure. 1, Map A). With the passage of the Alaska Coastal Management Act in 1977, ADF&G was charged with the enormous task of defining coastal boundaries for Alaska' extens i ve shore I i ne. The coastal boundaries developed by ADF&G were based on a comprehensive re0ew of available information concerning the geology, oceanography and biology for each major segment of the coastline (e.g., Upper Cook Inlet) and defined in environmental/biological terms rather than attempting to actually draw or define boundaries based on land use, political boundaries, or legislative actions. The Alaska Coastal Management Program requires coastal districts to base their initial inland and seaward coastal management boundaries on the biophysical boundaries developed by ADF&G. Final inland and seaward coastal management boundaries may diverge from the initial boundaries (biophysical boundaries developed by ADF&G) if the final boundaries: 1: Extend inland and seaward to the extent necessary to manage uses and activities that have or are likely to have a direct and significant impact on marine coastal water; and 2. Include all transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, saltwater wetlands, islands, and beaches. Providing the above criteria are met, the final inland and seaward Mat-Su Borough coastal management boundaries may be adjusted to reflect new or . more detailed resource information and may be based on political jurisdictions, - cultural features, planning areas, watersheds, topographic features (e.g. contour lines), uniform setbacks, or the dependency of uses and activities on water access. The inland and seaward extent of the Mat-Su Borough coastal management boundaries depicted in Figure 1 are only preliminary in nature. AREAS OF DIRECT INTERACTION AND DIRECT INFLUENCE The rationale developed by ADF&G for determining inland and seaward coastal boundaries views the coast as a highly dynamic and complex continuum in which the intensity of biological and physical land/sea exchanges can be visualized as a gradient which decreases landward and seaward from the coastline. The total landward and seaward extent of this gradient is divided into areas of direct interaction and areas of direct influence, with each area reflecting the respective degree of biological and physical interaction between the land and sea. 26 Y. TIM_ 47 fu 'J't MAT COAS Slop MAYNA Direct Interaction The area of direct interaction is that area of the coast, defined by ADF&G, where physical and biological processes are a function of the direct contact between land and sea. The seaward extent of the area of direct interaction in the Mat-Su Borough coastal management area is defined as the area of nearshore sediment transport and deposition out to the 18-foot depth contour. This is a high energy region which is actively perturbed by tidal currents, ice scour, breaking waves, sediment dynamics, and freshwater dilution. The landward limit of the area of direct interaction in the Mat-Su Borough coastal management area is defined to include the extent of saltwater intrusion into marshes and rivers and areas of active coastal erosion (e.g. bluffs fronting Knik Arm). Saltwater intrusion occurs up to 6 miles inland i n the Sus I tna F I ats and as f ar as 20 m i I es upstream i n the Susitna River. Coastal bluffs experiencing rapid erosion range in height from less than 10 feet to over 100 feet. Areas of salt spray, ice coating, intertidal spawning, vegetative transitions, and important wildlife habitat also occur within the area of direct interaction in the Borough coastal area. Direct Influence The area of direct influence is that area of the coast, defined by ADF&G, which extends inland and seaward from the area of direct interaction. While this area is not subjected to the dynamics of land/sea energy dissipation characteristics of direct interaction, it is closely affected and influenced by the close proximity between land and sea. The seaward extent of the area -of d i rect i nf I uence in the Mat-Su Borough coastal management area includes the marine waters of U@per Cook Inlet south to Kalgin Island (actual Borough jurisdiction extends to southern Borough boundary in Upper Cook Inlet). Turbulent mixing between marine and freshwater takes place in the vicinity of Kalgin Island. The characteristic marine waters of Upper Cook Inlet, which include high turbidity and low salinity, interface with the waters of Lower Cook Inlet in this region. The landward limit of the area of direct influence in the Mat-Su Borough coastal management area is defined where the bulk of anadromous fish spawning and rearing takes place, where some moose seek out lowland areas for overwintering and calving, and where coastal wetland habitat attracts a large number of nesting birds and small mammals. In the Mat-Su Borough coastal area, direct influence includes all coastal drainages, their primary tributaries, and adjacent 28 wetlands to the 1000-foot elevation contour. The area of direct influence, according to ADF&G, extends up the main stem of the Susitna River to include Devil's Canyon. Important uplands which directly support or impact coastal processes are also included within the area of direct influence. The upland extent of direct influence in the Mat-Su Borough coastal area is delineated by the 200-foot upland elevation contour. PRELIMINARY COASTAL MANAGEMENT BOUNDARIES At the outset of its coastal management program, the Mat-Su Borough adopted the biophysical boundaries 'estab I i shed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. These boundaries include al I areas under the 200 foot contour, except on major river drainages, such as the Susitna and Skwenta Rivers, where the boundary was set at the 1000 foot contours. During the current phase of the coastal management program, the biophysical boundaries were reviewed with the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Citizen/Agency Joint Forum. Three major issues were raised: The probability of actions taking place between the 200 and 1000 foof contours outside the river drainages having an indirect influence on coastal resources; the possibility of resource development outside the coastal area requiring new access through the coastal area to tidewater export locations; and the desirabi lity of expanding district coastal management boundaries to increase Borough input into State and federal resource management decisions. Pending the resul.ts of the completed resource analysis, the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum establ ished pre[ iminary Mat-Su Borough coastal management boundaries at the 1000 foot contours. These boundaries will be modified as the resource analysis and the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum dictate. The total area included under the 1000 foot contour is approximately 3700 square mi les. The coastal management district includes approximately 200 square miles of offshore area and 75 miles of shore line. 29 I I I I RESOURCF"E INVENTORY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COASTAL RESOURCE INVENTORY NATURAL RESOURCES AND COASTAL HABITATS Eight habitats critical in coastal management are identified by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council. These habitats include: offshore areas; estuaries; wetlands and tideflats; rocky islands and seacl iffs; barrier islands and lagoons; exposed high energy coasts; rivers, lakes, and streams; and important upland habitat. However, not all habitats are present within the Mat-Su Borough; barrier islands and lagoons and high energy coasts do not exist. In some instances,, habitat definitions are modified or combined to conform to the natural characteristics of the Borough's coastal features. The Mat-Su Borough's saltwater shoreline is characterized by extens i ve t i da I f I ats i nterspersed w i th I ow- I eve I b I uf f s. During summer months coastal waters are appreciably di luted by river run-off, principally from the Susitna River. Dilution is much less during winter months when ice inhibits the flow of the rivers. Knik Arm is an underwater extension of adjacent lowlands. Heavy sediment loads in river runoff are creating additional land surface leading to the encroachment of the deltas into the tidal f lats. Knik Arm essentially empties-twice daily during low tides (ESL 1978). Upland areas in the Mat-Su coastal area tend to be poorly drained. As a result, lakes and wetlands abound. Local relief in the Susitna lowlands typically ranges between 50 and 250 f eet. The 1000-foot contour of the inland coastal management boundary is usually not reached until the Susitna River and associated drainages reach the base of the Alaska Range and Talkeetna Mountains. The following sections present descriptions of coastal habitats and important fauna that occur within the Mat-Su Borough. OFFSHORE AND ESTUARINE AREAS All offshore areas of Mat-Su Borough are considered estuarine. Salinity in offshore oceanic waters typically ranges between 34 and 36 parts per thousand. An estuary is technically defined as a waterbody with a free connection to the sea in which sea water is measurably diluted by fresh water. This is the case in the offshore areas of the Mat-Su 30 Borough where Knik Arm and Upper Cook Inlet have an unrestricted connection to the sea and salinities are greatly reduced with fresh water runoff. In summer months salinities range between 10 and 15 parts per thousand in the offshore areas (Evans et al. 1972, Gatto 1976). Winter salinities are higher, usually slightly greater than 20 parts per thousand,' but that still is much lower than oceanic seawater. As a result, the offshore and estuarine habitat classifications have been combined and include all waters and submerged lands beyond mean lower low tide to the offshore Borough limits. Heavy summer runoff, particularly from the Susitna River creates a net export of water from the Upper Cook Inlet. This is accompanied with high sediment loads. tidal movement is the primary driving force during the winter months when ice essentially reduces river runoff to zero. Large changes in estuarine salinity which accompany this runoff pattern and high sediment loads during periods of runoff reduce the offshore biological productivity. Diatoms which utilize the high silicate content of the runoff are the primary phytoplankton (Evans et al. 1972). Sea ice often forms in Upper Cook Inlet during winter months. Tidal action, however, is usally sufficient to keep the ice shattered in the offshore estuarine coastal habitat areas. Anadro-mous Fish Sa I mon use the offshore estuarine coastal habitat area as they prepare to enter the river systems. Si'nce the Susitna River is a major spawning stream in Cook Inlet, there is heavy use of the offshore areas by adult salmon between mid-May and mid-September. Salmon smolt are present in offshore areas from early May through the end of August (Evans et al. 1972). Smelt also traverse through the coastal waters. Adults enter the Knik and Susitna rivers beginning in mid-May, peaking at the end of May. Two to three weeks later the newly hatched smelt migrate into offshore areas (Evans et al. 1972). Marine Mammals Both harbor seals and beluga whales utilize the offshore areas of the Mat-Su Borough. Both tend to congregate at the mouth of the Susitna River and in lower Knik Arm to take advantage of the spawning runs of anadromous fish. Most marine mammal use of the offshore estuarine coastal habitat area is I imited to spring, summer and fa I I due to extreme weather conditions (ADF&G 1973, Governor's Committee 1980). 31 WETLANDS AND TIDEFLATS Wetlands are permanently -moist, shallow submerged lands, such. as marshes, wet tundra, swamps, and bogs. Tideflats include those habitats that are alternately covered and uncovered by tidal changes. Both tideflats and wetlands are extensive in the Mat-Su Borough. The three extensive areas of tidal flats along Knik Arm and Upper Cook Inlet have been designated State Game Ref uges. these areas include Susitna Flats (301,950 acres*, Palmer Hay Flats (25,340 acres*), and Goose Bay ( 13,262 acres*) . The primary purpose of a] I three refuges I s to protect, maintain, and enhance fish and wildlife populations and habitats in concert with other components of the ecosystem. All three refuges are regulated to protect waterfowl habitat and Susitna Flats is regulated to protect big game habitat, particularly moose and black bear. Birds The Mat-Su tidef lats and associated wetlands are critical waterfowl and shorebird habitat for both breeding and migration. Most waterfowl nesting probably occurs at the interface of the marsh and shrub habitats (Ritchie et al . 1981). Key areas for duck staging and brood rearing include the Jim-Swan lakes areas, Palmer Hay Flats, Goose Bay, and Susitna Flats. Approximately three-fourths of the ducks utilizing the wetlands are dabblers, primarily pintail, mallard, and green winged teal. Scaups are the primary diving duck (Table 1). Population size and composition of migrating waterfowl, however, shift continuously (Tables 2 and 3). Daily changes reflect the departure and arrival of new individuals. Seasonal variations also occur and reflect the different timing of migrations for different species. For example, on September 1, 1980 over 5,000 ducks, primarily pintails, green winged teal and widgeons, were present at the wetlands at the head of Kn i k Arm. By early October, a large influx of mallards had arrived and thus became most abundant (Ritchie et a[. 1981). *Acreage includes uplands, tidelands, and submerged areas. 32 Densities of breeding waterfowl on Mat-Su wetlands is greater than in most other areas in Upper Cook Inlet. King and Lens I nk ( 1971 ) est I mated 12. 1 ducks per square mi I e as typical in Kenai-Susitna habitat. This figure was derived from wetlands other than those listed above (Timm 1976, 1977). In Mat-Su wetlands, densities range from 32 to 141.4 birds per square mile (Table 2). Moreover, strip surveys on the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge have shown a summer peak of 478 waterfowl per square mile (Governor's Committee 1980). Fall bird use of these wetlands is generally more dispersed than spring use. During spring migration, trumpeter swans are abundant on Palmer Hat Flats where they may rest for several hours or may wait out poor weather. In 1980, trumpeter swans were using open water near Jim-Swan lakes in early April. Between April 22 and 25 a minimum of 4785 swans were observed in the area. Flocks of swans were again prevalent during October (Table 3) (Ritchie et al. 1981). Canada, whIte-fronted, and snow geese utilize all the coastal tideflats, associated wetlands, and nearby agricultural fields. The most abundant species is the Canada goose which uses the wet meadows, marshes, and mudflats as staging areas. In addition, Canada geese h-ave been identified as using the Palmer Hay Flats for breeding (Ritchie et al. 1981). Numerous other species utilize the wetland-tideland habitat (Table 4). Primary use of coastal wetlands by raptors occurs during spring and fall migrations. Bald eagles are the most abundant species, especially in the spring. Bald eagles are usually associated with waterfowl presence on Palmer Hay Flats and with salmon in the Jim Creek areas (Ritchie et al. 1981). Peregrine falcons make moderate use of the coastal wetlands and use the Susitna River as a migration route (ESL 1978). Resident raptors which breed in the coastal areas include goshawks, great horned owls, and hawk owls. Migrating raptors which breed in the area are marsh hawks and red-tailed hawks (Ritchie et al. 1981). Shorebird concentrations (greater than .100 birds) generally do not occur in the area. Only one colony of 10 to 100 glaucous-winged gulls using Susitna Flats have been Identified (Sowls et al. 1978, Ritchie et al. 1981). 33 Species Composition of Ducks Using the Matanuska-Susitna Wetlands 1976 1977 1978 Dabblers (% of total duck population) 86 96 73 Percent among Dabblers Pintail 58 63 31 Teal 18 6 16 Mallard 11 19 26 Others (Shoveler) 13 12 27 Divers (% of total duck population) 14 4 27 Percent among Divers Scaups 63 '99.9 53 Others 37 47 Source: Timm 1977, 1978, 1979. TABLE 1 Numbers and Densities of Breeding Ducks in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Wetlands and Associated Tideflats Jim- Susitna Goose Palmer Swan Flats Bay Hay Flats Lakes 1975 April 29 830 1510 476 May 2 9096 2114 383 June 2 2 8272 679 3267 1980 No. of birds*/mi 60.9 73.8 76.5 128.1 1976 2 13097 427 2076 1793 No. of birds/mi 96.3 46.4 48.6 141.4 1977 2 13273 784 3427 No. of birds/mi 97.6 85.5 80.2 1978 2 6108 294 2293 No. of birds/mi 44.9 32 53.7 *Density for June 2 count. Source: Timm 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979.. TABLE 2 34 Number of Waterfowl (other than ducks) Utilizing Matanuska-Susitna Borough Wetlands and Associated Tideflats Susitna Goose Palmer Flats Bay Hay Flats 1972 August Canada Goose 1450 September 20 Canada Goose 200 Swan 40 October 2 Canada Goose 125 Swan 3897 1974 July White-fronted Goose 60 1975 April 29 Swan 135 124 Canada Goose 1699 11533 Snow Goose 3040 White-fronted Goose 413 Sandhill Crane 10 May 2 Swan 911 1776 Canada Goose 1847 1586 Snow Goose 245 White-fronted Goose 125 19 June 2 Swan 91 1 1 Canada Goose 170 28 107 Sandhill Crane 12 43 Common Loon 53 Red Throated Loon 34 16 Arctic Loon 34 9 1976 Swan 45 Canada Goose 2051 315 Sandhill Crane 45 12 Common Loon 25 32 1977 Swan 23 Canada Goose 478 75 171 Sandhill Crane 45 Arctic Loon 91 21 1978 May Swan 23 5 Goose (all sp.) 149 52 150 Sandhill Crane 23 18 August White-fronted Goose 500 Source: Timm 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979. TABLE 3 35 Birds Which May Occur in the Knik Arm Wetlands Study Area, Alaska Observed Status2 Species in 1980 Season Common loon Gavia immer R-s Arctic loon Gavia arctica U-s Red-throated loon Gavia stellata R-m Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena x C-s Horned grebe Podiceps auritus x C-s Great blue heron Ardea herodias Ca Whistling swan Olor columblanus x C-M Trumpeter swan Olor buccinator x U-M Canada goose Branta canadensis x A-m Black brant Branta nigricans R-m White-fronted goose Anser albiforms x U-m Snow goose Chen hyperborea x U-m Mallard Anas platyrhynchos x C-U-w Pintail Anas acuta x C-s Green-winged teal Anas carolinensis x C-s Blue-winged teal Anas discors x Ca-s Northern shoveler Spatula clypeata x C-s European wigeon Mareca penelope R-m American wigeon Mareca americana x C-s Canvasback Aythya vallsineria x R-s Redhead Aythya americana Ca-m Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris x R-m Greater scaup Aythya marila x C-s Lesser scaup Aythya affinis x R-m Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula x U-m Barrow's goldeneye Bucephala islandica x R-m, R-w Bufflehead Bucephala albeolc x U-M Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis R-s Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus R-s White-winged scoter Melanitta deglandi R-m Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata R-m Black scoter Oidemia nigra R-m Common merganser Mergus merganser x U-m,R-w Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator x U-m Goshawk Accipiter gentilis x U-p Sharpeshinned hawk Accipiter straitus x U-Ca-w Red-Tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis x U-s Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus x U-M Golden eagle Aquila chyrsaetos x U-M Bald eagle Hallaeetus leucocephalus x C-m,U-R-w Marsh hawk Circus cyaneus x C-U- Osprey Pandion haliaetus x R-m Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus Ca-w Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus R-m TABLE 4 36 (Page I of 2) continued Observed Status 2 Species in 1980 Season Merlin Falco cloumbarius x R-s,Ca-w American kestrel Falco sparverius x R-m Sandhill crane Grus canadensis x C-m,U-s American coot Fullca americana x Ca Semi-palmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus x U-s Kildeer Charadrius vociferus U-s American golden plover Pluvialis dominica x U-m Black-bellied plover Squatarola squatarola R-m Hudsonian godwit Limosa haemastica C-s Marbled godwit Numerius phaeopus Ca Whimbrel Numerius phaeopus U-M Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Ca Greater yellowlegs Totanus melanoleucus x C-s Lasser yellowlegs Totanus flavipes x C-s Solitary sandpiper Trigna solitaria x U-s Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia x C-s Wandering tattler Heteroscelus incanum U-s Ruddy turnstone Arenarla interpres R-m Northern phalarope Lobipes lobatus x C-s Common snipe Capella gallinago x C-s Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus x C-s Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus R-m Sanderling Crocethia alba R-m Semi-palmated sandpiper Freuhetes pusillus R-m Western sandpiper Ereuhetes mauri U-m Least sandpiper Erolia minutilla C-s Baird's sandpiper Erolia bairdii R-m Pectural sandpiper Erolia melanotos U-m Dunlin Erolia alpina R-m Parasitic jaeger' Stercorarius parasiticus R-m Long-tailed jaeger Stercorauius longicaudus R-m Glaucous gull Larus hyperboreus R-v Glaucous-winged gull Larus glaucescens C-s,U-w Herring gull Larus argentatus x C-m,R-w Mew gull Larus canus x A-s Bonaparte's gull Larus philadelphia x C-s Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea x C-s 1From Gabrielson and Lincoln (1959), Williamson et al. (1965), Wapora (1976), Anchorage Audubon Society (1978), Batten et al. (1978), Kessell and Gibson (1978), Sellers (1979). R = resident, U = uncommon, s = summer, f = fall, w = winter, m = migrant, C = common, P = permanent resident,, Ca = casual. Source: Modified from Richie et al. 1981. 37 TABLE 4 Page 2 Bird activities associated with upland wetlands are not well documented. Only four whistler swan nesting sites have been identified within the Mat-Su Borough. These include two west of Alexander Creek between Rabbit and Sucker Lakes and two west of the Yentna River (Governor's Committee 1980 map). Other areas of upland marsh may be used by swans but have not been identified (Sowls et al. 1978). Mammals Moose and black be*ar are the most prevalent large animals and muskrats the most abundant furbearers in the coastal wetlands (ADF&G resource maps and Ritchie et al. 1981). Moose use the coastal areas primarily during spring calving. The thick cover and boggy nature of the terrain provides desirable forage and protection from predators. Summer use is more limited as moose disperse in search of browse. Winter use of coastal wetland areas is generally restricted to those years when heavy upland snowfall drives moose into the area in search of forage. Other mammals which utilize the wetland areas have been identified for the Knik Arm wetlands (Table 5). The relative abundance of each and the extent to which they inhabit Goose Bay and Susitna Flats have not been determined. HIGH VEGETATED BANKS The high vegetated banks coastal habitat designation is used in place of the rocky island and seacliff habitat found in 6 AAC 80.130 of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. A rocky island and seacliff habitat typically refers to rocky shores with steep faces, offshore rocks, and capes. The Mat-Su Borough has none of the characteristics, thus, this habitat classification has been modified to refer to the high coastal bank areas (generally between 25 and 100 feet) in the Borough. Rather than rock composition, the high banks consist of vegetated upper slopes with muddy intertidal zones. Two areas fall into this classification, the shorelines between Palmer Hay Flats and Goose Bay and south of Goose Bay to the Susitna Flats. Typical vegetation along the more northern section is young mixed forest interspersed with nonforested areas and backed by medium and old-aged mixed forest. Along the coastal edge of the more southern section, a ten acre bank of nonforested area is backed with extensive areas of medium and mixed old-aged forest interspersed with very poorly drained nonforested areas and other forested lands typical of poorly drained soils (ESRI 1981). 33 Mammals which May Occur in the Knik Arm Wetlands Study Area, Alaska Wetlands and Tidelands Species Scientific Name Major Vegetation Types* Masked shrew Sorex cinerus 3-10 Dusky schrew Sorex obscurus 3,5,6,7,8,9,10 Northern water shrew Sorex palustris riparian Northn bog lemming Synaptomys borealis 3,6,8 Brown lemming Lemmus trimucronatus 3,6,8 Red-backed vole Cleathrionomys rutilus 2-10 Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus 3-10 Tundra vole Microtus oeconcmus 3,5,6,7,8 Singing vole Microtus miurus 5,6,7,8 Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius 3,5,6,7,8 Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus 1-10 Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 1,2,3,4,6 Coyote Canis latrans 3-10 Fed fox Vulpes fulva 3-10 Black bear Ursus americanus 9,10 Mink Mustela vison 1,2,3,4,6 River otter Lutra canadensis 1,2,3,4,6 Moose Alces alces 5,7,9,10 *(1) Aquatic vegetation, (2) Marshes, (3) Wet meadows, (4) Harbaceous vegetation of levees, bars, and mudflats, (5) Willow thickets, (6) Wet Myrica fens, (7) Alder thickets, (8) Ericaceous shrub-sphagnum bogs, (9) Black spruce forests, (10) Cottonwood, birch & white spruce forests. Source: Modified from Ritchie et al. 1981. TABLE 5 39 Birds, Mammals, and Fish The areas between Palmer Hay Flats and Goose Bay is the more productive of the two bluffs. Waterfowl extend their use of Palmer Hay Flats along this shoreline (ADF&G resource maps). Important moose habitat occurs inland from the bluffs (ADF&G resource maps). Three creeks enter along this shore. As a result, it is considered an important fish habitat (ADF&G resource maps). RIVERS, STREAMS, AND LAKES Rivers, streams, and lakes include all surface freshwater systems within the coastal management boundary. Rivers and streams provide permanent habitat for many species and act as a conduit and spawning area for anadromous fish. In addition, rivers, streams, and lakes support summer and winter activities of primarily local bird and mammal populations. The Mat-Su Borough has an extensive network of rivers, streams and lakes. The three major rivers - the Susitna, Matanuska, and Knik, provide approximately 70 percent of the fresh water entering Upper Cook Inlet (ESL 1978). Freshwater runoff occurs during spring, summer and fall. In winter, frozen rivers, lakes, and streams provide transporation corridors. Based on data on the Susitna, Wi I low, and Ta I keetna Ri vers, ri vers i n the Borough are frozen sufficiently to support people from December 1 through mi d to I ate Apri I ; ri vers are genera I I y !@afe for vehicular travel between mid-December and the beginning of April (Selkregg 1974). The major rivers of the Mat-Su Borough are of glacial origins and, therefore, are silty during the ice free season (ADF&G 1978b). Glacial deposits and stream and terrace gravels are prevalent along the drainages (Selkregg 1974). All of the streams, rivers and lakes in the Borough provide vital habitat for resident and anadromous fish, large and small upland mammals, and raptors (ADF&G 1981) (Table 6). Birds Bald eagle nesting along local rivers has been documented near the confluence of Moose Creek and the Yentna River. (Governor's Committee 1980). Eagles likely also occur along other rivers during the summer season. 40 Rivers Identified on ADF&G Resource Maps as Critical Habitat Big Game River or Stream Salmon Beer Moose Furbearers Little Susitna River Co P C K X Alexander Creek K $ Co P winter Lower Sucker Creek K S Co P winter Yentna River K S Co C P X X Lake Creek S Co C P Skwentna River Cc C P X Happy River Co C P X Portage Creek Co C P X Hayes R. Co C P X Trimble River CO C P X Red Creek Co C P X Talachalina River Co C P Deshka River (Krato R.) Co P X X Trapper Creek Co Moose Creek Co P X Susitna River K S Co P X X X Kashwitna River Co P X Sheep Creek K Co C P X Chulitna K S Talkeetna K S Chunilina K Co P C Co Coho (Silver), P - Pink (Humpback), C Chum (Dog), K King (Chinook), S - Sockeye (Red). Source: ADF&G TABLE 6 41 Resident Fish Since the major rivers are of glacial origins, fish normally prefer lakes and the moderately swift clearwater streams tributary to the glacial rivers. Resident fish include rainbow trout, lake trout, Arctic grayling, Dolly Varden/Arctic char, northern pike, burbot, and whitefish (sp.). In addition to native fish, numerous lakes are stocked with rainbow trout, grayling and silver salmon (Table 7). Rainbow trout are distributed throughout the tribotaries of the Yentna, Skwentna, Talkeetna, and lower Susitna Rivers and the Matanuska, Chuit, Theodore, and Lewis Rivers. The mainstream rivers are used primarily for migration and wintering when icing inhibits activity in the tributaries. Most favorable summer habitat is in clearwater tributaries such as Alexander and Lake Creeks and the Deshka and Talachulitna Rivers (ADF&G 1978b). Lake trout are found in lakes in close proximity to the Alaska and Talkeetna Mountains. Their preferred habitat is glacial and clearwater lakes. Prime lakes for these fish include Byers, Red Shirt, Shel 1, Chelatna and Swan Lakes (ADF&G 1978b). Arctic grayling are in nearly all tributaries of the Susitna River. They are particularly abundant in Talachulitna River and Lake, Clear Creek, and Peters Creek (ADF&G 1978b). Both anadromous and resident Dolly Varden and Arctic char are widely distributed but are not abundant. Western tributaries to the Susitna River, particularly the Lewis, Theodore, Chuit and Talachulitna Rivers have relatively large populations. Stream residents are notably smaller (length equal 6 to 8 inches) than lake or anadromous Dolly Varden which normally run 12 to 14 inches (ADF&G 1978b). Northern pike have a limited distribution. I n 1950 they were introduced into Bulchitna Lake near the mouth of Lake Creek. This range has been extended into portions of the Yentna River up to the Hewitt-Whskey Lakes area (ADF&G 1978b). Burbot utilize the mainstream of the Susitna River and the larger tributaries such as the Yentna, Chulitna, Talkeetna, and Skwentna rivers. Other suitable habitat includes the slow moving streams draining the lowlands between the Yentna and Susitna Rivers. Although several lakes in the Mat-Su Valley have suitable habitat for burbot they have not been 42 Lakes Stocked in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Type of Fish Lake Rainbow Trout Silver Salmon Grayling Knik Lake x Marion Lake x Rocky Lake x Loon Lake x Prator Lake x Seymour Lake x Memory Lake x Reed Lake x Lucille Lake x Wishbone Lake x Finger Lake. x Johnson Lake x Long Lake x Irene Lake x Meirs Lake x Victor Lake x Bradley Lake x Harriet Lake x Echo Lake x Kepler Lake x Matanuska Lake x Lower Bonnie Lake x South Rolly Lake x Little No Luck Lake x Big No Luck Lake x Christiansen Lake x Benka Lake x Source: ADF&G 1978. TABLE 7 43 identified in the literature. Burbot and whitefish are somewhat unusal in they they both spawn in the mainstreams which tend to be silty. Nonspawning whitefish utilize clearwater streams and sloughs tributary to the larger rivers. Anadromous Fish Smelt and salmon spawn in the rivers within the Borough. Smelt spawn in the Knik River and in the Susitna River as far upstream as the Deshka River (Evans et al. 1972). The Susitna River is the most important producer in Cook Inlet for pink, chum, sockeye, and king salmon (Table 8) (Governor's Committee 1980). Sockeye utilize the extensive lake system associated with the Susitna River drainages plus the mainstream and the tributaries. Primary sockeye tributaries include the Yentna, Skwentna, and Talachulitna Rivers. Major lakes include Shell and Judd Lakes (ADF&G 1978, Evans et al. 1972, Governor's Committee 1980). Pink salmon exhibit an even year numerical strength. In sp i te of a greater than 2 yea r I i f e cyc I e, coho and chum likewise have an even year strength. Both are widely and evenly distributed throughout the Borough river systems (ADF&G 1978b). King salmon arrive in Cook Inlet in mid-May. They are followed closely by sockeye and pink salmon. Coho and chum do not enter streams until July. King salmon spawn between June 20 and August 15. Pinks follow, spawning between July 10 and September 1. Sockeye, and chum do not spawn until the beginning of August. Chum and sockeye continue spawning into October and November respectively. Coho continue spawning through February (ADF&G 1978b). Mammals All the major river systems in the valley provide essential habitat for both big game species and furbearers. The rivers and streams provide migration paths, spring and summer bear forage, and spring moose calving habitat. Moose: Moose populations in the Matanuska Valley appear to be a moderate levels. In the Susitna River area the populations are considered healthy. In all casesthe population is expanding (-ADF&G 1980). Primary moose habitat types include successional willow and aspen groves below receeding glaciers, climax willow stands at timberline, and seral birch, willow, and aspen in fire 44 Peak Salmon Escapement Counts for Selected Matanuska-Susitna Streams Stream Pink Chum Red Silver King Total Little Susitna River 45,000 - 3,900 405 49,305 Susitna River* 2,470,100 148,400 94,000 - 118,620 2,931,920 Alexander Creek 100,000 700 100 2 000+ 6,150 108,950 Sucker Creek - - - - - - Lewis River - 380 380 Theodore River and Olsen Creek - 5 - 1,000 005 Beluga River 1,000's 25 550 25 100 1,700 *Most important producer of pink, chum, and king salmon in Cook Inlet. Source: Governor's Committee 1980. TABLE 8 45 created fringes. Much of the moose habitat has been created through man's activities, especially road building, logging, and agriculture which replace mature forests with new growth. Through this process the area between the Knik and Matanuska Rivers has become one of the more productive moose areas in the State. Many river areas throughout the Borough provide outstanding moose habitat. Notable among these are lower Talkeetna River, Kahiltna River, Moose Creek, Lower Chulitna River, Tokositna River, Wil low Creek, Deception Creek, Little Susitna River, Alexander Creek, Theodore River, Knik River, Swan Lake, Susitna River, Yentna River, Johnson Creek, Skwentna River, Deshka River, and Trapper Creek (ADF&G resource maps). Although riparian communities have the least preferred forage, they provide important winter moose range, especially during severe winters (Arneson 1981). Moderate use of river islands occurs in later May and June during calving. Bear: Black bear are more prevalent than brown bear within the Mat-Su Borough. Riverine habitat is most important to bears during the summer months when red and silver salmon are abundant. Coal Creek, Lewis River, Talachulitna Creek, Lake Creek, Alexander Creek, and Deshka River and Susitna River are prime black bear habitat (ADF&G 1973, 1981). Brown bear habitat often overlaps with black bear habitat. Brown bear preferred habitat is in the upper drainages of the Susitna River tributaries and to the west of the Susitna River (ADF&G 1973). Other Furbearers: Wolves and wolverine are relatively abundant in river areas. Wolves are particularly abundant at the headwaters of the Yentna and Skwentna Rivers. They are evident in reduced numbers along the *lower Susitna River, Matanuska River, and Little Susitna River. Wolverine frequent the rivers and streams in pursuit of salmon (ADF&G 1973). IMPORTANT UPLAND HABITAT Important upland habitats are those areas above mean higher high water exclusive of wetlands, rivers, streams, and lakes which are within the upland boundaries of the coastal management area. In the Mat-Su Borough the study boundary extends inland to the 1000-foot contour. Typical dry upland vegetation includes agricultural areas, willow thickets, cottonwood stands, tall white spruce stands, and mixed forests such as cottonwood/birch/spruce and cottonwood/wil low/alder. These areas are frequently 46 interspersed among poorly drained areas, lakes, streams, and rivers. Uplands provide habitat for species unique to it plus provide additional habitat for species which use riverine and wetland habitat (Table 9). Only bear, moose, and a few bird species are discussed in detail. Information concerning the remaining upland users is relatively unknown, even for the furbearers. Birds Upland agricultural areas provide forage for some waterfowl, particularly sandhill cranes and geese (Ritchie 1981). Upland game birds, such as grouse and ptarmigan, likewise take advantage of the grain fields as well as other upland areas such as willow thickets (Ritchie 1981). Passerine diversity increases substantially in the uplands (Table 10). thrushes, warblers, and dark-eyed juncos are particularly common (Ritchie 1981). Mammals Moose and black bear are the primary large mammals utilizing the coastal uplands. Brown bear habitat overlaps with black bear habitat usually at higher elevations such as in Sunflower Basin, Kahiltna-Peters Hill area, Beluga Mountain, Mt. Susitna, or Mt. Yenlo. As a result much of the brown bear habitat is outside the coastal boundary. This also holds true for much of the prime sheep, caribou, and mountain goat habitat which is available in the Talkeetna Mountains (Bader et al. 1981). Moose: Moose became prevalent in the 1950's after mature spruce hardwood forests were replaced with secondary successional stages of vegetation thereby providing essential winter forage. Willow is the most important browse vegetation for moose. Birch, when available, is also well utilized. Other preferred forage includes cottonwood, high-bush cranberry, and rose. Alder is seldom browsed (Arneson 1981). Many riparian areas offer'prime winter habitat. These areas were listed under the riverine habitat. Another upland area providing essential winter habitat for moose is that north of Wasilla (ADF&G resource maps). Summer moose range Is extensive. It includes all the area between the Yentna River-Lake Creek drainages and Deshka River, the area south of the Yentna River and around Beluga Mountain, and the area between Little Susitna River and 47 Mammals which may occur in the Knik Arm Wetlands Study Area, Alaska, Upland Habitat Species Scientific Name Major Vegetation Types* Masked shrew Sorex cinerus 3-10 Dusky shrew Sorex obscurus 3,5,6,7,8,9,10 Pigmy shrew Microsorex hoyi 7,9,10 Red-backed vole Clethrionomys rutilus 2-10 Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus 3-10 Tundra vole Microtus oeconomus 3,5,6,7,8 Singing vole Microtus miurus 5,6,7,8 Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius 3,5,6,7,8 Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus 1-10 Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus 5,7,9,10 Hoary marmot Marmota caligata 10 Arctic ground squirrel Citellus parryi 5,7,10 Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 9 Northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus 9,10 Beaver Castor canadensis 5,7,10 Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 9,10 Coyote Canis latrans 3-10 Wolf Canis lupus 5,7,9,10 Red fox Vulpes fulva 3-10 Black bear Ursus americanus 9,10 Brown bear Ursus arctos 9,10 Pine marten Martes americana 9 Ermine Mustela erminea 5,7,9,10 Least weasel Mustela rixosa 5,7,9,-10 Wolverine Gulo gulo 9,10 Lynx Lynx canadensis 9,10 Moose Alces alces 5,7,9,10 Dail sheep Ovis Dalli 10 Mountain goat Oreamnos americanus 10 *(I) Aquatic vegetation, (2) Marshes, (3) Wet meadows, (4) Harbaceous vegetation of levees, bars, and mudflats, (5) Willow thickets, (6) Wet Myrica fens, (7) Alder thickets, (8) Ericaceous shrub-sphagnum bogs, (9) Black spruce forests, (10) Cottonwood, birch & white spruce forests. Source: Modified from Richie et al. 1981. TABLE 9 48 Upland Birds Identified in Knik Arm and Which Probably Occur Throughout Matanuska-Susitna Uplands1 Observed Status 2 Species in 1980 Season Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus x C-P Boreal chickadee Parus hudsonicus x C-P Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis U-P Brown creeper Certhia femiliaris U-p Dipper Cinclus mexicanus x U-p Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes U-p American robin Turdus migratorius x C-R-w Varied thrush Ixoreus naevius x C-s Hermit thrush Hylocichla guttata x U-s Swainson's thrush Hylocichla ustulata x C-s Gray-cheeked thrush Hylocichla minima U-s Townsend's solitaire Myadestes townsendi R-s Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa U-p Ruby-crowned knglet Regulus calendula x A-s Water pipit Anthus spinoletta x C-s Behemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulus x U-p,A-f Northern shrike Lanius excubitor x U-p Starling Sturnus vulgaris R-v Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus Ca Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata x A-s Yellow warble Dendroica petechia x U-s Townsend's warbler Dendroica townsendi U-s Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata X U-s Northern water thrush Seiurus noveboracensis x U-s Wilson's warbler Wilsonia pusilla C-s Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus R-s Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus x C-s,R-w Pine grosbeak Pincicola enucleator U-p Hoary redpoll Acanthis hornemanni Common redpoll Acanthis flammea x R-w Pine siskin Spinus pinus U-s Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra R-v White-winged crossbill Loxia leucoptera U-p Savanah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis x A-s Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis x A-s,U-w Tree sparrow Spizella arborea x U-s,R-w White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys x A-s,R-w Golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla C-s Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca x C-s,R-w Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza lincoinii C-s Song sparrow Melospiza melodia U-s Lapland longspur Calcarlus lapponicus x C-m Snow bunting Phectrophenax nivalis U-M,U-W TABLE 10 49 (Page I of 2) continued Observed Status2 Species in 1980 Season Rock dove Columbia livia x C-P Mourning dove Zenaidura macroura Ca Great horned owl Bubo virginianus x C-P Snowy owl Nyctea scandiaca R-v Hawk owl Surnia ulula x U-p Great gray owl Strix nebulosa R-p Short-eared owl Asio flammeus x U-s Boreal owl Aegolius funereus U-p Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus R-s Belted kingfisher Megaceryla alcyon x U-s,R-w Common flicker Colaptes auratus x U-s Hairy woodpecker Dendrocopus villosus x U-p Downy woodpecker Dendrocopos pubescens U-p Back-backed three-toed woodpecker Picoides arcticus R-p Northern three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus U-p Say's phoebe Sayornis saya R-m Alder flycatcher Empidonas traillii C-s Western wood pewee Contopus sordidulus U-s Olive-sided flycatcher Nuttallornis borealis C-s Horned lark Eremophila alpestris U-s Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassinc A-s Tree swallow Iridoprocne bicolor x A-s Bank swallow Riparia riparia C-s Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota U-s Gray jay Perisoreus canadensis x U-p Black-billed magpie Pica pica x C-P Common raven Corvus corax x C-P Spruce grouse Canachitas canadensis x U-p Willow ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus x U-w Rock ptarmigan Lagopus mutus U-w White tailed ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus From Gabrielson and Lincoln,ln (1959), Williamson et al. (1965), Wapora (1976), Anchorage Audubon Society (1978), Batten et al. (1978), Kessell and Gibson (1978), Sellers (1979). R = resident, U = uncommon, s = summer, f = fall, w = winter, m = migrant, C = common, P = permanent resident, Ca = casual. Source: Modified from Richie et al. 1981. 50 TABLE 10, Page 2 Willow Creek (ADF&G resource maps). Much of the remaining upland area is of general importance as moose habitat. Bear: Black bear are closely associated with timber areas and dense alder growth. Spring black bear habitat west of the Susitna River is not critically limited. Grasses, sedges, and horsetail are abundant and moose calves also are available. In August black bear tend to leave this habitat to take advantage of berry crops (ADF&G 1973). Preferred brown bear habitat is alpine or sub-alpine and usually outside the coastal boundary. 51 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND RESOURCES WATER RESOURCES Water is a renewable resource that has increasing demands placed on it as development of an area increases. The natural users of water include vegetation, fish, and wildlife. Development of an area potentially leads to a multitude of new demands on the water resource; these demands can include domestic, livestock, seafood processing, oil and gas development, petrochemical, pulp mills, coal processing, steam electric, mineral processing, sand and gravel, fish hatcheries, irrigation, and hydroelectric. Many of these users are not currently using water in the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Districts and some may never develop there. A significant water demand for any type of development is domestic use. The amount of water used per capita is dependent on the water distribution system. In communities with municipal water systems, such as Palmer, use may exceed 100 gpd (gallons per day) per capita. I n remote areas, where individuals are required to (@arry water by hand, consumption typically drops to about 5 gpd per capita (Balding 1976). Fire protection for most communities in the Borough is provided by tank truck and pumper. Agricultural use also varies significantly. Livestock can use from 2 to 30 gpd per animal, with dairy cows being one of the greatest users of water ( 11 to 30 gpd per cow) (Balding 1976). Crop irrigation water use depends on the type of crop and.condition of the irrigation system. The availability of surface and ground water and the quality of these waters are discussed in the following sections for the Mat-Su Borough Coastal area. Surface Water Resources The two major streams bordering most of the developed land in the Mat-Su Borough are the Susitna and Matanuska Rivers. Numerous smaller streams, which are tributaries to the Susitna and Matanuska rivers or to Upper Cook Inlet or Knik Arm, also provide a potential surface water source for the communities in the Borough. Most of the major streams in the Borough originate in the mountains and are fed by large glaciers. The glacial origin causes these streams to carry large quantities of water even between rainstorms; however, the water is heavily laden with si It and glacial flour. 52 The average discharge of gaged streams in the Borough (Table 11) indicates that these is an ample supply of surface water available from these streams. This average discharge is typically exceeded in the months of May through September, Average Measured Discharge of Gaged Streams , in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough/Coastal Management District. Discharge in Discharge in Discharge in cubic feet acre-feet millions of Name per second per year gals per day Knik River near Palmer 6,887 4,990,000 4,451 Matanuska River near Palmer 3,857 2,794,00 2,493 Cottonwood Creek near Wasilla 16 11,680 10 Little Susitna River near I Palmer 203 147,100 131 Talkeetna River near Talkeetna 4,029 2,919,000 2,604 Susitna River at Gold Creek 9,612 6,964,000 6,212 Chulitna River near Talkeetna 8,748 6,338,000 5,654 Skwentna River near Skwentna 6,385 4,626,000 4,127 Susitna River at Susitna Station 48,150 34,880,000 31,120 TABLE I I when rainfall, glacier melt, and snowmelt are at a maximum. Peak flows typically occur in J une, July, and August. Stream flow decreases in October as the temperature drops, decreasing melt waters and causing precipitation in the mountains to fall as snow. Lowest flows typically occur in February and March (Feulner *1971). The annual variation of the monthly mean discharge for the Little Susitna River is typical of the major streams in the Borough (Figure 2). The average annual discharge is shown in Figure 2 for comparative purposes. It is apparent the the winter months are most critical in terms of surface water availability. All streams freeze over, and many of the smaller ones freeze to their bed. Streams typically freeze up in later October or early November and do not break up unti I late Apri I or May (Table 12). 53 1200 1100 1000 z 900 Soo Maximum discharge 700 - Mean discharge .600 - Q 5oo - Z 0 400 - 300 CLU%.OOA dife 4L Q 200 Minimum discharge/ 100 0 _Jan. Feb. I mar. I Aor. I May June I Ju1Y 1 Aug. I Seot. Oct. Nov. Oec. Seasonal Distribution of Monthly Mean Discharges for the Little Susitna River near Palmer (modified from Feulner 197f). 54 FIGURE 2 Break-up and Freeze-up Dates Determined from Stream Flow Measurements (Carlson, et a]. 1977). Most probable Most probable break-up date freeze-up date Knik River April 24-May 3 Oct. 26-Nov. 4 Matanuska River April 26-May 4 Oct. 24-Nov. 3 Little Susitna River May 2-May 11 Oct. 22-Nov. 1 Susitna River May 5-May 14 Oct. 16-Oct. 25 TABLE 12 There are many lakes in the Mat-Su Borough. The largest lakes include Big Lake, Wasilla Lake, Lucile Lake, and Nancy Lake; these lakes are used for recreational purposes. Most lakes feed small streams; flow in these streams in regulated by the lakes. For example, Cottonwood Creek, which flows out of -Was i I I a Lake, had a month I y range of on I y 11 to 34 cfs and averaged 16 cfs in 5 years of record (Feulner 1971). Ground Water Resources The best potential source of ground water in the Borough is located in the Susitna lowlands (Feulner 1971). Well yields of 1,000 gpm (gallons per minute) or more should be achievable near major streams in this area. Most wells serving communities in the Borough yield 10 to 50 gpm. Five wells were reported to yield more than 100 gpm within the floodplain and lowland areas adjacent to streams in the Borough. The Palmer city well 3 located north of Palmer y i e I ded 325 gpm at a we I I depth of 625 f eet. An irrigation we I I south of Pa I mer y i e I ds 200 gpm at a depth of 95 f eet. The wel I at Big Lake summer camp yields 300 gpm at a wel I depth of 31 feet, and a well at the former road construction camp southwest of Sunsh i ne y i e I ds 250 gpm f rom a we 1 1 105 feet deep (Feulner 1971). Cha racter i st i ca I I y, we I I water in the Mat-Su Borough is located in the interbedded sand and gravel lenses in glacial deposits. Well depths average 30 to 295 feet near Palmer and 25 to 170 feet near Was i I la and w,-.stward. The most successful wells are drilled 50 to 150 feet below the surface. Wells that will yield 10to 50 gpm are usually 75 to 150 feet deep (Feulner 1971). 55 Springs occur along the base of the mountains in the Borough. The largest known spring is located near Palmer; it flows at a rate of about 150 to 200 gpm (Balding 1976). Water Quality All major rivers are sustained primarily by snow and glacial meltwater. These glacial fed rivers contribute heavily to sediment load in Upper Cook Inlet and Knik Arm. Sediment load in this region is one of the highest in the State. The highest rate of suspended sediment yield per square mile in the Borough has been recorded in the Knik River near Palmer. The average annual yield for this are is 6,000 tons per year (Balding 1976). The Knik, Matanuska and Susitna rivers and Susitna River tributaries carry the bulk of sediment load during the summer months (Figure 3). Very little sediment is transported during the winter months when the rivers are frozen over and the glaciers contribute very little melt water. Surface water has less chemical-quality variation that ground water. It is also softer than ground water. General ly speaking the quality of surface water in the Mat-Su Borough is good. It usually contains less than 0.3 mg/1 (milligrams per liter) of iron. The surface water hardness is less than 150 mg/l (Feulner 1971). It is mainly of the calcium magnesium bicarbonate type. The Matanuska River near Palmer contains a higher concentration of sulfate than other streams in the Borough. This phenomena is attributed to the presence of coal mines near Palmer,the drainage from which enters tributaries of the Matanuska River (Feulner 1971). A high iron content is known to exist in ground water within the Borough. Water taken from shal low wel Is dri I led in a I I uv i um conta i n h i gh concentrat i ons of i ron. Ground water resources characteristically have 50 to 200 mg/1 in hardness and are of a calcium bicarbonate type. The Palmer city well 3 water is of the sodium bicarbonate type and registers the highest concentration of sulfate present in the wel I water in the area. The presence of sulfate in the well is attributed to the theory that the wel I is located ina former channel of the Matanuska River.. The theory is based on the observation that the water level and sulfate concentration in the wel I seems to fluctuate with the river level and sulfate content. Palmer well water 'also contain a high concentration of boron; the maximum recorded concentration was 2.6 mg/I (Feulner 1971). Both surface water and ground water along the Matanuska River contain measurable concentrations of boron. Nitrate is also present in some wells. High concentrations of nitrate have been found in water near 56 500,000 TOTAL FRESH- WATER FLOW N. 40,00or WOO 10'000@ -3 KNIX 93 RIVER z LU M MATANUSKA Q 1,000: RIVER LU E cn 1,000 LU - KNIK RIVER Q z LU 100- a. MATANUSKA RIVER 100 10 i F M A M J J A S 0 N 0 J M A M J J A S 0 N 0 J MONTHS MONTHS Annual Water and Sediment Variation in the Matanuska and Knik rivers (Murphy, et al. 1972). KN R A MA TZ\CR FIGURE 3 57 Palmer and Wasilla. A well northwest of Palmer yielded 270 mg/I of nitrate. The United States Public Health Service sets the suggested maximum concentration of nitrate at about 45 mg/l (Feulner 1971). The nitrate present in this region appears to be geologic in origin. METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY The climate of the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management District is In the transition between coastal and continental climates. The annual precipitation ranges from about 15 inches at low elevations to over 80 inches in the mountains. The normal temperature range is from about -3 degrees F to 70 degrees F. Winds average less than 10 knots. A summary of climatic data are shown on Table 12A. Temperature The highest recorded temperature in the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management District was 91 degrees in Talkeetna. The I owest temperature was -56 degrees in Wi I I ow. The coldest period occurs in January, while the highest temperatures usually occur in June, because of the amount of sunlight and less cloud cover (Howard, et al. 1972). As the mean dai ly temperature rises, breakup, or ground thawing begins in late March or early Apri I and continues through the month of May in some poorly drained areas. In the fall , rapidly decreasing sunshine causes the mean dai ly temperature to decrease below 32 degrees on about October 25 each year (Howard, et al. 1972). Mean annual temperature in the District ranges from about 30 to 35 degrees F (Figure 3A). The lower temperatures are generally associated with higher elevations.. Precipitation Mean annual precipitation recorded within the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management District varies from 14 to 29 inches, wh I ch I nc I udes snow f a I I of about 45 to 119 1 nches. Mean annual precipitation would be greater at higher elevations (Figure 3B). The figure was based on actual precipitation records and estimations for areas with no precipitation data. About one half of the total precipitation occurs as shown in the winter and about one half is contributed by rains. The amount of precipitation in the Borough (Tab I e 12A) I s inadequate for most agricultural development and irrigation is required. 58 Climatic Data for Selected Areas in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management District (Howard et al. 1972, Selkregg 1974). Summer Winter Extreme Temperature Temperature Temperature Average Extreme High Low High Low High Low Precipitation Snowfall Wind Wind (OF) (OF) (OF) (OF) (OF) (OF) (inches) (inches) (knots) (knots) Wasilla 69 43 43 4 90 -30 19 51 5.8 53 Palmer 67 44 42 6 90 -35 17 64 3.8 87 Chickaloon 69 40 39 -3 90 -42 14 69 - - Willow 70 40 33 -10 90 -56 24 - Skwentna 69 44 40 -4 90 -50 2Q 119 - - Talkeetna 68 40 40 0 91, -48 29 102 3.7 33 Matanuska - - - - 91 -41 21 45.4 - - Agriculture Experiment Station #SOS Via 10 OCEAN to 10 20 ;, Itr 2S LI 27.s 22.5 20 22.5s Te in Ar 30 22.5 26 30- 4pi 0 GULF OF ALASKA 3x 0 5 0 100 150 2 0 It I LE 3 S"I'lkils W ALEUTIAN I w 0 41 f $a%* Ifoo Joint 'Federsl-Stals Land Use @;jAtl( 40 -n Planning Commission.1873 Z), c Mean annual temperatures (Balding 1976). M M ca OCEAN 5. 5 5 20 cD .20 20 0 10 20 1 0 - ."i '20 .I V.k- 20 20 . Pre 1,0 20 40 k i n 408 20 20 IQ '104 20 'ej to 40 10"1 It 40 70 0 80 go 160 0 -140 40 (0 0 4o GULF OF ALASKA 14 .1i.k a 5 0 100 150 2 00 M I L I S A L E U I I A NIL ao. ATTU 56' SHEIIVA 261, 1A m US CA) Base Ifam Joint fedeial-4tala Land Use AMCHITKA% A Planning Commission.1973* 36- ADAK 68" Mean annual precipitation (Balding 1976). Air Qua ity Air quality in the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management area is classified by the Department of Environmental Conservation as Class 2 P.S.D. (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) which is considered "very clean a i r11 (Bob Rasmassen, Municipality of Anchorage, personnal communication). The most s i gn i f i cant po I I utant i s cu rrent I y not assoc I ated with industrial development, but is blowing dust which occurs naturally in the District (Bob Rasmassen, Municipality of Anchorage, personnal communication). Inversions could create a problem if traffic or industrial facilities increased. Air inversion occurs when warmer air acts as a cover overlaying a colder air mass near the ground surface and doesn't allow air masses to mix. This results in high concentrations of pollutants being trapped near the ground surface (Environmental Services Limited 1978). The development of the Point MacKenzie area may produce more pollution for Anchorage. However, the concentrations of so 2) NO 2 J' and NO3 are presently very low level in Anchorage airshed. These substances are the major pollutants produced by a petroleum facility. With modern techniques of emissions control, a large industrial plant could operate at Po i nt MacKenz i e w i thout s i gn i f i cant i mpact on the a I I owab I e attainment levels of SO 2P NO 2P and NO 3 (Environmental Services Limited 1978). 62 GEOPHYSICAL HAZARDS The geophysical hazards present in the Mat-Su Borough Coastal District are discussed in the following section. The hazards that are d i scussed in the report and de I i neated on the hazard maps are those that were identified in previous investigations. Much of this information was transferred from more detailed mapping to the 1:346,000 scale geophysical hazard maps for this Phase I Completion Report; information accuracy is lost in such a data transfer. The hazard maps are not adequate for site specific work. Many a reas have not been stud i ed at a I I ; i n these areas, no hazards are shown or hazard boundaries are estimated using professional judgement but should not be interpreted as an absence of hazards. Detailed studies of geophysical hazards should be conducted I n any area of proposed development. HAZARDS OF GEOLOGIC ORIGIN A literature search was conducted and the resultant entries recorded in the bibliography. Ongoing studies were i denti f ied and shou I d be i ncorporated into the geologic hazards analysis for the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Plan as the information becomes available. The geophysical hazards map included in this report are of a general nature. Hazards information was compiled from maps of surficial geology, geology, surface features, and soils association at scales ranging from 1:2,500,000 to 1:24,000 and mapped at a scale of. 1:346,000 for this Phase I Completion Report. Hazard mapping on a larger scale for site specific planning is a possible future study. In the following sections bedrock and surficial geology are descr.ibed and geologic hazards of seismic, volcanic and mass wasting origin are delineated. A detailed analysis of the geologic hazards in the Mat-Su Borough coastal area is presented in the resource analysis section. q!@oloqic Settinq Ee_qion.@_i_ Geology: The Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management District is located in one of the most seismically active areas on earth, accounting for about 7 percent of the annual worldwide release of seismic energy. The seismic activity delineates the Benioff subduction zone which originates from the collision of the North American and Pacific Ocean tectonic plates. The convergent margin of the North American continental plate where it is being underthrust by the Pacific oceanic plate along the Aleutian Trench (Figure 4) lies approximately 400 km (250 miles) south of the Borough. Depth to the plane of seismic activity below the Borough is 40+ km. Numerous geologic 63 . . ...... . ....... ........ .......... .. .. . .... . ............ f, -"A: 40 @7r ALEUTIAN TRENCH . ........ . 5-6 cm/yr P A C I F I C P L A T E Plate tectonics relationships in the NE Pacific Ocean. Star indicates epicenter of February 28, 1979, St. Elias earthquake, the most recent large event in the region (Science Applications, Inc., 1980). Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management District FIGURE 4 64 hazards in the Mat-Su Borough are related to this regional plate tectonic framework, i.e., earthquakes, volcanism, and earthquake--triggered mass wasting. A series of northeast striking major faults, including the Border Range, Castle Mountain, Talkeetna Thrust, and McKinley strand of the Denali Fault, cross the Borough and are part of a broad arcuate fault system including the Denali and Fairweather faults to the east. Faults classified as active are those along which there has been displacement within the last 100,000 years (WCC, 1980). The active faults in the Borough include the Castle Mountain Fault and the McKinley strand of the Denali Fault. Other faults within the Borough also may be active, but none have been positively identified and confirmed as active at this time. Woodward-Clyde Consultants is currently investigating the Susitna and Talkeetna Thrust Faults to determine their classification. Mount Spurr located 13 km (8 miles) south of the Borough boundary, is the northernmost volcano in a chain of 24 active volcanic centers extending along the Alaska Peninsula. These active volcanoes are a surface expression of the subducting plate beneath the Borough. Due to the andesitic composition of the volcanos ' eruptions tend to be explosive (L.L. Selkregg, 1974). Reg i ona I I y, the Mat-S u Borough Coastal Management District is within a highly active tectonic setting with resultant seismic and volcanic phenomenon. Bedrock Geology; The Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management District is bounded on three sides by mountain ranges. The Alaska Range forms the west and north boundaries while the Talkeetna and Chugach Mountains collectively form the eastern boundary. The Matanuska Va I I ey i s bounded on the north by the Ta I keetna Mounta i ns and on the south by the Chugach Mountains. Bedrock geology in the West-Central and Central Alaska Range i s p r i ma r i I y. strat i f i ed sed i menta ry rocks of Mesozo i c age with a southeastern wedge of Upper Tertiary continental deposits (Figures 5 and 6). The West-Central Alaska Range is intruded by Mesozoic felsic to intermediate composition igneous rocks which are expressed topograghically by Mount Spurr (quartz monzonite to granite), and Mount Susitna and Little Mount Susitna mountains (granodlomite to granite). The Central Alaska Range is intruded by felsic rock of which Mount McKinley is the chief expression. The Talkeetna Mountains are predominantly stratified metasedimentary rocks with a central core of Jurassic through Tertiary felsic igneous rock. A' segment of 65 1520 1510 1500 1490 1480 Ll-7 V T, ti LZ LILII 3old Creek /qz ep Lake P, tj N - 00 its Curry r V-4v UXz M-rv Aq 0 Gt sijr@s'wi.e V 7 6 ZY rz G < 7- v A12 IS A ..ir 14Z 714" -Mae, % C. C,.,O hanwo od -ntan,, Az i 42 Ek] 7 exa tKI -v k J. hn F Kennec@ Clty 149 ve., g , ! U Z. Tire I'm JJWZ e z TY.-riek -R; nbow GENERAL GEOLOGIC MAP of MATANUSKA-SUSITN'A BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 0 to 20 301 Adapted from H. M. Beikman, 1974 1 1 1 66 M i I e s FIGURE 5 Legend for General Geologic Map of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management District. CENOZOIC Stratified Sedimentary and Volcanic-Rocks in Part Metamorphose Quaternary Qh Holocene Deposits Alluvial, glacial, lacustrine, swamp, land- slide, and beach deposits. Qp Pleistocene Deposits - Alluvial, glacial, dune sand, loess, terrace and pediment gravel, and reworked sand and silt deposits. Tertiary IT Lower Terciary Rocks - Marine and continental clastic rocks of Paleocene and Eocene age. Includes Kulthieth and Kushtaka Forma- tions, clastic rocks of the Orca Group, and related unnamed rocks in the Gulf of Alaska area. Intensely deformed. Continental Deposits uTc Upper Tertiary - Sandstone, siltstone, claystone, minor congLo- merate and coal beds. Includes upper part of Kenai Group in Cook Inlet area and Nenana Gravel and related unnamed rocks in west- central Alaska Range. Includes rocks ranging in age from Oligocene (?) through Pliocene mTc Middle Tertiary - Sandstone, siltstone, conglomerate, clayscone, and coal beds. Includes the Healy Creek Formation (Oligocene and Miocene) in the central Alaska Range; the Gdkona Formation (Oligocene) in the east-central Alaska Range; and che Tsadaka Formation (Oligocene) in the Matanuska Valley. ITc Lower Tertiary - Claystone, siltstone, sandstone, conglomerate, and coal beds * Includes the Chickaloon and Wishbone Formations in the Ma tanuska Valley and equivalent rocks in che Cook Inlet area. Includes rocks.ranging in age FT W r.-!'tocene chrough Eocene. Txc Paleocene - Conglomerate, arkose, sandstone, coaLy shale, and shale - Cons.iscs0 f the Cantwel 1 Formation in che central Alaska Range and che Arkose Ridge Formation in the Matanuska Valley. Volcanic Rocks TV Tertiary - Acidic lava flows, mostly rhyolice and trachyte with some andesite south of the central Alaska Range; basalt flows and associated pyroclastic rocks in Talkeerna Mountains. Granitic Rocks Tg Tertiary - Epizonal to hypabyssal quartz monzonites and granites in the central Alaska Range; mainly rhvolite and trachvte in the Matanuska Valley. TKg Tertiary and Cretaceous - Granodiorice co granice in the Alaska- Aleutian Range batholith and quartz diorite and granodiorire in the Talkeetna batholith. Bath are of Lace Cretaceous and early Tertiary age. TMzg Tertiary and/or Mesozoic - Quartz monzonite, granodiorite. and quartz diorite with subordinate granite and diorite. Probably Mesozoic in age but may include rocks of Tertiary age. 67 FIGURE 6 (Page I of 3) (Continued) MESOZOIC Stratified Sedimentary and Volcanic Rocks in Part Metamorphosed Cretaceous K Cretaceous rocks - Shelf deposits of sandstone, silcstone, shale, limestone, claystone, conglomerate, mudstone, and procellanite ranging in age from Early Cretaceous (Valanginian) to Late Creca- ceous (Maestrichtian). Rocks of Aptian age apparently absent. Includes the Matanuska Formation in the Matanuska Valley. uMz Cretaceous and Jurassic Rocks - Argillite, shale, graywacke, conglomerate, lava, tuff, and agglomerace; almost barren of fossils; probablv includes rocks ranging in age from Early Jurassic to Late Cretaceous. In places moderately to highly (amphibolite facies) metamorphosed. uMzI Cretaceous and Upper Jurassic(?) Rocks - Graywacke, slate, argillite, with minor conglomerate, volcanic detritus, and inter- bedded mafic volcanic rocks. Mainly of Lace Cretaceous (Maestrich- tian) age but includes some rocks of Early Cretaceous and possible Late Jurassic age; sparsely fossiliferous. Includes the Valdez and Yakutat Groups of the Chugach Mountains. Mildy metamorphosed, locally to greenschist facies. uMz2 Cretaceous and/or Upper Jurassic Rocks - A deep-water clastic sequence of siltscone, graywacke, arkose, and conglomeratic sand- stone chaotically juxtaposed with a sequence containing massive pillow basalts and associated radioLarian chert, argillite, and minor ultramafic rocks and marble. Mildy metamorphosed (prehnite- pumpellyite Eacies). In pact a melange. Consists of the McHugh Complex. Jurassic ii Lower Jurassic Rocks - Sandstone and argillice interbedded with volcanic flows and pyroclastic rocks of the Talkeetna Formation in the Cook Inlet area and southern Talkeetna Mountain't. Triassic 1kP Triassic and Permian Rocks - Argillice and limestone with silt- stone and conglomerate and abundant gabbroic sills along easc- central Alaska Range. Includes upper part of Mankomen Group of Middle Pennsylvanian to Early Permian age. Volcanic Rocks Triassic 1kV Triassic - Basaltic lava, commonly amygdaloidal, with local thin interbeds of volcaniclastic rocks, and local basal conglomer5te. Includes the Nikolai Greenstone and related rocks of Middle and/or Lace Triassic age. Granitic Rocks Cretaceous Kg Cretaceous - Granodiorite with subordinate granite, quartz monzo- nite, and diorite. Includes extensive migmatitic granodiorites in the central Alaska Range. 68 (FIGURE 6, Page 2) (Concluded) Jurassic Jg Jurassic - Quartz diorite and granodiorite of Early and Middle Jurassic age in the Alaska-Aleutian Range bacholith; granodiorite with subordinate quartz monzonite and quartz diorite of probable early Middle Jurassic age in the Talkeetna batholith.. Ultramafic Rocks MESOZOIC AND(OR) PALEOZOIC MzPzum Mesozoic and(or) Paleozoic - Serpentinized perioditite Metamorohic Rocks MzPzm Mesozoic and(or) Paleozoic - Metaplutonic, metasedimentary, and metavolcanic rocks near Anchorage and amphibolice - facies schist a1ong southside of Matanuska Valley. PALEOZOIC Stratified Sedimentary and Volcanic Rocks In Part Metamorphosed Pz Paleozoic Rocks - Near Cantwell in south-cencral Alaska Range, limestone, slate, and conglomerate with some Eossils of Devonian age. West of Chulicna River, unfossiliferous argillice and gray- wacke, mildly metamorphosed. lPzpf Lower Paleozoic and(or) Precambrian Rocks - Highly metamorphosed clastic rocks. Includes Keevv Peak Formation and rocks formerly included in the Birch Creek S'chist Permian PfP Permian and Pennsylvanian Rocks - Basalcic to andesicic lavas and their derivative volcaniclastic rocks, tuffs, minor gabbro, and local shallow-water sedimencary rocks. Includes Skolai Group of Early Permian age, equivalent rocks in rhe Strelna Formation, the Tetelna Volcanics of Pennsylvanian age, and related unnamed rocks. In the Talkeetna Mouncains, metamorphosed mainly to green- schist facies, locally to amphibolite Eacies. Ultramafic Rocks Pzum Paleozoic - Peridotice, dunite, and pyroxenite of probable Paleozoic age northeast of Anchorage. SYMBOLS Fault, approximately located. Dotted where concealed or inferred. Contact, approximately located. Dotted where concealed or inferred. Adapted from H. M. Beikman, 1974. 69 (FIGURE 61. Page 3) Pa I eozo i c rock crops out i n the center of the batho I i th. Younger Mesozoic meta-sedimentary rocks crop out in the northwestern Talkeetna Mountains. Slivers of Paleozoic sedimentary and Mesozoic metamorphic rocks crop out in the southwestern Talkeetnas along the Castle Mountain Fault, which traverses the southern edge of the Talkeetna Mountains (Figure 5). Bedrock geology along the walls of the Matanuska Valley is complex. Generally, stratified sedimentary rocks of Lower Jurassic to Middle Tertiary age crop out along the north wall of the valley and are highly faulted by the Castle Mountain-Caribou fault system. The bedrock outcrops on the south valley wall are Jurassic, Triassic and Permian metamorphic rocks and Lower Cretaceous and Upper Jurassic melange rocks. Contacts are fault bounded by the Border Range and Eagle River Faults. The Va I I ey f I oor i s composed of Tertiary and (or) Cretaceous felsic igneous rock. Surf i c i a I Depos i ts: The main portion of the Mat-Su Coastal Management District is occupied by the Cook Inlet-Susitna Lowland, which is overlain by glacially derived Pleistocene deposits. Six periods of glaciation have sculpted the Borough lowlands and surrounding mountains (Table 13). The earliest and most extensive glaciations were the Mount Susitna and Caribou Hills (T. L. Pewe, 1965 and K. G. Dean, 1980). Expanding ice caps on the Alaska Range, Chugach and Talkeetna mountains completely filled the Matanuska and Susitna Valleys; largely covered the bordering mountains; and pushed out to join other major glaciers to fill Upper Cook Inlet to elevations of 3,000 to 4,000 feet (T. L. Pewe, 1965). During the Eklutna glaciation, trunk glaciers filled the Susitna and Matanuska valleys and coalesced with ice spilling off the Alaska Range. Below the confluence of the Matanuska and Knik valleys, many of the divides between tributary glaciers stood above the ice surface and a large upland area on the southwest flank of the Talkeetna mountains stood above the ice. During the next two glaciations (the Knik, older, and the Napetowne), the Matanuska-Knik ice lobe did not coalesce with ice flowing down the Susitna River. Ice from the Alaska Range extended eastward across Cook Inlet to 'near Anchor Point (K. G. Dean, 1980). Evidence indicates that the glaciers of Knik and Napetowne age advanced into and retreated from regional proglacial lakes. The sixth glaciation (Alaskan) was generally confined in narrow mountain valleys where end moraines were often deposited at the confluence with broader valleys. The Mat--Su Borough contains landforms which resulted from glacial, fluvial, lacustrine, pereglacial and paludal- processes. During the six Pleistocene glacial advances discussed above, bedrock was scoured and debris was 70 Table 13: Cook Inlet Glacial Chronology Glaciation Age Associated Events in Cook Inlet Alaskan 200-4,800 yrs ago Minor sea level Fluctuations Interglacial Period High Sea Level Stand Naptowne 6,000-30,000 yrs ago Glacial Lake Cook: Final drainage 275' high lake drainage 500-6001 high lake drainage 7501 high lake drainage Advance lake phases Interglacial Period High Sea Level Stand Knik 38,000-65,000 yrs ago Proglacial Lake Interglacial Period Deep Weathering Eklutna 25,000-110,000 yrs ago Cook Inlet icef illed Interglacial Period Major weathering Caribou Hills Retreat 155,000-190,000 yrs ago Cook Inlet icefilled Interglacial Period Deep weathering Mount Susitna Older than 110,000 yrs ago Cook Inlet icefilled Adapted from: K. G. Dean, 1980 and T. L. Pewe, 1965. 71 TABLE 13. transported and deposited by the glaciers and their attendant streams and lakes. The broad lowland area is characterized by north-south trending elongate drumlins and fluted ridges with intervening swampy, till-covered lows on the north. Farther south in the Borough lowlands, the drumlins and ridges give way to flat, poorly-drained areas of glaciolacustrine deposits. These lowlands are underlain by a thick sequence of coal-bearing Tertiary rocks which rest on Mesozoic rocks. Superimposed on the glacial landforms are floodplain and terrace deposits. Generally well-sorted floodplain, terrace, and alluvial fan deposits occur in association with the rivers and streams that drain the Mat-Su Borough. Alluvial fans are extensive along the Alaska Range front and a few occur in the Talkeetna and Chugach Mountains. A large alluvial fan deposit has accumulated where the matanuska and Knik Rivers drain into the Knik Arm. At the mouth of the Susitna River is a large deposit of eolian sand and silt. Geologic Hazards The geologic hazards in the Mat-Su Coastal Management District fall into three broad categories: seismic, volcanic, and mass wasting. The hazards were mapped on a scale of 1:346,000 for this Phase I Completion Report by incorporating data from a series of maps ranging in scale and detail (from 1:2,500,000 to 1:24,000). Due to the variance of scale and detai I the geologic hazards features .such as major faults and potential mass wasting zones are approximately located. Numerous other mass movement hazards are expected through the Borough in the steeper terrain. Detailed aerial photography and aerial reconnaisance is recommended to accurately designate these features. Any site-specific hazards would require further evaluation, including field study. Faults were compiled from original sources as they are interpreted to occur within the Borough. Extensive lineament maps have been compiled for the Borough although detailed hazard analysis of those features has not been done to date. One is referred to the Surficial Geology map by S i mpson Usher J ones, I nc. , 1979 for a more deta i I ed lineament map of the Borough. Seismic Hazards: As a consequence of its dynamic tectonic setting, the Uniform Building Code places the Mat-Su Borough in Seismic Zone 4 (on a scale of 0 to 4) where structural damage caused by earthquakes is generally the greatest. Several major and minor fault systems either border or cross the Borough. Major active regional faults include the McKinley strand of the Denali Fault and the Castle Mountain Fault. In addition, the Benioff zone can be expected to produce earthquakes of magnitude 8.5 or greater (WCC 1980). Major inactive faults that fringe the District 72 are the Border Ranges and Eagle River faults. No evidence of displacement younger than Tertiary in age (approximately several tens of millions of years old) has been reported for the Talkeetna Thrust Fault. The Susitna lineament has not been definitely identified as a fualt and is presently being studied by Woodward-Clyde consultants in conjunction with the Susitna Hydroelectric Seismic investigation. The Susitna lineament may be the result of glaciation of stream drainages whose alignment reflects structural control such as joints or perhaps folding (WCC, 1980). Preliminary maximum credible earthquake (PMCE) magnitudes were determined by Woodward-Clyde Consultants for the active faults and the Benioff zone as a part of their 1980 seismic study for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The PMCE for the Denali fault is estimated to be a surface-wave magnitude (M ) 8.5 event. The PIVICE for the Castle Mountain fault is es@imafed to be a magnitude (M S) 7.4 event. The PMCE for the Benioff zone is estimated to be a magnitude (M S ) 8.5 event. Damage due to earthquakes is caused primarily by ground rupture, ground failure, and ground shaking. Ground rupture damage is usual ly restricted to the area on or near the fault tract. Ground failure in the form of liquefaction may occur in areas of thick unconsolidated deposits where the water table is at or near the ground surface. Areas of potential liquefaction in the Borough include the f loodplains of major streams and al luvial fans. R. Updike, of the Alaska Geological and Geophysical Survey, plans to study the liquefaction potential of the Mat-Su Borough in the near future. The study would address the extent of Bootlegger Cove clay and equivalent deposits into the Borough, liquefaction calculations and establishment of geologic engineering parameters. Ground shaking effects, which are the third primary cause of earthquake damage, can be ampl if ied in the areas of f ine si It and clay deposits as well as in peat bog areas. Ground shaking response, however, is also dependent on a number of other factors such as duration of shaking, response spectra, earthquake magnitude, depth of focus and building design and construction. Secondary destructive mechanisms are regional and local uplift and subsidence, consolidation of soils, landslides, and avalanches. Records from the 1964 Alaska earthquake indicate that structural damage in the Mat-Su Borough was minor, with some avalanche damage to an Eklutna Power Plant transmission line. Landslides were recorded on Point MacKenzie and 2 miles south of Sutton on the Alaska Railroad line (USGS, 1965). Ground cracking occurred in the swampy areas along streams. Cracks were also noted on the alluvial fans which flank the Chugach Mountains on either side of the Knik River valley (oral communication, R. Updike, 1981). 73 The location of the major faults and potential earthquake- i nduced I ands I i des and ava I anches are shown on accompanying Geophysical Hazards Map, Map D. Areas of potential liquefaction are not mapped pending results of current research. The I ocat i on of the S us i tna I i neament is shown on the map although its classification as a fault is stell being investigated by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC, 1980). Volcanic Hazards: Mount Spurr is located 13 km south of the Mat--Su Borough boundary and is the closest active volcanic peak to the Coastal Management District (Map D). Because of its close proximity, primary volcanic hazards are considered a threat to the area. These include turbulent clouds, violent directed explosions and glowing avalanches. Turbulent ash clouds, which are bursts of gas, steam, and ash that rise vertically to heights of 50,000 to 100,000 feet (15,000 to 30,000 meters), can be hazardous to aircraft i n the area. The turbulent cloud accompanying the 1954 eruption of Mt. Spurr rose 70,000 feet (20,000 meters) in 40 minutes. Violent directed explosions can carve a destructive path for many miles. Glowing avalanches can flow swiftly downslope from the summit for great distances. Some of the destructive secondary phenomena associated with andesitic volcano eruptions are voluminous volcanic mudflows or flash floods, lightening discharges, corrosive rains, earthquakes, sea waves, ash fall and landslides. Active volcanic centers which could cause secondary damage in the Borough include Trobert, Spurr, Redoubt, Iliamna and Augustine. Volcanic mudflows and flash floods from an eruption of Mount Spurr could flow down across Capps Glacier picking up meltwater and continue down Beluga River valley as far out as Cook Inlet. Airborne ash can be transported great distances and produce physically uncomfortable conditions. For example the 1954 eruption of Mount Spurr showered ash on surrounding communities including Anchorage causing damage to aircraft and an expensive clean-up effort. The 1976 eruption of Mt. Augustine caused similar ash fall damage to the Cook Inlet area. Corrosive rains caused by acidic volcanic gases mixing with precipitation can fall on communities and cause damage. It is recommended that an integrated volcano monitoring and public warning system should be established for the Cook Inlet region. Mass Wasting Hazards Hazards related to mass wasting in the Mat-Su borough include landslides, avalanches, and rock glaciers. These phenomenon can be seismically induced or result from the particular rock structure, seasonal spring thaw and/or slope of the debris, rock or snow. Landslide describes the downhill movement of earth, rock, mud or debris. Avalanche refers to similar movements of snow and ice. Processes which trigger landslides a-re rainfall, erosion, earthquakes and man-induced cutting and 74 f i I I i ng. Mass movement phenomenon usually affect lower mounta i n s I opes and the marg i ns of va I I ey f I oors and are especially active during periods of spring thaw. Earthquake- i nduced I ands I i des are potent i a I I y the greatest geologic hazard along the wal Is of the Matanuska Val ley in the eastern portion of the Borough (Map D). Valley walls are greatly oversteepened and underlain by sedimentary rocks containing numerous incompetent shale units along which sliding may occur. The I a rgest s I i des an d the g reatest numbers are in areas underlain by sedimentary rocks of Cretaceous and Tertiary age (Detterman, 1976, MP-738). The potential for destructive landslides is considered high in the vicinity of Hicks Creek. Some of the more prominent potential slides in the area are shown on the Geologic Hazards map and discussed below. Landslide deposits of Holocene and Pleistocene age are not shown on the hazards map. For the location and extent of these deposits, reference should be made to the surficial geology map by Detterman et al., 1976. Further detailed mapping may identify unconsolidated deposits on steep slopes which pose a landslide threat. Potential landslides are grouped according to the type of damage they could induce: drainage blockage and possible flood surge, highway closure, and communities threatened. 1. Drainage Blockage: There is a slide potential on Granite Creek which could block drainage and pose a threat to Sutton which is approximately 8 km (5 miles) southwest of this area. A potential blockage on the Chickaloon River occurs 3 miles north of Chickaloon. An enormous multiple landslide east of Puddingstone Hill is an old feature that dammed up Boulder Creek. The toe of the slide is being cut away by Boulder Creek and its surface morphology suggests that it may still be active (Detterman, 1976, MF-738). A large slide potential is indicated on the slope south of Watchtower Inn which could dam the Matanuska River. 2. Highway Closure: Numerous slides are possible near Castle at the base of Kings Mountain which could close the Glenn Highway. There is a high potential for the slope north of Long Lake to slide onto the highway. Several large multiple landslides have developed in the sedimentary rocks south of the Castle Mountain fault along Anthracite Ridge from milepost 90 to 94 on the Glenn Highway. At least two of these slides are still active. The potential is high for road closure along the Glenn Highway at Watchtower Inn and east for 2 miles to Pinochle Creek due to the underlying shale of the Matanuska formation which is very susceptible to landsliding. 75 3. Communities Threatened: There is a potential for a landslide near Jonesville. The communities of Sutton, Chickaloon, and Watchtower Inn are endangered by possible drainage blockage and flood outwash as mentioned above. Structural damage could occur at Castle due to its proximity to an unstable slope. More deta i I ed mapp i ng at spec i f i csites may identify other potential slides. Numerous small slides were not mapped due to the map scale limitation. Avalanche chutes are present on steep mountain slopes (30--400) but are most abundant in the north and east areas of the Borough coastal area and locally on Little Mount Susitna and Pioneer Peak. Other avalanche areas are expected on steep terrain throughout the Borough. Detailed aerial reconnaisance and aerial photographic interpretation in recommended to accurately identify those areas. Avalanche hazard is directly related to snow accumulation and steep slopes, those greater than 30 degrees. Spring runoff on southfacing slopes lubricates the surface of the slope and creates a high avalanche risk. Chutes are cut or modified by rapidly moving masses of snow, ice, rock and soil. Tongues of boulders or rock debris typically accumulate at the bottom of the chutes near the base of the va I I ey wa I I s. Extensively affected areas in the Central Alaska Range within the Borough boundary inc.lude Hidden River, Coffee River, Slide, Whistler and Alder Creeks. Extensive avalanche risk areas in the Talkeetna Mountains include Indian River, Chunila Creek, Talkeetna River, Disappointment Creek, Sheep River, Sheep Creek, and Kashwitna River. The avalanche risk zone occurs in a bank along the western slope of the Talkeetna Mountains bounded on the north by the Indian River and on the south by the Kashwitna River. Numerous avalanche chutes are located on the east side of Mt. Susitna and on the west side of Little Mt. Susitna. A large active avalanche chute also occurs along the Chugach Mountain front at Pioneer Peak on the Old Palmer Highway. Other active avalanche chutes are expected in the Chugach Mountains but have not been reported to date. Rock glaciers are located on many floors of narrow mountain valleys in the Borough. Over 100 active and inactive rock glaciers were mapped by Nelson and Reed (1978) on the Talkeetna Quadrangle. These landforms are developed from talus and other mass wasting debris which form tongues of rock fragments moving slowly downslope. In some localities active rock glaciers are overriding inactive ones (Dean, 1980). Recommended Further Study Although surface mapping of the major fault traces in the Borough suggest Quaternary or Holocene activity, there is 76 not documented record to confirm that any of the I a rge historical earthquakes in the area were due to displacements on these faults. Continued seismic and tectonic study by the U.S. Geological Survey and State of Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) should provide insight into the regional and local relationships of older seismic events' with geologically younger faults. Detailed soils maps for the Mat-Su Borough coastal area are currently being compiled by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (oral communication, Sterling Powell, April, 1981). The Susitna Area Plan which includes the Talkeetna and Willow Subbasins i s soon to be pub I i shed by the A I aska Department of Natura I Resources (oral communication, Robert Loeffler, April, 1981). Resu I ts of the DGGS I i quef act i on study shou I d be incorporated into the Coastal Management Program (oral communication, R. Updike, May , 1981). The current investigation by Woodward-Clyde Consultants regarding the Susitna Fault and other features at and near the Susitna Hydropower study should also be incorporated into the program. Continued synthesis of the most current research findings is an important task. More detailed mapping of hazards on a site-specific basis. using large scale maps is recommended for any detailed planning effort. The geologic hazards map compiled for the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program are of a general nature and should not be used for site-specific p lanning. Hazardous areas designated should be avoided or special engineering measures taken to minimize the risks to life and property during future development. HAZARDS OF HYDROLOGIC ORIGIN The major river system in the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management District include the Susitna, Matanuska, and Knik River systems. The Susitna River and its tri-butaries have a total drainage area of about 19,400 square miles (Corps of Engineers, 1977), much of which lies within the Mat-Su Borough. The Matanuska and Knik River systems have drainage areas of about 2,070 and 1,180 square miles, respectively. Associated with these major rivers, their tributaries, and other relatively small streams that discharge directly into Cook Inlet are hazards due to flooding, icings, and bank erosion. Hydrologic Setting Riverine flooding in the Mat-Su Borough is a result of excessive rainfall, rapid snowmelt, and the release of glacier-dammed lakes. Flooding is sometimes enhanced by ice or log jams blocking stream flow. 77 Rainstorms: Short, intense rainfalls can exceed the rate at wh i ch the ra i n can be absorbed i nto the so i I ; I a rge volumes of water would run off the land surface into nearby streams, causing local flooding of areas bordering the stream. Similarly, if a rainstorm lasts for such a long time that the soils become saturated and can no longer absorb the rainfall, excess rainfall woLbld run off, flooding streams. For example, an excess of one inch of rain running of f of a one square mi I e area i n s i x hours wou I d cause an average discharge of 108 cfs (cubic feet per second) or 70 mgd (million gallons per day). Stream channels draining a one square mile area would generally be large enough to carry only a fraction of this amount of flow; thus, overbank flooding would result. Snowmelt: Snowmelt floods occur when lengthening spring days cause many hours of solar radiation and warm temperatures to reach the saturated snowpack. Frozen soil underlying the snowpack accepts only a smal I portion of the melt water; the remainder runs off into streams causing snowmelt flooding. Snowmelt floods are typically of longer duration and have larger volumes of water than rainstorm-caused floods. Glacier-Dammed Lake Releases: Glacier-dammed lake release flooding can be much larger than floods due to rainfall or snowmelt. Glacier-dammed lakes are formed when a glacier blocks the natural Arainage channel creating a reservoir behind it. Such lakes may form in tributary valleys, main valleys, or within the glacier itself. The lakes typically fill to a certain level at which the water overtops the glacier or lifts the glacier sufficiently for flow to pass beneath. The f low of water on top of or beneath the glacier causes thermal and physical erosion of the i ce, en I arg i ng the dra i nage channe I to a I I ow h i gh rates of flow to drain from the lake until, typically, the lake is empty. The slow flow of the glacier closes off the drainage channel, initiating the refilling process again. Glacier-dammed lake released may occur at a regular interval or they may be quite irregular. Maximum discharges may exhibit extreme variations as well. Some glacier-dammed lake rel@ases are much smaller than rainfall or snowmelt floods and are not even noticed. Others are well in excess of normal flooding and can cause significant damage. Glacier advance or recession often causes a change in the characteristi*cs of glacier-dammed lakes which it blocks; the lakes may get larger or smaller, may disappear altogether, or new lakes may form. Thus, glacier-dammed lakes are dynamic and their release floods are very difficult to predict for long range planning. 78 Icings: Icings (also called aufeis ' naleds, and glaciation) are def ined to be ice features that form from a series of overflow events which freeze on the icing surface, thereby thickening the icing. Icings typically develop in bra i ded r i ver f I oodp I a i ns, at cu I verts, and across roads, but they may occur anywhere in cold environments. Three requirements for icing formation are: 1. A water source in the form of springs, groundwater, or flow in a river channel; 2. A subsurface constriction such as bedrock, less pervous soil, or permafrost; and 3. A surface constriction such as the downward freezing of the active frozen soil layer or channel ice, or the icing itself. Icings can form to over 10 feet thick and a square mi le or more in area. Icings can be hazardous to travel is they form across roads, railroad tracks, or airport runways. Icings that form in culverts can block spring runoff and cause extensive flooding. Icings forming in stream channels reduce the capacity of the channel to carry flow, resulting in more extensive flooding than would otherwise have occurred during spring runoff. Icings can encroach on buildings as they grow, potentially causing damage to the structure or its contents. Stream Bank Erosion: Stream bank erosion results from any single or combination of processes that include: 0 High water velocities eroding and transporting the material from the site; 0 Thawing of ice-rich soils, which, as a result, lose their structural stability and slide into the stream channel; 0 Ice blocks being transported during breakup, gouging material from the banks; 0 Wind-driven waves impacting the banks; and 0 Winds drying out the soil and carrying away the dry soil particles. Stream bank erosion can progress to a point where it undermines structures, roads, or railroads, causing extensive damage. Stream bank protection can be used to slow or stop the bank erosion process, but such protection may be very costly and it can cause increased bank erosion or bed scour elsewhere along the stream. 79 Hydrologic Hazards Flood Magnitude: The quantity of water flowing past a given point in a specified unit of time is called the d i scharge; i t i s usua I I y expressed i n cub I c f eet per second (cfs), gallons per minute (gpm), or million gallons per day (mgd). Flood discharges on several streams in the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management District have been calculated by the U.S. Geologic Survey from records of previous maximum known flood events and theoretical calculations (Table 14). Many of these maximum discharges are associated with a 1971 rainstorm that dropped from 3 to 6 inches of rain between the 5th and 11th of August (Lamke, 1972). The disharges from this storm are from 1.8 to 8.9 times the discharges that have a theoretical two percent probability of occurring in any year (Lamke, 1972). Thus, floods of this magnitude are likely to occur an average of less than once every 50 years over a long period. A standard flood which is used.for establ ishing f loodplain boundaries for planning purposes is the 100 year flood. Such a f I cod wou I d have a one percent chance of occurrence in any year, or a 26 percent change of occurring in a 30 percent period. It is thus advantageous to locate new construction out of the f loodplain of a 100 year f lood, or, i f i t i s necessary to construct w i th i n the f I oodp I a I n, locate the construction on fill or above- the flood elevation. Estimated 100 year flood discharges for various streams in the Borough are given in Table 15. It is apparent from Table 15 that the discharge per unit area is larger for smaller drainage areas. The flood magnitudes presented thus far have been mainly associated with rainfall or snowmelt-caused floods. One exception is the maximum known flood on Knik River near Palmer (Table 14) which was due to the release of Lake George, a glacial-dammed lake. Lake George is the largest, most known, and best documented glacier-dammed lake in the Borough, and probably all of Alaska. The following excerpt presents the characteristics of Lake George released (Post and Mayo, 1971): "Knik River - The Knik River near Palmer is famous for destructive outburst flooding from Lake George (No. 28), which in recent years has been the largest glacier-dammed lake in Alaska. Since 1918, at least, the lake emptied annually (Stone, 1963b)., a pattern which continued until 1963 when no ice dam formed. Lake George again annually refilled and dumped between 1964 and 1966. The annual flooding of Knik River was so regular between 1918 and 1963 that flood experts, bridge maintenance crews, and tourists reserved a week 80 so so me dw ON* M Maximum Known Flood Discharge on Streams in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management District (Lamke Location Drainage Period of Date of Station Area Record Maximum Known No. Stream Latitude Longitude (mi 2 (years/dates) Flood 15281000 Knik R or Palmer 6103011811 14900150" 11180 42(1935-76) July 18, 1958 - Kings R or Sutton 6104315811 148044152" 151 Miscellaneous Aug. 10, 1971 - Granite C or Sutton 104614611 14805012 52.5 Miscellaneous Aug. 10, 1971 15283500 Eska C or Sutton 6104344 14805413111 13.4 7(1965-69, Aug. 10, 1971 1971-76) - Moose C or Sutton 61043132 1490031001 40.7 Miscellaneous Aug. 10, 1971 15284000 Matanuska R at Palmer 6103613411 149'04-161- 2,070 26(1949-74) Aug. 10, 1971 - Wasilla C or Palmer 6103814711 14901114511 19.3 Miscellaneous Aug. 10, 1971 15286000 Cottonwood C or Wasilla 61034130" 149024-35" 28.5 68q0949-54) July 5, 6, 1949 15289800 Fishhook C or Palmer 6104510511 149013,401 8.52 30963-66) Aug. 23, 1963 0 15290000 Little Susitna R or Palmer 61042'3211 149'1336 61.9 26(1948-76) Aug. 10, 1971 15292000 Susitna R or Cold C 62'46-04 14941128" 6,160 27(1949-76) June 7, 1964 15292400 Chulitna R or Talkeetna 62033131 150014'02" 2,570 170958-76) July 20, 1967 15292700 Talkeetna R or Talkeetna 6202014911 150001101" 2,007 130964-76) Aug. 10, 1971 15292780 Susitna R nr Sunshine 6201013511 150010'18" 11,500 Miscellaneous Aug. 10, 1971 15292800 Montana C nr Montana 62006132" 15000311211 164 10(1963-72) Aug. 10, 1971 15292900 Goose C or Montana 62003,42" 150003120" 14.5 94q0963-78q0 June 1964 15293000 Caswell C or Caswell 61056-55" 1500031141, 19.6 14(1963-76) Sept. 1965 15294025 Moose C or Talkeetna 62019100" 150026'30" 52.3 50972-76) Aug. 22, 1972 15294300 Skwentna R or Skwentna 61'52-2311 1510221011, 2,250 17(1959-76) June 25, 1971 15294350 Susitna R at Susitna Station 6103214111 150'30-45" 19,400 2(1974-76) July 1, 1975 a Glacier dammed lake release flood. b Rainfall flood was augmented by the release of stored water from an unnamed lake after embankment was breached. > c Floods from Sheep Creek overflow on 10 August 1971 reached 3,270 cfs in Goose Creek. M 4 Estimated 100 Year Flood Discharge for Streams in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management District. 100 Year Flood Drainage Discharge Area Stream Approximate Location (mi2 (cfs) (cfs/mi2 Susitna R at Talkeetna ab 11,035 268,000 24.3 at Gold Creek 6,160 120,000 19.5 Matanus-ka R nr Palmer b 2,070 49,100 23.7 Talkeetna R at mouth a 2,015 97,000 48.1 Little Susitna R nr mouth c c 320 24,200 75.6 at Parks Highway d 175 15,200 86.9 at Wasilla-Fishhook R 62 8,190 132 Willow Ck at mouth d 258 16,900 65.5 Little Willow Ck at Parks Highway 157 12,300 78.3 Deception Ck at mouth d 58 6,300 109 References: a Corps of Engineers, 1972 b Lamke, 1979 c Soil Conservation Service, 1980 d Corps of Engineers, 1980b 82 TABLE 15 in July or August for the event. Because of this spectacle, the area has been designated as a National Landmark by the National Park Service. S i nce 1966, Knik Glacier has failed to form an ice dam and the lake has not filled. In this case, a period of regular lake dumping lapsed briefly and later ceased abruptly. The peak discharges from 1949 to 1966 changed systematically rather than randomly as is usual for nonoutburst floods. From 1949 through 1961, there was a significant rise in the peak discharges; then during the later phase of the lake, 1962-66, the peak discharges were lower than during the preceding decade. The cause of these latter changes' was undoubtedly due to a thinning of the ice at the glacier terminus. Lake George will reform in the future if Knik Glacier thickens and advances a small amount. Although this change is fairly likely, is cannot be predicted with assurance from the data presently available." The maximum flood discharge per unit area of 300 cfs/mi 2 associated with the release of Lake George is roughly six t i mes the va I ue that wou I d be expected f or a 100 year f I ood on a river of that size. Other glacier-dammed lakes also affect streams in the Mat-Su Borough; these include Strand I i ne Lake affecting the Beluga River in the southwest corner of the Borough, and many small unnamed lakes affecting the Matanuska, Skwentna, Yentna, Kahiltna, Tokositna, and Chulitna Rivers, (Geophysical Hazards Map, Map D). Strandl ine Lake released in mid-July 1979, causing large floods in the Beluga River; the magnitudes of this flooding is now known. The release history of the other glacier-dammed lakes affecting the Borough is unknown. Extent of Flooding: The aerial extent of the lands affected by flood waters is related to the flood magnitude, the width and depth of the channel, topography adjacent to the channel, natural or man-made constructions in the channel or floodplain, and many other factors. As a result, detailed evaluation of floodplain limits can only be accomplished with detailed study of many of these factors. Some areas of the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management District have been studies in detail (Corps of Engineers, 1972 and 1980b, Soil Conservation Service, 1980). Other areas have been looked at based on evidence of past flooding (Lamke, 1972, Corps of Engineers, 1964, Dean 1980, Krebs, 1978). Stream floodplains in the remainder of the basin are estimated in a very rough manner based on very little data and should be used only as a reminder of an existing f lood hazard, the boundaries of which could be delineated only with more detailed studies. All three levels of detail of f loodp I a i n de I i neation are shown on the Geophys i ca I Hazards Map, (Map D). 83 Detailed studies have been done for the Talkeetna and Willow areas. Results of the study of the Talkeetna area (Corps of Engineers, 1972) indicated that the majority of the Ta I keetna towns 1 te cou I d be f I ooded by a f I ood w 1 th a one percent annual probability of occurrence. The 1971 f I ood peak I asted on I y a short t i me and f I coded on I y the I ower, abandoned parts of the community. A flood in 1942, however, caused severe damage in the community; f loods of larger magnitude may occur in the future. Talkeetna has one of the highest potentials for f lood damage due to its proximity to the conf I uence of three major ri vers -- the Ta I keetna, Susitna, and Chulitna Rivers. F.lood hazards in the Wi I low area are rated as low average (Corps of Engineers, 1980a). Willow Creek and its tributary Deception Creek were studied in detail (Corps of Engineers, 1980b), the resul@i of which indicated that approximately 3900 acres (6 mi ) of area in both basins are in the floodplain of the 100 year flood (one percent annual chance of occurrence). In the Willow Creek basin, only 1.5 percent of which is currently developed, average annual flood damages of over $600,000 are predicted (Corps of Engineers, 1980b). Future development in the area, such as the proposed Capital site, would likely increase the flood hazard potential and the amount of damages. In another study (Soil Conservation Service, 1980), Little Willow Creek and lower Little Susitna River floodplains were delineated. The lower Little Susitna River study included the area from 2 mi les upstream of the Parks Highway to its mouth. The 190 year floodplain included approximate.ly 1,400 acres (@.3 mi ) in the Little Wi I low Basin and 16,400 acres (25 mi ) in the lower Little Susitna River study area. Average annual damages are estimated to be about $9,000. Damaging floods have occurred in 1955, 1959, 1969, 1971, and 1975; more extensive flooding can occur in the future. A less detai led level of f loodplain mapping was conducted for large areas of the Susitna River Basin (Krebs, 1978, Dean, 1980. This mapping was based on the analysis of aerial photography and Landsat imagery. The probability of occurrence of floods causing the indicated approximate flooding boundaries (Map D) is unknown; it may be much higher than the one percent probability associated with the boundaries resulting if development is planned near these approximate floodplain boundaries. A summary of the A@gust 1971 rainstorm-caused flood in southcentral Alaska is given by Lamke (1972). although heavy rains fell throughout the Borough, extensive flood damage was concentrated mostly in the Matanuska Val ley; an 84 estimated total of almost six million dollars of damage occurred there (Table 16). A brief descriptive summary of some of the areas most heavily damaged are described briefly below. Estimated Flood Damage in the Matanuska Valley Caused by Heavy Rains in August 1971 (Lamke,, 1972) Classification Amount (dollars) .Highways (Federal Aid System) 2,000,000 Residences and Contents 1,422,000 Erosion of Land 1,000,000 Business Buildings and Contents 520,000 Local Roads 338,000 Dikes and Protective Works 177,300 Utilities, Wells, and Cesspools 161,000 Other Public Property 116,000 Miscellaneous 54pOOO TOTAL 5p838,000 TABLE 16 An unnamed lake near Sutton breached its embankment releasing flood waters into Granite Creek, a tributary of the Matanuska River. Heavy sediment loads were deposited between the mountains and the Glenn Highway along Granite Creek. Flood waters in Granite Creek washed out the Glenn Highway in several places. The Glenn Highway was also washed out by f I ood waters i n Ki ngs Ri ver, Eska. Creek, and Moose Creek. In addition, local roads were washed out and homes, businesses, and farms were damaged in the Sutton area. Flooding also occurred in the Bodenburg Butte area when the Matanuska River overtopped and washed out the road that acted as a dike in that area. Although the probability of floods of such magnitude as this 1971 flood is low in any given year, floods of greater magnitude can occur. A f lood investigation for the Knik River was conducted (Corps of Engineers 1964) for the purpose of evaluating the feasibility of providing flood protection measures along th i s stream. The conclusions of the study were that such protection would not be economical. Damaging floods were found to occur only when Lake George, a glacier-dammed lake, released its waters; the largest such flow occurred in 1958 when a peak of 359,000 cps was recorded. Very I ittle private property damage has been documented other than some damage to crops and cleared land. Some relatively minor road damage has resulted from some of the flooding. Although Lake George has not been dammed by the glacier since 1966, the potential exists for the glacier to advance, causing Lake George to once again become dammed and subsequently release causing extremely high flood magnitudes. 85 A gen&Fdl summdry oT Th@ Tlood hazaFd paten-riAl oT Fgvoral communt+:es in +ke Ma+-Cu Dorough Coas+al Managemen+ District (Corps of Engineers 1976 and 1980a) indicate that f I ood hazard potent I a I i s most I y due to stream overf I ow and local drainage problems (Table 17). The frequency of occurrence is generally low to low-average and the majority of the commun i t i es that were rated were 9 i ven a I ow f I ood hazard rating. However, flood hazard potential changes as development occurs in the stream basins, making it necessary to revise the hazard assessment as development occurs in the basin. Icings: Icings are a relatively localized hazard which have not been generally documented in the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management District. Probably areas of extensive icing development have been mapped (Map D) in most of the Susitna River basin lying in the coastal area (Krebs, 1978, Dean, 1980). Many other areas in the Borough are likely to be affected by icings, including nonf loodplain areas. Flooding enhanced by icings were included in the previous sections discussing f lood hazards. Icing formation over roads, railroad tracks, or airport runways are poorly documented, but are I ikely to be a problem in some areas of the Mat-Su Borough coastal area. Since icings are such a local hazard, general mapping of all the hazard areas cannot be accomplished. Instead, developable areas should be investigated for potential icing problems on a site-specific basis. Stream Bank Erosion: Similar to icings, bank erosion problems are quite localized and generally not well documented. Bank erosion problems are likely in certain locations along the major streams in the Borough. Communities with probably erosion hazards include Palmer, Sutton, Talkeetna, Wasilla, and Willow (Corps of Engineers, 1976). Developable areas should be evaluated on a site-specific basis for bank erosion hazards. HAZARDS OF OCEANIC ORIGIN The actual coastline of the Mat-Su Borough extends for approximately 37 miles along the extreme northern shore of Upper Cook Inlet and for 40 miles along the northwest shore of Knik Arm. Lying as is does at the head of Upper Cook Inlet, the natural forces that might be capable of producing significant hazards of an oceanic origin are those associated with that body of water. Because most of the 86 Summary of Documented Flood Hazard Potential in Communities in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management District. Type of Flooding Percent Frequency of Flood of Stream Ice or Log Local Community Dataa Community Hazard Occurrence Overflow Jams Icings Drainage Coastal Affected Source Alexander Ave X X 20 1 Butte High b X 2 Houston Low Low X X 1,2 John F. Kennedey c X X X 1,2 Moose Creek Low-Ave X X I co Palmer Low Low X X 10 1,2 _j Sutton Low Low X 60 1,2 Talkeetna High High X X X 30 1,2 Low X X X 80 3 Wasilla Low Low X 10 1,2 Willow Low-Ave Low-Ave X X X 1,2 a Data Source > 1 Corps of Engineers, 1976 2 Corps of Engineer, 1980a 3 Estimated from Corps of Engineers, 1972 b High flood hazard applies to low lying areas only c -4 Village (formerly called Bay City) has been abandoned ON IM OW as am am No, MW me, Ma M on MW "W, M IM ava i I ab I e i nf ormat ion perta i ns to Upper Cook I n I et as a who I e, i t is presumed for this discussion that such is adequate for making general statements for the Mat-Su Borough coastline. Of course, any truly site-specific needs must be fulfilled by more intensive examination of the forces in evidence at the location of interest. In the following section, the oceanographic and meteorologic setting of Upper Cook Inlet is described with attention to circulation patterns, bathymetry, and climatic conditions. Those factors that most influence the character of circulation, coastal climate, and sediment transport are also discussed. Those factors are wind, tides, local bathymetry, and geomorphology. Oceanic hazards of potential concern are also discussed, including ice, seismicity, and storm. Of the latter, ice in the inlet has the greatest potential for causing coastal erosion and coastal flooding. Oceanographic and Meteorologic Setting of the Upper Cook Inlet Circulation: Circulation and local tidal currents are important oceanographic factor5 in Cook Inlet. Circulation patterns prevalent throughout the entire inlet are governed primarily by interaction between tides, Coriolis force, and the counterclockwise Alaska Current. Locally generated tidal currents are influenced by the bathymetry, morphology and fresh water influx characteristics of Upper Cook Inlet. Tidal currents tend to control the character of inlet circulation. Local currents are produced by wind stress, fresh water influx and ordinary convective and advective processes. These local currents are smaller in magnitude than locally-generated tidal currents. Wind-driven currents can add approximately 2-3 percent of the wind speed to tidal current velocities in some localities (Gatto, 1976). Tides: Tides in the Upper Cook Inlet region are semi-diurnal in character. Tidal amplitudes are mixed, with two unequal high tides and two unequal low tides per tidal day (24 hours, 50 minutes). The mean diurnal tidal range varies from 13.7 ft. at the mouth of Cook Inlet to 29.6 ft. at the City of Anchorage, with maximum current speeds of about 3 knots. Flood currents occur more than 70 percent of the time (Gatto, 1976). Ebb currents are strong but have short duration. A large gyre develops in the region during the last half of ebb flow in Knik Arm, causing upstream flow along the east shore (Corps of Engineers, 1979). 88 Tides in Upper Cook Inlet are more dynamic, with extreme conditions producing currents of 4 knots, and sometimes 6 to 8 knots (Gatto, 1976). The funnel shape of Cook Inlet, coupled with exposure to the deep Pacific Ocean waters, permits the amplification that causes tidal ranges in the vicinity of Anchorage to rank among the largest in the world. Current velocities are more than a function of tidal range and phase. They are also influenced by local shore configuration, bottom geometry and possibly wind effects in some shallow areas. Strong tidal currents and inlet geometry produce considerable cross currents and turbulence within the water column. Bottom current speeds of 1.2 to 1.8 knots can be estimated from the formation of sand bottom waves i n the 0 mud f I ats (Howa rd, et a I . , 1972) . The high latitude (62 N) results in strong Coriolis force which, coupled with inlet geometry, causes considerable cross currents at both ebb and flood tides. Water flow is turbulent throughout -Fhe entire water column (Wagner et al., 1969). Bathymetry: Cook Inlet is a coastal plain estuary that is a shallow body of water extending inward from the ocean. Upper Cook Inlet begins at the West and East Forelands. The depths in the upper inlet are generally less than 120 feet. This area is characteristically defined as a shallow and narrow silt-laden basin. The inlet divides into two arms at its head called Knik and Turnagain Arms.. Knik Arm is 45 nautical miles long, approximately 50 feet deep for half its length, and then rapidly shallows to a large mud flat. Large areas of Knik Arm are exposed at low tide. Knik Arm and a segment of Upper Cook Inlet from the southern, and only, coastal boundary of the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management District. Sediment Transport: Cook Inlet bottom sediment consists predominantly of cobbles, pebbles, and sand with minor proportions of silt and clay. Suspended sediments are mostly of glacial original. The highest concentrations of sediment have been recorded near the mouths of Susitna and Knik Rivers. The Matanuska and Knik Rivers are glacier-fed rivers that transport large quantities of suspended sediment into Knik Arm. The average total suspended sediment for the Matanuska and Knik Rivers is approximately 16 mi I I ion tons for Apri I to September (months of highest sediment load) (Howard, et a I . p 1972) , wh i I e average I oad from October to March diminishes to 135,000 tons. The maximum daily suspended sediment load recorded for the Matanuska River is 1.3 mi I I ion tons, and 2.0 mi I I ion tons for Knik River (Howard, et al., 1972). 89 Approximately 10 mi I I ion tons of suspended sediment or 60 percent of the material entering Knik Arm leaves the area in the highly turbulent waters and in the density currents moving along the bed. The other 40 percent of the suspended material is presumed to be deposited in the Knik-Matanuska R I ver de I ta (Howard, et a I . , 1972) . The greatest influence on sediment distribution in Cook Inlet is attributed to tidal currents. Distribution and character of sediments in the forelands is also influenced by ice rafting and by rivers. Turbid fresh water discharging into the inlet, particularly from the north and west, produces extensive sediment plumes. During the summer months and particularly during large floods, large amounts of gravel can be transported by river currents (Wagner, et al., 1969). Climate: Meteorological conditions are modified by local geographic features. The Cook Inlet region is characterized by a transitional climatic zone. The Chugach Mountain Range blocks the maritime influence of Prince William Sound. The major river valleys of the Susitna, Copper, Matanuska, and Knik Rivers channel low-level movement of cold, dense air from ice field in the upper reaches of the Prince William Sound area. Storm tracks usually run to the northeast over Anchorage, while the predominant and most severe winds blow from the northeast (Howard, et al., 1972). Winds: Winds move loose materials and cause wind stress on the water, producing a wind tide-which promotes erosion by increasing the beach area that is exposed to wave action. Wind direction determines the initial direction of wave travel with bathymetric variation, capable of producing substantial alternation of wave direction and characteristics. These factors coupled with shorelike orientation., determine the direction of wave attack on the beach (Table 18). Winds in the Upper Cook Inlet region are generally moderate; however, they occasionally are very gusty during the winter months. Forty-two percent of the winds are northerly (NNW-NNE) while another 42 percent are southerly (SSW-SSE) (Table 18). High speed wiends occur throughout the basin when as atmospheric pressure gradient is established over the entire inlet. Average winds speeds are low. Prevailing winds in December and January are northerly and have the lowest average wind speed (Gatto, 1976). Southerly winds prevailing in May and June have the highest average speed.. Average daytime winds are approximately 10 to 20 percent greater than nighttime winds. Winds produced by cold air moving downsl.ope from highland glaciers through adjacent valleys occur occasionally and are called "katabatic" winds. These winds can be very strong when the temperature differences between the land and inlet water are greatest (Gatto, 1976). 90 Calculated Wave Characteristics for Three Proposed Bridge Sites (III, IV, V) in Knik Arm (Howard, et al., 1972). CROSSING I11TT 7r WIND (mph) North 60 60 60 South 45 45 45 LENGTH North 27.0 25.5 20.0 (miles) South 5.0 6.5 12.0 WIDTH North 4.3 4.8 5.0 FETCH (miles) South 2.2 2.8 3.0 Wid h North .167 -19 125 %ength South -A-4 .43 .25 North .37 .39 .45 YF -South .63 .62 .45 EFFECTIVE FETCH N a rth 10.0 9.9 9.0 (miles) South 3.1 4.0 5.4 SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT North 8.0 8.0 7.8 (feet) South 5.0 5.8 6.3 MAXIMUM WAVE HEIGHT North 15.0 1 15.0 14.6 (feet) South. 9.4 j 10.8 11.8 MINIMUM TIME TO DEVELOP No rth 1.50 1.50 1.36 MAXIM LIM WAVE (hours) South 0.72 1 0.88 1.01 Note: Wave calculations are based on data from Shore Protection Planning and design", U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Technical Report No. 4, 1966, ASCE Transactions, 1959, and other sources. Some values indicated in tabulations are shown to one or two decimal places for continuity of calculations. For the purpose of this study suc@ ac- curacy is not warranted and in fact the dote should not be interpreted to represent more than a preliminary approximation. 91 TABLE 18 A strong gusty north wind called "Matanuska" may persist for 2 or 3 days at speeds of 20 to 45 mph. Wind speed can reach 40 to 60 mph for 6 hours or more, with short duration gusts of 80 to 90 mph. Strong northerly winds occur several times each winter originating in a rapidly increasing pressure gradient between the Gulf of Alaska and interior of the State. These winds start as low-level air movement from the Copper River Basin, moving westward through the Matanuska River Val ley, turning southward near the Palmer area, and then flowing down Cook Inlet (Figure 7). Southeast w i nds f I ow i ng over the Ch ugach Range a re ca I led "Knik Winds" when they blow across Knik Glacier and "Turnagain Winds" when they blow across Turnagain Arm (Figure 7) (Howard, et al., 1972). Wind speeds of 100 mph have been recorded at the west base of Chugach Mountain valleys (Eagle River, Peters Creek, Ship Creek) (Howard et al., 1972). These speeds diminish rapidly as the winds spreads over the flat land and Knik Arm. A maximum speed of 51 mph for the 19-year period, 1941 to 1959, was recorded at the Elmendorf weather station (Howard, et al., 9172). Anchorage weather bureau data show that 80 to 90 mph winds are capable of forming over the Knik Arm due to the lack of obstructions (Figure 7) (Howard, et al., 1972). Oceanic Hazards Ice: The highest concentrations of sea ice are formed north of the Forelands in Upper Cook Inlet and in the western portion of the Lower Cook Inlet. Several different types of ice are found, including sea ice, beach ice, stamukas, and estuary and river ice. Sea ice is formed by freezing of a thin crust on the surface of oceanic water. Each successive layer is formed on the bottom of the surface layer, building to thicknesses of as much as 8 feet thick and cover i ng 3 to 4 tenths of the i n I et (Howard, et a I , 1972). Sea ice is more abundant in Cook Inlet than the other types of ice listed above. Two forms of sea ice, f Ice ice and block ice are the most prevalent forms of ice found in this area. The movement of block ice and f loes in Upper Cook Inlet is control led by wind forces and tidal currents. Tides provide the major motivating force moving ice in Cook Inlet, but wind direction and duration can exert great control on the seaward migration of f loes. Ice in the Upper Cook Inlet area moves seaward primarily due to prevailing winter winds which blow SSW down Knik and Turnagain Arms. Occasionally, ice held in Knik Arm is pushed out of the Arm within a 24 hours period by winds. 92 Typical wind patterns potentially affecting the c oastline of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management District to A fflA, I,- i f fto C, ----------- I.k, j K .. M,L -Noustan 0- VAI,. Lco MUM A A 0 Pf, ka? :P4 -.W&*si I I a Four t..b PA Orners L ALA -7 1,1c@ RAIL L,4 Lwrvr@b All I & zzl- All, gg D @Iffllb PARk.", Al, T-r -7 0 RAI ".Rt@ICAI a- LA A 0 -- .70 L OR @1. ON i M a 0 Large f I oes a re not f ormed i n Kn i k Arm because of the I arge tidal currents and eddies. currents and eddies are also responsible for breaking up any floes that are carried into Turnagain Arm from Cook Inlet. Flood tides pick up the sheet ice, break it into small pieces, and deposit on the flats with some pieces stacked on top of others. High tides pick up these cakes of ice and carry them to midstream where current velocities are maximum. In midchannel, the cakes of ice are broken up and reconsolidated to form the floe or float ice. Ebbing tides carry floe ice south to the channel constriction at the Forelands. For the most part, f loe travel is restricted to Upper Cook Inlet, although some do travel as far south as Ninilchik and Anchor Point. Most ice blocks are formed as shore-fast ice or are built up on the periodically flooded mud flats in Upper Knik and Turnagain Arms. Ice blocks arp formed over a shoreline area exposed at lower tide levels. The ice block increases in size by successive coating of ice during each tide cycle. The thermal balance of heat transfer into the atmosphere during low tide exposure, and heat flow into the soil from the warmer tidal water during high tide, control the depth of ice formations. Shoal areas at an elevation higher than the heat-balance zone are covered with solid ice. Higher current speeds tend to retard ice formation by altering heat flow and erosion.rates. Beach I ce f orms on the mud f I ats when the ebb I ng t i de exposed the mud to cc I d a i r, caus i ng the upper I ayer of mud to freeze. Water over I y i ng the f rozen mud f reezes on f I ood tide. Beach i ce i s eventua I I y pu I I ed away f rom the mud and carried out into the inlet, thereby assuming the character of sea ice. Stamukas are stacks of layered ice, sometimes referred to as ice cakes, that have been beached and frozen to the mud flats in Cook Inlet. Ice floes contribute to the formation of these ice cakes. Ice f I oes become I odged on top of stamukas when the tide recedes. Overhanging pieces break off and produce ice cakes as great as 20 feet thick (Hutcheon, 1972). Estuary and river ice are produced by freezing of fresh water. Estuary ice is a thin crust of ice that f orms over mud f I ats and sha I I ows. River ice forms over shallows and shoals and remains in the rivers until spring breakup. River ice as thick as 6 to 7 feet is discharged in large quantities into the Upper Cook Inlet at breakup (Hutcheon, 1972). Climatological conditions in the Port MacKenzie area generally product about two and one-hal f feetof floe ice during the ice season. However, the mean f I oe s i ze f or a 100-year recurrence period is three and one-half feet (ESL, 1978). Any floes forming or being carried into Cook 94 Inlet are broken up by large tidal variations and currents. Occasionally, floes reach 1000 feet in diameter. Ice coverage for the entire Cook Inlet reaches a maximum 30 to 40 percent (ESL, 1978). Seismicity: The highly active Alaska seismic zone extends from Fairbanks in the interior to the Gulf of Alaska, thus encompassing the Cook Inlet region. Some of the greatest tectonic events in recorded history have occurred within this zone. Earthquake activity attributed to tectonic fracturing and displacement of the earth (faulting) begins when energy stored in crustal rocks reaches its maximum strain accumulation. Uplifting and subsidence of the ocean f loor may result, producing long ocean waves called "tsunamis". Landslides and ava I anches can also occur and can produce standing waves. called 11seiches" in adjacent water bodies. These phenomena are hazards of oceanic origin warranting consideration in the identification of areas susceptible to wave-induced coastal erosion. Both tsunami and seiche contribute to the occurrence of major coastal erosion and coastal flooding. Storms: Storms are another hazard of oceanic origin that contribute to coastal erosion. Storm winds produce 11sea waves" of significant height and intensity of which are capable of eroding and significantly altering beach formations. Identification of areas that are highly susceptible to sea wave induced coastal erosion is also necessary. Shorelines composed of loose gravel and fine-grained sand are generally vulnerable to significant wave damage, whereas, rocky headlands and high sea cliffs are not. Storm waves in Cook Inlet seldom exceed four feet (Plafker, 1972). 95 GeoQhysical Hazards Glossary Advective process: Heat transfer by the horizontal motion of air. Alluvial fan: A cone-shaped deposit of alluvium made by a stream where it runs out onto a level plain or meets a slower stream. The fans generally form where streams issue from mountains upon the lowland. Andestic composition: Andesite - a type of volcanic rock composed essentially of andesine, a mineral containing sodium, calcium, aluminum, silicon and oxygen. Arcuate fault system: Curved pattern defined by the surface expression of the faults. Bathymetry: Study of the variation of depth of large water bodies. Convective process: The molecular transfer of heat, density, or other fluid properties resulting from spacial variations in the property. Drumlin: A streamlined hill or ridge of glacial drift with long axis paralleling direction of flow of former glacier. Eolian: Applied to deposits arranged by the wind, as the sands and other loose materials along shores, etc. Fluted ridge: Smooth gutterlike channels or deep smooth furrows worn in the face of ridges by glacial action. Fluvial: Of, found in, or produced by a river. Geomorphology: Study of the formation of the earth's topographic features. Glaciolacustrine: Produced by or belonging to glacially formed lakes. Glowing avalanche: A volcanic eruption feature; it is a highly heated mass of gas-charged lava which flows swiftly down a slope however slight the incline, by virture of its extreme mobility and propelled by gravity. Gyre: A circular or spiral form, ring or vortex. Icings: Ice masses formed by the freezing of continuous or periodic water overflow on a surface. 96 Lacustrine: 'Produced by or belonging to lakes. Lineaments: Significant lines of landscapes which reveal the hidden architecture of the rock basement; they are structurally controlled. Megathrust: Large scale thrust fault; thrust fault is a type of reverse fault in which the angle of dip of the fault plane is less than 45 degrees. Paludal: Pertaining to swamps or marshes, and to deposits deposited in a sviamp environment. Periglacial: Refers to areas, conditions, processes, and deposits adjacent to the margin of a glacier. Semi-diurnal tide: Tide that completes a full cycle twice per day; two high tides and two low tides are thus experienced each day. Stamukas: Stacks of layered ice that have been beached and frozen to the beach; also referred to as ice cakes. Subduction zone: Subduction: The dragging down or sinking into the mantle of the leading edge of a crustal plate. Till: Nonsorted, nonstratified sediment carried or deposited by a glacier. 97 HUMAN AND CULTURAL RESOURCES The first substantial settlement of the Mat-Su Valley region of Alaska occurred in 1935 with the formation of the Matanuska Valley colony. A group of approximtaely 200 families, primarily of Scandanavian descent, were relocated in the Mat-Su Valley from the depression and drought-stricken Midwest. The intent of the federal relocation program was to determine the feasibility of establishing a self-sustaining agricultural community in Alaska. For over twenty years, a farmers cooperative served as the nucleus for social, political, and economic development of the agriculturally dominant Mat-Su Valley region. Throughout the later half of the 1960's agricultural output began to fade. High competition, production costs, etc., have significantly reduced the amount of agricultural activity in the Borough to levels well below the peak years attained in the early sixties (Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1980). Despite the downturn in agriculture, the Mat-Su Borough population has increased 175.6 percent from 1970 to 1980 (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1981); housing and economic growth were equally rapid. This was largely due to the presence of the trans-Alaska pipeline project. The years following the pipeline have been characterized by high unemployment. In January 1980, Mat-Su Borough's 19.9 percent unemployment rate was rated the highest in the State; this trend continues (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). Over 37 percent of the Mat-Su labor force has sought employment in Anchorage (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). The Mat-Su region is rich in natural resources, e.g., agricultural lands, timber, mineral resources (especial ly coal), but with the notable exception of tourist-related resources (lakes, marshes, wildlife areas), they do not figure prominently in the overall economy. The majority of the regional economy is based upon construction, retain trade, and tourist-related services. The Borough is unable to provide complete services with the revenue it receives in the form of property taxes from its residents. Over 64 percent of the Borough's revenue is derived from State and federal sources. This is due, in part, to the nature of the tax base (90 percent residential, and only 10 percent commercial or industrial) and the high cost of maintaining public schools which demand 80 percent of the Borough budget. 98 The Matanuska-Susitna Borough is a second class borough; within its jurisdiction are three incorporated cities: Palmer (first class city), Wasilla (second class city), and Houston (second class city). There are eleven unincorporated communities within the Borough. They are: Wi I I ow, Big Lake, Kn i k, Butte, Ta I keetna, Trappers Creek, Montana, Sutton, Chickaloon, Eureka, and Lake Louise. The remainder of the Borough's communities are considered unincorporated areas. Examples of unincorporated areas in the Borough include Point MacKenzie and Willow. The Point MacKenzie area, by virtue of its geographical location and potential as a deep water port, represents an area in which a great deal of industrial develo 'pment is expected i n the future. Willow was selected by Alaskan voters in 1974 to be the site of the new State capital. The anticipated move has met with a great deal of political controversy and delay resulting in much land and business speculation. In one year, there were 60 businesses which failed in the Willow area alone. POPULATION Distribution Approximately 90 percent of the population of Mat-Su Borough is located within a 12.5 mile radius of Wasilla (Mat-Su Bor., 1978). Table 19 indicates the population distribution for the Borough in 1970 and 1980; locations of Census Bureau Enumeration Districts (ED) are displayed.in Figure 8. The area between Palmer and Wasilla is relatively developed; the roads form a network over the many subdivisions from the foot of the Talkeetna Mountains to the Knik/Matanuska floodplain. The remaining ten percent of the populus is located in small communities or dispersed a-long highways, railroads, near mines, or -unique natural or man-made features (Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1978). Growth Since 1970, population growth in the Borough has averaged nearly 18 percent per year. During construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline in the early seventies, Anchorage and Fairbanks were major staging areas. Due to its proximity to Anchorage, population in Mat-Su Borough grew in similarly explosive proportions. From 1970 to 1975, population in Mat-Su Borough grew over 69 percent, from 6,509 to 11,039. 99 Table 19: Population Distribution in Mat-Su Borough 1970-80 (Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Advance Counts). AREA 1970 1980 % CHANGE Matanuska-Susitna Borough 6,509 17,938 175.6 Alexander Creek -- 11 -- Big Lake (CDP) 36 412 3044.4 Bodenburg Butte (CDP) 448 982 119.2 chickaloon (CDP) 22 20 -9.1 Chulitna (CDP) 1 -- curry (CDP) 2 Denali (CDP) 3 -- Houston (City) 69 393 469.6 Knik (CDP) -- 10 -- montana (CDP) 33 40 21.2 Palmer (City) 1,140 2,143 88.0 Peters Creek North (CDP) -- 9 -- Petersville (CDP) 0 Skwetna (CDP) 22 -- Summit (CDP) 34 0 -100.0 Susitna (CDP) -- 0 -- Talkeetna (CDP) 182 265 45.6 Wasilla (City) 300 1,548 416.0 Willow (CDP) 38 134 252.6 ED 1152 -- 17 ED 1153 5 ED 1154' 22 ED 1155 22 ED 1156 13 ED 1157 12 ED 1158 156 ED 1159 385 ED 1160 117 ED 1161 25 ED 1162 221 ED 1163 22 ED 13@64 113 ED 1165 145 ED 1166 443 ED 1167 2,968 ED 1168 4,224 ED 1169 1,424 ED 1170 187 ED 1171 823 ED 1172 291 ED 1173 27 ED 1174 5 ED 1175 15 ED 1176 48 ED 1177 31 100 TABLE 19 Fiqure 8: Location of Enumeration Districts in Mat-Su Borough (Source: Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Inc., Planning Cornmission.) D 1152 [DII54 10 11113 ........ .. ED 1153% v . to 1156 go 1,157 CF T 142 V % ED 1177 ED 11;3 go Its NT d 'C6 wv" J) 1171%-.. a t DI-I 74.*1, L- two I it, .4E A ED 1164 lip '01 FIGURE 8. 101 Table 20: Comparative Population Growth (Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Advance Counts). BOROUGH/CENSUS AREA 1970 1980 % Change MAtanuska-Susitna Borough 6,509 17,938 175.6 Alaska (State) 302,583 400,481 32.4 Aleutian Islands Census Area 7,768 Anchorage Borough 126,385 173,017 36.9 Bethel Census Area 10,999 Bristol Bay Borough 1,147 1,094 -4.6 Dillingham Census Area 4,616 Fairbanks North Star Borough 45,854 53,983 17.7 Haines Borough 1,680 Juneau Borough 13,556 19,528 44.1 Kenai Peninsula Borough 25,282 Ketchikon Gateway Borough 10,041 11,316 12.7 Kobuk Census Area ..41434 4,831 9.0 Kodiak Island Borough 9,409 9,939 5.6 Nome Census Area 5,749 61537 13.7 North Slope Borough 4,199 Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikon CA 3,822 Sitka Borough 7,803 Skagway-Yakutat-Angoon Census Area 3,478 Southeast Fairbanks Census Area 5,770 Valdez-Cordova Census Area 8,348 Wade Hampton Census Area 3,917 4,665 19.1 Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area 6,167 Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 7,873 TABLE 20. 102 New in-migration accounted for 54.9 percent of this growth (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1973). The 1980 Mat-Su population is 17,938, an increase of 175.6 percent over the 1970 figure, 62.5 percent over the 1975 figure (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1981). As Table 19 indicates, the 175.6 percent overall increase does not reflect the enormous proportionate growth that some communities have experienced over the ten-year period, e.g., Big Lake, Houston, Wasilla, Willow. Population growth in Mat-Su Borough and the State stabilized during the years immediately following the completion of the construction phase of the pipeline. It has since begun to grow more rapidly, though not at the rates characteristic of the pipeline "boom." Table 20 compares the ten-year growth of Mat-Su Borough to other boroughs and census areas in Alaska. Clearly, Mat-Su has experienced the highest growth rate of all other boroughs or census areas. In 1980, Mat-Su Borough contained approximately 4.5 percent of the total population of Alaska, ranking 5th of 23 boroughs and census areas (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1981). Demographic Data The Matanuska-Susitna Borough is predominantly white, with a small Indian/Eskimo/Aleut population and very small black and Asian/Pacific Islander populations, (Table 21). Table 21: Mat-Su Borough & Alaska by Race/hthnic_,BtcKground--1980 (Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1980 Advance Counts 1981.) REGION TOTAL WHITE BLACK AM. INDIAN ASIAN OTHER SPAN) ESKIMO, ALEUT PACIF. ISL. ORIGIN Alaska 400,481 308,455 13,619 64,047 8,035 6,325 9 497 (77.0%) (3.4%) (16.0%) (2.0%) (1.6%) (@. 4%)l Mat-Su Borough 17,766 16,796 82 684 63 141 225 (94.5%) (0.5%) (3.9%) (0.4%) (0.8%) (1.3%) Houston 370 347 2 15 4 2 12 (93.8%) (0.5%) (4.1%) (1. 1 %) (0.5%) (3.2%) Palmer 2,141 1,998 40 75 11 17 40 (93.3%) (1.9%) (3.5%) (0.5%) (0.8%) 0 .9%)l wasilla 1,559 1,466 6 74 4 9 22 (94.0%)- (0.4%) (4.7%) (0.3%) (0.6%) 1.4%) TABLE 21 103 The racial/ethnic mix has not changed appreciably since 1970. The proportion of whites in the population has increased slightly, about 3.3 percent (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1978). In 1976, approximately 61 percent of the population was 19 years of. age or older, 39 percent 18 years or younger (Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1978). According to a housing study completed in 1980, the average age was 33. The same study showed the average respondent to have 13 years of formal education, and the male/femaie ratio to be approximately 1.03 males/female. Of the respondents 17 Years of age -and older, 80.8 percent were married, 12 percent were single, 4.8 percent divorced, 1.6 percent widowed, and 0.7 percent separated (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). ECONOMY Regional Economic Climate By virtue of its proximity to Anchorage, the Mat-Su Borough has realized much of the economic growth of that city. The five year period from 1972 through 1977 saw retail and wholesale sales, construction, etc., growing in great proportions at the State level (Table 22), and the Borough level (Table 23). Since the completion of the trans-Alaska pipeline, the economy of Mat-Su Borough has been characterized by business failure, high unemployment, and high cost of living. Unemployment is due largely to a mis-match between supply and demand for labor skill, a consequence in part due to the reduced demand for particular skills associated with p i pe I i ne construct i on. Some bus i ness f a i I ures are re I ated to the standstill of housing construction which resulted from the cessation of State housing funds. Other business failures are attributed to speculation in anticipation of a long-delayed decision involving the movement of the State capital to Willow. Additionally, high interest rates and lack of capital have inhibited many new business upstarts. At the present time, the Borough's tax revenues are not sufficient to pay for Borough services, n.or are tax revenues increasing at an appreciable rate (OEDP, Vol. 1, 1980). A large portion of the Mat-Su economic base is construction, retain trade, and tourist-related services, (Tables 24 and 25). Resources such as agriculture, minerals, and timber currently play a relatively small role in the overall economy. Wasi I la contains the largest number of business establishments, with Palmer being second (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). 104 Table 22: ALASKA: Retail Sales 1972-77 (Millions of 5) (Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, City & County Data Book, 1977. (1978 Adapted.) Establishment 1972 1977 %Change Building Materials, hardware 63 150 138.4 % garden supply, mobile home General merchandise group stores 114 227 99.6 Food Stores 175 427 144.5 Automotive Dealers 101 241 138.3 Gasoline Service Stations 53 103 93.1 Apparel and Accessory Stores 29 69 135.2 Furniture, home furnishings, and 23 59 152.0 equipment stores Eating and Drinking places 87 254 192.1 Drug and propriety stores 33 80 143.7 misc. Retail Stores 92 221 141.8 Table 23: MAT-SU: Retail Sales 1972-77 TABLE 22- .(Source: OEDP, Vol. 11, P. 216) - Current Dollar Valise of Sale-i % Channe It Change "Real" Value of Sales.** in "Re a[" 1972 1977 in Sales Vol. J(1967=100)($1,00ols)l Sales Vol. ($1,000's) ($1,000's) 1972-1977 1972/CPI 1977/CPI 1972-1977 Total Sales $13,168 $34,020 158 $11,362 $19,S29 72 Building Materials, Hard- ware, Garden Supplies, Mobile Home Dealers 73R 2,02 232 637 1,4(18 121 General Merchandise Group Stores 1,584* 2,539* 60 1,3fi7 1,4101 7 Food Stores 2,832 8,732* 208 2,443 5,012 105 Automotive Dedlers 893* - 3,435 285 771) 1.972 156 Gdsuline Service Stations 2.680 4,804 79 2,312 2,158 19 Apparel and Accessory Stores log (D) 94 --- ... Furniture, Home Furnish- Ings 131* 347 165 113 199 76 Eating and Drinking Places 1,835 4,022 119 1,533 1,1114 46 Orug Stores and Proprietdry Stores 265* 1,455* 449 229 835 26") Miscellaneous Retail Stores 1,779 4,281 141 I,S@15 2,458 60 TABLE 23 105 Table 24 Business Type & Location-Mat-Su Borough, 3/80 (Source: OEDP, Vol. II, p. 19, 20, 21 ) Standard Industrial Classification Number i Big Lake Houston Palmer Class Unknown 4 16 1 97 AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND FISHERIES Agricultural Production- crops 4 Agricultural Production - Livestock 8 Agricultural Services 8 Forestry 2 1 Fishing. Hunting. 'And Trapping 1 1 MINING mining I Nonmetallic Minerals. Except Fuels I CONSTRUCTION General Building Contractors 1 14 2 31 3 Heavy Construction Contractors 1 2 1 Special Trade Contractors 17 3 34 1 59 1 MANUFACTURING Food and Kindred Products 2 Apparel and Other Textile Products I Lumber and Wood Products 3 3 Furniture and Fixtures 1 3 Printing and Publishing I Petroleum and Coal Products I Leather and Leather Products I Stone.Clay and Glass Products 1 2 1 2 Fabricated Metal Products 6 Transportation Equipment 2 Instruments and Related Products I Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries I TRANSPORTATION AND-PUBLIC UTILITIES Local and Inter-urban Passenger Transit I Trucking Ind Warehousing 2 1 U.S. Postal Service 1 1 Water Transportation 2 Transportation by Air 6 3 4 Transportation Services 4 Communication 1 3 2 Electric. Gas. and Sanitary Services 4 1 WHOLESALE TRADE Wholesale Trade Durable Goods 6 wholesale Trade Nondurable Goods 5 RETAIL TRADE Building Materials and Garden Supplies 3 8 4 3 General Merchandise Stores 1 4 1 1 Food Stores 3 5 3 1 Automotive Dealers and Service Stations 7 1 14 2 5 Apparel and Accessory Stores 5 Furniture arid Home Furnishing Stores 1 Eating and Drinking Places 5 1 22 7 5 Miscellaneous Retail 6 22 1 3 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE Banking 4 1 3 1 Credit Agencies Other than Banks 3 1 Security Commodity Brokers and Services I Insurance Carriers 2 Insurance Agents. Brokers & Service 1 3 Real Estate 1 11 1 27 2 Holding and Other Investment Offices 1 2 .SERVICES Hotels and Other Lodging Places 4 4 4 4 Personal Services 2 23 12 1 Business Services 5 29 Auto Repair, Services and Garages 2 20 8 1 Miscellaneous Repair Services 4 1 12 Notion Pictures I Amusement and Recreation&] Services 2 2 2 2 Health Services 21 21 Legal Services 1 7 7 Educational Services 6 5 1 1 Social Services 1 3 Museums, Botanical, Zoological Gardens I I Membership Organizations 1 4 1 6 0q1 Miscellaneous Services 2 20 1 22 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Executive. Legislative and General I I Justice, Public Order and Safety 5 1 Administration of Human Resources 3 4 Environmental Quality and Housing 2 Administration of Economic Programs 1 2 National Security and International Affairs 68q@ABLE 24. NONCLASSIFIABLE ESTABLISHMENTS Nonclassifiable Establishments 106 3 1 74 9 374 51 494 38 Table 25: Gross Business Receipts--Mat-Su Borough, 3/80 (Source: OEDP, Vol. II, p. 30-32) Standard Industrial Classification Gross Business Receipts mat-bu Borough Ka t -87u- Description Palmer Excluding Pal., Borough Class Unknown, 780.189 780,189 AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND FISHERIES Agricultural Production Crops 138,543 138,543 Agricultural Services 79.938 302.641 382,579 Fishing, Hunting. and Trapping 675 675 MINING FT -and Gas Extraction 644,188 644,188 CONSTRUCTION General Building Contractors 1,109,617 6,637.279 7.746,896 Heavy Construction Contractors 223,482 7.745,989 7,9.471 Special Trade Contractors 2,172,247 7.929.961 10.102,208 MANUFACTURING Food and Kindred Products 898,459 898,459 Lumber and Wood Products 372,360 372,360 Furniture and Fixtures 89,823 89,823 Printing and Publishing 323,171 101,786 424,957 Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastic Products 106,117 106,117 Stone. Clay, and Glass Products 35,894 219,442 255,336 lustries 33,567 33.567 Machinery, Except Electrical 326 326 Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries 82,145 82,145 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES Trucking and Warehousing 60,590 362.185 422,775 Water Transportation 635,079 635,079 Transportation by Air 63.314 529,963 593,277 Pipelines, Except Natural Gas S4 54 Transportation services 63,82 63.827 .Communication 856,501 210,974 1,067.475 Electric. Gas, and Sanitary Services 30,936 30,936 WHOLESALE TRADE Wholesale Trade - Durable Goods 1,444,212 12,357 1.456,569 Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods 19,303 39371,391 3.390,694 RETAIL GOODS Building materials and Garden Supplies 1,194,878 3,419,550 4.514,428 General Merchandise Store 3,550,716 599,568 4.150,684 Food Stores 3,729,951 477.224 4.207,175 Auto Dealers and Service Stations 39439.549 7.013,015 10.452,564 Apparel and Accessory Stores 1111698 111,698 Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores 113,490 113,490 Eating and Drinking Places 951,738 1.317,947 2.269,685 Miscellaneous Retail 4,002,368 2,163,759 6.166,127 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE Credit Agencies Other Than Banks 163,378 Real Estate 790,914 2,858,651 163,378 94,165 3.649,565 SERVICES Hotels and Other Lodging Places 251.607 1.859,737 2.111,344 Personal Services 198.748 123,987 322,735 Business Services 1,0179261 810,622 1.827.883 Auto Repair, Services & Garages 242,975 647,279 $90,254 Miscellaneous Repair Services 153.312 451,344 604,656 Amusement and Recreational Services 125,955 155,234 281.189 Health Services 253,532 743,689 997,221 Legal Services 190,843 186,095 376,938 Educational Services 3,546 3,546 Social Services 40,252 21,119 61,371 Museums. Botanical, Zoological Gardens 686 686 Membership Organizations 112.350 112,350 Miscellaneous Services 205,814 586,026 791,840 NONCLASSIFIABLE ESTABLISHMENTS Nonclassifiable Establishments 19,500 19,500 28,824.970 53.263,027 82.087,997 TABLE 25 107 Proposed development action for the future centers around Point MacKenzie. The area is resource rich and transportation access potentials are high. Significant support has been demonstrated for the development of a major port facility and industrial park at Point MacKenzie. Employment Unemployment: The Mat-Su Borough has the highest unemployment rate of all boroughs in Alaska; in January of 1980, the Mat-Su Borough had an unemployment rate of 19.9 percent. Fairbanks was second with a rate of 13.5 percent. From 1975 through 1980, the Mat-Su Borough unemployment rate averaged 5.8 percentage points above the State average, and twice the Anchorage Division rate (Table 26) (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). Table 26: Comparative UnemployMent Statistics 1975-1979 (Source: OEDP, Vol. II, p. 196, Adapted.) Year Civilian Labor Force Total EInployed Unemployed Rate Anchorage Rate State Rate (MAT-SU) 1975 4,784 4,253 531 11.1 5.9 6.9 1976 5:51111 4,777 all 14.5 7.0 8.4 1977 6 741 5,746 995 14.8 7.1 9.2 1978 7,532 6,211 1,321 17.5 8.3 11.0 1979 7,424 6,262 1,162 15.7 7.0 8.9 TABLE 26 Following completion of the Alaska pipeline, unemployment. has been a major problem in the Mat-Su Borough. Many workers have since sought employment in Anchorage while still living in the Mat-Su Borough. In 1970, 20 percent of the Borough labor force commuted to Anchorage; today the figure stands near 37 percent, nearly double the 1970 figures (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1930). In late 1979, 13 of 14 workers in the Anchorage--Mat-Su labor force were from Anchorage, yet I of 6 unemployed workers was from Mat-Su Borough (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). The unemployment rate for whites, blacks, and Spanish-speaking people is roughly the same Statewide and in Anchorage; the unemployment rate for the group including American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians and Pacific Islanders is over twice that for other groups, (Table 27). 108 Unemployment in the Borough experiences regular seasonal fluctuations. Unemployment is lowest between May and October as the summer months represent the tourist season; during the winter months, unemployment has been as high as 20 percent (January 1976 and 1979), (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). Table27: Unemployment Breakdown by Race--1978 (Source: OEDP, Vol. 11, p. 62. Adapted.) Race Unemployment Rate Anchorage Alaska White 9.6% 3.0% Black 11.1 6.8 American Indian, 22.9 14.3 Alaska Native, Asian, and Pacific Islander Spanish Speaking 8.7 8.6 AVERAGE 11.1- 8.3 TABLE 27 Much of the unemployment problem of the region is explained by a mis-match of labor supply and demand. Accord i ng to the State job service center, the years following the completion of the trans-Alaska pipeline saw a surplus of job applicants for occupations for which a great pipeline-period demand had significantly tailed off. There is also a surplus of applicants with I i rrri ted s k i I I s. Conversely, there is a surplus of openings among jobs requiring highly specialized ski I Is. I n December 1979, the Mat-Su Borough Emp I oyment Center i n Was I I I a reported a surp I us of open i ngs f or cab I e sp I i cers, cosmeto I og i sts/ha i rdressers, eng i neers, helicopter pilots, and programmers; a surplus of applicants was reported for heavy equipment operators, general laborers, carpenters, and clerical workers (OEDP, Vol . I I , 1980). Tab I e 28 1 nd i cates the rat I o of app I i cants to job openings in 1979. Note that the overall ratio for the Mat-Su Borough is significantly higher than that for the State and Anchorage. Job Participation: Table 29 displays an Alaska Department of Labor breakdown of job participation in Mat-Su Borough for July 1978 through June 1979. Excluded is agricultural employment, self-employment, domestic household employment, unpaid family employment, striking workers, and Mat-Su Borough residents working in Anchorage. 109 Table 28: Ratio of Applicants to Job Openings--1979 (Source: OEDP, Vol. 11, p. 57-58. Adapted) OCCUPATION STATE ANCHORAGE MAT-SU Professional, Technical 8.4 12.5 6.9 Clerical & Sales 4.5 4.3 6.9 Services 3.7 3.3 7.8 Farming, Forestry, Fishery 1.5 0.9 1.3 Processing 2.3 3.1 29.0 Machine Trades 16.2 10.8 43.0 Bench Work 6.5 4.5 --- Structural Work 5.3 5.4 6.5 Misc. 4.7 3.2 27.4 TOTAL 4.6 4.3 7.1 TABLE 28 Table 29: Employment by Industry in Mat-Su Borough 7/78 - 6/79 (Source: OEDP, Vol. 11, p. 56. Adapted.) INDUSTRY WORKERS % OF TOTAL Mining -- -- Construction 212 7.0 Manufacturing -- -- Trans portat ion, Communication, Utilities 317 10.5 Wholesale Trade 50 1.7 Retail Trade 632 20.9 Finance, Insurance, Realty 135 4.5 Services 400 13.2 State & Local Government 1,101 36.4 Misc. -- -- TOTAL: 3,021 TABLE 29. Table 30 is based on a 1980 housing survey completed on 784 respondents in nine Mat-Su Borough communities and indicates job participation differences across the nine communities. 110 Tab I e 30: EmploMent by Industry in Mat@Su Communities--1980 (Source: OEDP, Vol. ii, p. 175. Adapted.) NORTH OF IND MINE MAT-SU NUMBER OF -WILLOW WILLOW HOUSTON BIG LAKE KNIX HASILLA PAL14ER BUTTE -SUTTON BOROUGH RESPONDENTS AGRIC/FISHING 0 2.6 0 1.8 2.4 0.9 4.2 5.7 0 2.4 19 MINING 0 13.2 15.8 0 0 6.6 4.7 4.3 11.1 5.6 44 CONSTRUCTION 23.1 7.9 26.3 16.4 7.3 19.6 12.7 14.3 16.7 15.9 12: MANUFACTURE 0 0 5.3 1.8 4.9 2.8 1.9 1.4 5.6 2.4 1 TRANS/UTIL/COM 7.7@ 10.5 10.5 20.0 14.6 8.8 11.3 12.9 11.1 11.1 87 WHOLE TRADE a 2.6 0 1.8 9.8 3.5 1.9 2.9 0 2.9 23 RETAIL TRADE 7.7 7.9 5.3 23.6 14.6 11.4 8.5 12.9 11.1 11.4 89 FIRE 0 2.6 5.3 7.3 4.9 5.7 3.8 1.4 11.1 4.7 37 PROF. SERVICES 0 13.2 -0 10.9 9.0 9.1 12.7 7.1 5.6 9.8 77 OTHER SERVICES 46.2 7.9 5.3 3.6 9.8 7.6 11.3 8.6 5.6 9.1 71 EDUCATION 7.7 13.2 10.5 3.6 0 12.3 8.5 4.3 11.1 9.2 72 FEDERAL GOVT 0 7.9 0 1.8 19.5 5.4 6.1 12.9 0 6.5 51 STATE GOVT 0 5.3 10.5 3.6 2.4 3.5 7.5 1.0 5.6 5.4 42 LOCAL GOVT 7.7 5.3 5.3 3.6 0 2.8 5.2 1.4 S.6 3.6 28 TABLE 30 Tab I e 31 Place of Em2loyment for Mat-Su Residents By Community (1980) (Source: OEDP, Vol. II, p. 173) COMMUNITY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT W Local Rest of Borough Anchorage Elsewhere North of Willow 83 % 0 % 8 % 8 % Willow 46 22 14 19 Houston 21 53 5 21 Big Lake 27 so 13 10 Knik 48 5 36 12 Wasilla 46 13 29 12 Palmer 57 12 21 11 Butte 45 12 31 12 Independence mine-Sutton 36 21 14 29 MAT-SU BOROUGH 47.2 16.1 24.2 12.5 TABLE 31 Location of Employment: In 1980, approximately 37 percent of the Mat-Su workers commuted to and worked in Anchorage. Table 31 indicates the place of employment for 9 Mat-Su communities. Income Table 32 gives per capita income for the Mat-Su Borough, 1970 through 1979. Tables 33 and 34 indicate relative distribution of income in the Borough, based on a housing survey. Following completion of the trans-Alaska pipeline construction, annual (per cap.) income fell steadily; from 1977 to 1978, annual per capita income fell from $9,032 to $8,803. Table 35 compares Mat-Su income to the rest of the United States; the presence of the pipeline clearly increased the ratio of Mat-Su income to U.S. income, from 0.95 (1969) to a peak of 1.38 in 1975. The ratio, although much lower at present, is stil I significantly higher than the p re-p i pe I i ne per i od (OEDP, Vo I . 11, 1980). 1 n 1978, Mat-Su income per worker was lower than that for both Anchorage and the State as $1,377 per month per worker. That year average income per worker was $1,599 per month in Anchorage and $1,595 for the State (OEDP, Vol. 1, 1980). Table 36 gives entry wages for selected occupations statewide, in Anchorage, and in CETA Planning Region V which includes the Mat-Su Borough, the Anchorage Division, and part of the Aleutian Islands. Table 32: Mat-Su Borough Income, 1970-1979 (Source: OEDP, Vol. II, p. 212) Total Real Personal Income Income % Channe Income Popu- Per CPI_ Per in Peal Year ($ Millions) lation @a@ Anchorage Capita" Income 1970 $26.4 6,509 $4,056 109.6 $3,701 1971 31.5 7,293 4,319 112.9 3,826 3.4 1972 36.3 8,310 4,368 115.9 3,769 (1.5) 1973 43.7 8,586 5,090 120.8 4,213 11.8 1974 57.7 9,787 5,896 133.9 4,403 4.5 1975 88.2 12,462 7,078 152.3 4,647 5.5 1976 113.9 14,010 8,130 164.1 4,954 6.6 1977 128.3 15,573 8,239 174.2 4,730 (4.5) 1978 125.0 15,400 8,117 186.8 4,345 (8.1) 1979 170.0* 18,536 9,170 206.2 4,447 2.3 *1979 Total Personal Income (Average household income ($30,627) * average number of people per household (3.34)] x population (13,536) *.Real per capita income = per capita incwne 4 (CPI/100). TABLE 32 1 12 Table 33: Household Income--Survey Derived: Mat-Su Borough (Source; OEDP, Vol. ii, p. 177) INCOME PERCENTAGE NUMBER Under $2,500 1.7 10 2,500 - 4,999 1.8 11 5,000 - 7,499 4.5 27 7,500 - 9,999 4.7 28 10,000 -12,499 5.0 30 13,500 -14,499 4.2 25 15,000 -17,499 5.7 34 17,500 -19,999 4.7 28 20,000 -22,499 4.3 26 22,500 -24,999 5.9 35 25,000 -27,499 5.4 32 27,500 -29,999 3.5 21 30,000 -32,499 8.2 49 32,500 -34,999 5.5 33 35,000 -37,499 4.7 28 37,500 -39,999 4.2 25 40,000 _44,999 6.5 39 45,000 -49,999 4.8 29 50,000 -54,999 5.7 34 55,000 -59,999 2.2 .13 60,000 -69,999 3.7 22 70,000 _79,999 1.5 9 80,000 -89,999 0.8 5 90,000 -99,000 0.2 1 100,000 and Over 0.7 4 Don't Know 14 Missing 67 $30,627 Mean $29,048 Median TABLE 33 $18,761 Standard Deviation Table 34: Income By Community--Survey Derived: Mat-Su Borough (Source: OEDP, Vol. II, p. 178) Average Annual Average Per Number Household Number Capita of Community -Income In Household Income Respondents North of Willow 27,500 3.3 8,348 14 Willow 24,107 3.0 8,036 28 Houston 34,659 3.8 9,091 11 Big Lake 32,805 2.8 11,698 41 Knik 33,789 3.1 10,881 32 Wasilla 31,576 3.4 9,283 238 Palmer 29,761 3.3 8,903 157 Butte 30,424 3.8 8,013 59 Independence Mine- Sutton 25,833 2.9 8,774 18 No Response 81 MAT-SU BOROUGH 30,627 3.3 9,165 598 TABLE 34 1 13 Table 35: Mat-Su income Vs. United States Income (Source: OEDP, Vol. II, P. 35) 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 Total Personal Income to Census Division Residents (millions of sss) .............................. 22.3 26.4 31.5 36.3 43.7 57.7 88.2 113.9 128.3 125.0 Resident Population - Census Bureau Estimates: 1969-77 (thousands) ...... 6.4 6.7 7.4 8.0 8.8 9.5 10.9 13.3 14.2 14.2 Census Division Per Capita Per- sonal Income ($) (Line I/Line 2-unrounded figures) ................. 3,474 3,957 4,279 4,539 4,970 6,068 8,092 8,542 9,032 8,803 U.S. Per Capita Personal Income ($) .................................. 3,667 3,893 4,132 4,493 5,980 5,428 5,861 6,397 7,026 7,810 Ratio: Census Division Per Capita Income to U.S. Per Capita Income (Line Mine 4) ....... 0.95 1.02 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.12 1.38 1.34 1.29 1.13 TABLE 35 1 14 Table 36: Average Entry Wages (Source: OEDP, Vol. II, p. 40-42) AVERAGE ENTRY WAGE DATA FOR SELECTED OCCUPATIONS Statewide Averag Anchorage Region V Non-Union Union Non-Union Union Occupation PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL Buyer. Retail 9.97 8.93* 13.25* Accountant and Auditor 10.90 9.50 12.42* Pharmacist 11.58 12.50* 10.00* Nurse, Professional 7.16 8.39 9.37* Draftsman 9.23 13.39* 6.70 13.39* Electrical and Electronic Tech. 11.18 13.02* 10.53 13.02* 11.28* Surveyor 17.76 15.29 11.47 12.58 Dental Assistant 5.59 6.72 5.50* Airplane Pilot 12.12 9.35 15.97* SERVICES Janitors, Porters, & Cleaners 5.33 11.34 5.26 4.80 14.17* Maid 4.66 7.47 4.66 5.04 4.19 9.45 Guards and Doorkeepers 6.37 7.38 8.00* 6.94* 5.15* Bartender 5.85 7.66 5.50* 7.41 6.41 7.53 Butcher, Meatcutter 7.49 9.30 9.18* 9.14 9.42 Waiter/Waitress 3.92 3.89 3.76 3.90 3.87 3.84 Cook, Short Order 4.36 5.37 3.63 6.98* 4.67 Cook, Restaurant 6.67 6.91 7.30 7.20 5.54 6.83 Cook, Institutional 8.67 13.72 5.45* 6.00* Nurse Aide 5.39 6.37* MAINTENANCE AND PRODUCTION Mechanic Automotive 9.94 12.89 10.85 11.79* 10.39 Diesel Mechanic 13.98 15.12 11.03 16.00 16.00* 15.05* Marine Mechanic 8.19 11.33* Truck Driver 8.63 14.06 11.40 12.54* 11.72 14.35 Asbestos and Insulation Worker 11.63* 17.05* 9.75* 21.60* 12.50* Carpenter 11.13 16.20 9.08 16.51 1.26 14.51 Delivery and Route Worker 7.27 12.61* 6.92 11.20* 8.54 13.31* Dry Wall Applicator 15.00* 15.DO* Electrician 13.56 17.88 9.88 18.95 13.49 15.73 Supervisor, Nonworking 11.57 15.24 14.29* 13.24 15-32* MAINTENANCE AND PRODUCTION (Cont.) Glazier 17.14 18.07* 17.04* Heavy Equipment Operator 13.97 15.16* 15.21 16.03 12.40 15.70* Industrial Truck Operator 11.84* 14.84* 5.72 14.12* Lineman 7.55 17.20 14.42* 18.43* Apprentice 10.68* 11.60* Machinist 9.59 13.75 7.50* 8.39 14.42* Maintenance Repair, Gen. Util. 7.33 11.18 6.61 12.42 7.67 13.38 Millwright 11.82 13.75 12.50* Plumber and/or Pipefitter 12.31 15.27 10.00 18.65* 16.60 Rotary Drill Operator 13.22 19.05 8.25* 19.05 19.05* Painter Maintenance 12.98 16.17 18.69* 18.00* 12.50* Welder's and Flamecutters 12.83 17.84 12.50* 17.90* 12.17 Production Packager 5.24 6.54* 5.00* 4.62 7.41* Bagger 3.52 3.54 3.49* 3.88* Fuel Pump Attendant 4.33 3.95* 4.D8 Stock Clerk, Sales 5.38 4.50 4.99 5.06 Chairman, Rodman and/or Lightkeeper 9.30 13.53* 8.27 10.33 Baker 5.25 6.25 Wood Machinist 8.25* IO.DD* Tester 8.94 7.56 Fish Cleaner 4.78 4.54* 4.60 4.54* Cannery Worker 5.09 8.91* 4.40* 13.00* 4.87 4.82 CLERICAL Bookkeeping/Bill. Mech. Operator 6.30 S.OO* 6.08* Accounting Clerk 6.88 8.63* S.61 8.50* 5.93* 8.75* Bookkeeper Hand 6.72 6.10* 5.21 5.44* 5.76 Cashier 5.60 6.16 7.66 5.38 7.14* General Clerk, Office 5.67 7.45 5.36 7.32* 5.09 6.78* Payroll and/or Timekeeping Clerk 8.20 6.55* 5.50* Receptionist 5.90 4.48* 6.10 Secretary 7.36 6.05 7.35 Ticket Agent 5.88 9.56 5.48 9.56* 5.00* 9.56* Teller 4.88 5.10 5.04 CLERICAL (Cont.) Typist 6.02 5.09 4.97 Clerical Supervisor. Office or Plant 8.83 9.48* 6.86 9.48* 13.64* Production Clerk 12.50* 12.50* Shipping and/or Receiving Clerk 7.87 9.61 6.25 9.80* 4.31* 4.90* Stock Clerk, Stm. or Whse. 5.71 10.94 7.11 10.57 5.27 12.05* Dispatcher, Airplane 6.56 14.26* 14.26* 5.00* Transportation Agent 6.05 10.69 7.20* 3.50* SALES =a es Rep.. Agent, or Associate 6.63 10.35 4.75* Sales Clerk 4.89 4.95 4.25 3.65* 4.19 6.24 TABLE 36 115 Less than three films provided wage data. Cost of Living The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes a family budget for 40 major U.S. urban areas which includes cost of standard food, housing, transportation, clothing, personal care, medical care, social security, personal taxes, and other m i sce I I aneous i tems. Three budgets are considered: Low, Medium, and High. The family for which the budget is developed consists of a 38-year old husband, a non-working wife, a boy of 13, and a girl of 8. Based on a national average index number of 100, Anchorage, Alaska is highest with an index number of 141. Honolulu, Hawaii is second with an index number of 124 (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). Table 37 shows urban family budgets for Anchorage and four other U.S. cities for Autumn 1978; Table 38 itemizes the budget in Anchorage. Many of these high living expenses carry over into the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Table,37: Urban Family Budgets--Autumn 1978 (Source: OEDP, Vol. 11, p. 45) Lower Intermediate Higher City Budget Budget Budget Anchorage $19,030 $26,329 $33,406 Seattle - Everett, WA 12,506 18,671 26,567 New York - N.E., N.J. 12,063 21,587 34,252 Minneapolis - St. Paul 11,421 19,389 28,629 Houston 10,906 17,114 24,787 Urban U.S. 11,546 18,622 27,420 TABLE 37 116 Table 38: Annual Budget for a 4-Person Fami ly- -Anchorage, Alaska 1978 (Source: OEDP, Vol. II, p. 46) Lower Budqet Intermediate Budqet Hi Cost I rn-Ce-x Tost I Index' ro-st @%Index* Food 4,547 127 5,641 122 6,944 120 Housing 4,828 216 6,817 163 9,8bg 155 Transportation 1,544 180 2,'4071 132 2,447 120 Clothing 1,030 122 1,419 117 1,949 110 Personal 364 121 545 135 836 147 Medical 1,818 171 1,820 170 1,884 169 Other Consumption 548 106 1,005 105 1,682 107 TOTAL CONSUMPTION 14,679 156 19,318 138 25,551 133 Other Items 660 -- 996 -- 1,682 -- Social Security & Disability 1,151 -- 1,151 -- 1,151 -- Personal Income Taxes 2.540 272 4,864 178 10,022 175 TOTAL BUDGET 19,030 165 26,329 141 38,406 140 U.S. Urban Average Cost - 100. . TABLE 38. From 1968 through 1973, the growth of Anchorage narrowed the gap between its urban budget and the national average; particularly influential in this trend was the d i vers i f i cat i on of transportat i on and other urban serv i ces. The coming of the pipeline in 1974, however, widened the gap once again; demand for services increased drastically, and with increased demand came increased cost (OEDP, Vol . I I , 1980). Similar trends were seen in the Mat-Su Borough, with housing, food, and taxes contributing the most toward the high cost of living. As Tables 39 and 40 indicate, family budget requirements are slightly higher in the Mat-Su Borough than in Anchorage; Mat-Su ranked 4th among 29 census divisions under Anchorage which had the lowest family budget in 1978 (Table 40). 117 Table 39: Mat-Su Borough Famil y Budget Requirements (Source: OEDP, vol. II, p. 47) 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 Family Budget Required in this Census Division for a Moderate standard of Living Ma .................... (------------ Information Not Available -------------) 24,029 24,975 27.374 Average U.S. Family Budget Required for a Moderate Standard of Living ($@ ........ 10,064 10.664 10,971 11,446 12,626 14,333 15,318 16.236 17,106 18,622 Ratio: Census Division Family Budget Require- ments to Average U.S. Family Budget Require- ----------- Information Not Available ------------- 1.48 1.46 1.47 ments .......................... ( Notes: a. Figures are based on the Anchorage family budget figures adjusted by Alaska interregional living cost indexes prepared by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, in cooperation with the Alaska'School of Finance Study Staff. These indexes were published by the Center for North- ern Educational Research, University of Alaska as Alaskan Interregional Cost Differentials. b. These are average U.S. "Urban Family (Intermediate) Budget" figures published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. TABLE 39 'Table 40: Family Budget Recruirements Index for a Moderate Standard of Living--1978 (Source: OEDP, Vol. II, P. 48) By Censuls Division 0) (Anchorage Census Division 1.00 Census Division index* Aleutian Islands 1.300 Anchorage 1.000 Angoon 1.049 Barrow-North Slope 1.663 Bethel 1.550 Bristol Say Borough 1.554 Bristol Bay 1.600 Cordova-McCarthy 1.148 Fairbanks 1.060 Haines 1.082 Juneau 1.002 Kenai-Cook Inlet 1.096 Ketchikan 1.010 Kobuk 1.596 Kodiak 1.126 Kuskokwim 1.711 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA 1.040 Nome 1.652 outer Ketchikan 1.060 Prince of Wales 1.060 Seward 1.096 Sitka 1.042 Skagway-Yakutat 1.189 Southeast Fairbanks 1.060 Upper Yukon 1.449 Valdez-Chitina-Whittier 1.135 Wade-Hampton 1.688 Wrangell-Petersburg 1.056 Yukon-Koyukon 1.427 TABLE 40, 1 18 Table 41 illustrates the most dramatic consequences of the h i gh cost of I i v i ng i n Mat-Su Borough. Table 35 had shown that in 1978 the ratio of per capita income, Mat-Su Borough to U.S., was 1.13; when the cost of living is considered, however, the ratio drops to 0.77; the ratio of the Mat-Su Borough to Anchorage is lower, 0.69. Table 41- Adjusted Per Capita Income--Mat-Su Borough (Source: OEDP, Vol. 11, p. 49) 1976 1977 1978 Census Division Per Capita Income, Adjusted for Higher Family Budget Requirements 5,772 6,186 5,988 Ratio: Census Division Per Capita Income, Adjusted for Higher Family Budget Re- quirements, to U.S. Per Capita Income 0.90 0.80 0.77 Ratio: Per Capita Income in this Census Division, Adjusted for Family Budget Requirements, To Anchorage Per Capita Income 0.78 0.76 0.69 TABLE 41 Natural Resources Agriculture: Studies indicate that approximately 2,907,000 acres of land in Southcentral Alaska have an agricultural potential; most of this land is in the Mat-Su Borough. Presently, 12,145 acres are in crops. Table 42 indicates U.S. Soil Conservation Service ratings for agricultural potential for all Alaskan land. No land is considered Class 1, the highest rating, due to the severe climate (Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1978). Table 42: Soil Rating of Alaskan Land by U.S. Soil Conservation Service (Source: Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1978) CLASS DESCRIPTION PERCENT OF LAND Class I Prime Agric. Land 0% Class 11 + III Suitable for Agriculture 31 Class IV Marginal Use for Agric. 16 No Value No. Agric. Use 54 TABLE 42. 119 The period from 1910 through 1914 represented the first period of active agricultural homesteading in the Mat-Su Va I I ey reg i on. Significant commercial agricultural production did not develop unti I the 1950's and 60's after the 1949 establishment of the Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station in Palmer. The emphasis of the station was on milk, forage, potatoes, and vegetable production, and set the pace for a growing agricultural industry which peaked in 1961-62 (Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1978). Since then, increasing costs, competition, taxes, plus a decrease in markets and the aging of farmers has led to a decrease in agricultural activitly (OEDP, Vol. 1, 1980). In 1965 there were 47 dairy farms, and 22 vegetable farms; by 1975 there were 12 dairy farms and 17 vegetable farms. The number of full time farmers dropped from 70 in 1965 to between 30 and 40 in 1979 (Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1978 and OEDP, 1980). Most farming currently takes place around Palmer and the Matanuska River Val ley, and to the west along the Susitna, Kahi Itna, and Yentna Rivers (OEDP, Vol. 1, 1980). In 1979, the Mat-Su Borough produced 70 percent of the State's crops, 79 percent of the State' s I ivestock and poultry, and 50 percent of the State Is m i I k (OEDP, Vol. 1, 1980). However, as recently as 1975, over 95 percent of all agricultural food products consumed in Alaska are imported from the continental United States (Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1978). Table 43 indicates agricultural production in Mat-Su Borough from 1953 through 1975. Mineral Resources: Table 44 summarizes deposits of non-energy minerals in the Mat-Su Borough. Additional scattered deposits include asbestos, clay, feldspar, fluorspar, garnet, gypsum, kyanite, light weight aggregate, mica, potassium, and talc, all of non-metallic classification, and arsenic, bismuth, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, manganese, tellurium, titanium, uranium-thorium, zinc, and zirconium, of metallic classification (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). Most of the region has a low potential for petroleum. Three non-producing gas fields exist in the Beluga River area at the north end of the Cook Inlet Oil Province (outside the Borough's southern boundary). The Mat-Su Borough is rich in coal reserves, however, and reserve estimates have been made for two coal fields. The Wishbone Hill District has an estimated 243-274 million short tons of coal reserves; the Broad Pass Field contains approximately 174 million short tons (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). 120 Table 43: Agricultural Production in Mat-Su Borough--1953-1975 (Source: Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., MILK CRAIN h, A r 1R@:ArorXsvmGf*rA81 Es@@' Iwo POUNDS CWT Afts IV-013-31 1953 6,185 MA NA 102,840 11,980 149,600 199,010 1954 7,896 NA NA 90,940 11.780 175,300 221,700 1955 9,120 MA NA ?8.820 L. 11.560 167,100 266,800 1956 11,416 NA MA 104,300 11,040 100,000 209,700 1957 12,141 MA MA 99,460 14,240 166,100 262,100 1958 12,322 WA NA 94,940 14,140 179,110 272,195 1959 12.733 NA NA $3.060 14,820 210,301 291,100 1960 1 5,504 20.900 1,100 57,600 16,250 210,300 264,200 1961 17.900 20,400 :?4300 63,200 14,080 244,000 302,200 1962 17,760 1 19,800 2,500 72,500 14,920 239,300 442,200 1963 17,740 22,1.00 700 ?7,400 14,670 252,600 402,500 1964 18,280 23,200 Soo 85,900 12,240 208,200 430.100 1965 16,345 16.900 1,600 65,500 8,650 336,300 501,700 1966 16,430 26.500 2.400 76,100 11,090 497,100 529,800 1967 16,496 24.700 1,200 ?6,000 13,390 539,000 467,000 1968 16,400 18,400 1 1,100 67,100 19,800 483,000 497,000 1969 16,250 6,900 900 45,600 11,540 352,000 415,000 1970 16,850 10,200 1,400 $9,000 12,150 274,000 401,500 1971 15,570 9,100 1,600 55,700 13,150 319,000 326,400 1972 16.100 3,100 1 3,000 35,800 10,350 420.000 291,000 1973 16,650 9,200 3,100 63,000 10,250 1 41%000 233,300 1974 16555 0,000 2,600 1 61,700 13,300 365,000 191,900 1975 26,300 6,400 64,000 10@970 254,000 196,(0)00 121 TABLE 43 Table 44: Summary of Mineral Resource Deposits in Mat-Su Borough (Source: Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., p. 159-161) Location Deposits macLaren River Area Gold/Copper/Silver Susitna-Chulitna portion of the Yentna mining Molybdenum/Gold/Copper/Lead/Silver/Antimony District Cantwell Area Coal/Limestone Upper Susitna River Area (Denali prospect) Copper Area Adjacent to McKinley Park Boundary & Antimony/Lead/Zinc/Copper/Gold Chulitna River to SW of Cantwell Petersville Area Gold/ bpper/Tin./Platinum/Tungsten/Coal Kahiltna River Drainage to S of Dutch Hills Gold/Tungsten/Tin/Platinum Beluga River Area @ SW Corner of Borough Coal Iron Creek Vicinity to E of Talkeetna Iron/Copper/Gold willow Creek Mining District Gold/molybdenum/flickel/Tungsten/Silver Eureka Area (Nelchina Mining District) Gold/Copper/Platinum, NW of Eureka (Nelchina Mining District: Gold Chugach Mountains to S of Matanuska River Gold/Platinum/Copper Little Susitna-Sutton Area Coal Kings River Drainage Area Limestone Lower Susitna River Drainage (Between Beluga Coal/Limestone River Fields & Houston & Little Susitna Occurrences) Lakes in Susitna Matanuska Region Lime TABLE 44 122 Peat is a potential energy resource for the Mat-Su Borough. Extensive peat bogs up to 10 feet thick are found throughout Alaska; reserves are estimated to exceed several billion dry-weight tons according to a U.S. Department of Energy Peat Assessment Program in 1980. Peat has a heating value close to that of lignite, and today is used primari ly as an agricultural soil conditioner (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). Due to topographic barriers and limited access routes, exploration and exploitation of mineral resources has been minimal. Only two non-energy mining companies exist, principally for cement manufacture. The Jonesville Mine used to supply coal to the Anchorage military bases until 1968; at that time, gas became available from the Cook Inlet at a lower cost. In 1976, only 1 small coal mine, the Premiere Mine, was in operation in the Mat-Su Borough, principally for supply to local residents for domestic use (Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1978). Petroleum and gas production is minimal in the Borough today; presently there is not yet any commercial extraction of peat for energy purposes. Timber: Table 45 contains a 1967 U.S. Forest Service estimate of potential commercial forest land in Alaska. Most of the 1,295,000 acres listed as commercial forest land lie in Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and the Susitna River valleys and deltas. Table 45: U.S. Forest Service Estimate of Forest Land in Alaska -- 1967 (Source: Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1978) CLASSIFICATION ACRES % OF TOTAL Commercial Forest Land 1,295,000 23% (Capable of producing crops of industrial wood in excess of 20 cu. ft./yr.) Unproductive Forest Land 1,906,000 34 All Other Land 2,409,000 43 TABLE 45 Of the total commercial timber stands, 44 percent are birch, 35 percent are of the populus species (including quaking aspen, black cottonwood, and balsam poplar), and 21 percent are spruce, the only softwood commercial species. Mat-Su forests are not particularly dense; stands are interspersed with swampy areas. Additionally, tree species are small when compared to the coastal species (Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept. , 1978). Table 46 summarizes known timber stands in the Mat-Su Borough. 123 Many of the timber lands are in State ownership. The State makes lands available at a fee considerably less than Washington and Oregon. However, there are several factors which have constrained the development of a major timber industry in the Mat-Su Borough, namely high logging, transportation, and mi I I ing costs. Additionally, much of the logging operation must be restricted to the winter months when swamps are frozen. Consequently, the timber industry operates sporadically. In 1976, there were a total of 9 sawmi I Is, 15 logging companies, and 4 secondary users and dealers in the Borough (Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1978). Table 46: Timber Stands of Commercial Value in Mat-Su Borough (Source: Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., p. 152) Acreage Location Accessibility Dwnership (Approx) Volume Knik Stands Construction of State 38,400 6,600 M approximately cu. ft. ten miles of (Birch bolts) main haul road will be necessary 2,100 M for removal of cu. ft. timber (Spruce bolts) 100 M CU. ft. (Aspen bolts) Delta Island Winter ice to State 15,600 11,600 M nearby Fairbanks- cu. ft. Anchorage (Cottonwood Highway bolts) Talkeetna Via trails and Mainly 80,000 160,000 M Stands poor quality State bd. ft. woods roads (private (gross) from highway. adjacent Short access to road) roads would be needed. Peters Creek Scattered tracts Mainly 100,GOO 200,OOOM Road Stands accessible from State bd. ft. points along (private (gross) Peters Creek adjacent Road to road) TABLE 46- Tour i sm: Outdoor recreation is the primary drawing force for the Mat-Su Borough's tourist industry. Hundreds of lakes, miles of river bank, and a great diversity of wildlife create a setting for hunting, fishing, boating, and 124 camping. Fishing and boating are popular on many lakes; the community of Big Lake was originally a summer community of Anchorage residents. Hunters are attracted to the region by moose and caribou on land, and by various waterfowl found in the extensive tidal marshes bordering Cook Inlet. Other attractions include historic sites at Wasi I la and Knik skiing and snowmobiling, and scenic vistas found Borough-wide (Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1978). I n 1964, tourists in the Mat-Su region originated from the following areas: Anchorage 73% Mat-Su 5 Other Alaska 6 Out of State 16 The out-of-state component has been i ncreas i ng. I n 1976, over 250,000 out-of-state tourists visited Alaska. Out-of-state tourists to the Mat-Su Borough typically consist of parties driving through the Borough along the Glenn Highway to or from Anchorage, parties visiting friends in Anchorage and on weekend excursions, or tour buses from Anchorage (in the summer), (Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1978). Hunters using the Mat-Su Borough are principally from Anchorage; 60 percent of waterfowl hunters in Anchoraje travel to the Borough for their hunting (Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1978). The Glenn and Parks Highways are the principal take-off points for hunting and most other activities. Consequently, most lodges, facilities, etc., are located at regular intervals along those routes (Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1978). Other points of more specific location include public campgrounds, Nancy Lake Recreation Area, Denali State Park, Hatcher Pass, Talkeetna, Lake Louise and Glacier Park. Borough Recreation facilities are listed in Table 47. Public Finance The Mat-Su Borough is unusually dependent upon federal and State government revenues to support Borough services. The current sources of revenue are outlined in Table 48; federal and State monies comprise a full 64 percent of the Borough revenues. 125 Table 47: Mat-Su Borough Recreational Facilities (Source: Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., p. 187) imvxwony or ACRCAGC C.1.02 '1- 0.9? *C1 QUANTITY AND CAPACITY OF RECRE A T ON FACILITIES 9:1 1 TI. CLA IV CA low T-1 EIS No FACILITIES TAMUSKA - SUSITAIA 80110UGM 'P A" 0, 6/301,71 'day Q, MATAOUSXA 6 OLACIEM W18 - "NP LONG LANE 72 312 32 so 122 0 .... I LANE 5 1 - 92 32 so King to to 2 .2 MOUNTIAN 0 48 so moose CREEK 40 .0 a W. 32 32 2 114094 LAI' 41 41 36 - so 304 . 40 ROCKY LAKE 19 19 10 40 46 2 1 1 4 510 LAKE EAST It Is 1. 56 Go 3 A 6 '3 810 LAWS SOUTH .6 52 60 6 :A I's .:IY LAKE 5-- 35 35 io 0 "0' '40 -20 -Do 340 9 42 4 :INCY. L -- 5MASSER ,C (v 22.61 SEA 011.1111? CR194 60 so T- go 2 DENALI PARK IV DEVELOPED) 211140002111000 Damage 19 79 23 75 354 92 262 WAS$LLA CENTENNIAL 11 2 1 3. 1 1 20 .41 1 HOV:TON a 421 1 C so so "9 32 3 LAKE 5 5 .00 '35 PALMER TODDLER 1 15 .0 40 TALM991INA 3 -F5 RIVERSIDE 2 12 53 65 1AL:.1jT*A 3 ItL .25 1 1 25 1 to 20 Room WAY8109 40 - Do '. -00 pis. CREEK 5 -3 -- 6 2, A9 99NA LANE .9 Do 126 TABLE 47 Table 48: Mat-Su Borough Revenues (Source: OEDP, Vol. 1, P. 12) SOURCE PERCENT OF TOTAL State Government 58% Federal Government 5 Property Tax 27 Misc. Local Revenue 9 Service Areas 1 TABLE 48 Approximately 90 percent of the Borough's. growth is residential; 10 percent is commercial or business-related. Consequently, there is little movement toward a diversified tax base and accompanying increased self-sufficiency. There are problems on the expenditure side of the public finance problem as well. Table 49 indicates the breakdown by percentage of Mat-Su Borough expenditures. Table 49! Mat-Su Borough Expenditures (Source: OEPD, Vol. 1, P. 13) EXPENDITURE PERCENT OF TOTAL Schools 8o'y V/. I General Government 15 Non-Areawi-de Services 3 Service Areas 2 TABLE 49 In the 48 continental United States, schools typically demand 60 percent of a given county budget. Transportation costs are largely responsible for pushing the M8t-Su Borough school budget to an 80 percent share. It costs an average of $1,500 to send one ch i I d to schoo I f or one yea r i n the Mat-Su Borough. The average f am i I y home i n the Borough i s assessed at $60,000 and.pays $570 to the Borough per year in property taxes. The average fami ly has between I and 1.5 school-age children, a per-family Borough deficit of between $930 and $1,690 per year (OEDP, Vol. 1, 1980). Palmer is the only f irst-class city in the Borough, and as such has tax levying powers. In addition to property tax, Palmer levies a 2 percent sales tax. Table 50 gives average per capita debt to the Borough. Municipal property tax rates for all service areas and cities are listed in Table 51. 127 Table 50: General Obligation Bonded Debt-Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Source: OEDP, Vol. II, p. 75) Palmer City Borouqh Total Full Value* Determination 57,824,900 928,420,000 928,420,000 1-1-79 Civilian Population 2.056 23,177 23,177 7-1-79 General Obligation Bonded Debt 2,315,278 52,455,000 54,770,278 7-1-79 Per Capita Debt 1,126 2,263 2,363 Per Capita Valuation 28,125 40,058 40,058 Debt % to Valuation 4.00 5.65 5.9 Second class cities without debt or for which no valuation data is available are excluded. The Alaska Statutes 29.53.060 defines "full and true value" as the estimated price which the property would bring in an open market and under the ten prevailing market conditions in a sale between a willing seller and a willing buyer, both conversant with the property and with prevailing-general price levels.' TABLE 50 128 Table 51: Municipal Tax Pates for Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Source: OEDP, Vol. II, p. 68-71) NATANISKA-SLISIT11A 011115) TAX TAX CODE =E URVICE AREA g68 So ALEA 2978 1979 SERVICE AREA LL-msb AREA 1977 197a 1979 wesil (SA) 01 90 so 60 W'11:11! 3: S4 1:15 1:36 Wasills (2nd) 13 90 so 1.00 Schools 6.96 6.05 5.95 3 54 15 LOW Fill and Library --lam-istration G'.96 1:835 TOTAL IT.m 410 r W20 Schools Lane Fill .10 (SA) 02 so Fire .60 liiii);;@Rlstfttion 3: 'S4O 1:15 1 : "35 TOTAL i T=. rw rw Sep" Is G.% 6.05 5.285 (SA) 14 is 1.35 Land Fill and Library *n .10 . 0 -0E 5.65 TOTAL Irc rm FM Schools .10 .20 Greste, Polar, (SA) 03 .50 L he fill and Library 19, Z .60 --swi-mistration 3.S4 1.15 1.35 TOTAL 7-K School & 6.96 G 06C 5 LOW Fill and Library *n :10 42'0 TOTAL IT" rm rm CASWII LakeS (SA) Is W-Mitration 1.15 1.35 Sutt ire (SA) 04 1 to 40 2 00 SC Is 6.01- S. 8! gul"Istration 3:54 11-15 1:35 L.rh4ooFi I I and Library .10 .2C School S 6*96 1: "0' 5.85 TOTAL rn r'z Lane rill and Library ($A) 16 TOTAL 174 m rg Southa "R, 11 1111.08V an 1.15 1.35 Palms, (141) 05 S.w 5.00 schools COS 5.85 xeministration 3.64 1.15 1.3s Land Fill and Library .10 .20 Schools 6.96 6. D5 5.85 Fire - so Land Fill .10 TOTAL 7.K 7M TOTAL Irm Tm I7.m Knit Road (SA) 17 06 -)w7nistration 1.15 1.35 @@Im Stratton 3.54 1.15 1.35 Schools COS 5.8! Schools 6 96 6 5.85 Land fill and Library .1C ZC Lend Fill and Library :20 : ,,, TOTAL 7-9 rn TOTAL IF" rm Tpap%@170,2" (SA) is T4 I kwa V (SA) 07 2.00 1.40 St at, Is- 35 'n'smContral 3.S4 1.15 1.35 Schools .8' ion 6 96 6 05C 6 Lane Fill and Library .2C Sch*ols 7 r, Land Fill and Library :20 :10 12 50 TOTAL Fire (SA) 19 TOTAL Ir" Tm "'Y I.3S school 51250 mealstates (SA) 06 4.50 9.00 Land Fill V'd @ibrsry st, ton 3.54 1.15 -1.35 fire .50 Schools 6 96 6 Ds 5.85 TOTAL Land Fill and Library :20 :10, .20 .60 Great*, Willa. Road (SA) 20 Names 2.00 --W-stration 1.35 TOTAL Ir" Irv Irm Schools 5.85 Land fill and Library (SA) 09 90 TOTAL T.-C Eftf..1stration 3: S4 I's 1:35 Schools 6.96 6. DS 5as ($A) 21 Land Fill OW Library .20 .10c .20 UL4mtiom 1.35 F Ire .60 Schools 5 TOTAL iT."M MN rm L81W Fill and Library Woodside Estates (&A) 10 .90 .50 TOTAL 7 winistration 3.54 1.15 1.35 (SA) 22 school 1 6.95 COS S as Pi@MFIICHI 1.35 Land Fill NW Library .20 lot :20 Schools 5'5 Fire Land Fill ged Library :20 TOTAL IT-0 rm r Fit, 1.5c TOTAL (SA) 11 .90 So 3.S4 1.15 1.355 (SA) 23 6 IN 6 05 6 Schoo" loc 5.85 Land Fill W LIM, :20 Schools rift Land Fill and Library .20 TOTAL IT= Tw TOTAL 7-lu 1 (2ad) 12 Talk"t Fire service (S-A) 24 miswati-stion '3.S4 1.1s 1.35 VA., n"t'at'oh 1.35 Schoo Is 6.96 6.05 S.8s Schools 5.85 La 1,, .10 Land fill and Library zC ad F iT-W Irm 7m. .60 TOTAL TOTAL a Second Class sommV b SA: Service Area MR: Y=Ule 2nd: ow"! class c Laid fill only. TABLE 51 129 COMMUNITY STRUCTURE Approximately 90 percent of the Mat-Su population is located within a 12.5 mi le radius of Wasi I la, (see section on population). The remaining 10 percent is located in various communities scattered throughout the Borough. The definition of communities is somewhat arbitrary; some are historic sites of larger settlements which are now partially or totally abandoned (Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1978). The northeast portion of Borough is largely uninhabited. Transportation routes, housing, and other developments parallel the Matanuska and Susitna Rivers. The completion of the Parks Highway in 1971 allowed access to the northern lands west of the Susitna River (Mat-Su Plan. Dept., 1978). Public Administration The Mat-Su Borough is a second class borough under Title 29 of the State Statutes of Alaska. As such, it has powers of administration, taxation, planning/zoning, education, and parks/recreation. It can provide services including solid waste disposal, libraries, and any other services a Class One Borough can provide through the formation of "Service Area5." The Mat-Su Borough has established service areas, primarily for road maintenance and fire protection services (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). The executive function of the Borough is served by a mayor, elected at large. The legislative function is served by a five-member assembly, elected by the district. A full-time manager is in charge of administrative direction. The Borough has four departments: (1) Finance, (2) Public Works, (3) Assessment, and (4) Planning. The Borough * also contains a School District Administrative District, distinct from the other four departments. Palmer is the seat of the Mat-Su Borough government (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). There are three incorporated cities in t he Mat-Su Borough: � Palmer: First Class City, Home-Rule 0 Wasilla: Second Class City � Houston: Second Class City 130 Un i ncorporated commun i t i es a re def i ned as popu I ated p I aces accessible by road: Willow Big Lake Knik Butte Talkeetna Trappers Creek Montana Sutton Chickaloon Eureka Lake Louise The remainder of the Mat-Su Borough communities are considered as unincorporated areas (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). Housing Distribution: In 1980 the Census counted a total of 10,075 housing units in the Mat-Su Borough; this was a 138.7 percent increase over the 4,221 housing units counted in 1970 (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1981). Table 52 details the 1970/1980 housing counts; refer to Figure 8 for Enumeration District (ED) boundaries. As with population, the majority of the housing units are located within the Wasilla/Palmer area. Housing Characteristics: One housing study indicated that 83 percent of units in the Borough were single-family homes, 5.3 percent multi-family homes, 11.3 percent mobile homes, and 0.4 percent other homes. Approximately 52 percent of the Borough's multi-family homes are located in the Palmer area, 37 percent in the Wasilla area. Mobile homes are located primarily on individually owned lots near roads; there a re on I y a f ew mob i I e home pa rks, most nea r or in Palmer. Nearly one fifth of the housing stock in.the Mat-Su Borough is recreation-related (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). Table 53 lists housing characteristics by housing type. The average Mat-Su home has 5.3 rooms, 2.6 bedrooms,and 1.4 bathrooms. Over 90 percent of all homes have a kitchen sink with piped water, a range/stove, a refrigerator, hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet, and a bath tub/shower. Log cabins typically lack several of these features (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). 131 Housing Distribution in Mat-Su Borough (Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1980 Advance Counts) ARZA 1970 1980 % CHANGE matanuska-Susitna Borough 4,221 10,075 138.7 Alexander Creek 6 Big Lake (CDP) 571 Boderiburg Butte (CDP) 346 Chickaloon (CDP) 11 Chulitna (CDP) 7 Curry (CDP) 2 Denali (CDP) 5 Houston (City) 48 234 3FI7.5 ynik (CDP) 6 Montana (CDP) 23 Palmer (City) 379 842 122.2 Peters Creek North (CDP) 6 Petersville (CDP) 6 skwetna (CDP) 14 summit (CDP) 0 susitna (CDP) 8 Talkeetna (CDP) 155 Wasilla (City) 693 willow (CDP) 165 ED 1152 22 ED 1153 21 ED 1154 37 ED 1155 70 ED 1156 33 ED 1157 31 ED 1158 107 ED 1159 279 ED 1160 93 ED 1161 31 ED 1162 458 ED 1163 44 EED 1164 95 ED 1165 134 ED 1166 168 ED 1167 1134 ED 1168 1570 ED 1169 624 ED 1170 146 ED 1171 898 ED 1172 488 FZ 1173 225 ED 1174 14 ED 1175 7 ED 1176 ill ED 1177 110 TABLE 52 Table 53- Mat-Su Housing Characteristics by Housing Type(1980) (Source: OEDP, Vol. II, p. 78) Single FamijZ Multi-Famiiz Mobile Homes 28.3% One Story 58.0 % Duplexes 82.9% Singlewide 24.9 One Story w/Basement 6.1 Row 12.2 Doublewide 23.4 Split Level 4.9 Travel Trailers 15.5 Two Story TABLE 53 6@2 Log Cabins 132 1.7 other Cabins The average year of construction for Mat-Su homes is 1970-71. The median year is 1975. In 1980, approximately 13.3 percent of the housing stock was built before 1960, 39.4 percent between 1960 and 1975, and 47.3 percent after 1975 (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). Wood is used for home heating in 48.9 percent of Mat-Su homes, (15.2 percent use wood exclusively); 21.9 percent use only electricity, 21.4 percent use electricity and wood, 22.4 percent use oil only, and 12.4 percent use oil and wood. Coal and propane are used to a lesser degree. (Fuel oil is the dominant fuel in Palmer and Butte, electricity in Wasilla and Houston.) Approximately 42.9 percent of Mat-Su homes have built-in electric heating, 15.5 percent central air, and 15.1 percent circulating water, and 37.4 percent a fireplace or stove (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). Household Size: The average household size is 3.4 individuals; the median size is 3.18, (1980). This includes 2.04 adults and 1.29 children per househotd. Single person households comprise 9.3 percent of the housing stock (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). Ownership and Payment: Table 54 indicates the owner/renter distribution for different housing types in the Borough. The median payment in 1980 for those making payments was $400/month. Single- family homes averages $436/month, multi-family homes $350/month, mobile homes $255/month (or $379/month including land payments). Of those making payments, 54.3 percent paid under $450/month, 78 percent of those with multi-family homes paid under $450/month, and 100 percent of those with mobile homes paid under $450/month (OEDP. Vol. 11, 1980). Table 54: Owner/Renter Distribution 1980--Mat-Su Borough (Source: OEDP. Vol. 11, P. 79) Mode of Single Multi- Mobile Ownership Total Family Family Home Rental 13.6 9.7 63.2 15.5 Rent free, not owning 2.9 2.5 2.6 4.8 Total own 83.4 87.8 34.2 79.7 Purchasing (49.5) (54.2) (23.7) (32.1) Own outright (33.9) (33.6) (10.5) (47.6) TABLE 54 133 Transportation Roads: The Mat-Su Borough contains 746 miles of State-maintained primary and secondary roads. The two principal roads in the Borough are the Glenn Highway which runs east and west, and the Parks Highway, which runs north and south. The two routes join south of Palmer, cross the Matanuska and Knik Rivers, and continue into Anchorage (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). Completion of the Parks Highway in 1971 was an important step in land transportation by a I I ow i ng access to the north ha I f of I ands west of the Sus i tna Ri ver (Mat-Su Bor. P I an. Dept. , 1978) . Other major roads incl ude.the Old Palmer-Wasi I la Highway, the Old Glenn Highway, Big Lake Spur, Talkeetna, and Trunk Road. The following are routes either proposed or on which construction is underway: 0 Point MacKenzie Road: To open up access to Pt. MacKenzie for industrial and agricultural development. 0 Wasilla Bypass: Bypass of Wasilla on Parks Highway. 0 Capital City Access: For new capital at Willow (proposed). 0 Tokositna Visitors Center: State DOT project to provide arterial access to a proposed major recreation complex within Denali State Park, serving Mt. McKinley. 0 West Big Lake Arterial: Artery from W. Big Lake to Parks Highway. 0 Lyoner Road: Extension from Pt. MacKenzie Road to Beluga coal region. The highways are important for general automobile access throughout the Borough, for tourist activities, and for employment-related commuting. Since bus transportation is limited to charters (and four buses in the summer), commuting to and from Anchorage is done by automobile. Table 55 indicates that 94 percent of Mat-Su residents (17 and over) visit Anchorage at least once per month. Table 56 indicates that shopping is the primary drawing force of Anchorage, followed by employment, for driving trips. It was estimated that approximately 22 percent of Mat-Su residents car pool regularly when travelling to and from Anchorage. Interest was expressed for a van-pooling program though none have been initiated at this point. A pi lot proposed commuter bus program wi I I have buses travel f rom the Borough into Anchorage for a tie-in with a "People-Mover" service there (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). The highways of Mat-Su are also critical for the flow of commodities, a great portion of which occurs by truck (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). 134 Table 55: Frequency of Trips to Anchorage (1980) (Source: OEDP, Vol. 11, p. 100) FREQUENCY PERCENT (17 & older) Daily 17% 4-5 Trips/Week 10 2-3 Trips/Week 6 1 Trip/Week 14 1 Trip/Month 29 Seldom/Varies 6 TABLE-55 Table 56: Primary Reason for Anchorage Trips (1980) (Source: OEDP, Vol. 11, p. 101) REASON PERCENT Shopping 37% Shopping/Social 7 Shopping/Business 5 Employment 24 Business 15 TABLE 56 Railroads: The Alaska Railroad is the only railroad serving Alaska and the Mat-Su Borough region; it is also the on I y f edera I I y--operated ra i I road i n the Un i ted States. One ma i n I i ne runs north and south through the Borough, rough I y paralleling the Parks Highway. A spur serves Palmer and its industrial park. The railroad has been historically important in the development of the Borough. Many small towns have developed around important locations along the ra i I route. The primary function of the railroad in the Borough is the delivery of goods, particularly gravel and timber (Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1978). A passenger service is provided, however, and allows access to Denali National Park; for residents who live beyond the end of the roadways and scheduled stopping points, the train still stop on request. A future spur is planned into Pt. MacKenzie to support industrial and agricultural development there (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). Air Transportation: There are approximately 30 small air fields which have been classified for public use in the Mat-Su Borough. Approximately 14 others are restricted or are in poor or uncertain condition. Lakes and other bodies of water are used for f loat planes, or ski planes in the winter months, this is a primary means of access for Anchorage recreational visitors (Mat-Su Bor. Plan. Dept., 1978). The largest airport is the Palmer Municipal Airport, 135 which has a 5,000 foot runway capable of accommodating Hercules 130 aircraft as part of general access to the Palmer Industrial Park. Elsewhere, air transportation is considered equally important in transportation of passengers and cargo. It is expected that an airport will be built on Point Mackenzie to supplement service currently being handled by Anchorage International Airport, (and to support its own industrial development), (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). Water Transportation: There is no substantial use of waterways for anything other than pleasure craft in the Mat-Su Borough at this time. However, feasibility studies are underway on possible commuter service by hoovercraft via Knik Arm to Anchorage. Additionally, Anchorage is the principal port in the area for cargo-bearing ships; the Mat-Su Borough wishes to share some of this traffic. A major port facility is planned for Point Mackenzie as part of the overall development plan there (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). Trails: Undeveloped roads, ski paths, trails, snowmachine paths are all important in providing secondary access to points in the region. Community Services Table 57 summarizes community services in the Mat-Su Borough. Education; There are 12 elementary schools, 2 junior high schools, and 3 high schools in the Mat-Su Borough (Table 57). Approximately I of 3 graduating high school students enters the labor pool; in 1980, 250 students graduated from high school (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). Table 58 lists enrollment for Mat-Su Borough schools, 1973 through 1978. In addition to public elementary and high schools, there is a vocational training and trade school, in which 238 were enrolled in school year 1979-1980. The Matanuska-Susitna Community College, a branch of the University of Alaska, had' an enrollment of 1,177 that same year (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). 136 Table 57: Mat-Su Borough Public Facilities (Source: OEDP, Vol. II, P. 107) 3: PUBLIC ca r- U 41 FACILITIES r Aj (U 4J A (U An 1980 Elementary School Jr. & Sr. High Schools Government Offices Clinic/M.D. Office General Hospital Nursing Home Rescue Units Police/Trooper Station Jail Temporary Detention Facility Court Facilities Civil Defense H.Q. Fire Station Park System Library Pub. Sewer & Water Systems Solid Waste Transfer Sta. Sanitary Landfill Electrical Power . . . . . . . Telephone Service TABLE 57 137 Table 58: Aat-Su Public School Enrollment (Source: OEDP, Vol. 11, P. 100) Level 73-74 174-74 75-76 76-77 77-78 78-79 79-80 Elementary 1396 1520 1673 1590 1803 2019 2139 (1-6) High School 1101 1194 1262 1601 1790 1852 1881 (7-12) Total 2497 2714 2935 3191 3593 3871 4494 TABLE 58 Health Care.: Val ley Hospital in Palmer is the on I y major hospital facility in the Borough. It is a 35-bed hosp i ta I , 19 acute care beds, and 6 1 ong-term beds. There are 3 pub I i c hea I th centers i n the Borough, 1 i n Pa I mer, 2 in Wasilla (OEDP. Vol. 11, 1980). Public Safety: There are 14 State Troopers in the Mat-Su Borough: 7 in Palmer, 2 in Wasilla, I in Big Lake, 1 in Trapper Creek, and 4 Borough-wide troopers who enforce Fish and Wildlife regulations. Palmer maintains a city police force of 7 police officers and 5 civilian support personnel. Six fire stations are located throughout the Borough in Sutton, Palmer, Butte, Wasilla, Houston, and Talkeetna (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). Utilities: The Borough maintains 9 sanitary landfills, 11 community sewerage systems, and 22 community water systems (OEDP, Vol. 11, 1980). 138 RESOURCE ANALYSIS AND COASTAL SENSITIVITY NATURAL RESOURCES AND COASTAL HABITAT ANALYSIS Resource analysis focuses upon human utilization of the resources in the coastal habitats. Factors which enhance or detract from this use are presented. Typically, the factors reflect the domino effect of changes in the habitat resulting in aberations to wildlife and fish populations thereby affecting the human utilization of the pbpulations. Each habitat type will be examined with respect to human use and potential problems. OFFSHORE AND ESTUARINE AREAS Human utilization of offshore resources is presently very limited. Future utilization of resources could change due to implementation of proposed projects such as the construction and operation of port facilities at Point Mackenzie. It is premature at this time to attempt an assessment of the effects of offshore resources of this project. Harvesting of marine mammals has been of limited and minimal importance in the offshore area. A small commercial fishery has operated in the area offshore of Susitna Flats. The activity has been limited to about ten set g i I I net s i tes that are f i shed f rom J une 25 to August 15. During this period, typically, two twelve-hour fishing periods have been held each week. Management activities of salmon stocks in the Borough are primarily effected through the control of escapements from the drift gill net fishing in central Cook Inlet (Bill Donaldson, personal communication, 1981). Salmon escapements are discussed in the section on rivers, streams, and lakes. HIGH VEGETATED BANKS There is I ittle wi Idl ife use of the bluff habitat, and similarly there is presently little human use of this habitat. In the future, potential development of commercial and industrial facilities in the Point Mackenzie area could possibly affect wildlife use of this habitat. 139 WETLANDS AND TIDEFLATS The primary human uses of wetlands and tideflats are hunting for waterfowl and moose and trapping of furbearing mammals. Key issues are increased hunter access to disperse hunting pressure, effects of methods of increasing access on waterfowl, moose and their habitats, and the effects of agrarian activities on drainage in this habitat. Ut i I I zat i on of resources i n the wet I and hab i tat i s we I I documented for the refuges along the coast. Other wetlands within the 10001 contour have not been examined as thoroughly. As a result, this section focuses on resource use of the wetlands and tideflats within the refuges. The analysis of upland wetlands is subsumed under the general upland habitat use section. Waterfowl Primary use of Refuge wetlands is for waterfowl hunting; 59 percent of all recreation days spent in Matanuska-Susitna Refuges is related to this sport (Table 59). Other uses include game hunting, trapping (although this typically occurs within the riverine habitat), and enjoying nature (Sellers 1979). Level of effort in Matanuska-Susitna Refuges for waterfowl hunting is high; Susitna Flats and Palmer Hay Flats rank f irst and second in the State for the number of days spent hunting per year (Table 60). By 1980, use of Susitna Flats for waterfowl hunting exceeded 5000 hunter days per year (ADF&G). Duck harvests from Susitna Flats Refuge rank highest in the State. Palmer Hay Flats duck harvests are typically second (Table 61). Goose harvests are likewise productive (Table 62). Susitna Flats ranks among the top ten goose harvest areas in the State (Timm 1974 through 1978). Issues related to waterfowl populations, wetland habitats, and waterfowl hunting are common to all three Refuges. Hunting pressure is concentrated, temporarily and spatially. Duck hunting season typically extends between September 1 and December or January, however, one third to one half the hunting effort is expended between September I and September 10 (Timm 1978, Timm and Sellers 1979). Due to limited access within the Palmer Hay Flats Refuge and the surrounding area, hunting is usual ly restricted to the Duck Flats and Cottonwood Creek areas which are accessible by road. These two areas accounted for 540 hunters on opening day in 1979 and 1980 (Sellers 1979). Access in Goose Bay is limited to roads along the northern and western boundaries. Since Susitna Flats is accessible only by boat or plane, hunters concentrate around landing sites rather than along road access points. 140 Recreational Use of Cook Inlet State Game Refuges. Susitna Palmer Hay Flats Goose Bay % of Total Ave. Days % of all Total Ave. Days % of all Total Ave. Days % of all total Days Per User respondents* Days Per User respondents* Days Per User respondents* rec. using the using the using the Activity days refuge/activity refuge/activity rPftjoe'--1:--- Hunt Waterfowl 59 898 11 76 277 7 32 88 6 14 Hunt Other Game 4 51 6 8 25 4 6 2 2 1 Sport Fish 11 129 6 18 93 8 10 10 5 1 Comm. Fish 6 100 33 3 10 10 0 10 10 0 Enjoy Nature 13 233 10 22 40 3 13 10 1 6 Trapping 7 150 38 '111 Responses received in tirne for tabulation. a) r- M CID Waterfowl Hunter Days and Average Harvest Per Day on Cook Inlet Refuges, 1971-1976, calculated for Statewide Waterfowl Hunter Mail Surveys. Percent of Average Average Hunter Days State waterfowl ducks/ geese/ 1971-1976 hunter days day/ day/ Refuge 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 average 1971-1976 hunter hunter Susitna Flats 3685 3798 7060 3763 3112 5280 4473 7.9 2.3 0.05 Palmer Hay Flats 3081 3561 4861 4162 4292 4945 4150 7.3 1.5 0.02 Goose.Bay - - 984 342 161 601 522 0.9 1.6 0.0 U3 0 M mI am am am Cook Inlet Refuge duck harvest 1971-1976 calculated from statewide waterfowl hunter mail surveys and 1977-1979 calculated from USFWS parts collection survey. Percent of Percent of Duck Harvest State Statewide 1971-1976 Duck Harvest 1977-1979 Duck Harvest Refuge 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 average 1971-1976 1977 1978 1979 average 1977-1979 Susitna Flats 7442 9696 16835 6750 9485 11836 10266 12.6 13917 16283 13182 14461 12.7 Palmer Hay Flats 5854 4677 7879 5458 7114 6326 6218 7.4 11406 3306 1261* 5324 4.9* Goose Bay NS NS 2238 287 351 510 846 0.9 1570 367 459 799 0.7 14S = Not Surveyed * USFWS evidently attributed harvest from Palmer Hay Flats to Upper Cook Inlet Figures. Source: Timm 1977, 1978, 1980, and Timm and Sellers 1979. Cook Inlet Refuge Goose Harvest 1971-1976 calculated from statewide waterfowl hunter mail survey and 1977-1979 calculated from USFWS part collection survey. Percent of Percent of Goose Harvest State Statewide 1971-1976 Goose Harvest 1977-1979 Goose Harvest Refuge 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 average 1971-1976 1977 1973 1979 average 1977-1979 Susitna Flats 699 357 1030 224 173 418 473 3.3 NS 766 438 602 4.1 Palmer Hay Flats 45 65 257 112 173 7Z 121 0.8 NS 0 0 Goose Bay NS NS 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 NS NS NS NS = Not Surveyed Source: Timm 1977, 1978, 1980, and Timm and Selers 1979. Results of survey of opinion on the use of mechanized vehicles in refuges. RESPONSE Susitna Flats Palmer Hay Flats Goose Bay Air Air Air Air Air Air Type of Use Boat ATV Plane Boat ATV Plane Boat ATV Plane 1978 Survey: Unrestricted 42 31 68 33 19 52 40 25 54 Restricted 28 35 32 30 50 26 20 50 8 Prohibited 27 34 0 36 31 23 40 25 38 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Responses from N = Ill' 74 86 80 33 32 31 15 16 13 1979 Survey: k-n Unrestricted 44 30 60 36 21 53 41 24 53 Restricted 30 36 34 31 50 24 18 52 7 Prohibited 26 34 0 33 29 24 41 24 40 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Responses from N = 117 77 92 83 36 38 34 17 21 15 1 Source: Sellers 1979; Timm, unpublished data. a) r M CA) I n response to the problems of concentrated activity generated by limited access, providing additional access has been identified as a possible management action. User response to improved access is divided. Those opposed to increased access note the destruction of habitat associated with road construction, and increased user pressures on the resources associated with greater numbers of users taking advantage of better access. Those favoring increased access emphasize the benefits of better distribution of the hunting effort and the desire to attain favorable hunting positions easily (Sellers 1979). Controversy also surrounds the desirability of restricting or prohibiting alternative modes of transportation (Table 63). Most respondents agreed that use of all terrain vehicles for access should be restricted. Over 50 percent of questionnaire respondents favor unrestricted use of aircraft. No other transportation mode is as universally accepted. In spite of general approval of unrestricted use of aircraft, low flying air traffic disturbs waterfowl. The following effects of low flying aircraft have been identified: 1. Geese are more sensitive to disturbance than ducks,- 2. Helicopters create a greater reaction than do planes flying at the same altitude; 3. Ducks in particular can become accustomed to aircraft flying above 4001 provided there is no direct association with harassment (Sellers 1979). In the Coffee Point area the foflowing adverse impacts have been linked to aircraft use for hunting: 1. Some frightened geese leave Palmer- Hay Flats early for their southern migration; 2. Feeding patterns shifted to nocturnal activity; 3. Daylight activities are limited to inaccessible areas on the inlet or mudflats; 4. Disturbed geese tend to form larger flocks; 5.- Interference with other hunter's use of the area and the goose resource (Sellers 1979). The sensitivity of waterfowl to aircraft has implications for development of airstrips and landing patterns within the Borough. Five hundred feet has been established as the minimum altitude for aircraft over the Susitna Flats Refuge (ADF&Ga). 146 Furbearers Comparatively low levels of trapping for furbearing mammals has occurred in this habitat (Table 59). It is anticipated that little potential exists for conflicts to arise due to trapping. For the same reason, it is unlikely that increased hunter access will adversely affect trapping. Moose Moose hunting likewise causes little conflict with waterfowl activity. In the Palmer Hay Flats, moose hunting typically occurs i-n the eastern portion of the Refuge, an area not used extensively by waterfowl. Similarly, moose hunting along the western portion of Goose Bay is separated from most waterfowl use. Moose hunting in Susitna Flats is limited. Poor access combined with poor hunting conditions discourages most hunting except in the northern portions of the Refuge, e.g., the islands north of Big Island, mainland river bars, and wooded areas along the Susitna River. Access is limited to boats. Hunting pressure also occurs along the Little Susitna River north of Gay's Airfield and around Horseshoe Lake (ADF&G 1980a, undated a, undated b). Natural tidal erosion is causing wetlands to drain in all three Refuges. Alaska Department of Fish and Game is considering steps to mitigate some of the damage (ADF&G 1980a). Any activity which would accelerate wetland drainage or intercept incoming nourishment should be examined closely to prevent damage to the wetlands. Changes in habitat use outside the wetlands may also have an effect on wetlands and associated organisms. For example, agricultural uses proposed may increase grain resources for waterfowl and other birds. Removal of mature forests for agricultural purposes may also increase moose habitat and therefore increase needs for calving areas within the Refuges. @(;cess,,--Industry, and Agriculture Road developments such as those proposed for developing the Beluga Coal Field, the Point Mackenzie industrial complex and agricultural project and for providing access to private property within Refuges may alter wetland drainage patterns. Refuge management plans recognize the need to monitor these activities to avoid adverse impacts. 147 RIVEFS,_STR@@MS, AND LAKES Utilization of living resources within the rivers, streams and I akes hab i tat centers on use of f i shery resources. Secondary uses involve moose hunting particularly along and on the Susitna River, waterfowl hunting, particularly in the Jim-Swan lakes areas, and trapping small furbearers which occurs on rivers, streams and lakes throughout the Borough (Ritchie 1981, ADF&G Resource Maps, ADF&G 1980). Conflicts with these uses could arise due to increased road access, development of hydroelectric power, logging, and agricultural, recreational and urban development. Fishing utilization within the Borough is typically recreational. The Susitna River drainage provides the second most important recreational fishing rivers and streams in the State (Governor's Committee 1980). Catch statistics for 1978 indicate that heavily fished rivers and lakes (greater than 1,000 days fished) are the Deshka River, Lake Creek, Alexander Creek, Chuit River, Clear (Chunilna) Creek, Little Willow Creek, Rabbit Slough, Kepler Lake Complex, Lucille Lake, Big Lake, and the Nancy Lake Re6reation area. Areas with more than 10,000 days fished include Finger Lake, Little Susitna River, Sheep Creek, Willow Creek and Montana Creek (Tables 64, 65, 66) (Mills 1980). Rivers, streams and lakes throughout the Borough provide good harvests of coho salmon, Dolly Varden, and graylin@. King salmon are caught primarily on drainages on the west side of the Susitna River, especially the Deshka River and Alexander Creek.. The west side drainages also provide the greatest pink and chum salmon catches; Willow and Montana Creeks are prime producers of pinks and Lake Creek is a prime producer of chum. Drainages between and including the Little Susitna River and Knik Arm provide the largest harvests in the Borough for landlocked salmon, sockeye salmon and rainbow trout. Finger and Lucille Lakes has the highest catch of landlocked salmon; the Little Susitna River has the highest catch of sockeye salmon and the Big and Kepler Lakes have the highest harvest of rainbow trout (Tables 64, 65, 66). Management goals are detailed for the Susitna Flats Refuge. Here, management goals indicate a desire to increase salmon escapement on the Susitna River to the following levels: sockeye, 200,000; chum, 200,000; coho 100,000; pink (odd year) 75,000; pink (even year) 1,000,000; and king 60,000. Other salmon and sport fish stocks in Refuge streams are to be maintained at 1980 levels (ADF&G 1980a). 148 Knik Arm Drainage* Sport Fish Harvests and Effort by Fishery and Special, 1978. Dolly Days King Silver Land- Red Pink Coho Rainbow Varden Lake Fished Salmon Salmon Locked Salmon Salmon Salmon Trout Arctic Tro ut Grayling Burbot Other Location Char Little Susitna River )2,)27 93 4,865 0 859 1,517 956 886 570 0 54 9 759 Wasilla Creek (Rabbit Slough) 3,446 47 2,112 0 0 279 59 45 325 0 0 0 0 Finger Lake 11,502 0 8,588 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kepler Lake Complex 5,730 0 0 298 0 0 0 5,180 0 .0 985 0 0 Lucille Lake 4,803 0 0 4p963 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Big Lake 9,865 0 0 226 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nancy Lake Recreation Area, including Nancy Lake 7,647 0 0 262 14 0 0 1,853 18 127 0 145 0 Others 20p420 0 918 4,547 366 46 117 10,330 1,636 380 1,374 230 36 GRAND TOTAL 75,540 140 7,895 18,884 lp239 1,842 1,132 23,139 7,982 507 2,413 452 795 East Side Susitna Drainage* Sport Fish Harvests and Effort by Fishery and Special, 1978. Dolly Days King Silver Land- Red Pink Coho Rainbow Varden Lake Fished Salmon Salmon Locked Salmon Salmon Salmon Trout Arctic Trout Grayling Burbot Other Location Char Willow Creek 22,682 47 905 0 56 18,901 2,458 913 280 0 208 9 27 il Montana Creek 25,762 408 2,451 0 85 15,619 4,429 1,193 633 0 958 9 27 Clear (Chunilna) I Creek 5,040 12 2,200 0 28 2pO74 1,912 1,501 1,817 0 859 27 0 Sheep Creek 11,869 256 478 0 14 6P981 1,697 470 108 0 461 Is 9 Little Willow Creek 5,687 0 151 0 28 3,142 1,015 334 63 0 334 0 0 Others 14,970 163 2,388 2,368 56 3,994 2,692 1,519 2,739 877 3,770 208 90 GRAND TOTAL 86p0IO 886 8p573 2,368 267 50,711 14,203 5,930 5,640 877 6,600 271 153 East Side Susitria Drainage (Area M): All East side drainages of the Susitna River below its confluence with the Oshetna River. Fish taken while fishing from the East bank of the Susitna River are included in this area. Source: Mills 1980, Modified West Side Cook Inlet-West Side Susitna River Drainage* Sport Fish Harvest and Effort by Fishery and Species, 1978. Days King" Silver Red Pink Chum Rainbow Dolly Lake Location Fished Salmon Salmon Salmon Salmon Salmon. Trout Varden Trout Grayling Burbot Other Deshka River 9,111 850 1,798 0 697 0 3,634 0 0 579 0 72 Lake Creek 8,767 326 2,212 254 2,833 1,015 2,721 154 36 2,115 45 18 Alexander Creek 6p.914 769 2,401 183 1,146 215 2,640 136 0 1,871 0 181 Talachulitna River 732 12 88 141 31 234 0 235 0 99 0 0 Chit River 1,185 408 277 0 155 0 443 461 0 0 0 0 Theodore River 905 58 101 0 449 0 226 353 0 0 0 0 Lewis River 172 12 0 0 46 0 54 27 0 0 0 0 Shell Lake 302 0 0 2a 0 0 27 0 45 0 0 0 Whiskey Lake 129 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hewitt Lake 172 0 0 0 0 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 Judd Lake 151 0 0 70 0 0 0 371 0 0 0 0 GRAND TOTAL 29,340 2,435 6,877 714 5,357 1,464 9,872 1,737 81 4 664 45 271 Razor Clams Total Digging Days: 800 Total Clams Taken: 39,175f Modified West Side Cook Inlet-West Side Susitna River Drainage (Area N): All West Side Susitna River drainages and all West Side Cook Inlet waters southward to Cape Douglas. Fish taken while fishing from the west bank of the Susitna River are included in this area. Excludes unidentified lakes and streams siMce they contain harvests which may be outside the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Kings less than 20 inches. Source: Modified from Mills 1980. al r, M 0) 0) Alaska Department of Fish and Game also developed criteria to prioritize stream systems. Any system supporting anadromous fish populations is classified a priority system. Stream systems satisfying any of three additional criteria are classified as high priority. These criteria include: a. Streams with salmon escapements greater than 1000; b. Streams supporting spawning populations of less abundant species, such a coho and chinook, and C. Streams needed to preserve suitable habitat for all life cycle stages (ADF&G 1980b). Access is a key factor in recreational Jishing. Increasing road access will have immediate localized effects due to increased fishing effort of selected sites and possible environmental changes caused by road construction. Adverse effects of road construction (i.e., increased siltation of stream beds and restricted movement of anadromous fish) can be foreseen and mitigated. Fish stocks can be managed and supplemented through stocking programs. Less localized effects are also possible. These are easier to assess in areas which have road access than in areas where access is limited. In the latter case, a true assessment of the productivity in the area is often lacking and an awareness of change in the system may not be timely. In addition to access, several other activities such a hydroelectric projects., logging, and urban, recreational and industrial developments may have an impact on fisheries productivity and resource use. These activities would create changes in stream flow regimes, remove foliage from stream banks, increase surface runoff and/or introduce large amounts of sediment or other foreign materials into the streams. Some of these effects can be mitigated with policies addressing setback requirements or timing of activities, compensation techniques such as replacing stream bank foliage or creating settlement systems before runoff enters the stream. Setback recommendations for various types of activities are currently used by the State Department of Natural Resources for State land. Recommended setbacks include: a. 2001 for public recreation lands, private recreation lands. A minimum buffer is considered adequate to control septic systems, pollution from fueling operations, and the need for stream bank stabilization projects. 152 b. 400! for agricultural lands, grazing lands and timberlands. The setback would mitigate problems derived from agricultural runoff and the removal of stream vegetation through grazing or timber harvesting. C. 8001 for commercial-industrial lands, material and mineral lands, residential lands, and reserved use lands. Problems encountered by these developments include adding excessive siltation, creating fish traps or blocking fish migrations, shifting river channels, adding toxic pollutants and disturbing animal migrations and human recreation (ADF&G 1980b). Some changes in the classification scheme have been proposed. Among the alternations are adding greenbelts, watershed lands, and wildlife habitat land to the most restrictive setback category. The rationale supporting these setbacks reflects the need or desirability to provide utmost separation of possible infringements from the more critical uses o the riverine systems (ADF&G 1980b) More limited setbacks have been used on private lands to protect anadromous fish streams. IMPORTANT UPLAND HABITAT Upland game activities occurring in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough are often extensions of activities along river corridors and in wetland habitats. As a result, sharp distinction in uses among the three habitats are frequently inappropriate. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough contains portions of three Game Management Units (GMU), 13E, 14A and B, and 16A and B. GMU 14A includes most of the Matanuska-Susitna highway area. The southern boundary is Knik Arm and Cook Inlet, the western boundary is the Susitna River; the northern boundary is Willow and Peters Creek east to the headwaters of the Chickaloon River, which is the eastern boundary. GMU 14B I i es north of 1 4A up to the northern ban k of the Ta I keetna River. GMU 16 lies west of the Susitna River, extends north to the Mt. McKinley border and south to Redoubt Bay. GMU 16A was separated from 16B to better manage the area which has road access. GMU 16A fol lows the east bank of the Kahi Itna to the conf I uence with the Yentna, continuing down the eastern bank of the Yentna to the Susitna River. It is apparent that these boundaries include substantial upland habitat outside the coastal management boundary and in some cases outside the Borough. Although the statistics cover a greater area, the natural resource maps and hunter 153 mode of transportation indicate that the majority of the moose hunting (outside GMU16B) occurs near the road system within the 10001 contour (Table 67). Resource maps and limited access indicate much of the black bear harvest likewise occurs within the coastal zone. Upland bird hunting is not documented for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Between 1970 and 1980 GMU 14A had the largest single moose harvest. Thereafter the harvest fell to approximately 300 per year. GMU 16 has consistently been the most productive; particularly subunit 16B. Most successful hunters in GMU 16B fly in (Table 68). Resource maps indicate several river systems such as Alexander Creek, Yentna River and Ski.-@entna River are prime harvest areas. Other prime areas include the Matanuska Valley, Knik Arm, Kahiltna Flats, Black Creek, Cache Creek, 20 Mile Slough, the areas around and between Beluga Mountain and Mount Susitna, Sunflower Basin, and the Kahiltna--Peters Hills area. Much of these latter sites, however, are outside the coastal management boundary. Various factors influence the size and location of the harvest. Among these are weather conditions, harvest practices, and access. In 1970-71 hunters shifted from the Peters and Dutch Hills areas to the Susitna River due to snow conditions. Harsh winter conditions in 1970-71 continued to figure prominently in harvest statistics in subsequent years due to reduced populations resulting from large natural winter kills (Tables 69 and 70). For example, 161 moose were found dead from Alexander Creek and the Susitna River north to Talkeetna. Calf mortality on the Susitna River between Bell Island and Talkeetna, a'nd in the Alexander/Sucker Creeks areas was 88.5 percent and in GMU 14B, 115 moose were driven down to the va I I ey where they were killed by trains. This figure compares with 81 taken by hunters that winter (McKnight 1973a). Not unti I mild winters in recent years have the populations recovered (Table 69). Special harvest restrictions exclusive of the relatively consistent restrictions on seasons and bag limits also influence level and areas.of effort. For example, low harvests in GMU 16A in 1979-80 partially refiects restrictions on antlerless harvests within three mi I es of the ro6d (Hinman 1980b). It is also speculated that the majority of the antlerless moose taken in GMU 14A are from the val ley f loor population which as accessible by highway; the number of antlerless moose permitted to be harvested could be increased if they were taken elsewhere in the unit (Hinman 1980b). General level of effort is also affected by regulations an"d anterless seasons. It has b.een observed that the number of hunters who participated in recreational and subsistence hunting in 1971 doubled from the 1970 figure in GMU 14A due to an antlerless harvest season (McKnight 1974b). 154 Table 67- Fish and Wildlife Habitats, and Recreational Reservations on Public Lands in the Upper Cook Inlet lease sale area. Name Type of Easement 1. Little Susitna River 1-mile recreational corridor 2. Susitna River ?-mile fish and wildlife habitat corridor (all contained within Susitna Flats Refuge) 3. Theodore River mile recreational corridor (all contained within Susitna Flats Refuge) 4. Chuitna River 200 feet; no development setback on both stream banks 5. Yentna & Swentna Rivers mile recreational and fish and wildlife habitat corridor 6. Alexander Creek (and Sucker Creek) 1-mile recreational corridor 2 7. Lake Creek 1-mile recreational corridor z Source: Governor's Committee 1980. 155 TABLE 67 Table 68: Moose Harvest in GMU's (14a, 14b, 16a, 16b) during 1970 to 1979. Number Number of Estimated Percent of Moose Moose of Unit Year Hunters Harvested Population Harvest 1970 2603 1283 5079 25 1971 3738 1853 4832 38 1972 1699 964 3836 25 1973 3896 1367 4733 29 1974 3160 754 4297 18 1975 1975 435 1108 a 39 1976 3311 708 1358 a 52 1977 4593 b 987 3872 a 25 1978 4654 1277 3960 a 32 1979 2961 933 3570 26 a Only portions of GMU's censused. b Data extrapolated to correct for missing reminder letters. Source: McKnight 1973a, 1974b, Hinman 1980b. 156 TABLE -68 OCLC: 8420064 Rec stat: C Entered: 19820512 Replaced: 19950304 Used: 19920114 S Type: a Bib tvt: m Source: d Lang: eng Repr: Enc LvL: I Conf pub: 0 Ctry: xxu Indx: 0 Mod rec: Govt pub: s Cont: b Desc: a Int Lvl: Festschr: 0 ILLus: ab F/B: 0 Dat tp: S Dates: 1980, % 1 040 UDA Ic UDA % S 2 090 HT393.A42 Ib M382 % S 3 090 Ib % $ 4 049 NO@M % $ 5 245 00 Matanuska-Susitna Borough coastal management program : Ib phase 1 completion report / Ic prepared by Maynard and Partch, Woodward-Clyde Consultants. % $ 6 260 (S.L.] : Ib Alaska Coastal Management Program, Ic [19803 % $ 7 300 ix, 281 p. : Ib RL., maps ; Ic 28 cm. % $ 8 500 Partially funded by the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, administered by The Division of Community Planning, Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs, and The Matanuska- Sustina Borough Assembly. % $ 9 500 "May 1981.11 % $ 10 500 7 folded maps in pocket. % $ 11 504 Bibliography: p. 273-281. % $ 12 650 0 Coastal zone management Iz Alaska Iz Matanuska-Susitna Borough. % $ 13 651 0 Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Alaska) % $ 14 710 2 Maynard and Partch (Firm) % $ 15 710 2 Woodward-CLyde Consultants. % $ 16 710 2 Alaska Coastal Management Program. % $ 17 710 2 National Ocean Survey. Ib Office of Coastal Zone Management. % $ 18 710 1 Alaska. Ib Division of Community Planning. % $ 19 710 2 Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Alaska). Ib Assembly. % Verified Moose Mortality (excluding hunting) in Alas ka's Game management Subunit 14A during the period June I - May 31, 1972 to 1979. ROAD KILL INCIDENTAUTRAIN KILL ILLEGAL KILL WINTER KILL TOTAL *Ad. Ad. Calf ? Tot. Ad. Ad. Calf ? Tot. Ad. Ad. Calf ? Tot. Ad. Ad. Calf ? Tot. M. F. M F M. F. M F M. F. M F M. F. M F 1972-73 4 20 6 4 2 36 0 2 0 2 1 5 3 31 2 6 7 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 1973-74 2 17 7 5 2 33 1 4 2 6 1 14 1 37 2 2 7 49 1 1 2 30 7 103 1974-75 8 28 10 13 4 63 5 16 6 7 1 35 5 24 3 3 5 40 0 0 3 40 7 145 1975-76** 0 20 5 3 1 29 1 2 0 1 1 5 1 8 1 0 3 13 0 1 0 00 1 48 1976-77** 7 28 6 15 0 56 1 4 0 1 1 7 9 6 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 10 2 80 1977-78** 9 34 6 17 1 67 0 1 2 0 2 5 2 2 0 0 2 6 0 1 0 00 1 79 1978-79 15 42 8 30 13 108*** 3 3 1 1 4 12 4 7 1 3 28 43 0 1 1 07 9 172 Ad.M = Adult Mate; Ad.F Adult Femai@; Calf M = Calf Mate; Calf F= Calf Female; ? Unknown Sex or Age Tot. Total. A reduced effort was made to document moose mortality those years. Mortality along the Alaska Railroad Tracks was not tallied during the springs of 1976 through 1978. Increased snow depth in early winter therefore moved down earlier. Comparable to 1971-72 season when 109 road killed moose were tallied. PREPARED BY: Jack C. Didrickson, Game Biologist 111. 03 r- M 0) CC) Verified Moose Mortality (excluding hunting) in Alaska's Game management Subunit 14B during the period June I - May 31, 1972-73 through 1978-79. ROAD KILL INCIDENTAUTRAIN KILL ILLEGAL KILL WINTER KILL TOTAL *Ad. Ad. Calf ? Tot. Ad. Ad. Calf ? Tot. Ad. Ad. Calf ? Tot. Ad. Ad. Calf ? Tot. M. F. M F M. F. M F M. F. M F M. F. M F 1972-73 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 4 2 1 3 10 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 15 1973-74 1 3 0 1 1 6 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1974-75 1 0 2 0 2 5 4 16 2 8 19 49 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 2 58 )975-76** 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1976-77 1 2 3 0 1 7 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1977-78 0 2 0 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 15 1978-79 6 16 1 10 8 41 21 39 11 9 91 171 1 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 2 219 Ad.M Adult Male; Ad.F Adult Female; Calf M Calf Male; Calf F= Calf Female; ?= Unknown Sex or Age; Tot. Total. A reduced effort was made to document moose mortality this period; moose mortality along the Alaska Railroad tracks was not tallied during the spring 1973, 1975, and 1976. PREPARED BY: Jack C. Didrickson, Game Biologist Ill. One final influence alluded to earlier is the effect of access on hunting. Limited access has been cited in all four subunits as effecting harvests. For examp I e, i n GMU 14A antlerless harvests could be increased, as noted above, if other areas of the unit were hunted. In GMU 14B access is considered difficult because there is only one road on the far western boundary and an abundance of spruce timber stands limits the number of suitable landing areas for air access (Hinman 1980b). Even the rationale for subdividing GMU 16 was based on access. GMU 16A was separated from GMU 16 so the road system in the Peter and Dutch H i I Is area could be managed independently from that portion of the unit with no road access (GMU 16B). Within GMU 16A limitations on access were identified as a partial explanation for the low 1979-80 harvest. In the area between the Kahiltna and Yentna Rivers access is virtually impossible during September. As a result a special bull-only season held in November is under consideration. Modes of access are shifting. Access statistics for moose hunting are available for GMU 16 from 1972 through 1980. The high percent of aircraft use reflects the preponderance of harvests from 16B which is essentially inaccessible by highway vehicles. Aircraft use in combination with boat and all terrain vehicles use has increased considerably (Hinman 1979). In addition, boat use increased sharply after 1976 when the lower portion of 16A was opened for an antlerless season (Hinman 1980). Game management practices for other mammals have also made a difference in some areas. For example, aerial harvests of wolves were stopped in 1972. Although this made no difference in GMU 14 harvests, harvests in GMU 16 were halved. Prime harvest areas in 1972 were the Knik River drainage and Kings River drainage (McKnight 1974c). Bounty on wolverine in GMU 14 was stopped in 1968. After three years of no records, harvests in 1971-72 indicated reduced effort. Interest subsequently returned. Harvest data for 1972--73 indicate 36 were taken and in 1979-80 fifty-five were harvested. No comparable slump was noted in GMU 16 (McKnight 1974c). Wolf harvests occur primarily in February and March (McKnight 1974e). Conflicts between wolves and I i vestock were noted in GMU 14A and B. Norma I I y these conflicts are rectified by directing trappers and fur hunters to the area (Hinman 1979). Wolverine harvests are slightly less concentrated in span from December through March. There are no indications in the literature that access or habitat changes are critical factors in wolf and wolverine harvests. 159 Black bear harvests in GMU 14 and 16 reached new highs in 1980. Eighty-nine were taken in GMU 14 primari I y between Wi I low Creek and the Little Susitna River, and along the Knik river (ADF&G Resource Maps). The previous record was set in 1975 when 80 black bear were taken (Hinman 1981). In GMU 16, 243 black bear were taken in 1980, double the harvest of 1979 and the largest harvest since the seal ing program began in 1973 (Hinman 1980a and ADF&G Palmer Game Office, unpublished 1980 date). There is no closed season for black bear. Over 50% of the harvest, however, occurs in the fall (between July I and December 31). Larger fa-11 harvests reflect bear taken as chance encounters or additions to the bag during established ungulate hunting seasons (Hinman 1980a). Since black bear vulnerability may largely be associated with sightability, spring harvests typically occur after black bear leave the den but before deciduous foliage appears. harvests which take place outside ungulate seasons or after foliage appears primarily results from food-seeking bears encountering human habitats (Hinman 1978). Guidelines have been published to guide development in areas of extensive wildlife habitat (ADF&G 1980b).Four elements to guide development and mitigation measures to be considered in guiding development include: � Effects of development on critical wildlife habitat; � Creation of buffer zones between wildlife habitat and development; � Timing of activities; � Effects of access. Critical upland habitats are those associated with heavy wildlife use, especially those areas meeting particular seasonal or life cycle needs, such as winter or summer forage areas, calving areas, denning areas, and migration corridors (ADF&G 1980b). Winter habitat is usually the most limited and any loss may have severe effects. I n many instances, mitigation measures may offset loss of habitat; for example, forage may be improved elsewhere to compensate. Imposing buffer zones between developments and valuable habitat is often a useful technique to separate human activities from wildlife areas (ADF&G 1980b). Of particular importance for upland game would be the separation of agricultural areas from areas of heavy wildlife use in order to reduce crop damage as well as to protect wildlife. Commercial, industrial and residential uses also create problems to a greater or lesser degree depending upon the amount of noise, - introduction of foreign substances and habitat alteration associated in the development. 160 Timing activities to coincide with periods of low use by wildlife provides another means for meshing human and wildlife use of upland habitats to the maximum extent possible, periods of high human use activity such as during construction should be scheduled to avoid periods of peak wildlife use. Development in new areas will necessitate access and increase road traffic. The implications for wildlife are three-fold. First, roadways will alter existing vegetative patterns - either increasing forage potential for moose by replacing mature forests with new vegetation along the road or reducing forage by replacing prime'habitat with pavement. Second, increases in road traffic may have a double impact. It may drive away certain species which are intolerant of human activity. Roads often provide forage attracting moose. A comparison between road kills of moose in Palmer with that in Talkeetna indicates heavy traffic volumes combined with areas of winter forage lead to a high number of road ki I Is (Tables 69 and 70). Last, hunting pressures can be affected in two ways; increased road access will enable more hunters to participate and the increased pressure should be better distributed. 161 I I I y I COASTAIL SENSITIVITY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND RESOURCES ANALYSIS WATER RESOURCES Surface water and ground water resources i n the Mat-Su Borough are largely untapped. Lakes and streams can provide large quantities of water throughout the year. The composite flow average for the Chulitna, Susitna, and Talkeetna Rivers is 24,000 cfs (cubic feet per second) or 15,000 mgd (million gallons per day) (Fuelner 1971). The Matanuska River near Palmer averages 3,857 cfs or 2,500 mgd. Ground water is plentiful in the aquifer along the Susitna and its tributaries. Future water needs for communities such as Palmer, Wasilla, Houston, Willow, Sunshine, Montana, and Talkeetna could be supplied from this aquifer. Wells, or galleries located in the aquifer should yield 1,000 gpm or greater. Wel Is placed in former drainage channels and buried val leys distant from active streams should yield up to 500 gpm (Fuelner 1971). The area of the district excluding the high yield aquifer along the Susitna and its tributaries presents less promising water yields. No widespread aquifer system is known-to exist in this area. Wells usually yield between 10 and 50 gpm (Feulner 1971). Most of the larger communities within the Borough are located in this area. 0 Palmer - To meet increased demands for water in Palmer it will be necessary to drill wells north of town or in abandoned channels south of town, or installing a gallery adjacent to Matanuska River east of town. The ground water source near Fishhook Road appears to be intermittent. Some wells in the area havedried upor yield only a minimum amount of water. Other wells in the area are providing adequate quantities of water. 0 Was i I I a - There I s an adequate supp I y of ground water ava i I ab I e near Was i I I a, a I though the water i s c I ose to the surface and contamination of the shal low ground water aquifer and lakes is possible. Wells were contaminated by adjacent septic tanks in 1970 (Fuelner 1971). 0 Houston - The supp I y of ground water ava i I ab I e to Houston is sufficient to meet the present and projected future needs of its population. 0 Willow - Willow water supplies would have to be increased if the State Capital is moved to the areas. 162 � Big Lake Big Lake wells yield fairly large quantities of water. There is a potential for contamination with increased settlement in the area. Additional water can be obtained just north of the community. � Montana - Montana has an abundant water supply. � Sunshine - Sunshine also has an adequate supply of ground water available. � Talkeetna - Talkeetna water is plentiful, but precaution should be taken to protect the ground water supply from contamination. Private sewer systems back up during spring break-up causing well contamination. Contamination is attributed to the lack of a community sewage facility. Residents use septic tanks which discharge into shallow aquifers which drain into a nearby lake. The coliform count in the lake could become a health problem as permanent settlement at the east end of the lake intensifies. 163 GEOPHYSICAL HAZARDS ANALYSIS GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Constra i nts of geo I og i c or i g i n f a I I i nto th ree categor i es: (1) seismic, (2) volcanic, or (3) mass wasting restrictions. The restrictions generally fall into the categories of no development in or adjacent to the hazards and/or using adequate design techniques to minimize adverse affects from the hazard. Site specific studies would be needed to adequately address these constraints when planning future developments. Seismic Constraints Several major faults either border or cross the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management District and the southcentral area of Alaska, which is one of the most seismical ly active areas in the world. One of the strongest earthquakes in recorded history struck southcentral Alaska in march of 1964; the magnitude of which was 8.4 on the Richter Scale. The quake was centered in the Prince William Sound area, approximately 175 km (100 miles) southeast of the Mat-Su Borough. For engineering design purposes, preliminary maximum credible earthquake (PMCE) events of magnitude (M ) 7.4 on the Castle Mountain, and (M ) 8.5 on the DenaTi faults should be considered. AnoAer major source of seismic energy in the Borough is the Benioff zone which has an estimated PNICE to be a magnitude (M ) 8.5 event (WWC, 1980). Construction within the anticipAed ground rupture zone on these or-other active fault traces should consider the consequences of faulting. The width of ground rupture along a fault is a site-specific function; ruptures could range in width from a few feet to several hundred feet. Refer to the Geophysical Hazards Map for the general location of reported active faults (Map D). Refer to the Geologic Hazards Map for the general location of the fault system (Map D). Liquefaction potential is high on the floodplains of the Susitna, Little Susitna, Matanuska and Knik Rivers. The combination of fine-grained deposits and high water table magnifies this potential. Specif ic site response to ground shaking, however, is also dependent on a number of other factors such as duration of shaking, response spectra, earthquake magnitude and intensity, depth of focus and bui Iding design and construction. Alluvial fans on the Chugach Mountain fronts in Knik Valley showed severe cracking as a result of the 1964 earthquake (oral communication, R. Updike 1981). Since these areas may 164 appear attractive to development, proper engineering design needs to be considered in view of the liquefaction potential. Flood potential also needs to be addressed in these areas. In areas of peat bogs and si It fans, ground shaking can be amplified. The morainal and glaciolacustrine deposits blanketing the Susitna River Basin in general are poor foundation material except where local ly high in gravel and sand content. Since they are normally poorly drained, with high water and ice content, the deposits are frost susceptible and may tend to settle differentially if thawed. In the case of peat bogs, development in these areas usually involved stripping off the organic mat which them promotes thaw i ng of the under I y i ng so i I s. This thawing in turn can cause differential settlement. Volcanic Constraints In the area south and west of Mount Susitna, and Little Mount Susitna volcanic hazards pose constraints on development. Violent directed explosions, flash floods, ash fall, landslides, and mudflows among other phenomena could damage nearby developments. An approximate 35 mile radius of destruction can be set based on past examples of andesitic volcanic eruptions. Lahars, which are volcanic mudflows, can reach speeds of up to 100 mph and travel great distances. Since these mudflows follow the valleys, their path can be predicted with fair certainty by analyzing the topography. The extent and volume of the flowY however, is much more difficult to predict (G. A. Macdonald, 1972). The presence of Capps Glacier on the north flank of Mount Spurr sets the stage - f or f I ash f I ood I ng i n the event of an eruption. Some possible alleviating measures are available given the cooperation of nature and proper design. Mudflows of relatively smal I volume can be contained in properly designed reservoirs. Other possibilities are diversion barriers and artificial structures to serve as refuge. Sma I I g I ow i ng ava I anches can be constra i ned i n reservo i rs p rov i ded the ve I oc i ty of the f I ow reach i ng the dam i s not too great. Ash f a I I can be shove I ed of f roof tops to prevent co I I apse and dust f i I ters i nsta I I ed i n a i rcraf t or other engines. In the event that at a violent directed explosion or explosively generated glowing avalanche is feared the best approach is to evacuate the entire circumferential area (G. A. Macdonald, 1972). 165 Mass Wasting Constraints Mass wasting presents a viable constraint on development in the Borough. Landslides occur in abundance along the walls of the Matanuska Val ley in the southeastern portion of the Borough. A combination of geologic conditions contribute to the high landslide risk in the area. Valley walls are greatly oversteepened as a result of scour and erosion by Pleistocene glaciation. Numerous incompetent shale layers in the Chickaloon and Matanuska Formations in the valley walls provide classic slide plane surfaces (Detterman, eta a I . 1976) . In addition, the rocks in the area are highly fractured and sheared due to their proximity to the Castle Mountain and Border Range fault zones. Development on or near the -Fo'e of landslide deposits may reactivate the slide and should be avoided. Site specific examinations should be made prior to development on or near slopes steeper than 35 degrees in the slide prone Matanuska Valley. Avalanche chutes are generally a phenomenon of the steep, higher mountainous areas, but as development progresses into these areas careful planning and site specific mapping needs to be done. The area on the east side of Mount Susitna and one the west side of Little Mount Susitna is avalanche prone. Other areas of extensive avalanche occurrence are in the Central Alaska Range from Hidden River to Alder Creek and in the Talkeetna Mountains from Indian River to Kashwitna River (Map D). Pioneer Peak along the old Palmer highway on the southside of Knik River Val ley is a large, active avalanche chute. Activities in the avalanche prone areas should be restricted particularly during times of high avalanche risk; characteristically during spring thaw. Rock glaciers occur on the drainage divide between Hidden River and Eldridge Glacier in the northern portion of the Borough. More rock glaciers may exist in other narrow mountain val leys in the Talkeetna and Chugach mountains but have not been documented. Development should be avoided on or near the base of these slowly moving rock slides. HYDROLOGIC HAZARDS Hazards of hydrologic origin include riverine flooding, icings, and stream bank erosion. Consideration of these hazards places a constraint on development. The amount of constraint associated with these hydrologic hazards depends on the overlap of the site specific boundaries of the proposed development with the site specific hazard boundaries. Lacking such site specific information, a general discussion of the types of constraints imposed by hydrologic hazards follows. Riverine Flooding Constraints Development within the f loodplain of a 100 year recurrence interval flood should be restricted to minimize the potential for f lood damage. Floods have the potential to damage or carry away roads, buildings, or automobiles, and 166 have often caused injury or death to people or animals in their path. The 100 year recurrence interval flood has a one percent chance of occurrence in any given year. All streams in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management District have 100 year floodplains associated with them. Only a few of these have been studied in sufficient detail to delineate their boundaries (Preliminary Management Areas, Map F). Boundaries that are shown as approximate or estimated should be studied in detail if development is proposed in the vicinity of the boundaries. In certain areas having limited available space, a floodway concept can be implemented. A f I oodway i s the port i on of the 100 year f I oodp I a i n that must be ma i nta i ned undeve I oped to ensure that the water level of the 100 year recurrence interval flood does not rise more than a specified level (usually 1 ft) if the remainder of the floodplain were completely developed (Figure 9). Such a concept allows development in the floodway fringe (area between the 100 year floodplain and floodway boundaries),, but such development should be doneon fill or on pilings that keep the property above the flood level of the 100 year flood. Property that already exists in the 100 year floodplain should be protected from flood waters; publications describing flood proofing techniques are available through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District Office in Anchorage. The 100 year floodplain boundaries may change over time. The two primary causes of change are increased levels of hydrologic data and degree of development in the basin. Even the detailed floodplain delineation studies are based on estimates of the magnitude of the 100 year recurrence i nte rva I f I cod. Estimates of such floods in Alaska are typically based upon only a few years of discharge measurements, and often these measurements are on a different stream or too far upstream or downstream on the study stream. Thus, as additional years of data are made available, the magnitude, and thus the floodplain boundaries, of the 100 year flood may change; such a change may be an increase or decrease from the current values, but would not normally be substantial. Increased development in the floodplain typically decreases the natural storage and retention properties of the natural conditions. Wetlands lakes, vegetation, and slight depressions have the ca'pability to store and delay runoff so that floods last for a long time and have relatively low magnitudes. As development occurs, these storage and retention features are replaced by buildings and pavement from which runoff is rapid. Thus, floods last for shorter periods and have increased peaks as development continues. 167 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN FLOOOWAY FLOODWAY FLOOOWAY.4, FRINGE FRINGE 3TRE" CHANNEL FLOOD ELEVATION WHEN CONFINED WITWIN FLOODWAY ENCROACHMew ENCROACHMENT. 0 SUACHAAGE' ..................... AflFA OF FLOOD PLAIN T14AT COULD FLOOD ELEVATION ex us= Fan DEVELOPMENT BY BEMRE ENCROAC34MENT RAISING GROUND ON FLOOD PLAIN LINE A - 8 13 THE FLOOO ELEVATION BEFORE ENCROACHMENT UNK C - 0 13 THE FLOOD ELEVATION AFTER ENCFIOAC34MENT 'SURCHARGE NOT TO 11=990 1.0 FOOT (FIA ASOUIAGMIENT) OR LEMR AA*MNT IF SpeCIFIED By STATE. Figure 9; Schematic diagram illustrating the concept of a floodway (from Flood Insurance Study - Guidelines and Specifi- cations for Study Contractors, by Flood Insurance Admini- stration, October 1977). . . ... ........ .... ......... 168 FIGURE 9. Because of the i ncreased f I ood i ng as a bas i n i s deve I oped, structures built adjacent to the present 100 year floodplain may be in the 100 year f loodplain within a decade if substantial development occurs. To prevent this occurrence, p resent f I oodp I a i n stud i es can be based on an u I t i mate development hypothesis, although numerous uncertainties would be involved in such a study. Icing Constraints The location and size of icings is v&y site specific; icings also change in size from one year to the next as a result of different climatic conditions controlling their formation. Site specific studies are warranted to identify the potential for icings at any development site in the Borough. The existence of icings in an area does not preclude development of the area; the design of the development should include consideration of the icing conditions. Such design conditions are site specific. For example, the construction of a road across an area of probably icing formation should consider using culvert designs which minimize icing formation. Another situation would be the construction of a structure in an area of potential icing development; subsurface drainage devices could be used to transmit the ground water around the structure, thus reducing the potential for icing development upslope from or at the structure. Stream Bank Erosion Constraints Development is areas subject to stream bank erosion should be restricted. An undeveloped area should be retained, whose width is equal to or greater than the estimated amount of bank erosion over the design life of the development. Such a' study i s very s i te spec i f i c. If such an area is not retained, loss of the development may result. If maintenance of an undeveloped area is not possible, bank protection schemes may be used. Such schemes include a wide range of techniques which should be professionally designed to be effective and to minimize adverse effects elsewhere along the stream. OCEANIC HAZARDS Hazards of oceanic origin that potentially can affect the Matanuska-Susitna Borough coastline include ice, seismicity, and storms. There is currently very little development 169 along this coastline. Consideration of the potential hazards associated with the coastline should be included in any analysis of development potential of the area. Site specific data should be collected in any such analysis, since the available data base is primarily related to the opposite coastline of Knik Arm and Upper Cook Inlet from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastline. Ice Constraints Constraints associated with the 'ice hazard include restrictions on development adjacent to the coastline and special design considerations for structures built in Upper Cook Inlet or Knik Arm waters. Ice floes that are moved by tides and winds can gouge shorelines, causing shoreline erosion, and can exert significant forces on offshore structures. The rate of erosion would have to be evaluated on a site specific basis based on field data. Field data also would be needed to quantity the ice forces associated with offshore structures. Stamukas, shorefast ice, and beach ice can remove surface layers of beach material if the ice if lifted by high tides and transported away by tidal currents or winds. Such material removal may impact nearshore development projects. Seismicit Constraints Constraints associated with the seismic hazard include those to minimize damage from coastal erosion and flooding. Tsunamis and seiches can cause significant wave-induced erosion and flooding. Further study is needed to quantify this hazard for use in site specific planning near the Mat--Su Borough Coastal Management District coastline. Storm Constraints As with other coastal hazards, erosion and flooding may result from storm driven waves. Developments planned adjacent to the coast on offshore should consider the impacts of this hazard. Further study is required to quantify this hazard for the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management District coastline. Summary of Geophysical Hazards The constraints to development associated with geophysical hazards can be classified into two general categories: (1) avoidance of the hazard area, and (2) designing to minimize damage associated with the hazard (Table 71). In most 170 Table 71: Summary of Basic Development Constraints Associated with Geophysical Hazards in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management District. Avoid Design Hazard for Hazard Area Hazard GEOLOGIC-SEISMIC - Fault traces X X - Liquefaction X X - Ground shaking X - Frozen soils X GEOLOGIC - VOLCANIC - Directed explosions X - Glowing avalanche X X - Flash floods X - Mudflows X X - Landslides X - Ash fall X GEOLOGIC - MASS WASTING - Landslides X X - Avalanches X X - Rock glaciers X HYDROLOGIC - FLOODING - Within floodway X - In floodway fringe X X HYROLOGIC - ICINGS All locations X X HYDROLOGIC - BANK EROSION All locations X X OCEANIC - ICE - Coastal erosion X X - Coastal flooding X X OCEANIC - SEISMIC - Coastal erosion X X - Coastal flooding X X OCEANIC STORMS - Coastal erosion X X - Coastal flooding X X a When both avoidance and design options are identified, avoidance is preferred. 171 TABLE 71 cases, avoidance of the hazard is the best approach. When the hazard is to widespread that it cannot be avoided, or when the proposed development cannot be relocated, projects should be designed to minimize the impacts of the hazard. HUMAN AND CULTURAL RESOURCE POTENTIALS POPULATION. Population growth in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough will continue its recent gradual growth rate unless affected by two major factors: the capital move and resource development. Original studies associated with capital relocation estimated that a new community of 30,000 would be established at the Deception Creek site near Willow by 1992 (ESL, 1978). More recent estimates have proposed a "bare bones" capital of 3,000 individuals, which would conservatively place an associated population increase at under 10,000. The timing, size, and certainty of a capital move are not clear at this time. Resource development likely to induce population growth include coal, hydroelectric power generation projects, timber, and agriculture. Production from coal fields in the western Kenai Peninsula and Matanuska-Susitna Boroughs could result in the establishment of one or more new communities of 3,000 people in that area (Holmes and Narver, personal communication). Construction of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project would create a short-term construction-related population increase, and probably contribute to long-term growth by providing cheaper power for industrial and residential development. At this point in time neither timber or agriculture appear to have a growth potential that would induce a major population increase. Population growth is likely to occur in settled areas at existing communities and along the highway system. Two exceptions to this pattern are a capital relocation and development of coal resources in the western portion of the 'Borough. ECONOMY As with population, changes in the Borough's economy are tied to the capital relocation and resource development. The capital relocation would cause a direct increase in regional government employment, and induced increases in 172 transportation and service sectors. it might create temporary employment for currently under-employed construction-related skills, but would not result in long-term employment for these skills. Resource development potential remains uncertain. Attempts to re-establish the local agricultural economy have centered around the Point MacKenzie Dairy Project. The recent land lottery for this project is currently in litigation, and this agricultural project may not result in measurable economic benefits for several years. The development of coal and mineral resources holds the highest economic potential . Increasing power generation demands, the political instability of petroleum resources, labor unrest in coal exporting nations, and comparable transportation costs are making Alaskan coal competitive in export markets. The Beluga coal fields, and neighboring deposits in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough are attractive because of large re'serves of surface mineable coal and proximity to tidewater. Development could lead to construction of one or more marine export terminals and development of a transportation infrastructure connecting the coal fields and terminals with the Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad. Substantial construction and operations employment, and tax revenues would be generated by development of coal resources. The recently-held Upper Cook Inlet State oil and gas lease sale is more likely to find natural gas deposits than oil (Simpson, Usher, Jones, 1979). Additional gas finds will probably be utilized for power generation and domestic consumption. Scattered but small scale mining activities will continue to take place. The more promising mining districts include the Yentna Mining District and Valdez Creek-Talkeetna Mineral belt (Simpson, Usher, Jones, 1978). While no major mineral development projects have been proposed, the potential for such projects is good. The Borough has sizeable timber resources, but its commercial value is generally considered low. High logging, transportation, and milling cost will continue to constrain development. The chip market, for which the majority of Matanuska-.Susitna timber is best suited for, is relatively unstable and has not supported Alaskan logging-shipping operations consistently. However, in Southcentral Alaska, small scale production of finished dimensional lumber for local construction has been increasing. The recreation/tourism industry is one of the Borough's more promising industries, and the Borough has recently initiated a Recreation-Tourism Feasibility Study aimed at capturing a greater share of this industry. Increasing Southcentral 173 population growth will increase the demand on Borough attractions and facilities to the point that new recreation access and f ac i I i t i es need to be deve I oped. By actively prioritizing facility construction and promotion activities, the Borough might capture a greater share of conventions package tour operators, and non-Alaskan tourism. The Borough's public finance characteristics (expenditures outweighing revenue generated and dependence on intergovernmental transfers) will continue unless major industrial development occurs that generates revenues in excess of demands for services. Capital relocation without industrial development may be a mixed blessing in that, with State property exempt form taxation, residential property tax revenue by itself may be insufficient to meet expenditures for meeting service demands. The concentrated population, and hence concentration of services, may mitigate this impact. Development of major, capital intensive resource development by private entities hold the most promise for improving Borough finances. Development of coal resource currently have the highest potential for increasing Borough revenues. cbmmUNITY STRUCTURE The distribution and characteristics of housing are tied to population, economic growth, income, and lifestyle. Housing distribution patterns around major communities and transportation corridors are likely to continue, dependent on major resource development, capital relocation and State land disposals. These activities will concentrate new housing in specific areas not currently connected with Borough road and service systems. Income and lifestyle characteristics of Borough residents will continue to support growth of mobile home and rural housing. Resource development and the capital relocation will have two impacts on housing characteristics. Quantities of temporary, construction housing will be required at development sites, possibly accompanied by a demand for multi-family rental units in major communities for construction labor families. Permanent employment for resource development and the capital relocation will increase demands for single-family housing. Projected transportation requirements can be divided into two major categories: those supporting resource development and those supporting population growth. With regard to resource development, Point MacKenzie development, the Knik Arm Crossing, and access to western coal fields are the primary potential transportations needs. Feasibility studies on developing a port facility at Point 174 MacKenzie hinges on coal, mineral, and petrochemical resource transportation requirements, with potential lesser demands from timber and agriculture. Port development would be accompanied by connection to existing rail and highway systems. In addition to exporti'ng resource products the Port would function as a local and regional container port for commodity import. The Knik Arm Crossing has been proposed for several years as a means of facility residential development of the Mat-Su Borough, opening up the resources of western Mat-Su Borough, and shortening travel time to Interior Alaska. Design and cost questions on the crossing have yet to be resolved. However, construction of the crossing will also facilitate development of Port MacKenzie. Providing transportation access to the Beluga Coal Fields area hinges entirely on the coal development schedule. Coal development could support both rail and road access extensions. Population growth, particularly in more isolated areas such as the capital site- and State land dispersal areas, will require development of secondary access to existing road systems. Because the capital site is concentrated in one areas, provision of access presents few problems. However, isolated development of land disposal sites could increase existing Borough access problems associated with construction and maintenance of road access to rural subdivisions. Whether this responsibility rests with the State, Borough of private owners will remain highly contested subject. Distribution of demand for community services is I ikely to remain a major problem for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, unless major capital intensive private development significantly increases Borough revenues. If scattered, gradual residential growth continues, service demand will accrue to existing facilities and distribution systems, and costs of services to low density areas wi I I remain high. Major development such as the capital move, development of Point MacKenzie, and coal resource development will create site specific demands for education, health care, public safety and utilities services, and also increase regional demand from induced population growth. Specific, concentrated development will require new facilities and distribution system expansion to those locations affected, such as Point Mackenzie and the capital site. Induced demand will most likely impact existing facilities and distribution systems, possibly necessitating increases in capacity by facility expansion or new construction. 175 COASTAL AREA LAND STATUS One aspect of the resource analysis is the examination of major land and resource ownership and management responsibilities within or adjacent to the Borough. The importance of such a land status determination allows for a clear understanding of ownership and management responsibilities in coastal areas over which Borough coastal management program policies apply. When determining land status, one fact that must be kept in mind is that land ownership patterns throughout all of A I aska are i n a state of f I ux as a resu I t of i ncomp I ete implementation of federal and State laws. The coastal area of the Mat-Su Borough is no exception to this. State Land Throughout Alaska's' history, the Territory of Alaska, the University of Alaska, and the State of Alaska have acquired land from the federal public domain through various federal land grants. One of the first of these federal land grants was the Act of 1915 (P.L. 330). This Act granted all vacant surveyed township sections 16 and 36 to the Territory of Alaska for the benefit of the common school fund. The income derived from these lands were placed in a trust with only the earnings being used to benefit the schools. In 1978, the Alaska Legislature redesignated the "school sections" as general State land removing the trust land designation. 'The legislature now provides for a percentage (!,%) of the State resource revenues to feed the school trust fund in place of school trust land revenues. The Act of 1929 (P.L. 679) granted 100,000 acres of surveyed, non-mineral, vacant, unappropriated and unreserved land to the University of Alaska. These lands, like the school lands, where trust lands with only the earnings being used to benefit the University. Through the Act of 1929, the University of Alaska acquired title to land within the coastal area of the Mat-Su Borough. Much of the University land has been lea!@ed under State of Alaska leasing laws. The Mental Health Grant Act of 1958 (P.L. 830) granted a sizeable area of land, 1,000,000 acre@, to the State for the purpose of establishing another trust fund to benefit the funding of mental health costs in Alaska. Like the school trust lands, the land trust designation for mental health lands was removed by the Alaska Legislature in 1978. The legislature now provides for a percentage (121%) of the State resource revenues to feed the mental health trust fund in place of mental health trust land revenues. 176 The Alaska Statehood Act of 1959 (P.L. 85-508) transferred the largest amount of land from federal to State ownership. Section 6(b) of the Alaska Statehood Act provided for a grant of 102,550,000 acres to the State of Alaska. Much of the uplands in the Mat-Su coastal area were selected under this authority and patented to the State. The selection process for State land contains three district steps prior to final acquisition of the federal patent by the State. The process includes selected lands, tentative approved selected lands, and patented lands. Selected and tentative approved selected status on a tract of land does not necessarily mean that the State will get the final patent. In addition to the lands granted to the State under the Alaska Statehood Act, the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (P.L. 85 303 and 508) conveyed all tidelands, submerged lands, and shorelands under all navigable waters to Alaska upon statehood. These lands are available for lease only and cannot be sold under existing State law. Only those persons using such tidelands and cities existing prior to statehood were given a preference to purchase. Borough Land The Mat--Su Borough was incorporated in 1964 and received the right to select up to 10% of the vacant, unappropriated, unreserved State land within the Borough's boundary. The Municipal Land Entitlement Act of 1978 (AS 29,18.201-.213) has since restricted Borough land entitlement to a maximum of 355,210 acres of State land. Borough lands within the Mat-Su coastal area are divided into selected lands, tentative approved lands, and patented lands. The tentative approved lands lack the patent document for technical resons only (e.g. lack of exterior boundary survey). Conditional disposals of tentative approved lands can be made with prior approval of the Department of Natural Resources. Approved selections on surveyed land is only waiting for the State's patent document processing to be completed. Pending unapproved selections are in the adjudication process and could be denied if the Borough has over selected its entitlement. Borough title does not include the mineral rights to the land or title to any navigable water bodies. The State also retains public access to and along all water bodies. With the exception of some school sites and administrative facilities, all of the Borough land was acquired from the State. 177 Private Land Private land ownership in the Mat-Su coastal area, other than Native land, has evolved through federal land allocation laws, State land sales and Borough land sales. The most prominent federal program was the Homestead Act. Fee ownership gained through the federal homesteading procedure passed the most complete bundle of rights to the private land owner. The federal patent usually included the mineral rights to the land. In 1958, the Homestead Act was changed to reserve the mineral rights from homestead entries in Alaska. The State has since acquired those reserved mineral rights under the homestead lands where there is a mineral potential. Private lands obtained through State and Borough land sales do not include mineral rights which were retained by the State. Native Land The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 (P.L. 92-203) provided for a land settlement to the Native villages within the Mat-Su coastal area. ANCSA and a subsequent amendment (Terms and Conditions for Land Consolidation and Management I n- the Cook Inlet Area) provides for federal and State land to satisfy the vi I lage and region entitlements. Most of the lands conveyed to Native corporations have been identified, however, litigation is pending for many of the acres selected by Eklutna, Inc. As a result, dual ownership occurs for much of the land south of the Knik River area including the Duck Flats in the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge (T16N, R1-4E, S.M.). The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (P.L. 96-487) that became law in December, 1980 provides for the State and Eklutna, Inc. to exchange lands to allow for Native selections in the Jim-Swan Lakes area to the Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain (T17N, R3E, S.M.). Permits, Claims, and Leases A I I of the t i de and submerged I ands a I ong Kn i k Arm i n the Mat-Su coastal area have been filed on for offshore prospecting. Most of the activity is in the permit application stage and the balance in terminated permits. An offshore prospecting permit is an exclusive mining right to all of the locatable minerals found offshore. The permit must be approved before any exploration work can be done. If the permittee finds any minerals, the permit must be converted to a lease before any mining is done. The Department of Natural Resources has not approved any permits since about 1975 and does not- intend to process any unti I new regulations are adopted. 17B As ment i oned ear I i er, the State reta i ns the m i nera I r i ghts to a I I I and so I d or conveyed. If the State has not closed the mineral estate to location or entry, the right to prospect and stake claims on the disposed surface estate still exists. In such instances, the prospector is subject to damage claims of the surface estate. Mining claims on both State and federal land must be filed with the mineral estate owner in addition to filing the c1aim in the appropriate recording district. This requirement became effective in 1974 on State lands and in 1976 on federal lands. Both federal and State land records now reflect claim locations. A number of mining claims have been filed along rivers in the western portion of the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge. There are a small number of shore fishery leases in the tidal areas west of the Susitna River. The shore fishery lease gives the leaseholder a priority area for setting nets during salmon runs. Shore fishery leases are issued by the Department of Natural Resources. The possessory interest of a lease must be considered by any competing use in the area. All land in State ownership in the Mat-Su coastal area, both onshore and offshore, is available for oil and gas leasing. Very little interest has ever been shown in the eastern portion of the Mat-Su coastal area. The upcoming oil and gas lease sales for Upper Cook Inlet held in May, 1981 did not include any new areas. Areas that are currently not under lease, mostly because of expired leases, have been offered for lease in the past. To date, the only commercial quantity of gas found is in the vicinity of Theodore Creek located west of the Susitna River. PRELIMINARY MANAGEMENT AREA CLASSIFICATION Based on the resource analysis, portions of the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management District have been classified as Development, Conditional Development, and Conservation. This classification is intended to guide resource use and activities within the coastal management area (Preliminary Management Areas, Map F). DEVELOPMENT AREAS Development areas have been Identified within the Matanuska-Susitna Coastal Management District where economic and coastal development are overriding objectives and are not subject to constraints created by geophysical hazards, 179 biological resources, coastal habitat, recreation, land ownersh i p, coasta I access, and a i r/water qua I i ty concerns. Economic and coastal developments are preferential uses for these areas. CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS Conditional development areas within the Mat-Su Coastal Management District are identified where coastal development may be subject to constraints created by biological resource needs, geophysical hazards, coastal habitat, recreation, land ownership, coastal access, and air/water quality. No activities and development should necessarily receive preferential status in conditional development areas. Activities and development within conditional development areas are subject to coordination with the Planning DE;partment and appropriate State and federal agencies. The Coastal Management Program will identify potential constraints on activities and development within conditional development areas. CONSERVATION AREAS Conservation areas within the Mat-Su Coastal Management District have been identified based on overriding geophysical hazards, biological resource, coastal habitat, recreation, and air/water quality concerns. Activities and development within conservation areas should be limited to those identified as preferential uses for these areas. Map F shows preliminary management area classifications. At this point in program preparation, there is insufficient information to allow exact classification into management categories. For example, flood plains have been identified, but not enough data exists to separate floodways (conservation) from floodway fringe (conditional development). Many areas have been placed in the Conditional Development classification until more information is collected. In general, resource use and activities were classified, on a preliminary basis, as follows: Conservation biology - critical wetland habitat (State Refuge and ADF&G Designation); anadromous fish streams 0 geophysical hazards - avalanche chutes and run-out zones 0 cultural - State Parks and Recreation Areas 180 Conditional Development � biology - all non--critical wetlands; winter moose habitat and migration corridors � Geophysical hazards - mass wasting areas; floodplains, identified active and inactive faults, steep coastal bluffs Development 0 all areas not contained in Conservation and Conditional Development areas This is a first cut at identifying important resource values and constraints to coastal development. The data i s not avai lable at this time to map al I hazardous areas or important biological areas. Therefore, areas are shown as Development for general guidance only and should not be construed as lacking hazards or other resource values. 181 I I I I SUBJECT USES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUBJECT USES Subject uses include al I land and water uses and activities within the Mat-Su Borough coastal boundary which are dependent upon access to coastal waters or have a significant impact on coastal. habitats, fish and wildlife, natural resources, economic development potentials, cultural and aesthetic values, and the quality of life in the Borough. A thorough determination of subject uses and activities occurring in the coastal area will facilitate the developmen 't of comprehensive coastal management policies and effective implementation procedures. Mat-Su Borough coastal management subject uses, identified be I ow, a re based on the f i nd I ngs of the resou rce i nventory and analysis. The land and water uses and activities that are subject to the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program i nc I ude, but are not I i mi ted to, those act i v i t i es occurr i ng in the Borough for which the Alaska Coastal Pol icy Counci I has developed standards (6 AAC 80.040-.150). These subject uses will be updated, refined, and evaluated through a matr I x ana I ys i s dur 1 ng Phase I I (J u I y through December 1981 of program development. A. Coastal Development. 1. Residential development. 2. Commercia I development. 3. Industrial development (e.g., port facility). 4. Development of public facilities. 5. Agricultural expansion and development. B. Recreation. 1. Consumptive recreation. a. Hunting, primarily waterfowl and game (e.g. moose, black bear). b. Fishing. 182 2. Non-consumptive recreation. a. Hiking. b. Camping. C. Photography and wildlife viewing. d. Skiing, snowmobiling, and dog mushing. 3. Tourism. a. Structures and facilities necessary to support tourism (e.g., hotels, restaurants lodges, resorts, etc.). 4. State Parks, game refuges, campgrounds, waysides, and scenic viewpoints. C. Energy Facilities. 1. Oil and gas activities (e.g., exploration, development, production, conversion, storage, transfer, processing, transportation of oil and gas, etc.). 2. Pet.roleum refineries, gasification plants, and transshipment facilities for the exportation of energy products (e.g., Point MacKenzie Industrial Port area). 3. Hydroelectric facilities serving the region (e.g., Susitna Dam Project). D. Transportation and Utilities. 1. Highways, railways, airfields and port facilities. 2. Power transmission lines, telephone lines, water lines, and sewer lines serving a local area. 3. Water treatment, sewage transfer, sewage treatment, and solid waste disposal facilities. E. Sport and Commercial Fisheries and Seafood Processing. 1. Hatcheries and related facilities. 2. Boat ramps. 183 F. Timber Harvesting and Processing. 1. Harvesting activities (e.g., construction of logging roads, harvesting of timber, disposal of logging debris (slash), construction of logging camps, reforestation, and maintenance of logged areas). 2. Processing activities (e.g.. sawmills, pulp mills, and timber export facilities). G. Mining and Mineral Processing. 1. Coal mining activities (e.g. development, production, transportation, exportation, and reclamation). 2. Sand and gravel extraction. 3. Placer mining. H. Subsistence. 1. Customary and traditional use of wild and renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption. 1. Coastal Habitats. 1. Maintain and enhance important habitats and fish and wildlife populations. J. Air, Land, and Water Quality 1. Maintain and enhance the high air and water quality in the Borough. K. Historical, Prehistoric, and Archaeological Resources. 1. Maintain and enhance historical or culturally significant resources, structures, or locations. The appropriateness of the above identified subject uses, in particular Mat-Su Borough coastal settings, will be reviewed in conjunction with the results of the resource analysis during Phase 11 (July through December 1981) of program development. Coastal resource sensitivity and use capability criteria which were developed during the resource analysis will be utilized to geographically classify the Mat-Su Borough coastal area into development, conditional development, and conservation categories. 184 The subject uses presented in this chapter will be evaluated through a matrix analysis and shown as either being ful ly compatible, compatible, neutral, or not compatible with the different geographic classifications (e.g., development, conditional development, and conservation) of the Borough coastal area. Such a matrix analysis evaluation will facilitate the determination of policy (proper and improper uses and po 1 1 cy statements) for a spec i f i c subject use or activity in a predetermined classified coastal area (e.g., residential development in a conditional development area). 185 I I I I AREAS WHICH MERIT I SPECIAL ATTENTION I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AREAS WHICH MERIT SPECIAL ATTENTION (AMSA) Inherent in the Alaska Coastal Management Act and the Alaska Coastal Management Program is the realization that all coastal areas and resources are not homogenious. As a result of unique aesthetic, ecological, recreational, geophysical or industrial values present, certain coastal areas and resources warrant additional "special" management efforts above that provided for most coastal areas and resources. These areas where a demonstrated need for special management efforts exist are known as "areas which merit special attention" (AMSA). The A I aska Coasta I Management Act def i nes areas wh 1 ch mer i t special attention as: a delineated geographic area within the coastal area which is sensitive to change or alteration and which, because of plans or commitments or because a claim on the resources within the area delineated would preclude . subsequent use of the resources to a conflicting or i ncompat i b I euse, warrants special management attention, or which, because of its value to the general public, should be identified for current or future planning, protection, or acquisition ... 11 Criteria used as a basis for designating a coastal area as an area which merits special attention include: � Areas of unique, scarce, fragile or vulnerable natural habitat, cultural value, historical significance, or scenic importance; � Areas of substantial rec reat i ona I val.ue or opportunity; � Areas where development of facilities is dependent upon the utilization of, or access to coastal waters; � Areas of . unique geologic or topographic significance which are susceptible to industrial or commercial development; 0 Areas of significant hazard due to storms, slides, floods, erosion or settlement; 186 � Areas needed to protect, maintain, or replenish coastal land or resources, including coastal flood plains, aquifer recharge areas, beaches, and offshore sand deposits; � Areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gathering, and foraging; � Areas with special scientific values or opportunities, including those where ongoing research projects could be jeopardized by development or conflicting uses and activities; and � Potential estuarine or marine sanctuaries. The responsibility of designating areas which merit special attention to be included in a district program rests with the district and appropriate State agencies. To date, five coastal areas within the Mat-Su Borough have been identified for designation as areas which merit special attention (Figure 10 , Map G). � Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site; � Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain; � Susitna Flats State Game Refuge; 0 . Goose Bay State Game Refuge; and 0 Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge. In accordance with Alaska Coastal Management Program Standard 6 AAC 80.150, the following information is to be provided for each area which merits special attention designated in a district coastal management program. � The basis or bases for designation under AS 46.40.210(l) and 6 AAC 80.150(b); � A map showing the geographic location, surface area and, where appropriate, bathymetry of the area; � A description of the area which includes dominant physical and biological features; � The existing ownership, jurisdiction, and management status of the area, including existing uses and activities; 187 T. Vt ItAllllmoo -A .7. T 4Al 7' TF 'Al _r. 7- _j A SU ITNASTUDY-AI&A 7n' TALKEETIMSUB BASHI I 4. 162 '4, 4: SUSITHA STUDY AFIdA WILLOW SUB BASIN A COTTONWOOD CREEK MATI%JIU! P@ r Z@q ;@,M F IT? guz ue, *'STATE A ICUL Ra PROJECT Nil SUSITNA FI.4TS IRTATE QAMM RMFUQff _7 or STATE CAME BIIFFU"@ ARE A, 'sit *AV 0 "Kdmz INDUSTRIN'PORT T. t MA � The existing ownership, jurisdiction, and management status of adjacent shoreland and sea areas, including uses and activities; � Present and anticipated conflict among users and activities within or adjacent to the area, if any; and � A proposed management scheme which includes a description of proper and improper uses and activities of land and water within the area, a statement of policies which will be applied in managing the area, and an identification of the authority which will be used to implement the management scheme. Management schemes for areas which merit special attention must preserve, protect, enhance, or restore the value or values for which the area was designated. The three State Game Refuges are designated as areas which merit special attention because of their extraordinary value to fish and wildlife habitats and populations and due to the intense public recreational usage of such fish and wildlife resources within the refuges. To avoid any duplication of management efforts, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game will be responsible for developing management schemes for the refuges in accordance with the enabling refuge legislation. Importance will be given to managing the refuges under the multiple-use concept which recognizes that the refuges were classified to protect and manage more than one resource and more than one public use. The following describes the five areas which merit special attention within the Mat-Su Borough. AREA WHICH MERITS SPECIAL ATTENTION #1 1. Name, Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site 2. Primary Values and Bases for Designation: a. Primary Values: Port facility, water-dependent and water-related industry. b. Bases for Designation: AS 46.40.210(l)(D). The primary value of the Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site AMSA designation is to preserve adequate acreage for a commercial deep water port facility on Kn i k Arm. Priority will be given to water-dependent and water-related industrial facilities which are developed to support the port facility. 189 The basis for this AMSA designation under the Alaska Coastal Management Act and Program include: 0 Areas where development of facilities is dependent upon the utilization of, or access to, coasta I waters. 3. Geographic Location and Description: a. Coastal Region: Upper Cook Inlet Coastal Region b. Local Orientation: Matanuska-Susitna Borough C. Area: Approximated 26,000 acres d. Coordinates: 61 0 161 57" N, 149 0 551 2011 W. e. USGS Quadrants: 1:250,000 Anchorage and Tyonek; 1:63:360 Anchorage A-8, B-8, and Tyonek Al, Bl. The Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site is located near the mouth of Knik Arm in Upper Cook Inlet. The entire Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site area is located within the boundaries of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The Point MacKenzie area is bounded on the north by the Goose Bay State Game Ref uge, on the east and south by the waters of Knik Arm and Upper Cook Inlet respectively, on the west by the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge, and on the northwest by,the Point MacKenzie State Agricultural Project. The proposed Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site is located approximately four miles northwest, across Knik Arm, from the Port of Anchorage (T14N, R4W, SM, Sections 24 and 25). The main topographic feature in the Point MacKenzie area is the Elmendorf Moraine, resulting in 50 to 100 foot bluffs near the head of Kn i k Arm. Mudflats, lowland coastal marshes, bogs, small lakes, low shrubs and mixed lowland forests are found throughout the Point MacKenzie area. Waterfowl and wildlife are present in the area but not in the abundance found in adjoining State Game Refuges. The major rivers near the area are the Little Susitna River and Goose Creek which lie approximately ten miles west and north of the Point MacKenzie area, respectively. Major lakes in the area include Lake Lorraine, Lost Lake, and Twin Island Lake. 4. Existing Ownership,_Jurisdiction and Management: a. Ownership Priority and Management: Mixed Borough, State, and private ownership and management. 190 Ownership of land throughout the Point MacKenzie area is predominately mixed with Borough, State, university, private, and Native corporation holdings. Borough-patented lands are concentrated along Knik Arm in the immediate vicinity of the industrial port site (T14N, R4W, SM, Sections 24 and 25). Borough-selected I.ands and Borough tentat i ve-app roved lands are found extensively throughout the Point MacKenzie area. University holdings are contained within the large block of Bo rough -patented land adjacent to Knik Arm. Smaller private and Native holdings are found immediately north and south of the actual industrial port site location. Additional private holdings are found in the Twin Island Lake and Lost Lake areas and along the southern tip of the Point Mackenzie area. State public domain and State agricultural lands are found primarily in the western portion of the Point MacKenzie area, adjacent to the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge. 5. Present Uses and Activities, Anticipated Conflicts: Present land uses in the general Point MacKenzie area consists of scattered homesites, recreational sites, and a few airstrips. Construction efforts are currently underway for extension of a road to the Point MacKenzie area from Knik Arm Road. Point MacKenzie has long been considered by the Borough as the logical site for a large-scale industrial port complex serving the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, South Central Alaska, and the Interior. Development at Point MacKenzie, when it occurs, wi I I probably result in the development of a new town around the industrial port complex on Knik Arm. The industrial port complex and adjacent town would serve as the major regional export facility for resources such as coal, timber, ore, and petroleum products, and as the major import facility for equipment and supplies to the Interior. The Dow-Shell Group is currently considering Point MacKenzie as one of the six possible locations for a petrochemical facility in Alaska Should the Dow-Shell Group decide to locate at Point 'MacKenzie, a number of new and largely permanent jobs would develop for residents of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The Dow-Shell Group estimates employment during the construction phase could exceed 2,400, while employment during the operation phase of the initial plants would number about 1,000 (Dow-Shell Group). In addition to a petrochemical facility at Point MacKenzie, a West German firm is seriously considering 191 Po i nt MacKenz I e as an export center for Be I uga coa I The unnamed firm has indicated that low grade Beluga coal could be utilized in a coal-fired generation plant at Point Mackenzie, providing electritity to industries in the area, while high-grade Beluga coal would be exported to foreign markets. Anticipated conflicts will most probably arise over impacts on air and water quality attributed to the development of an industrial port complex at Point MacKenzie. Operation of a coal-fired generation plant and a petrochemical facility at Point MacKenzie could most seriously affect air quality standards in the Anchorage metropolitan area, four miles southeast of Point MacKenzie. In addition, development of a town, support facilities, and new transportation routes (e.g. Knik Arm crossing) in the Point MacKenzie area may place increased recreational and developmental pressures on fish and wildlife habitats and resources in the area and in adjacent State Game Refuges. 6. Proposed Management Scheme: A proposed management scheme for the Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site will be formulated during Phase 11 of coastal management program development (July through December 1981). The management scheme developed will include: a. A statement of proper and improper uses in the area; b. A statement of policies to be applied in managing the area; and C. An identification of the authority to implement the management scheme. AREA WHICH MERITS SPECIAL ATTENTION #2 1. Name: KnTk/Matanuska River Floodplain 2. Primary Values an-d Bases for Designation: a. Primary Values: Flood hazard, natural habitat characteristics. b. Bases for Designation: AS 46.40.210(i)(A), (B),(C),(F), and (G). The primary value of the Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain AMSA designation is to acknowledge severe 192 f I ood hazard potent i a I a I ong the Kn i k/Matanuska Ri ver Floodplain. Flat topography makes this area highly susceptible to flooding. The potential exists for severe floods resulting from the outburst of glacial-dammed Lake George. From 1918 through 1966, except for 1963, Lake George has flooded the Knik River annually. Since 1966, the Knik Glacier has failed to form an ice dam and no glacial outburst flooding has occurred, however, a series of positive ice balances may stimulate the glacier to advance and dam the lake. In addition, the Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain contains areas of essential habitat for waterfowl and wildlife resources and areas of substantial recreational opportunities for residents of the Mat-Su Borough and South Central Alaska. The bases for this AMSA designation under the Alaska Coastal Management Act and Program include: � Areas of unique, scarce, fragile, or vulnerable national habitat, cultural value, historical significance, or scenic importance; 0 Areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources; � Areas of substantial recreational value or opportunity; � Areas of significant hazard due to storms, slides, floods, erosion or settlement; and � Areas needed to protect, maintain, or replenish coastal land and resources, including coastal floodplains, aquifer recharge areas, beaches, and offshore sand deposits. 3. Geographic Location and Description: a. Coastal Region: Upper Cook Inlet Coastal Region. b. Land Orientation: Matanuska-Susitna Borough. C. Area: Approximated 54,000 acres. d. Coordinates: Knik/Matanuska River 61 0 30' 0011 N, 1490 151 0011 W. e. USGS Quadrants: 1:250,000 Anchorage; 1:63,360 Anchorage B5, B6, and C6. The Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain is a large coastal lowland floodplain situated at the head of Knik Arm. The two major rivers, the Knik and Matanuska River 193 share a common floodplain which is approximately five miles wide at the point of entry into Knik Arm. Both rivers originate at glaciers and carry large volumes of glacial sediment into Knik Arm and Upper Cook Inlet, resulting in extensive mud and tideflats at the head of Knik Arm. The extent of the Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain AMSA boundaries are contiguous with the known 100-year floodplain for the Knik and Matanuska River (U.S. Department of Housing, 1980, Flood Hazard Boundary Maps) and extend up the Knik River to the Mat-Su Borough Boundary and up the Matanuska River to near Sutton. The 'western boundary of the Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain AMSA is approximated by the Glenn Highway. Included within the Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain is the area known as the Jim-Swan Lakes. This is a wetlands area with several large shallow lakes in various stages of succession. The Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain, including the Jim-Swan Lakes area, contains valuable natural habitat for fish, waterfowl and wildlife. *The floodplain area is also one of the .fastest growing regions of the Mat-Su Borough, containing residential development, farms, and the major transportation corridor between Anchorage and the Interior. 4. Existing Ownership, Jurisdiction and Management: a. Ownership Priority and Management: State, private, Borough mixed ownership, and Native selected. The Federa I Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (PL85-303 and 508) conveyed all tidelands, submerged lands and shore I ands under a I I nav i gab I e waters to the State of Alaska upon statehood. ThereforeY the submerged lands and shorelands of the Knik and Matanuska River, are considered State public domain and cannot be sold. State interest lands are found in the Jim-Swan Lakes area east of Bodenburg Butte and State park lands (Chugach State Park) are found south of the Knik River. Extensive private holdings exist throughout the Palmer and Bodenburg Butte area with smaller private holdings south of the Knik River. Borough tentatively-approved and Borough-patented lands occur throughout the floodplain area with the largest ho,lding of Bo rough -patented land located adjacent to the south shore of the Matanuska River, east of Bodenburg Butte. 194 Native selected lands are extensive throughout the f loodp lain area. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and a subsequent amendment (Terms and Conditions for Land Consolidation and Management in the Cook Inlet Area) provided for federal and State lands to satisfy Native village and region entitlements. Litigation is pending for many of the acres s.elected by Eklutna, Inc., resulting in dual State-Native ownership for much of the land in T16N, RIE-R4E, S.M. (this area includes most of the Knik River south to the Mat-Su Borough Boundary). In addition, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (PL 96-487) provides for the State of Alaska and Eklutna, Inc. to exchange lands to allow for Native selections in T17N, R3W, S.M. (this includes the Jim-Swan Lakes area). 5. Present Uses and Activities, Anticipated Conflicts: Present uses in the Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain are diverse and include recreational uses, agricultural uses, residential development and expansion, transportation corridor usage, and mineral extraction (gravel) among other uses. Recreational uses in the Knik/Matanuska Floodplain area include waterfowl hunting, moose hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, viewing, and photography. Winter recreation in the area includes snowmachine use, cross country skiing, and dog sled use. Anticipated conflicts will arise as a result of increased development in the area. The Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain area is one of the fastest growing areas in the Maf-Su Borough. The area's close proximity to . Anchorage makes it attractive for residential development. Any development occurring in the Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain area must recogni . ze the flood hazard that exists with development in this area. The potential for renewed advance of the Knik Glacier and glacial outburst flooding from Lake George is currently uncertain. Further, the flat topography of the floodplain area makes it susceptible to seasonal flooding. 6. Proposed Management Scheme: A proposed management scheme for the Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain area will be formulated during Phase 11 of coastal management program development (July through December 1981). The management scheme developed will include: a. A statement of proper and improper uses in the area; 195 b A statement of po I i c i es to be app I i ed i n manag i ng the area; and C. An identification of the authority to implement the management scheme. AREA WHICH MERITS SPECIAL ATTENTION #3 1. Name: Susitna Flats State Game Refuge 2. Primary Values and Bases for Designation: a. Primary Values: Protect, maintain, and enhance wetland habitat. b. Bases for Designation: AS 46.40.210(l)(A), (B),(C), and (G). The primary value of the Susitna Flats State Game Ref uge AMSA designation is to protect, maintain and enhance the Susitna Flats Refuge fish and wildlife populations and habitats in concert with other components of the ecosystem and to assure the capab i I i ty of p rov i d i ng susta i ned opportun 1 t i es f or pub I i c recreat i ona I uses under aesthet i ca I I y-p I eas i ng conditions. Included is the provision for certain commercial uses of the refuge which do not adversely affect fish and wildlife resources or the public usage of such resources. The bases for this AMSA designation under the Alaska Coastal Management Act and Program include: � Areas of unique, scarce, fragile, or vulnerable natural habitat, cultural value, historical significance, or scenic importance; � Areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources; � Areas of substantial recreationa-I value or opportunity; and � Areas needed to protect, maintain, or replenish coastal land or resources, including coastal floodplains, aquifer recharge areas, beaches, and offshore sand deposits. 3. Geographic Location and Description: a. Coastal Region: Upper Cook Inlet Coastal Region. 196 b. Land Orientation: Matanuska-Susitna Borough. C. Area: 301,950 acres. d. Coordinates: Susitna River 61 0 171 2311 N, 150 0 341 0511 W. e. USGS Quadrants: 1:250,000 Tyonek; 1:63,360 Tyonek Al, A2, A3, BI, B2, and B3. The Susitna Flats is an expansive coastal lowland on the northwest side of Upper Cook Inlet. The refuge is located predominantly within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and encompasses some 301,950 acres of which 22 percent is subtidal, 11 percent is occasionally flooded salt marsh and meadow, and 67 percent is a combination of lakes, bogs, low shrub, and mixed lowland forest. The State Game Refuge extends for approximately 35 miles from Point MacKenzie westward to past the Beluga River. The mouth of the Susitna River, 24 miles west of Anchorage, divides the refuge in half. The eastern half of Susitna Flats is bisected by the Little Susitna River while the western half is transected by the Ivan, Lewis, Theodore and Beluga Rivers. The Susitna Flats lowland coastal marshes are important resting and staging areas for waterbirds during spring and fall migrations. In addition, the Susitna Flats area provides for fishing and hunting, particularly waterfowl, moose, and bear hunting, and viewing, photography and other seasonal recreational opportunities. To ensure protection and adequate management of the Susitna Flats, the Alaska State Legislature created the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge in 1976. 4. Existing Ownership, Jurisdiction and Management: a. Ownership Priority and Management: State of Alaska, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The Susitna Flats State Game Refuge is State owned and managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Private inholdings do exist within the refuge. The legislation which established the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge prohibits State aquisition of private inholdings by eminent domain and ensures access to inholdings by private property owners. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources was given authority under AS 44.62 to adopt zoning regulations when necessary to ensure the intended uses of the refuge are maintained. 197 5. Present Uses and Activities, Anticipated Conflicts: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is legislatively mandated to protect, maintain, and enhance the fish and wildlife resources and habitats of the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge while providing for public recreational uses of the same fish and wildlife resources and habitats. Examples of public usage of the refuge include waterfowl hunting, big game hunting, sports fishing, commercial fishing, trapping, viewing and photography, and other recreational activities. The intensity of public usage of the refuge varies directly with access limitations to certain portions of the refuge. As road transportation and access to the Susitna Flats area increases, public recreational opportunities in, and usage of, the refuge will increase accordingly. In addition to the publ ic recreational uses of the refuge, oil and gas exploration and development activities are currently underway in western portions of the refuge. Oil and gas lease sales for the Susitna Flats were held prior to the passage of legislation establishing the refuge. Exploration and development activities operate under the terms of pre-existing I eases and have resu I ted i n a number of test we I I s and al I-weather road systems in the western portion of the refuge. Oil and gas exploration and development activities on the Susitna Flats is likely to increase in the future as a resu It of State o i I and gas I ease sales in Upper Cook Inlet in May, 1981 . Future lease agreements are expected, if found compatible with the multiple-use management concept of the refuge. Anticipated conflicts may arise over different proposed developmental scenarios for lands and water 'systems near or adjacent to the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge. Development of the Beluga Coal Field and related transportation corridors, the Point MacKenzie Industrial Port and associated residential development, the Point MacKenzie State Agricultural Project, and the Susitna Dam Project could all have significant impacts on fish and wildlife resources in the refuge and public usage of those resources. 198 6. Proposed Management Scheme: To avoid duplication of management efforts, the Alaska Department of Fi sh and Game w i I I be respons i b I e f or developing a management scheme for the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge in accordance with the enabling refuge legislation. Importance will be given to managing the refuge under the multiple-use concept which recognizes that the refuge was classified to protect and manage more than one resource and more than one public use. AREA WHICH MERITS SPECIAL ATTENTION #4 1. Name: Goose Bay State Game Refuge 2. Primary Values and Bases for Designation: a. Primary Values: Protect, maintain, and enhance wetland habitat. b. Bases for Designation: AS 46.40.210(l)(A), (B),(C), and (G). The primary value of the Goose Bay State Game Refuge AMSA designation is to protect, maintain, and enhance the Goose Bay Refuge fish and wildlife populations.and habitats in concert with other components of the ecosystem and to assure the capability of providing sustained opportunities for public recreational uses under aesthetically-pleasing conditions. The bases for this AMSA designation under the Alaska Coastal Management Act and Program include: 0 Areas of unique, scarce, fragile, or vulnerable natural habitat, cultural value, historical significance, or scenic importance; 0 Areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources; 0 Areas of substantial recreational value or opportunity; and 0 Areas needed to protect, maintain, or replenish coastal land or resources, including coastal floodplains, aquifer recharge areas, beaches, and offshore sand deposits. 199 3. Geographic Location and Description: a. Coastal Region: Upper Cook Inlet Coastal Region. b. Land Orientation: Matanuska-Susitna Borough. C. Area: 13,262 acres. d. Coordinates: Goose Creek 61 0 221 3011 N, 1490 521 5711 W. e. USGS Quadrants: 1:250,000 Anchorage and Tyonek; 1:63,360 Anchorage B-8 and Tyonek B-1. Goose Bay and the wetlands adjacent to Goose Creek are located along the western shore of Knik Arm, 12 miles north of Anchorage and 30 mi les southwest of Palmer. The Goose' Bay State Game Refuge is located entirely within the boundaries of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and encompasses some 13,262 acres. The lowland coastal marshes of the Goose Bay area are important resting and staging areas for waterfowl and shorebirds during spring and fall migrations. In addition, the Goose Bay area is an important recreational area for viewing, photography, waterfowl hunting, and other uses. To ensure protection and adequate management of the Goose Bay area, the Alaska State Legislature created the Goose Bay State Game Refuge in 1975. 4. Existing Ownership, Jursidiction and Management: a. Ownership Priority and Management: State of Alaska, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The Goose Bay State Game Refuge is State owned and managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Private, university, and federal holdings do exist within the refuge, however, refuge restrictions only apply to State-owned land and adjacent waters in the refuge. 5. Present Uses and Activities, Anticipated Conflicts: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is legislatively mandated to protect, maintain, and enhance the fish and wildlife resources and habitats of the Goose Bay area whi le providing for publ ic recreati'onal uses of the same fish and wildlife resources and habitats. Examples of public usage of the refuge include viewing, photography, waterfowl hunting, and other recreational activities. 200 Ant i c i pated i ncreased pub I i c usage of the ref uge I s I i ke I y to occur as a resu I t of deve I opment of an industrial port complex at Point MacKenzie and the Point MacKenzie State Agricultural Project. 6. Proposed Management Scheme: To avoid duplication of management efforts, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game will be responsible for developing a management scheme for the Goose Bay State Game Refuge in accordance with the enabling refuge legislation. Importance will be given to managing the refuge under the multiple-use concept which recognizes that the refuge was classified to protect and manage more than one resource and more than one public use. AREA WHICH MERITS SPECIAL ATTENTION #5 1. Name: Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge 2. Primary Values and Bases for Designation: a. Primary Values: Protect, maintain, and enhance wetland habitat. b. Bases for Designation: AS 46.40.210(l)(A), (B),(C), and (G). The primary value of the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge AMSA designation is to protect, maintain, and enhance the Palmer Hay Flats Refuge fish and wi Idl ife populations and habitats in concert with other components of the ecosystem and to assure the capability of providing sustained opportunities for pub 1 1 c recreat I ona Iuser under aesthet i ca I I y-p I eas I ng conditions. The bases for this AMSA designation under the Alaska Coastal Management Act and Program include: 0 Areas of unique, scarce, fragile, or vulnerable natural habitat, cultural value, historical significance, or scenic importance; 0 Areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources; 0 Areas of substantial recreational value or opportunity; and 201 0 Areas needed to protect, maintain, or replenish coastal I and or resources, including coastal floodplains, aquifer recharge areas, beaches, and offshore sand deposits. 3. Geographic Location and_Description: a. Coastal Region: Upper Cook Inlet Region b. Land Orientation: Matanuska-Susitna Borough C. Area: 25,340 acres. d. Coordinates: Palmer Slough 61 0 301 0011 N, 149 0 251 00" W. e. USGS Quadrants: 1:250,000 Anchorage; 1:63,360 Anchorage B-7 and C-7. The Palmer Hay Flats is a large coastal lowland area a I ong the north shore of Kn 1 k Arm, 10 mi I es southwest of Pa I mer and 28 mi I es northeast of Anchorage. The refuge is located predominantly within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and encompasses some 25,340 acres, nearly all of which is coastal marsh and shrub-bog habitat. The Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge is bounded on the east by the Matanuska and Knik River Floodplains, on the south by Knik Arm and on the west and north by Borough and private property. The Palmer Hay Flats lowland coastal marshes are extremely important resting and staging areas for waterfowl and shorebirds during spring and fall migrations. In addition, the Palmer Hay Flats area provides for excellent fishing in Rabbit Slough and Wasilla Creek, waterfowl hunting throughout the entire refuge, and unmatched opportunities for wi Idl ife and waterfowl viewing and photography. To ensure protection and adequate management of the Palmer Hay Flats, the Alaska State Legislature created the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge in 1975. 4. Existing Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management: a. Ownership Priority and Management: State of Alaska, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge is State owned and managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, however, the refuge legislation includes uplands that have not been conveyed to the State. Uplands within T16N, RIE, S.M. have been selected by Eklutna, Inc. and include most of the area known as Duck Flats. Final refuge boundary determinations will depend upon 202 negotiations between the State and Eklutna, Inc. Other State lands adjacent to the refuge have been classified as to their habitat resource importance, however, no legislation has been introduced to include these areas in the refuge. Refuge restrictions apply to State-owned land and adjacent waters in the re.fuge. The Mat-Su Borough has long recognized the importance of the Palmer Hay Flats as a recreational area. In 1974, the Borough Assembly adopted the Hay Flats Recreational Area Special Use District. This district includes an area larger than the State Game Refuge and affects the use of private land adjacent to the refuge. Permitted users within the Hay Flats Recreation Area Special Land Use District includes single-family residences, raising of vegetables, produce, and fruit crops, and home occupations and campgrounds. 5. Pre@ent Uses and Activities, Anticipated Conflicts: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is legislatively mandated to protect, maintain, and enhance the fish and wildlife resources and habitats of the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge while providing for public recreational uses of the same fish and wildlife resources and habitats. Recreation is the major use of the Palmer Hay Flats area, examples of which include waterfowl hunting, fishing, birding, viewing, and photography. As a result of good access and close proximity to the Anchorage metropolitan area, the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge receives a higher intensity of usage when compared with Susitna Flats and Goose Bay State Game Refuges. This intensity of usage of the Palmer Hay F I ats area w i I I i ncrease i n the f uture as a resu I t of development at, or adjacent to, Point MacKenzie and other places in the Borough. The potential impacts of increased recreational use include modifications to terrain, disturbance of w-Ildlife, reduction of aesthetic resources and conflicts with other resource users (Knik Arm Wetlands Study 1981). 6. Proposed Management Scheme: To avoid duplication of management efforts, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game will be responsible for developing a management scheme for the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge in accordance with the enabling refuge legislation. Importance will be given to managing the refuge under the multiple-use concept which recognizes that the refuge was classified to 203 protect and-manage more than one resource and more than one public use. The identified AMSA's discussed in this chapter will be further studied and evaluated by the Borough and appropriate State agenc i es duri ng Phase I I W u I y through December 1981 ) of program development to insure that the intent of and criteria for AMSA designation, as defined by the Alaska Coastal Management Act, are realized. In addition to the already identified AMSA's, potential AMSA's will also be examined during Phase 11 of program development. Examples of potential AMSA's include, but are not limited to, the following: � Devil's Canyon Hydroelectric Site; � Point MacKenzie State Agricultural Project Area; and � Cottonwood Creek area. 204 I I I I POLICY DEVELOPMENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I POLICY DEVELOPMENT The citizen and his/her government are often frustrated with the process of community development shaped by forces seemingly out of control. Commu'@ity concerns are gradually translated into a program of plans and a seeking out of policy development processes that can better respond to the expressed needs to manage community growth for the collective best interests. Policy development is a key aspect of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program; for policy is the connection between community goals and objectives, resource inventory and analysis, and the implementation strategy. Po I icy is the means for the Borough to evaluate the suitabilities of certain proposals for land and water uses and activities in the context of the coastal management effort. Clearly there is a community view of the Mat-Su Borough scene. This view includes perceptions of the benefits and problems accruing from resource development and establishes an intuitive basis for evolving community goals, objectives, and policies. Commonly held community views, goals, and objectives are important to policy planning in the following ways: 0 They provide a sound basis for the coordination of efforts to improve the Mat-Su Borough community. 0 They provide guidelines for both public and private development decisions affecting the community?s future. 0 They provide an opportunity to combine decision impacts for the general benefit of the community. 0 They become the basis for developing and selecting policies and programs for community development with measured results. Community reviews are most often evolved from the observable and experiential results of social physical and economic conditions in the community. The daily experiences in peoples lives are variously accumulative stimuli that identify problems and concerns and prioritize them through frequency and degree of impact on individuals, their families, employment or businesses. 205 The po I i cy p I ann i ng p rocess must acknow I edge the centra I i ty of this phenomenon in community decision making and provide a carefully constructed interaction between individual citizens and groups, policy makers and deciders, and planners and agency actualizers. This transactive interchange assumes an equality of importance to the various facets of the process as indicated by the figure following. A carefully constructed transactive interchange between the interest forces creates a seedbed for policy development and planning that can be mutually beneficial and serve the broad interests of the Borough. The planning commission plays a very important role in the initial phases of policy development. The commission is the interface between the community view and the technical issues and facts that shape the art of the possible. They also are the official advisors of the Borough assembly and can set the tone for policy planning and resource development and management. The precursory factors that begin to shape the Coastal Management Plan and program for the Borough are the range of technical realities and existing conditions reflected in the resource inventory and analysis. Portions of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough have characteristics that are suitable for urban and industrial development, whereas other land areas have material features that cannot accommodate such development. The process of sensitivity and suitability analysis make is possible for the Borough to determine dominant and subordinate land uses for the various coastal enviroments found within the Borough; within specific geographic areas identified for development, conditional development, and conservation policy decisions. Resource analysis and the development of coastal sensitivity criteria was a key step in determining the demands on and capability of the coastal sector. It provided a base for development of proper policies and a management framework using the following technical approach: � Review the resource analysis prepared midway in the phase, and incorporation of appropriate studies and reports that have been released by the Borough since the first year progress report. � Examination and summary of the impacts of population projections, facilities demands, recreation needs, housing requirements and the affects on future coastal land use patterns. � Development of criteria for determining the coastal resource sensitivity and use capabilities. 206 m m COASTAL MANAGEMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS MAYOR'S OFFICE BOROUGH ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES TASK FORCES PUBLIC INFORMATION PUBLIC HEARINGS ASSEMBLY MEMBERS STATE LEGISLATURE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE ADVISORY COMMITTEES EXTERNAL CONTACTS ACTION REGIONAL OPERATING AGENCIES PLAN SOCIAL, PHYSICAL, AND DEPARTMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION < AND ECONOMIC OTHER GOVERNMENTS PROFESSIONAL STAFF CONDITIONS OTHER ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES CONTACT WITH OTHER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLANNERS AND AGENCIES UTILITY SYSTEMS TECHNICAL STUDIES WASTE MANAGEMENT LITERATURE REVIEWS PARKS AND OPEN SPACE CONSULTANTS AIRPORT RESEARCH LAND USE STATE, NATIONAL, -n AND INTERNATIONAL Q CONDITIONS c: m m 0 Classification of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Area into geographic categories of Development, Conditional Development, and Conservation, based upon balancing use suitabilities, constraints, and uses of State concern. The criteria for classifying the Borough coastal area from the bases of resource sensitivity and use capabilities included in. the following: Conservation Areas � Conservation areas within the Matanuska-Susitna Coastal Management District shall be established where overriding geophysical hazards, biological resources, coastal habitatsY recreation, and air/water quality concerns exist. � Activities and development within conservation areas shall be limited to those identified as preferential uses for these areas. Conditional Development Areas � Conditional development areas within the Matanuska-Susitna Coastal Management District shall be established where coastal development may be subject to constraints created by biological resource needs, geophysical hazards, coastal habitat, recreation, land ownership, coastal access, and air/water quality. � No activities and development shall necessarily receive preferential status in Conditional Development areas. 0 Activities and'development with Conditional Development Areas shall be subject to coordination with the Borough Planning Commission, Planning Department, and appropriate State and federal agencies. � The Matanuska-Susitna Borough shall identify potential constraints on activities and development within Conditional Development Areas in the Mat-Su District Coastal Management Program. -Development Areas 0 Development Areas shall be established within the Matanuska-Susitna Coastal Management District where economic and coastal development objectives are not subject to constraints created by geophysical hazards, biological resources, coastal habitat, recreation, land ownership, coastal access, and air/water quality concerns. 208 0 Economic and coastal developments are preferential uses for these areas. The final Mat-Su Coastal Management Program should include a summary of the policies that will be applied to land and water uses and activities and the process that wi I I be used to determine whether specific proposals will be allowed. The A I aska Coasta I Po I i cy Counc i I has f ocused upon these processes in consistency determinations having recommended that performance standards used for the program implementation be clearly and precisely written so they can be readily understood by the public. Further, that Borough policies be presented in an overall framework of State and federal policies so that reviewers will be able to ascertai how all the policies interact and complement one another. The further development and detailing of Borough policies is a significant aspect of Phase 11 effort. 1Alaska Coastal Policy Council, Resolution Number Fourteen, March 5, 1980. 209 I I t I CITIZEN PARTICIPATION I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The Matanuska-Susitna Borough approach to citizen participation encompasses both public involvement and program coordination elements. Through creation of the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum, the Borough brought together the broad public policy interests of the community and the operational concerns of local, State, and federal agencies with coastal management program responsibilities. The Citizen/Agency Joint Forum has encouraged input, understanding, and feedback through a participation process that facilitates discussion, technical review, evaluation, and coordination of program elements. Future workshops and public hearings will be utilized by the Borough Planning Commission and Joint Forum to present and discuss implementation measures and the Draft Coastal Management Program and Plan. The Citizen/Agency Joint Forum has carried out four important functions during Phase I program activities. These include the following: � The Forum reviewed and evaluated previous Borough policies, goals, and objectives as a means of astembling a statement of current issues, goals and objectives that reflect the concerns of Borough residents and government agencies regarding coastal development. � The Forum has looked upon the participation functions as an educational process through promoting an understanding of the characteristics, values and roles of the coastal area; wherein, Borough residents can view the coastal management program as a means of managing activities within the coastal area to meet the public' good through the encouragement of sound development procedures, protection of environmental quality, and maximizing development potentials for the community's economic well being. � The Forum has educated the study team while serving the ongoing study review process. Local familiarity with data and perceptions keep the study on track to meet public and agency concerns. 210 0 Through encouraging input, understanding, and feedback, the Forum facilitates the administration of the District Coastal Management Program through participation in its development. The Citizen/Agency Joint Forum is helping the community to understand, participate in, and support the coastal management planning process. In the Appendix following are the technical details of Forum proceedings as the Phase I reviews and analyses advanced. These processes of program development will continue throughout Phase 11. 211 Organize/ Background Citizen/ Coastal Management Problems Agency and Potential Resolutions joint Forum Resource Inventory rce Analysis Existing Plans And Bo6ndary Review rtal Sensitivity Conclus! Potential Citizen/ Agency Review Conclusions Joint Forum I W 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - I nagement 0 Program Alternatives lements PHASE 1 F- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHASE 2 Rev i ew Selection of Ci ti zen/ Agency Preferred Alternatives Joint Forum Review Plan, Refinement & Implementation Strategy Review District Coastal Citizen/ Management Plan and Agency Implementation Strategy Joint Forum CITIZEN PARTICIPATION F Policy Review PROCESS -IF District Coastal Management Program and Plan (Public Hearing Draft) @ 'z uen @d Coastal ' manage "t .a t-I m Im EPr.gra- @Eemts -0 Public Public Presentation Presentation FIGURE 12 212 I I I I APPENDIX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM AGENDA Wednesday, February 4, 1981 7:00 P.M. Assembly Chambers 1. Call'to Order - Introductions. 11. Forum Organization and Activity. Ill. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program. IV. Previously Defined Problems, Needs, Goals and Objectives. V. Boundary Identification, Definition and Awareness. V1. Adjournment. 213 Maynard and Partch February 2, 1981 MEMORANDUM TO: Matanuska-Susitna Borough An Alaskan Corporation Citizen/Agency Joint Forum 800 F Street SUBJECT: Background information for the Mat-Su Coastal Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907/276-4218 Management Prog M FROM: Stuart Denslo The citizen participation process is a most important ingredient in shaping the goals, objectives, and program for coastal management in the Mat-Su Borough. The materials attached provide background information on the forum organization and activities; the overall coastal management program; previously defined Mat-Su Borough needs, goals, and objectives; and a brief look at coastal boundary identification.and definition. During our organization session, further detail will be provided to assist you with your deliberations. May we suggest that you place these materials in your workbook for future reference in meetings ahead. Thank you for your assistance. 214 FEDERAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972 0 0 0 0 d 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y 0 11 01 WASHINGTON OTHER 0 OTHER CALIFORNIA SHORELINE COASTAL COASTAL COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT 0 STATES STATES MANAGEMENT ACT ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1977F AS AMENDED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES OF THE ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 @o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 If . OA KETC'HIKAN OTHER* 0 OTHER KENAI GATEWAY DISTRICTS 0 DISTRICTS PENINSULA BOROUGH 0 BOROUGH y DEVELOPMENT OF THE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH FEDEF COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1981 215 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ASSEMBLING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES THAT REFLECT THE CONCERNS OF BOROUGH RESIDENTS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES REGARDING COASTAL DEVELOPMEUT. AN EDUCATIONAL PROCESS PROMOTING AND UNDERSTANDING THE CHARACTERISTICS, VALUES AND ROLES OF COASTAL AREAS. PROVIDE BOROUGH RESIDENTS AND AGENCY PERSONNEL THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE DATA AND IDEAS THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE OVERLOOKED BY THE STUDY TEAM. BY ENCOURAGING INPUT, UNDERSTANDING, AND FEEDBACK, CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FACILITATES THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND PROGRAM IN THE YEARS AHEAD. 216 1A. :-INV %*A @ul' rII14 w mom py V4 FE. \J@ ir LV oa low an Am" am The biophysical coastal area boundaries for upper Cook Inlet are defined as follows: Area of Direct Interaction A. Landward Limit Landward, the area of direct interaction is defined by saltwater intrusion into marshes and rivers and areas of active coastal erosion such as the bluffs fronting Turnagain and Knik Arms. Saltwater intrusion occurs up to 10 km (6 mi) inland in the Susitna Flats and as far as 32 km (20 mi) upstream in the Susitna River. Coastal bluffs experiencing rapid erosion range in height from several meters (less than 10 ft) to over 30 m (greater than 100 ft). Salt spray, ice coating, intertidal spawning, vegetation transitions and important wildlife hab.itat also occur within the area of direct interaction. B. Seaward Limit Seaward, the area of direct interaction is defined by nearshore sediment transport and deposition out to the 5 m (18 ft) depth contour. This is a high energy region which is actively perturbed by tidal currents, ice scour, breaking waves, sediment dynamics and freshwater dilution. Area of Direct Influence A. Landward Limit The landward area of direct influence in upper Cook Inlet is defined where the bulk of anadromous fish spawning and rearing takes place, where some moose seek out lowland areas for overwintering and calving, and where coastal wetland habitat attracts a large number of nesting birds and small mammals. Direct influence includes all coastal drainages, their primary tributaries, and adjacent wetlands to the 305 m (1,000 ft) contour. The zone extends up the main-stem of the Susitna River to include Devil's Canyon. Important uplands which directly support or impact coastal processes are also included within the area of direct influence. The upland extent of direct influence is best defined by the 61 m (200 ft) contour in the Mat-Su Valley, 122 m (400 ft) contour in the upper Kenai Lowlands and Tyonek area, the 305 m (1,000 ft) contour in the greater Anchorage area, Turnagain watersheds, and Trading Bay region and the ridgeline of steep coastal mountains in Turnagain Arm. 218 B. Seaward Limit Seaward, the area direct influence includes the marine waters of Cook Inlet extending south to Kalgin Island. Turbulent mixing between marine and fresh water takes place in the vicinity of Kalgin Island. The characteristic marine waters of upper Cook Inlet which include high turbidity and low salinity interface with the waters of lower Cook Inlet in this region. This is also the average southern limit of upper Inlet sea ice. Area of Indirect Influence A. Landward Limit The landward area of indirect influence extends to include the margins of glaciers, the headwaters of coastal drainages in the Cook Inlet Basin and their adjacent wetlands. This region includes the limits of spawning and rearing areas for anadromous fish, important waterfowl habitat, important upland big game and small mammal habitat and the inland extent of foreseeable uses which may have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters. B. Seaward Limit Seaward, the area of indirect influence includes all of Cook Inlet and the Gulf of Alaska to the limits of important migrations of anadromous fish, marine mammals and waterfowl dependent on the coastal area of upper Cook Inlet for a portion of their life histories. General Description - The upper Cook Inlet region is a large basin enclosed by the Alaska Range, Talkeetna Mountains and Chugach Mountains to the west, north and east, respectively. The southern physiographic boundary of upper Cook Inlet is generally placed at East and West Forelands although the typical coastal environment of this region extends south to the vicinity of Kalgin Island. The marine environment is strongly influenced by the discharge of three major drainage systems. The Susitna, Matanuska and Knik rivers. About one-hundred other rivers, streams and tributaries empty into upper Cook Inlet. This large freshwater input contributes to a dramatic lowering of salinity during the summer months. Many of the rivers and tributaries originate at glaciers located in the surrounding mountain ranges. The sedimentary products of these glaciers combine with terrestrial erosion to produce rivers which are heavily laden with silt and debris. The marine waters of upper Cook Inlet can be characterized as highly turbid, well-mixed and low in salinity. 219 The shoreline is chiefly composed of high eroding bluffs of unconsolidated glacial till and low coastal marshes and bogs. Turnagain Arm has a steep mountainous shoreline. Extensive tidal flats produced by river-induced sediments occur throughout upper Cook Inlet. The tidal range averages 8.5 m (28 ft). Sea ice is usually present between November and April. Marine plants and animals have adapted to the stressed environment of this region by rapid growth during the summer months and the utilization of detrital nutrients for growth and reproduction. The numerous coastal salt marshes are highly productive environments important to reproduction and rearing of birds, fish and mammals. In addition, coastal marshes function as critical molting and staging areas for fall and spring migrations of water birds. The numerous lowland lakes and bogs in this region also provide nesting and rearing habitat for water birds, fish and small mammals. Upper Cook Inlet serves as a migratory pathway for anadromous fish on their way to spawning areas in cl6ar water tributaries. Young salmon rear in streams and lakes before beginning their seaward migration. Beluga whales and harbor seals are the only marine mammals present and seasonally migrate in to feed on eulachon (hooligan) and salmon during the summer. Portions of the upper Cook Inlet region have been heavily impacted by both natural and man-made changes during recent years. Urbanization of the Anchorage area and Matanuska Valley has resulted in the alteration of habitat due to the cutting of trees, draining wetlands, siltation of streams and the introduction of pollutants. The fish and wildlife populations have declined primarily due to the loss of habitat in conjunction with increased hunting and fishing pressure. The 1964 earthquake produced dramatic changes to the coastal environment. Subsequent land subsidence, saltwater intrusion and flooding in some areas has altered coastal marshes, aquifers, spawning areas, soils, and wildlife habitat. The environment and ecology of the upper Cook Inlet region will remain in a high dynamic state due to recent and continuing impacts. 220 COMMUNITY AND BOROUGHWIDE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES LAND USE/ENVIRONMENT GOAL THE DEVELOPMENT OF BOROUGH LAND USE MUST CONSIDER THE PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES BALANCED AGAINST THE NEED FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. OBJECTIVES ENCOURAGE THE PRESERVATION OF SITES AND STRUCTURES OF HISTORI -C OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE. PROTECT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT INSOFAR AS IS COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER COMMUNITY GOALS. ENCOURAGE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND ENVIRONMENTALLY HARMONIOUS DEVELOPMENT. EMPHASIZE OPEN SPACE IN DEVELOPMENT. DEVELOP LOW DENSITY, RUSTIC RESIDENTIAL AREAS EXCEPT IN COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD CORES. DEVELOP A RELATIVELY COMPACT COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD CORE AREA FOR LOCATION OF COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL SERVICES, PUBLIC FACILITIES AND HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS. DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN CLEAN, QUIET, AND SAFE RESIDENTIAL AREAS. PROMOTE A LAND USE PATTERN WHICH INTERRELATES EFFICIENTLY AND AVOIDS CONFLICTS AMONG FUNCTIONS. PROTECT RESIDENTIAL AREAS FROM INFLUENCES WHICH WOULD DISTURB THEIR STABILITY OR CHARACTER. PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADEQUATE, APPROPRIATE AND CONVENIENT COMMERCIAL SERVICES. PROVIDE ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE INDUSTRIAL AREAS. GUIDE NEEDED DEVELOPMENT INTO AREAS WITH WHICH IT WILL BE ENVIRONMENTALLY COMPATIBLE. PROVIDE FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND PRICES IN APPROPRIATE AREAS. PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND ITS RESOURCES. PROTECT SCENIC VALUES AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM IN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING. PRESERVE NATURAL AREAS OF UNUSUAL VALUE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL. 221 COMMUNITY AND BOROUGHWIDE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES PUBLIC FACILITIES GOAL TO PROVIDE A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES WHICH ARE INTERRELATED AT THE BOROUGHWIDE LEVEL BUT DESIGNED TO SUPPORT THE VARIOUS LOCAL LIFESTYLES. THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE CONVENIENT YET EFFICIENT AND, THEREFORE, ECONOMICAL. PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE USED TO DIRECT GROWTH IN SUPPORT OF OVERALL DEVELOPMENT GOALS: TO HELP CREATE OR ENHANCE A SENSE OF COMMUNITY IN LOCAL AREAS BY PROVIDING A FOCUS FOR COMMUNITY LIFE; AND TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SAFE AND DESIRABLE ENVIRONMENTS BY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF SERVICE AND APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENT AND AMOUNTS OF PUBLIC SPACE. OBJECTIVES PROVIDE ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES. PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE HEALTH SYSTEMS. PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE. PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE FIRE PROTECTION. PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE DEFENSE AGAINST NATURAL DISASTER. PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. PROVIDE FOR EFFICIENT AND ENVIRONMENTALLY COMPATIBLE POWER AVAILABILITY. PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATIONS. PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE CULTURAL FACILITIES. PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE FACILITIES FOR THE PROVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES. PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT. PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE, SAFE AND HIGH QUALITY WATER SUPPLY. PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE, SAFE AND FEASIBLE SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL. ENSURE PUBLIC ACCESS TO ALL SIGNIFICANT NATURAL AREAS (NOT NECESSARILY ROAD ACCESS). MINIMIZE DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS TO THE PUBLIC IN THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. 222 COMMUNITY AND BOROUGHWIDE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES TRANSPORTATION GOAL THE GOAL OF THE BOROUGH TRANSPORTATION NETWORK IS TO PROVIDE A SAFE, EFFICIENT, LOGICAL ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND AND BALANCED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WHICH SERVES THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITIES, THE BOROUGH AND THE UPPER COOK INLET.REGION. OBJECTIVES PROVIDE FOR SAFE, EFFICIENT AND LOGICAL ARTERIAL, COLLECTOR AND LOCAL ROAD NETWORK. PROVIDE FOR "ALTERNATIVE" MODES OF PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION, SUCH AS AIR, WATER, FOOT, SNOWMACHINE, DOGSLED OR BICYCLES AS APPROPRIATE AND NEEDED. MAXIMIZE EFFICIENCY, SAFETY AND SCENIC ASPECTS OF MAJOR ARTERIAL ROUTES. PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONVENIENT MODES OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. 223 COMMUNITY AND BOROUGHWIDE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES POPULATION/ECONOMY/GOVERNMENT GOAL THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO ACHIEVE A HARMONIOUS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POPULATION GROWTH, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCE UTILIZATION. OBJECTIVES ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOURIST INDUSTRY. ENCOURAGE OUTDOOR RECREATION DEVELOPMENT AS A BASIC INDUSTRY. ENCOURAGE AND PROTECT AGRICULTURE. ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF FORESTRY INDUSTRY. ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MINERAL EXTRACTION INDUSTRY. ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY. PROVIDE FOR AN ECONOMY BASED PREDOMINATELY ON SUBSISTENCE (LIVING OFF THE LAND). DISCOURAGE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT. DEVELOP A SYSTEM OF COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION BETWEEN LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND BOROUGH GOVERNMENT. ACHIEVE A PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND LEGITIMATE INDIVIDUAL PURSUITS. 224 Maynard and Partch SUMMARY ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1981 This was the initial meeting of the Mat-Su Borough Citizen/Agency Joint Forum. The Maynard and Partch consultant team was represented by Stuart Denslow and Mi.chael McGuiness. The Mat-Su Borough Planning Department was represented by Rodney Schulling and Rick Feller. There were eight members of the An Alaskan Corporation Citizen/Agency Joint Forum in attendance. 800 F Street The meeting consisted of an audio-visual presentation on Anchorage. Alaska 99501 coastal management in the Mat-Su Borough given by the Maynard 907/276-4218 and Partch consultant team. A brief question and answer period followed the presentation. The four main topics covered during the presentation were: 1) C! tizen/Agency Joint Forum Organization and Activities. 2) Development of the Mat-Su Borough Coast.al Manage- ment Program. 3) Mat-Su Borough Goals and Objectives. 4) Mat-Su Borough Coastal Boundaries and Definitions. The background informational packet provided to each Forum member is included as an Appendix to th is summary. 1. Forum Organization and Activity: The Citizen/Agency Joint Forum organization and activities were discussed in light of the public participation requirements of the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Citizen Participation Process flow diagram included in the informational packet. Four main objectives of citizen participation in program development were highlighted. The Citizen/Agency Joint Forum will be called upon at critical stages of program development to analyze, evaluate and make decisions on key components of the coastal program. 2. Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program: Development of a district coastal management program was looked at in the context of the State Coastal Management Act and the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. This was followed by a discussion on the technical and procedural requirements for Mat-Su program development, as set out by the standards and guidelines of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. The intent was to make Forum members aware of the procedural requirements and steps necessary in developing a district coastal program and plan. 225 Briefly, some of the key components looked at for proper program development include: 1) A review of existing plans -- e.g. Mat-Su Borough Comprehensive Development Plan; 2) the resource inventory, both natural resources and cultural resources; 3) the coastal boundary review and determination; 4) the resource analysis of inventory data and mapping of sensitive coastal areas; 5) the identification of overall coastal needs, goals, and objectives of the Borough; 6) the determination of subject uses and proper and improper uses within the Mat-Su coastal area; 7) the development of program policy, alternatives, and implementation strategies; 8) policy review and program refinement; and 9) the public hearing on the draft program and plan. Citizen participation and input was stressed at all phases in program development. 3. Borough Goals and Objectives: Previously identified Borough goals and objectives from the Comprehensive Development PIan and the Annual Report of the Mat-Su Coastal Management Program were discussed. Acknowledged is the fact that a significant set of goals have already been prepared or adopted and objectives appropriate to those goals have been developed. The Citizen/Agency Joint Forum will be called upon to further identify, analyze, and refine goals and objectives specific to that portion of the Borough identified as the coastal zone. This activity w-111 be the subject of the next Citizen/Agency Joint Forum workshop. 4. Coastal Boundary Review and Definitions: Interim coastal boundaries for the Mat-Su Borough were briefly examined in light of Alaska Department of Fish and Game's definition for the zones of direct interaction and zones of direct influence. Pointed out was the fact that final coastal boundary determination would depend upon the results of the resource inventory, resource analysis, and coastal goals and objectives. Cassette tape of presentation available from Maynard and Partch or Mat-Su Borough Planning Department upon request. 226 MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM WORKSHOP ON COASTAL NEEDS, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES DATE: Wednesday, March 4, 1981 TIME: 6:00 - 9:00 PM PLACE: Mat-Su Borough Assembly Chambers AGENDA 1. An overview of coastal issues in the Mat-Su Borough. 2. In-depth analysis of major coastal issues by workshop groups. 3. Review Mat-Su goals and objectives in relation to major coastal issues - workshop groups. 4. Report findings, goals, and objectives to citizen/agency joint forum - workshop groups. 5. Coastal management boundary review as time a-Ilows. 6. Scheduling of next meeting. 7. Adjournment. 227 Maynard and Partch February 23, 1981 MEMORANDUM TO: Matanuska-Susitna Borough An Alaskan Corporation Citizen/Agency Joint Forum 800 F Street SUBJECT: Citizen/Agency Joint Forum Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Workshop on Mat-Su Coastal 907/276-4218 Needs, Goals, and Objectives FROM: Consultant Team Citizen participation and input on overall Mat-Su coastal needs, goals, and objectives is vital at this phase in. coastal program development. A statement of overall coastal needs, goals, and objectives, together with the findings of the resource inventory and analysis, will serve as a foundation for policy development program review and future workshops. To assist in your preparation for this workshop discussion, the materials attached include a brief explanation of "What is Coastal Management" and "Why is Coastal Management Needed," definitions of coastal needs, goals, and objectives as they relate to program development, and a list of potential coastal management issues that may be important to the Mat- Su Borough. Thank you for your assistance. We look forward to working with you on March 4th, 6:00 PM, at the Borough Assembly Chambers. 228 WHAT IS COASTAL MANAGEMENT? Coastal management is a joint effort by local, State, and Federal governments and the private sector to manage coastal resources and to promote their wise and balanced use and development. Citizen participation in local program development will result in a coastal management plan tailored to meet .the resource utilization and economic development needs specific to.the Mat-Su Borough. WHY IS COASTAL MANAGEMENT NEEDED? The Mat-Su Borough contains a wealth of natural and cultural resources which support a variety of uses, some examples of which include residential, commericalP industrial, public facility and port development uses, timber harvesting, mineral processing, tourism, recreation, agriculture, hunting, fishing, oil and gas activities, subsistence, and transportation uses. Demands on the coastal resources of the Borough will increase in the future. This will result in heightened tension and conflict between the numerous and diverse user groups over a finite amount of coastal area. Coastal management program development will assure a balanced utilization of Borough coastal resources through a decision-making process that takes into account knowledge of coastal resources and environments, sound planning principles, and the social and economic aspirations of Borough residents. COASTAL NEEDS, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES An issue or need is anything which concerns the Borough or could affect the livability, vitality, and economic well- being of the Borough. A -goal is a future vision or general end which the Borough aspires to achieve. An objective is a target which provides specific incremental direction to help the Borough achieve identified goals. The first step in the development of the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program is the identification of overall coastal issues, needs, goals, and objectives that reflect the concerns of Borough residents. Citizen participation and input is essential at this early phase of program development. The identified coastal goals and objectives will provide the foundation upon which coastal development policies and implementation strategies are based. The citizen/agency joint forum will serve as the principal body for providing citizen participation and input into program development. 229 The citizen/agency joint forum is composed of a representative cross section of Borough, community, agency, and private sector interests. The intent of the workshop is to identify a set of goals and objectives that are mutually acceptable to all interests within the Borough. The stated goals and objectives will then guide future aspects of coastal program development. POTENTIAL MAT-SU COASTAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES Below is a preliminary list of potential coastal management issues that may be pertinent to the economic growth, social well-being, and future of the Mat-Su Borough. The Maynard and Partch consultant team and the Mat-Su Borough Planning Dep artment urge members of the citizen/agency joint forum to review these coastal management issues prior to the March 4, 1981 Workshop on Overall Coastal Management Needs.. Goals, and Objectives. Please feel free to identify additional coastal management issues of concern to you, your community, business, agency, or any private sector interests you may represent. This list is meant only to stimulate your thinking on coastal management issues and to serve as a starting point in aeveloping coastal management goals and objectives for the Borough. I. Issue: Ecomonic instability and high unemployment in the Mat-Su Borough. 2. Issue: Point MacKenzie industrial area and port facility. 3. Issue: Development of a town and industrial support facilities at Point MacKenzie. 4. Issue: Inexpensive and environmentally safe electrical power -- e.g. Susitna Dam Project. 5. Issue: Increased agriculture and dairy products production -- e.g. Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project. 6. Issue: Protection of prime agricultural lands from subdivision. 7. Issue: Mining and mineral activities in the Borough -- e.g. coal mining, placer mining, sand and gravel extraction, and oil and gas lease sales. 8. Issue: Environmental impacts from increased oil and gas activities and coal development and exportation. 230 9. Issue: Timber harvesting and processing in the Borough. 10. Issue: Development in known geophysical hazard areas -- e.g. areas of active coastal erosion, flood plains, and fault areas. 11. Issue: Development of water treatment, sewage treatment and other utilities -- e.g. central community water and sewage systems vs. private well and septic systems. 12. Issue: Development of public facilities -- e.g. schools, public buildings, cultural facilities and recreation facilities. 13. Issue: Improvement and maintenance of transportation facilities -- e.g. highways, secondary roads and collector roads. 14. Issue: State Capital move from Juneau to Willow. 15. Issue: Close proximity of the Borough to the Municipality of Anchorage. 16. Issue: Development of a Knik Arm bridge crossing. 17. Issue: Conflicting user demands on a limited amount of coastal land. 18. Issue: State land disposals in the Borough. 19. Issue: Protection and enhancement of important land and water habitat, and fish and wildlife resources for this and succeeding generations. 20. Issue: Preservation of cultural resources which depict Alaska's heritage. 21. Issue: Protection of unique and beautiful scenic vistas and natural attractions in the Borough. 22. Issue: Tourism expansion in the Borough. 23. Issue: Recreational opportunities in the Borough for residents, expecially along the coast. 24. Issue: Increased public access to natural areas, coastline and major rivers, streams and lakes, either by car or trai I systems. 25. Issue: State and Federal agency regulatory control over development in coastal areas. 231 26. Issue: Promotion of a subsistence lifestyle in those communities identified for such a lifestyle. 27. Issue:.,- Preservation of high air and water quality in the Borough. 28. Issue: Protection and enhancement of prime anadromous spawning streams. 232 Maynard and Partch SUMMARY WORKSHOP ON COASTAL NEEDS, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1981 This was the second meeting of the Mat-Su Borough Citizen/Agency Joint Forum. The Maynard and Partch/Woodward-Clyde consultant team was represented by Stuart Denslow, Michael 1,1cGuiness, and John Isaacs. The Mat-Su Borough Planning Department was represented by Rodney Schullihg and Rick Feller. Forum An Alaskan Corporation members in attendance were Jim Bird, Jack Corey, Bud Goodyear, 800 F Street Mitch Henning, James Herman, Barbara Lacher, Al Larson, Bob Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Lundell, Elsie O'Bryan, and Guy Wooding. 907/276-4218 Bud Goodyear and Jim Bird were nominated and appointed as co-chairpersons of the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum. The intent of the workshop session was to establish a dialogue between Forum members on coastal management issues, needs, goals, and objectives. Topics highlighted during the workshop session included: 0 Mat-Su Borough coastal boundaries. Review of coastal issues in the Mat-Su Borough. Coastal management goals and objectives. The background information packet provided to each Forum member is included as an Appendix to the Summary. 1. Mat-Su Borough Coastal Boundaries: Concern was raised over the interim Mat-Su coastal boundaries evolved by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and approved by the Mat-Su Borough Assembly. Forum inquiries focused on how definite coastal boundaries were and whether the coastal boundaries could be changed. The consultant team pointed out that the interim coastal boundaries are subject to change. Final coastal boundaries will be adjusted to reflect the results of the resource inventory and analysis and local desires, as expressed through a statement of coastal management goals and objectives. Further discussion on coastal boundaries was deferred until resource inventory and resource information is made available. 233 2. Review of Coastal Issues in the Mat-Su Borough: The consultant team provided Forum members with a list of 28 potential coastal management issues pertinent to the economic growth, social well-being, and future of the Borough. The issues were extrapolated from previous Borough discussions, documents, reports, and newspaper articles. Each of the issues were read aloud and commented upon by the Forum. The Forum determined further evaluation of the issues is necessary prior to establishing priorities to be used in developing a statement of Borough coastal management goals and objectives. 3. Coastal Management Goals and Objectives: A definitional example of an issue, goal, and objective was provided by the consultant team. Forum members briefly discussed previously identified Borough goals and objectives from the Comprehensive Development Plan (May 1978). The Forum consensus was that development of Mat-Su Borough coastal management goals and objectives are of high importance and warrant more time, research, evaluation, and discussion by members of the Forum. Members agreed to additional Forum workshop sessions, exclusive of the consultant team, in order to evolve a responsible statement of coastal management goals and objectives for the Borough. Monday, March 9, 1981 is scheduled as the next meeting date for the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum. Conference with the consultant team will proceed once the Forum has established a statement of coastal management goals and objectives for the Borough. Cassette tape -of workshop session available from Mat-Su Planning Department upon request. 234 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM AGENDA Thursday, April 2, 1981 6:30 P.M. Assembly Chambers 1. Call to order. 11. Minutes of previous meeting. 111. Discussion of Mat-Su Preliminary Boundary Definition. IV. Discussion of Comprehensive Listing qf Revised Issues, Goals, and Objectives 235 Maynard and Par"Ich April 2, 1981 MEMORANDUM TO: Matanuska-Susitna Borough Citizen/Agency Joint Forum SUBJECT: Preliminary Coastal Management An Alaskan Co,,,o,alion Boundary Definition 800 F SIreet FROM: Stu Denslow Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907/276-4218 Inland and seaward coastal boundaries outline the area in which the Matanuska-Susitna Borough will manage uses and activities that have, or are likely to have, a direct and major effect on coastal waters. Areas of Direct Interaction and Direct Influence 6 AAC 85.040. "A district should first obtain the legal description of its corporate limits (that is, the area over which the district has direct control). Second, within its corporate limits, a district must adopt boundaries for the coastal area. At the start of its program, a di5trict must base its coastal area boundaries on the Biophysical Boundaries for Alaska's Coastal Zone and must include the zone of direct interaction and direct influence. The zone of direct interaction is that portion of the coastal area where physical and biological processes are a function of the direct contact between land and sea. The zone of direct influence is that portion of the coastal area which is next to the zone of direct interaction and is therefore influenced by that interaction." I'District" means Matanuska-Susitna Borough 236 Final boundary A district may change the boundaries of its coastal area if the new modification criteria boundaries . extend inland and seaward as far as is needed to manage uses and activities that have or are likely to have a direct and major effect on coastal waters; and - include all transit ional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, salt-water wetlands, islands, and beaches. (In some cases, inland portions of islands may be excluded if the islands are quite large.) Thus, districts may draw boundaries which coincide with their political jurisdiction, watersheds, or other natural or man-made features, but only if the new boundaries meet these two conditions. "At the start of its program, a district must base its coastal area on . . . the zone of direct interaction and direct influence." ,Z DIRECT INTERACTION DIRECT INFLUENCE INDIRECT INFLUENCE The portion of the coastal zone where physi- The portion of the coastal zone extending sea- The outer portions of the coastal zone have cal and biological processes are a function of ward and landward from the zone of direct been termed the zone of indirect influence. direct contact between land and sea has been interaction has been termed the zone of direct This zone extends to the limit where land /sea defined as the zone of direct interaction. influence. While this zone is not subjected to biological and physical processes are still the dynamics of land/sea energy dissipation identifiable. Within this outer zone human use This zone extends landward to the limit of characteristic of direct interaction, it is close- activities may have a direct and significant im- waves,.surf, tides, storm surges, and tsunami ly affected and influenced by the close prox- pact on coastal processes. energy dissipation; to the limit of active calv- imity between land and sea. Ing of tidewater glaciers, coastal erosion, and Landward, this zone extends to the. limit of mass wasting; to the limit of ice shove onto Landward, the zone extends to areas where overwintering in riverine springs by fish stocks beaches; to the limit of critical shoreline habi- coastal plant communities directly reflect the which utilize the nearshore brackish waters in tat (e.g. seabird rookeries, marine mammal saltiness, high precipitation, or moderate summer, and the extent of coastal watersheds bauling out and pupping areas) and to the temperatures of the ocean (e.g. wet tundra, which support stream habitats for anadrom- limit to which man-made structures along the marshes, Sitka spruce-hemlock forests and ous fish and control the chemical and physical shore are directly impacted by the dynamics highbrush and floodplain alder and willow nature of estuaries. of oceanic processes. thickets), where shorebirds and waterfowl nest and feed in coastal wetlands, where cer- Seaward, the zone of indirect influence is not The zone extends seaward to the outer limit tain marine mammals (e.g. belukha whales, easily delineated as the migrations of many of the breaker zone generated by large waves, harbor seals) frequently range inland via river coastal species are of hemispheric or global to the nearshore limit of initial mixing of land systems, where anadromous fish such as proportions. Natural phenomenon, such as runoff and sea water, to the nearshore area salmon migrate up rivers to spawn, and where the shoreward edge of oceanic boundary cur- within which benthic algae are anchored to breakup conditions along the shore will in- rents from which the net transport is directed the sea floor, to where ice scours the near- duce extensive flooding of coastal lowlands. towards the coast, and the seaward extent of shore sediments, to where pack ice grinds a freshening of oceanic surface waters mark- against fast ice, to the seaward limit of sea- Seaward, the zone extends to the offshore Ing the transition between brackish/ocean ic sonal beach drift and to the seaward extent of lands and waters of continental shelf where planktonic forms are taken as transitional concentrated utilization of nearshore waters waves begin to "feel bottom" and refract in criteria delineating the seaward extent of this by nesting seabirds and marine mammals. This response to bathymetric features, where the outer zone. zone also includes nearshore rearing areas for brackish water initially foEmed nearshore anadromous fish, and nearshore spawning and seasonally controls the density structure of rearing areas for marine fish and invertebrates. nearshore waters, where nutrient rich deep waters are "upwelled" along the coast, and to the extent marine species such as king crab, herring, pollock, or halibut will migrate sea- ,sonally or during a portion of their life his- tory after. utilizing the shoreline or nearshore environment for spawning or early rearing. 237 Maynard and Partch April 2, 1981 MEMORANDUM TO: Matanuska-Susitna Borough Citizen/Agency Joint Forum SUBJECT: The Comprehensive Listing of Revised Issues, Goals, and Objectives FROM: Stu Denslow An Alaskan Corporation 800 F Street During your meeting of Margh 23, 1981, certain additions, Anchorage. Alaska 99501 deletions, and/or changes were made to the Preliminary 907/276-4218 Listing of Issues, Goals and Objectives reflecting several Borough sources previously identified. At your request, the alterations and changes have been incorporated into a revised listing representing your decisions and the "thirteen points" referenced in your meeting minutes of March 9, 1981. The points were as follows: 1. Conformance with local community plans. 2. The plan should be updated at a minimum of once every five years. 3. Management of natural resources. 4. Promote tourism. 5. Develop agriculture and forest. 6. Encourage economic development. 7. Develop mining potential. 8. Flood Control. 9. Develop hydroelectric power potential. 10. Knik Arm crossing. 11. Develop an energy policy. 12. Develop appropriate transportation. 13. Facilitate permitting for facilities development and transportation corridors. The resulting revised issues, goals, and objectives are attached. 238 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REVISED ISSUES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM April 2, 1981 ISSUE: Management and Local Control GOAL: To maximize local Borough control over coastal management issues through the implementation of an approved coastal management program and through Memorandums of Agreement with state agencies. OBJECTIVES: Minimize the impact from state and federal regulations in order to foster commercial and industrial development and utilization of Borough natural resources. Simplify present application procedures to encourage development of Borough natural resources through timely processing of applications. Provide for a local permit coordinator to aid the public In various permitting procedures. Encourage public agencies to obtain all required permits for contracts prior to the granting of contracts to private firms. Promote a harmonious relationship between population growth, economic development, and natural resource utilization. Review and update the Borough's coastal -management program every five years. Provide for conformance of coastal management program with local community plans. 239 ISSUE: Natural Resource Utilization GOAL: To provide for balanced conservation, utilization and development of Borough natural resources (e.g. fish and wildlife, timber, minerals, water, etc.), in a manner which enhances the livability and quality of life in the Borough. OBJECTI VES: Plan for natural resource utilization in a manner which will provide the maximum long-term benefit to the Borough and residents. Facilitate and provide for increased mining and mineral processing, including oil, gas, and coal exploration and development activities in coastal areas. Facilitate and provide increased timber harvesting and processing in coastal areas. Facilitate and provide for increased usage of land for agricultural and dairy production purposes, Protect and enhance fish and wildlife and recreational resources. ISSUE: Land Use and User Demands GOAL: To accommodate multiple uses and activities in coastal areas, recognizing the finite amount of coastal land in the Borough. OBJECTIVES: Give priority to Wdter-dependent and water-related uses in areas reserved for coastal industrial development (e.g. Point MacKenzie). Manage and dispose of Borough selected lands for the greatest benefit to the Borough and its residents. Accommodate the development of COMDact community or neighborhood core are@s for 240 location of community commercial services and public facilities. Provide for adequate and appropriate industrial areas. Accommodate mining and mineral processing, including oil, gas, and coal exploration and development in coastal areas. Accommodate transportation and utility corridors in coastal areas. Accommodate timber harvesting and processing in coastal areas. Accommodate agriculture expansion in coastal areas. Accommodate recreational activities (e.g. hunting, fishing, hiking, viewing, etc.) and tourism in coastal areas. Provide for the protection and conservation of natural areas in the Borough. Preserve natural and scenic areas of unusual value for the benefit of.all. Preserve sites and structures of historic and archaeological significance. ISSUE: Economic Stability GOAL: To stimulate balanced economic development and growth in the Mat-Su Borough based upon sound planning and utilization of Borough resources. OBJECTIVES: Provide for a broad base of economic development and activities, thereby avoiding seasonal fluctuations in employment. Encourage development of Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site. 241 Encourage timber harvesting and processing. Encourage mining and mineral processing, including oil, gas, and coal development. Encourage expansion of tourism,, tourist related facilities, and outdoor recreational services (e.g. hunting guides). Encourage expansion of dairy and agricultural production. Encourage the location and development of manufacturing industry in the Borough. 0 ISSUE: Transportation GOAL: To improve and develop a Borough transportation system which is safe, efficient, and balanced. OBJECTIVE: Provide for development of arterial, collector, and local road networks. Provide for "alternative" modes of personal transportation, such as air, water, snowmachine, dogsled, or bicycles. Maximize efficiency, safety, and scenic aspects of major arterial routes. Promote the development of convenient modes of public transportation. Plan for and develop rail and road system to service Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site. 242 ISSUE: Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site GOAL: Plan for and develop an industrial and deep water port complex, support facilities, and adjoining townsite at Point MacKenzie. OBJECTIVES: Provide for an economic and Political atmosphere in the Borough that is receptive to the needs of industrial development at Point MacKenzie. Plan for and develop rail and highway transportation corridors to service the Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site. Designate the Point MacKenzie location as an Area Meriting Special Attention, where development of facilities is dependent upon the utilization of, or access to, coastal waters. Encourage development of a Knik Arm bridge crossing. Give priority to water-dependent and water-related development in the Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site area. 0 ISSUES: Public Facilities and Utilities GOAL: To minimize direct and indirect costs to the public in the provision of public facilities and services. OBJECTIVES: Provide for adequate and appropriate defense against natural disasters and geophysical hazards (e.g. floods). Provide for adequate and appropriate outdoor recreational opportunities (e.g. campgrounds, boat launches, etc.). Plan for and develop efficient and environmentally compatible power generation and availability. Provide for adequate and appropriate communications. 243 Provide for adequate and appropriate solid waste management. Provide for adequate, safe, and high quality water supply. Provide for adequate, safe, and feasible sanitary sewage. Ensure public access to all significant natural areas (not necessarily road access). 244 Maynard and Par1ch SUMMARY WORKSHOP ON COASTAL ISSUES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZENAGENCY JOINT FORUM THURSDAY, April 2, 1981 This was the third meeting of the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum with the Maynard and Partch/Woodward-Clyde consultant team. The consultant team was represented by Stuart Denslow, Michael McGuiness, and John Issacs. The Mat-Su Borough An Alaskan Corporation Planning Department was represented by Rodney Schulling. Forum members in attendance were Jay Bergstrand, Larry 800 F Street Engel, Bud Goodyear, Jim Hermon, Barbara Lacher, Bob Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Lundell, and Myron Stevens. 907/276-4218 The intent of the workshop session was for the consultant team to present a revised issues, goals, and objectives statement to the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum for review. Topics highlighted during the workshop session included: 0 Acceptance of Minutes 0 Mat-Su Borough Coastal Boundaries 0 Revised Issues, Goals and Objectives The background informational packets provided to each Forum member is included as an Appendix to the Summary. In addition, minutes from the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum meeting of March 9, 1981 and March 23, 1981 are also included. 1. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: The Citizen/Agency Joint Forum reviewed and accepted the minutes from the two previously held meetings on March 9, 1981 and March 23, 1981. 2. MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL BOUNDARIES: John Issacs of the consultant team briefly reviewed the biological and physical parameters upon which coastal boundaries are established. Pointed out was the fact that the interim coastal boundaries, established by ADF&G, could be reasonably adjusted to reflect the results of the resource inventory and analysis and local desires, as expressed through a coastal management issues, goals, and objectives statement. 245 Forum members voted and accepted, subject to change, the interim coastal boundaries recommended by the Mat-Su Borough Assembly in the Annual Progress Report of the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program, June 1979. In addition, Forum members asked the consultant team to request the presence of Debra Clausen, ADF&G, and Ed Busch,'ADCRA, at their next meeting. 3. REVISED ISSUE, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES: Stuart Denslow presented the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum with a revised coastal management issues, goals, and objectives statement based upon work accomplished at the March 9, 1981 and March 23, 1981 meetings of the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum. The revised coastal management issues, goals, and objectives statement was reviewed and approved by the C'itizen/Agency Joint Forum. Bud Goodyear will present the revised coastal management issues, goals, and objectives statement to the Mat-Su Boroug.h Assembly for review and comment on April 7, 1981. Forum members discussed the coordination of the Coastal Management Program effort with the overall Borough Comprehensive Development Plan. In addition, the Forum members expressed the desire to consider either expanding the boundaries of the Coastal Management Program study to encompass the entire Borough or bringing the timeline of the pending Comprehensive Development Plan into pace with the chronology of the Coastal Management Program. After discussion, the consultant was requested to draft a letter and work program outline that would enable the Borough to accomplish the latter. The Citizen/Agency Joint Forum scheduled their next meeting for April 20, 1981. Tentative agenda topics include a further discussion of a preliminary coastal boundary determination and a review of the resource inventory - land status for the Mat-Su Borough. Debra Clausen, ADF&G, and Ed Busch, ADCRA, have been contacted and will attend the April 20, 1981 meeting. 246 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM AGENDA Monday, April 20, 1981 6:30 P.M. Assembly Chambers 1. Call to Order. 11. Minutes of Previous Meeting. 111. Discussion on Mat-Su Preliminary Coastal Boundaries. A. Debra Clausen, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. B. Ed Busch, Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. IV. Discussion of Resource Inventory - Land Status for the Mat-Su Coastal Area. V. Discussion of Poli-cy and Technical Coordination of the Mat-Su Comprehensive Development Plan and the Coastal Management Program Element thereof - Consultant Letter responding to Forum Request of April 2. 247 Maynard and Partch April 16, 1981 MEMORANDUM TO: CITIZEN/AGENCY JOIV FORUM FROM: STUART 0. DENSLOW SUBJECT: Resources Invent y and Analysis in Coastal Management An Alaskan Corporation Concurrent with your discussions on community issues, goals, and objectives, the consultant team has been engaged in 800 F Street resource inventory and analysis activities that will provide Anchorage, Alaska 99501 you with essential technical data for determining demands 907/276-4218 on, and the capabilities of, the coastal district. This information also provides a base for the development of proper policies and a management framework for the Borough's coastal program. In the next few weeks, we will be presenting the results of the resource inventory and analysis in a systematic order ranging from land ownership and management, biological resources, physical characteristics and geophysical hazards, through coastal habitat opportunities and constraints and the sensitivities of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough coastal area for development, conditional development, and conservation. Due to its critical importance to related resource inventory and analysis features, the following presentation of land ownership and management become the important starting point for your examination of the coastal environment. @v @and An 248 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COASTAL AREA LAND STATUS The Alaska Coastal Management Program specifies that each district conduct a resource inventory as part of their procedural. requirements for coastal management program development.. The findings of the resource inventory will be described and presented in a manner that will aid coastal management program policy development and implementation procedures. One aspect of the resource inventory is the inventory of major land and resource ownership and management responsibilities within or adjacent to a district. The importance of such a land status determination allows for a clear understanding of ownership and management responsibilities in coastal areas over which district coastal management program policies apply. When determining land status, one fact that must be kept in mind is that land ownership patterns throughout all of Alaska are in a state of flux as a result of incomplete implementation of federal and state laws. The coastal area of the Mat-Su Borough is no exception to this. STATE LAND Throughout Alaska's history, the Territory of Alaska, the University of Alaska, and the State of Alaska @have acquired land from the federal public domain through various federal land grants. One of the first of these, federal land grants was the Act of 1915 (P.L. 330). This Act granted all vacant surveyed township sections 16 and 36 to the Territory of Alaska for the benefit of the common school fund. The income derived from these lands were placed in a trust with only the earnings being used to benefit the schools. In 1978, the Alaska Legislature redesignated the "school sections" as general state land removing the trust land designation. The legislature now provides for a percentage (12%) of the state resource revenues to feed the school trust fund in place of school trust land revenues. The Act of 1929 (P.L. 679) granted 100,000 acres of surveyed, non-mineral, vacant, unappropriated and unreserved land to the University of Alaska. These lands, I i ke the school lands, were trust lands with only the earnings being used to benefit the University. Through the Act of 1929, the University of Alaska acquired title to land within the coastal area of the Mat-Su Borough. Much of the University land has been leased under State of Alaska leasing laws. 249 The Mental Health Grant Act of 1958 (P.L. 830) granted a sizeable area of land, 1,000,000 acres, to the state for the purpose of establishing another trust fund to benefit the funding of mental health costs in Alaska. Like the school trust lands, the land trust designation for mental health lands was removed by the Alaska Legislature in 1978. The legislature now provides for a percentage (121%) of the state resource revenues to feed the mental health trust fund in place of mental health trust land revenues. The Alaska Statehood Act of 1959 (P.L. 85-508) transferred the largest amount of land from federal to state ownership. Section 6(b) of the Alaska Statehood Act provided for a grant of 102,550,000 acres to the State of Alaska. Much of the uplands in the Mat-Su coastal area were selected under this authority and patented to the state. The selection process for state land contains three distinct steps prior to final aquisition of the federal patent by the state. The process includes selected lands, tentative approved selected lands, and patented lands. Selected and tentative approved selected status on a tract of land does not necessarily mean that the state will get the final patent. In addition to the lands granted to the state under the Alaska Statehood Act, the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (P.L. 85-303 and 508) conveyed all tidelands, submerged lands, and shorelands under all navigable waters to Alaska upon statehood. These lands are available for lease only and cannot be sold under existing state law. Only those persons using such tidelands and cities existing prior to statehood were given a preference to purchase. BOROUGH LAND The Matanuska-Susitna Borough was incorporated in 1964 and received the right to select up to 10% of the vacant, unappropriated, unreserved state land within the Borough's boundary. The Municipal Land Entitlement Act of 1978 (AS 29.16.201-.213) has since restricted Borough land entitlement to a maximum of 355,210 acres of state land. Borough lands within the Mat-Su coastal area are divided into selected lands, tentative approved lands, and patented lands. The tentative approved lands lack the patent document for technical reasons only (e.g. lack of exterior boundary survey). Conditional disposals of tentative approved lands can be made with prior approval of the Department of Natural Resources. Approved selections on surveyed land is only waiting for the state's patent document processing to be completed. Pending unapproved selections are in the adjudication process and could be denied if the Borough has over selected its entitlement. 250 Borough title does not include the mineral rights to the land or title to any navigable water bodies. The state also retains public access to and along all water bodies. With the exception of some school sites and administrative facilities, all of the Borough land was acquired from the state. PRIVATE LAND Private land ownership in the Mat-Su coastal area, other than Native land, has evolved through federal land allocation laws, state land sales and Borough land sales. The most prominent federal program was the Homestead Act. Fee ownership gained through the federal homesteading procedure passed the most complete bundle of rights to the private land owner. The federal patent usually included the mineral rights to the land. In 1958, the Homestead Act was changed to reserve the mineral rights from homestead entries in Alaska. The state has since acquired those reserved mineral rights under the homestead lands where there is a mineral potential. Private lands obtained through state and Borough land sales do not include mineral rights which were retained by the state. NATIVE LAND The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 (P.L. 92-203) provided for a land settlement to the Native villages within the Mat-Su coastal area. ANCSA and a subsequent amendment (Terms and Conditions for Land Consolidation and Management in the Cook Inlet Area) provides for federal and state land to satisfy the village and region entitlements. Most of the I ands conveyed to Native corporations have been identified, however, I i t i gat i on i s pend i ng f or many of the acres se I ected by Eklutna, Inc. As a result, dual ownership occurs for much of the land south of the Knik River area including the Duck Flats in the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge (T16N, RI-4E, S.M.). The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (P.L. 96-487) that became law in December, 1980 provides for the state and Eklutna, Inc. to exchange lands to allow for Native selections in the Jim-Swan Lakes area of the Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain (T17N, R3E, S.M.). PERMITS, CLAIMS, AND LEASES A I I of the t i de and submerged I ands a-[ ong Kn i k Arm i n the Mat-Su coastal area have been filed on for offshore prospecting. Most of the activity is in the permit application stage and the balance in terminated permits. An offshore prospecting permit is an exclusive mining right to all of the locatable minerals found offshore. The permit must be approved before any exploration work can be done. 251 I f the perm i ttee f i nds any m i nera I s, the perm I t must be converted to a lease before any mining is done. The Department of Natural Resources has not approved any permits s i nce about 1975 and does not i ntend to process any unt i I new regulations are adopted. As mentioned earlier, the state retains the mineral rights to all land sold or conveyed. If the state has not closed the mineral estate to location or entry, the right to prospect and stake claims on the disposed surface estate still exists. In such instances, the prospector is subject to damage claims of the surface estate. Mining claims on both state and federal land must be filed with the mineral estate owner in addition to filing the claim in the appropriate recording district. This requirement became effective in 1974 on state lands and in 1976 on federal lands. Both federal and state land records now reflect claim locations. A number of mining claims @ave been filed along rivers in the western portion of the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge. There are a small number of shore fishery leases in the tidal areas west of the Susitna River. The shore fishery lease gives the leaseholder a priority area for setting nets during salmon runs. Shore fishery leases are issued by the Department of Natural Resources.. The possessory interest of a lease must be considered by any competing use in the area. All land in state ownership in the Mat-Su coastal area, both onshore and offshore, is available for oil and gas leasing. Very little interest has ever been shown in the eastern portion of the Mat-Su coastal area. The upcoming oil and gas lease sales for Upper Cook Inlet in May, 1981 do not include any new areas. Areas that are currently not under lease, mostly because of expired leases, have been offered for lease in the past. To date, the obly commercial quantity of gas found is in the vicinity of Theodore Creek, located west of the Susitna River. 252 EXPLANATORY NOTES ON LAND STATUS MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LEGEND State Public Domain State Game Refuge State Park or Recreation Area State Agricultural Land Area State Interest Land Borough Selected Land Borough Tentative Approved Land Borough Patented Land Private Ownership - General Private Ownership - Native Corporations Z\ University Land Federal Land - Public Domain Federal Land - State S.elected Refuge and Park Boundaries NOTE: Smallest parcel of land distinguishable at 1:250,000 scale is 40 acres. 253 State land within the Mat-Su coastal area is divided into six categories: 1. State Public Domain 0 2. State Game Refuge T 3. State Park or Recreation Area 4. State Agricultural Land Area 5. State Interest Land 0 5. University Land 0 1 Three of the state land categories, state game refuge, state park or recreation area, and state agricultural land area are self-explanatory in their use and management. State publ ic domain is state-owned land for which no specific classification exists. Included as state public domain are tidelands, submerged lands, and shorelands under all navigable waters that were conveyed to the State of Alaska by-the Submerged Lands Act upon statehood. State interest lands include state forest lands, recreational lands, and wildlife- habitat lands that are not within the boundaries of an established park or refuge. The classification as state interest lands is intended to preclude any disposal in fee ownership. Mineral leasing, permits, and timber sales are allowed on state interest lands if found compatible with specific land classifications. State interest lands classification is an administrative process that can be changed with the identification of new information and objectives. University lands are considered trust lands. The income obtained from leases on university land is placed in a trust and the earnings utilized to benefit the University of Alaska. The Department of Natural Resources is in charge of leasing university lands in accordance with state leasing laws. Borough land within the Mat-Su coastal area is divided into three categories: 1. Borough-Selected Lands 2. Borough Tentative-Approved Lands 3. Borough-Patented Lands 254 The maximum amount of state land that the Borough is entitled to receive is 355,210 acres. To obtain state land, the Borough must go through the process of selecting and surveying vacant state land, receiving title to the land after-the state determines the land is available. Private land within the Mat-Su coastal area is divided into two categories: 1. General Private Ownership 2. Native Corporation Ownership General private ownership has evolved through several federal land allocation laws (Homestead Act), state land sales, and Borough land sales. Native ownership has evolved as a result of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). ANCSA and a subsequent amendment (Terms and Conditions for land Consolidation and Management in the Cook Inlet Area) provides for federal and state land to satisfy village and region entitlements. Within the Mat-Su coastal area, the major Native regional corporation landowner is Cook Inlet Regional Corporation while the primary Native village landowner is Eklutna Incorporated. Federal land within the Mat-Su coastal area is extremely limited and subject to selection by both the state and native villages. 255 lWaynard and Partch SUMMARY WORKSHOP ON COASTAL BOUNDARIES - LAND STATUS MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM MONDAY, APRIL 20, 1981 This was the fourth meeting of the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum with the Maynard and Partch/Woodward-Clyde consultant team. The consultant team was represented by Stuart Denslow and Michael McGuiness. The Mat-Su Borough Planning Department was represented by Rick Feller. Forum members in An Alaskan Corporation attendance were Jim Bird, Russ Cotton, Larry Enge I , Bud Goodyear, James Herman, Bob Hurley, Barbara Lacher, Bob 800 F Street Lundell, Elsie O'Brian, and Myron Stevens. Ed Busch and Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Lamar Cotton, Alaska Department of Community and Regional 9071276-4218 Affairs (ADCRA) and Debra Clausen, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) were in attendance at the mee-l`ing. The intent of the workshop session was for staff of ADCRA and ADF&G to answer Forum questions regarding coastal boundaries and to present agency positions with respect to the Mat-Su coastal boundary. Topics highlighted during the workshop session included: � Acceptance of Minutes 0 Mat-Su Borough Coastal Boundaries � Resource Inventory - Land Status in the Mat-Su Coastal Area � Pol icy and Technical Coordination between Mat-Su Coastal Management Program and Mat-Su Comprehensive Development Plan. The background informational packets provided to each forum member is included as an Appendix to the Summary. In addition, minutes from the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum meeting of April 2, 1981 are also included. 1. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: The Citizen/Agency Joint Forum rev i ewed and accepted the m i nutes f rom the Apr i 1 2, 1981 meeting. 2. MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL BOUNDARIES: Debra Clausen, ADF&G, made a presentation on ADF&G interim coastal boundaries in the Mat-Su Borough. Biological and physical processes which were taken into account when setting the boundary were discussed (e.g. areas of anadromous spawning and rearing). Ms. Clausen responded to questions from the Forum regarding ADF&G?s rationale for utilizing the 200-foot contour as the 256 landward extent of the zone of direct influence within the Mat-Su Borough. Ms. Clausen provided the Forum with a set of coastal biophysical boundary maps for the Mat-Su Borough. Ed Busch, ADCRA, discussed the flexibility that local districts have in approaching coastal boundary determinations based upon the findings of the resource inventory and analysis and expressed local goals and objectives. Mr. Busch explained that while local districts have great discretion in determining coastal boundaries, such discretion must be tempered with proper justification for coastal boundaries based on the standards and guidelines of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. Both Ms. Clausen and Mr. Busch responded to Forum questions relating to interpretation of standards and guidelines of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. 3. RESOURCE INVENTORY - LAND STATUS IN THE MAT-SU COASTAL AREA: Michael McGuiness, of the consultant team, made a presentation on land status and ownership within the Mat-Su coastal area. Federal land grants, federal acts, state acts, state land sales, borough land sales, and native entitlements were discussed and their associated impacts on land status and ownership within the Mat-Su coastal area examined. Land status and ownership information was presented on 1:250,000 coastal area base map. Finer detailed information on land status is available at 1:63,360. 4. POLICY AND TECHNICAL COORDINATION BETWEEN MAT-SU COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND MAT-SU COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: In response to Stuart Denslow's letter to Jim Bird and Bud Goodyear regarding policy and technical coordination of the Mat-Su Comprehensive Development Plan and the Mat-Su Coastal Management Program, the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum voted to adopt Option 2 and coordinate.work programming of the coastal program with the comprehensive plan. The Forum agreed to proceed with the pace of the coastal management program, as currently scheduled, and coordinate with the Planning Commission and Comprehensive Development Plan when appropriate. The Citizen/Agency Joint Forum scheduled their next meeting for May 11, 1981. Tentative agenda topic will deal with the coastal resource inventory and analysis. Casette tape of presentation available from Mat-Su Borough Planning Department upon request. 257 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM AGENDA Monday, May 11, 1981 6:30 PM Assembly Chambers 1. Call to Order 11. Minutes of Previous Meeting 111. Discussion and Presentation of further Resource Inventory and Analysis. a. Biological Resources b. Geophysical Characteristics C. Human and Cultural Resources 258 Memorandum Woodward-Clyde Consultants To: CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM From: Larry A. Rundquist Ae-- Maureen McCrea Office: Anchorage - ESD Date: May 11, 1981 Subject. Resources Inventory and Analysis for Coastal Management Program The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the results of the inven- tory and analysis of the biological resources, physical characteristics, and geophysical hazards. The inventory and analysis were based upon data from the literature and agency data; no field studies were conducted to verify, update, or expand the available information. Your comments or observations, in verbal or written format, can provide valuable cur- rent information for this purpose. LAR/jb Attachments 259 Natural Resource Inventory Coastal Habitats: Eight habitats were identified by the Coastal Policy Council for classifying all coastal areas. A. Offshore/Estuarine: All waters and submerged lands beyond mean lower low tide to the offshore Borough limits. B. Wetlands and Tideflats: Wetlands include permanently moist, shallow submerged lands, such as marshes, wet tundra, swamps, and bogs. Tideflats include habitat alternately covered and uncovered by seawater. C. Rocky Islands and Seacliffs: Vegetated high banks above mean higher high tide. D. Rivers, Streams, and Lakes: Includes all freshwater surface systems within the coastal management boundary. E. Important Upland Habitats: Those areas above mean higher high tide within the 1000' contour of the Borough. F. Barrier Islands and Lagoons and High Energy Coasts: Two additional systems identified by the Coastal Policy Council for inclusion in coastal management programs are not applic- able in the Borough. I Primary Fish and Wildlife Habitat: Areas of focus include: Birds: primarily waterfowl; Mammals: primarily black bear and moose; Fish: primarily salmon. 260 A. Offshore/Estuarine: 1. Mammals: beluga whales and harbor seals. 2. Fish: Anadromous fish (salmon and smelt) en route to rivers. B. Wetlands and Tideflats: 1. Birds: Waterfowl concentrations among greatest in Cook Inlet. Primarily duck use but also used extensively by several species of geese, swans, sandhill cranes and several species of loons. 2. Mammals: Moose and black bear are most prevalent large mammals. Muskrats are the most abundant furbearer. C. High Banked Shorelines: 1. Birds: Waterfowl extend use of Palmer Hay Flats into this area. 2. Mammals: Moose utilize the upland area. D. Rivers, Streams, and Lakes: 1. Anadromous Fish: All five species of salmon spawn within the Borough's coastal zone. Almost all rivers and streams are suitable. The Susitna River and tributaries to it are the most important producers of pink, chum, and king salmon in Cook Inlet. Smelt spawning also occurs, primar- ily in the Knik and Susitna Rivers. 261 2. Resident Fish: Major species include rainbow trout, lake trout, Arctic grayling, Dolly Varden/Arctic char, northern pike, burbot, and several species of whitefish. 3. Birds: Bird use is poorly documented. Bald eagle nesting occurs but is officially documented at only the conflu- ence of Moose Creek and the Yentna River. 4. Mammals: Black bear use it for spring and summer forage. Moose utilize riparian areas for calving and winter forage. E. Important Upland Habitats:, 1. Birds: Agricultural areas provide forage for the water- fowl, particularly sandhill cranes and geese. Upland game birds, particularly grouse and ptarmigan, utilize grain fields and willow thickets among other upland areas. Passerine diversity is greatest in uplands, par- ticularly aboundant are thrushes, warblers, and dark-eyed juncos. 2. Mammals: Summer range for moose is extensive. Black bear are most abundant in timbered areas and areas with dense alder growth. 262 PHYS ICAL CHARACTERISTICS WATER RESOURCES Availability - The availability of water in most of the Coastal Manage- ment District is generally good. Constraints placed upon development due to water limitations within the District is not anticipated. Surface Water Inventory - There are ample surface water supplies in the District. The quality of the water is good with the excep- tion of the sediments that are@carried by the glacial- fed rivers. Problems of developing this supply include: 9 water is continually flowing; dam would be needed for storage if sufficient storage in tanks is not available # availability fluctuates seasonally with low flow periods in the winter * water intakes may be abandoned or clogged if the stream shifts Existing lakes can possibly be used for a water supply. Groundwater Inventory - Groundwater supplies are best near the Susitna River and many of its tributaries, but wells yielding 10 to 50 gpm can be anticipated near most of the communities in the District. An advantage of using well water, which most communities are currently using, is that the groundwater is contained in a natural storage reservoir and does not fluctu- ate substantially over the year. Groundwater quality is gen- erally good, with the exception of a high iron content in much of the District and some areas with high sulfate, boron, and/or nitrate concentrations. Wastewater must be handled properly to prevent contamination of groundwater supplies. 263 GEOPHYS I CAL HAZARDS Purpose To identify and delineate geophysical hazards for incorpor- ation into the planning of development projects to minimize property damage and personal harm. Categories Addressed a Geologic - Seismic - Volcanic - Mass Wasting o Hydrologic - Flooding - Icings - Bank Erosion o Oceanic - Ice - Seismic - Storms Hazard Maps The geophysical hazards are mapped on two maps with scales of 1:250, 000. The mapping is not adequate for site specific work; refer to the referenced sources if detail is required. In most cases, detailed studies should be conducted to identify and delineate specific hazards in areas to be developed. Geophysical Hazards Constraints - The constraints to development associ- ated with geophysical hazards can be classified into two general categories: (1) avoidance of the hazard area, and (2) designing to minimize damage associated with the hazard (Table 71).In most cases, avoidance of the hazard is the best approach. When the hazard is so widespread that it can not be avoided, or when the proposed develop- ment can not be relocated, projects should be designed to minimize the impacts of the hazard. 264 Maynard and ParIch SUMMARY WORKSHOP ON RESOURCE INVENTORY MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM MONDAY, MAY 11, 1981 This was the fifth meeting of the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum with the Maynard and Partch/Woodward-Clyde consultant team. The consultant team was represented by Stuart Denslow, Michael McGuiness, Maureen McCrea, and Larry Rundquist. The An Alaskan Co,po,at,on Mat-Su Borough Planning Department was represented by Rodney Schulling, Rick Feller and Lila Hemphill. Forum members in 800 F Street attendance were Jay Bergstrand, Larry Engel , Bud Goodyear, Anchorage. Alaska 99501 907,276-4218 James Herman, Bob Hurley, Barbara Lacher, Al Larson, Bob Lundel I , Gary Si Ivers, and Vern Urgerecht. The intent of the workshop session was for the consultant team to continue presentation of resource inventory data to Forum members. Topics highlighted during the workshop session included: 0 Acceptance of Minutes 0 Resource Inventory - Habitat Classifications in the Mat-Su Coastal Area. 0 Resou rce I nventory - F i s h and W i I d I i f e Resou rces ,in the Mat-Su Coastal Area. 0 Resource Inventory - Ceophysical Characteristics in the Mat-Su Coastal Area. o' Discussion on Resource Inventory Maps The background informational packet provided to each Forum member is included as an appendix to this Summary. 1. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES.: The Citizen/Agency Joint Forum reviewed and accepted the minutes from the April 20, 1981 meeting. 2. RESOURCE INVENTORY - HABITAT CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE MAT-SU COASTAL AREA: Dr. Maureen McCrea, of the consultant team, made a presentation on the different habitat classificaticns found in the Mat-Su coastal area. Dr. McCrea pointed out that the Alaska Coastal Policy Council directs coastal districts to identify, if applicable, eight different and distinct habitat types for coastal management. Five of the eight 265 habitat types are found in the Mat-Su coastal area and i nc I ude: a. Offshore/Estuarine (This includes offshore areas and estuary habitats identified in 6 AAC 80.130 of the Alaska Coastal Management P-ogram). b. Wetland and Tideflats. C. Vegetated High Banks (Substituted for rocky islands and seacliffs identified in 6 AAC 80.130 of the Alaska Coastal Management Program). d. Rivers, Streams and Lakes. e. Important Upland Habitats. 3. RESOURCE INVENTORY - FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN THE MAT-SU COASTAL AREA: Dr. Maureen McCrea, of the consultant team, made a presentation on fish and wildlife found within the Mat-Su coastal habitat types. Literature and studies on fish and wildlife species were concentrated on the following categories: a. Birds (primarily waterfowl in wetlands and tideflats, with game birds and passerines found in upland habitat types). b. Mammals (beluga whales and harbor seals found in offshore areas, black b-@ar, moose, and small furbearers found in other habitat types). C. Fish (primarily the five species of salmon; smelt, trout, grayling and other species of fish). 4 RESOURCE INVENTORY - GEOPHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS IN THE NIAT-SU COASTAL AREA: Dr. Larry Rundquist, of the consultant team, made a presentation on physical characteristics and geophysical hazards found in the Mat.-Su coastal area. The main physical characteristic discussed was water resources, including surface water and groundwater availability. A question was raised as to the availability of water in the Point MacKenzie area, in quantities so-:itable for supporting a petrochemical industry. Dr. Rundquist pointed out that site specific water resource information in the Point MacKenzie area is limited and new data will result from test wells planned to be drilled in the area by the Borough. Geophysical hazards are identified in the coastal management process to assist the planning of development projects in order to minimize property 266 damage and personal harm. Geophysical hazards discussed included:" a. Geologic (including seismic, volcanic, and mass wasting). b. Hydrologic (including flooding, icings, and bank erosion). C. Oceanic (including ice, seismic, and-storms). Dr. Rundquist pointed out th 'at development in certain hazard areas should be either avoided or design measures taken to minimize damage associated with a particular hazard. A summary table of the basic development constraints associated with geophysical hazards in the Mat--Su Borough was provided to all Forum members. 5. DISCUSSION ON RESOURCE INVENTORY MAPS: Fish and wildlife and geophysical hazard maps were reviewed by Forum 'members and questions regarding the maps answered by members of the consultant team. A concern was raised by a number of Forum members over the limited amount of site specific information available for much of the Mat-Su coastal area. Stuart Denslow, of the consultant team, pointed out that the findings of ongoing studies in the Borough (e.g. Susitna Study by DNR) will be incorporated into the resource inventory as the information becomes available. Concern was also raised over the criteria that the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers would utilize to evaluate a wetlands permit in an area for which there is no specific biological or geophysical data available. Barbara Lacher, of the Forum, made a motion to request a representative of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to be present at their next meeting. The Forum also requested Jim Bird (Forum member) to report at their next meeting on the actions of the Borough Port Development Committee. The Citizen/Agency Joint Forum scheduled their next meeting for May 26, 1981. Tentative agenda topics will continue with the resource inventory and will include the balance of the natural resources and human and cultural resources. The consultants will contact the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and request a Corps Of Engineers representative at the next meeting. Cassette tapes of the meeting are available from Mat-Su Borough Planning Department upon request. 267 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CiTIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM AGENDA Tuesday, May 26, 1981 6:30 P.M. Assembly Chambers 1. Call to Order. 11. Minutes of Previous Meeting. Ill. Discussion with Larry Reeder, Compliance Section, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. IV. Presentatioh and Discussion of Resource Inventory and Analysis. a. Geophysical Characteristics. b. Human and Cultural Resources. 268 Maynard and Partch SUMMARY WORKSHOP ON RESOURCE INVENTORY MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1981 This was the sixth meeting of the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum with the Maynard and Partch/Woodward-Clyde consultant team. The consultant team was represented by Stuart Denslow, Michael McGuiness, and Jon Isaacs. The Mat-Su Borough Planning Department was represented by Rodney Schulling and An Alaskan Corporation Lila Hemphill. Forum members in attendance were Jim Bird, 600 F Street Bud Goodyear, Barbara Lacher, Bob Lundell, and Guy Woodings. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Larry Reeder, Regulatory Functions Branch, U.S. Army Corps 907/276-4218 of Engineers, Alaska District, was in attendance at the meeting. The intent of the workshop session was for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) representative to answer Forum questions regarding COE jurisdiction over wetlands in the Mat-Su Borough and review procedures for wetland permits. Topics highlighted during the workshop session included: 0 Acceptance of Minutes. 0 Wet I ands i n the Mat-Su Borough - Ro I e of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 0 Resource Analysis and Geographic Classifications of Mat-Su Borough Coastal Area. Mr. Reeder, of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, provided Forum members with several COE publications, including the Regulatory Program of the Corps of Engineers ' Permit Program Guide for Applicants, and Protecting Alaska's Waters. 1. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: The Citizen/Agency Joint Forum reviewed the minutes from the May 11, 1981 meeting, noted some minor type errors, and accepted the minutes. 2. WETLANDS IN THE MAT-SU BOROUGH - ROLE OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS: Larry Reeder, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, made a presentation on COE jurisdiction over navigable waters and wetlands of the United States. Mr. Reeder stated that the primary features of the Corps' permit program are governed by Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 269 The River and Harbor Act of 1899 established the Corps' authority as a regulatory agency. The law was passed to insure that water commerce routes would be kept operable and free of obstructions to navigation. Section 10 of the Act required that a permit be obtained from the Corps for dredging and for construction of piers and structures in navigable waters. Increased public awareness in the environment, the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA), and a series of court decisions directed the Corps to evaluate permit application in terms of the more broader public interest, including affects on fish and wildlife, water quality, recreation, flood control, and economics. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA) expanded the Corps' jurisdiction to include navigable waters of the United States plus their adjacent wetlands. Sect i on 404 of the FWPCA made i t i I I ega I to place fill or dredged materials in navigable waters without a Corps permit. The Clean Water Act of 1977 superceded the FWPCA and incorporated Section 404 with minor revisions. The Clean Water Act expanded Corps jurisdiction to include all headwater streams with a norma I f I ow of at I east f i ve cu. f t. per second, I a kes larger than five acres with a surface. outlet into navigable waters, and adjacent wetlands associated with streams and lakes. Mr. Reeder opened the discussion for questions and answers. When asked about the attributes of preserving wetlands in their natural state, Mr. Reeder responded by identifying seven intrinsic values of wetlands, examples of which include: � Flood protection by providing a reservoir for flood waters; � Controlled release of flood waters; � Purification of surface waters; � Support for natural ecosystems for fisheries, invertebrates, and shellfish; � Serve as recharge areas for water supply; � Support nesting and resting areas for waterfowl and shorebirds and habitat for moose, bear, and other mammals; and � Serve as initial indicators of water and air pollution in a given area. When asked about Corps methodology for wetland determination, Mr. Reeder responded that the Corps identifies areas as either wetlands or nonwetlands by looking at three key elements; soils, vegetation, and 270 hydrology. In Alaska, all three elements must indicate the presence of wetlands before the Corps identified an area as a wetland. The Corps does its own wetland identification and delineation in Alaska and bases such identification on aerial photographs, ground proofing of aerial photos, USGS maps, soils data, hydrologic data, and on-site surveys. When asked about Corps permits required for placer mining operations, Mr. Reeder responded that placer mining operations generally do not require a permit from the Corps unless there is a diversion structure or settling pond involved in the operation. Mr. Reeder did point out that a placer mining operation would probably require a Section 402 permit from EPA or the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. When questioned about the advantages of an approved coastal management program, Mr. Reeder responded on how the consistency and predictability of the program would facilitate proposed development in the Mat-Su Borough coastal area (e.g. Point Mackenzie Industrial Port). From the Corps' perspective, a Memorandum of Agreement based on an approved coastal management program would greatly assist the Corps' review process on development projects requiring a Corps permit. A proposed project which is consistent with the local coastal management program would still have to go through the Corps' review process, however, the time for @uch a review process would be shortened substantially. 3. Resource Analysis and Geographic Classification of Mat-Su Borough Coastal Area: Jon Isaacs, of the consultant team, discussed the methodology utilized for classifying the Mat-Su Borough coastal management area based on local needs, resource sensitivity, and other factors such as public safety. The Mat-Su Borough coastal area will be classified into Conservation, Conditional Development, and Development categories. The Conservation classification will include those areas of the coast where either geophysical hazards or critical biological resources, coastal habitats, recreation areas, and areas of air and water quality are present. Activities and development within conservation areas will be limited to preferential uses such as game refuges or uses designed to protect the public safety. The Conditional Development classification includes those areas of the coast where coastal development may be subject to constraints created by biological resources, geophysical hazards, coastal habitats, land ownership, coastal access, and air and water quality. 271 There will be no preferential uses in conditional development areas. Activities and development within a conditional development area shall be subject to coordination with the Borough Planning Department and appropriate State and federal agencies. The Development Classification include those areas of the coast where economic and coastal development objectives are not subject to constraints created by geophysical hazards, biological resources, coastal habitats, and other factors. Economic and coastal development are the preferential uses for development areas. The Citizen/Agency Joint Forum scheduled their next meeting for June 15, 1981. Tentative agenda topics will include presentation of the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program, Phase I Completion Report, and discussion on areas which merit special attention in the Mat-Su Borough coastal management area. Cassette tapes of workshop sessions available from the Mat-Su Borough Planning Department upon request. 272 I I I I 131BLIOGRAPHY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BIBLIOGRAPHY NATURAL RESOURCES AND COASTAL HABITATS Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Alaska's Wildlife Habitat: Vol. 1. Juneau, ADF&G, 1973. Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat: Vol. 11. Juneau, ADF&G, 1978. Alaska's Fisheries Atlas: Vol. I and 11. Juneau, ADF&G, 1978. State Game Refuges, Critical Habitat Areas and Sancturies. Juneau, ADF&G, 1979. Susitna Flats Refuge Management Plan. Anchorage, ADF&G, 1980. A Synthesis and Evaluation of ADF&G Fish and Wildlife Information for the Willow and Talkeetna Sub Basins. Prepared by U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Interagency Cooperative Susitna River Basin Study Agreement #58 04368 16, 1980. Matanuska-Susitna Natural Resources Maps. Anchorage, ADF&G, 1981. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Susitna Basin Land Use and Recreation. 1980. Draft Goose Bay Refuge Management Plan. No date. Draft Palmer Hay Flats Refuge Management Plan. No date. Arneson, Paul D. Identification, Documentation, and Delineation of Coastal Migratory Bird Habitat in Alaska: Final Report. RU#3, Prepared for BLM/NOAA, 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Annual Progress Report Big Game Studies Part II: Moose-Downstream. Submitted to Alaska Power Authority, 1981. 273 Bader, Dimitre, J. Didrickson, L. Engel, and S. Kubic. Fish and Game Distribution and Public Use Resource Maps: Draft. Anchorage, ADF&G, 1981. Environmental Services Limited (ESL). Point MacKenzie Industrial Siting Study. Prepared for Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 1978. Environmental System Research Institute (ESRI). Forest Land Map and Wetlands Map: Susitna River Basin, Willow Subbasin. Prepared for U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service, 1981. Evans, C. D., E. Buck, R. Buffler, G. Fisk, R. Forbes, and W. Parker. The Cook Inlet Environment: A Background Study of Available Knowledge. Prepared for U. S. Dept. of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, 1972. Gatto, Lawrence. Baseline Data of the Oceanography of Cook Inlet, Alaska: CRREL Report 76-25. Hanover, New Hampshire, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research, 1976. Governor's Agency Advisory Committee on Leasing (GAACL). A Social, Economic, and Environmental Analysis of a State Oil and Gas Lease Sale in Upper Cook Inlet. Juneau, State of Alaska, 1980. Hinman, Robert A. Annual Report of Survey - Inventory Activities, Part ]I: Moose. Juneau, ADF&G, 1976. Annual Report of Survey - Inventory Activities, Part IV: Furbearers, Small Game, Wolf, and Wolverine. Juneau,'ADF&G, 1976. Annual Report of Survey - Inventory Activities, Part III: Moose. Juneau, ADF&G, 1977. Annual Report of Survey - Inventory Activities, Part IV: Bison, Beaver, Furbearers, Wolf, Wolverine, Seals, and Walrus. Juneau, ADF&G, 1978. Annual Report of Survey - Inventory Activities, Part 1: Moose, Elk, and Deer. Juneau, ADF&G, 1979. Annual Report of Survey - Inventory Activities, Part II: Furbearers, Wolf, Wolverine, and Small Game. Juneau, ADF&G, 1979. - Annual Report of Survey - Inventory Activities, Part 1: Black Bear and Brown Bears. Juneau, ADF&G, 1980. 274 Annual Report of Survey - Inventory Activities, Part 11: Deer, Elk and Moose. Juneau, ADF&G, 1980. McKnight, Donald. Annual Report of Survey - Inventory Activities, Part 1: Moose, Deer, and Elk. Juneau, ADF&G, 1973. Annual Report of Survey - Inventory Activities, Part Il: Caribou, Brown Bear, Sheep, Musk Oxen, Marine Mammals, Bison, Goat, and Black Bear. Juneau, ADF&G, 1973. Annual Report of Survey - Inventory Activities, Part III: Wolf, Wolverine, Small Game, and Furbearers. Juneau, ADF&G, 1973. Annual Report of Survey - Inventory Activities, Part 1; Deer, Brown/Grizzly Bear, Sheep, Bison, Elk, ahd Musk Oxen. Juneau, ADF&G, 1974. Annual Report of Survey - Inventory Activities, Part IV: Furbearers, Small Game, and Wolverine. Juneau, ADF&G, 1975. Mills, Michael. Annual Performance Report for Alaska Statewide Sport Fish Harvest Studies. Juneau, ADF&G, 1.980. Ritchie, R., J. Curatolo and A. Batten. Knik Arm Wetlands Study. Anchorage, prepared for-U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981. Rosenberg, D. H., A. C. Burrell, K. V. Natarajan, and D. W. Hood. Oceanography of Cook Inlet with Special Reference to the Effluent from the Collier Carbon and Chemical Plant. College, Alaska, Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska, 1967. Selkregg, Lydia. Alaska Regional Profiles: Southcentral Region. Juneau, State of Alaska, 1974. Sellers, Richard. Waterbird Use of and Management Considerations for Cook Inlet State Game Refuge: Unpublished Report. Anchorage, ADF&G, 1979. Sowls, A. L., Scott A. Hatch, and Calvin J. Lensink. Catalog of Alaska Seabird Colonies. Washington, D. C., U. S. Dept. of Interior, FWS, 1978. Timm, Dan. Report of Survey and Inventory Activites: Waterfowl. Juneau, ADF&G, 1974. Report of Survey and Inventory Activities: Waterfowl. Juneau, ADF&G, 1975. 275 Report of Survey'and Inventory Activities: Waterfowl. juneau, ADF&G, 1976. Report of Survey and Inventory Activities: Waterfowl. Juneau, ADF&G, 1977. - Report of Survey and Inventory Activities: Waterfowl. Juneau, ADF&G, 1978. Report of Survey and Inventory Activit les: Waterfowl. Juneau, ADF&G, 1980. Timm, Dan and Dick Sellers. Report of Survey and Inventory Activities: Waterfowl. Juneau, ADF&G 1979. Timm, Dan and Phil Havens. Report of Survey and Inventory Activiites: Waterfowl. Juneau, ADF&G, 1973. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND RESOURCES Balding, C. 0. Water Availability, Quality, and Use in Alaska U.S.G.S. Open-file Report 76-513. 1976. Carlson, Robert F., Richard D. Seifer and Douglas L. Kane. Effects of Seasonability and Variability of Streamflow on Nearshore Coastal Areas. Final Report, Institute of Water Resources Report No. IWR-78. University of Alaska, 1977. Environmental Services Limited. Point MacKenzie Industrial Siting Study. Prepared for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 1978. Feulner, Alvin J. Water Resources Reconnaissance of a Part of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska - U.S.G.S. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-364 (Map). 1971. Howard E. E., E. R. Needles, H. C. Tammen and R. 14. Bergendoff. Knik Arm Highway Crossing - Anchorage, Alaska. Prepared by HNTB Consulting Engineers for the State of Alaska Department of Highway, 1972. Selkregg, L. L. Alaska Regional Profiles - I Southcentral Region. University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, 1974. 276 GEOPHYSICAL HAZARDS GEOLOGIC Alaska Division of Emergency Services. Greater Anchorage Area Earthquake Response Study. 1980. Barnes-, F. F. Preliminary Report on-the Little Susitna District Matanuska Coal Field, Alaska. U.S.G.S. Open-file Report 53-1, 14 p. 1953. Geologic Map of Lower Matanuska Valley, Alaska. U.S.G.S Miscellaneous Geological Investigations Map 1-359, 1 folded map scale 1:63, 360. 1962. Barnes, F. F. and F. M. Byers. Geology and Coal Resources of the Eastern Part of the Lower Matanuska Valley Coal Field, Alaska. U.S.G.S. Open--file Report 45-1, 25 p., 8 maps. 1945. Capps, Stephen R. Geology of the Upper Matanuska Valley, Alaska. U.S.G.S. Bulletin No. 791, ISSN 0083-1093, 92 p. 1927. Davies, J. and E. Berg. Crustal Morphology and Plate Tectonics in Southcentral Alaska. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. Vol. 62, p. 673-677. 1973. Dean, Kenneson G. Susitna Basin Planning Background Report Surficial Geology Susitna Chilitna River Area Part I Text. Prepared by Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska. 1980. Detterman, R. L. Reconnaissance Geologic Map Along Bruin Bay Lake Clark Faults in Kenai and Tyonek Quadrangles, Alaska. U.S.G.S. Open-file Report 76-477, 4 p. 1 folded map scale 1:250,000. 1976. Geology and Surface Features Along Part of the Talkeetna Segment of the Castle Mt. - Caribou Fault System, Alaska. U.S.G.S. Misc. (field studies) Hap. 1976. Grantz, Authur. 1927. Stratigraphic Reconnaissance of the Matanuska Formation in the Matanuska Valley, Alaska. U.S.G.S. Bulletin No. 1131-1, 33 p. 1927. Grybeck, Donald. An Introduction to the Geologic Literature of Alaska. U.S.G.S. Open-file Report 76-235, 23 p. 1976. 277 Harding-Lawson Associates. Geotechnical Hazards Assessment Municipality of Anchorage. A Report Prepared for Municipality of Anchorage, 102 p. 1979. Hawkins, D. B. Sedimentary Zeolite Deposits of the Upper Matanuska Valley, Alaska. Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, College, Alaska, 17 p. 1973. Joint Fed eral-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska Resource Planning Team. Mineral Section - Minerals, Energy, and Geology; Southcentral Region. Rev. ed. Vol. 9, Anchorage 142 p., maps, tables. 1974. Jones, D. L. Mesozoic Stratigraphic - The Key to Tectonic Analysis of Southern and Central Alaska. U.S.G.S. Open-file Report 79-1200, Microfiche (I sheet). 1979. Krebs, P. V.; K. G. Dean and W. S. Lonn. Geomorphology and Vegetation of the Lower Susitna River Basin. Prepared for Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 53 p. 1978. McGee, D. L. Bedrock Geology and Coal Occurrences, Talkeetna-Kashwitna Area, Stisitna River Basin, Alaska. Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Geol. and Geoph. Surveys, Open-file Report No. 107E, I map. 1978. Nelson, S. W. an.d B. L. Reed. Surficial Deposits Map of the Talkeetna Quadrangle, Alaska. U. S. Geol. Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map, MF870J, Scale 1:250,000. 1978. Pewe, Troy L. International Congress on Quaternarty, 7th, Denver and Boulder, Central and Southcentral Alaska ... State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geo. and Geoph. Surveys, 141p., 5L. 1977, 1965, 1975. R & M Consultants. New Capital City Environmental Assessment Program, Phase 1, Geotechnical Studies, Geological Materials and Hazards Analysis. December. 1978. Reger, R. D. Reconnaissance Geology of the Talkeetna--Kashwitna Area Susitna Rivewr Basin, Alaska. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Division of Geo. and Geoph. Surveys, Open-file Report No. 107A. 1 map. 1978. 278 Schoephorster, Dale B. Soil Survey of Matanuska Valley Area, Alaska. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soild Conservation Service, in cooperation with Alaska Agricultural Experiement Station, Wash. 67 p. Maps, ill. 1968. Schoephorster, Dale B. and Robert B. Hinton, Soil Survey of Susitna Valley Area, Alaska. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, Wash. 67 p. Maps, ill. 1973. Science Applications, Inc. Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf, Kodiak Interim Synthesis Report - 1980. Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, 236 p. 1980. Simpson Usher Jones, Inc., Dames & Moore Consulting Engineers, and A. W. Burns, Co. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program. First Annual Progress Report. Map. 1979. Trainer, Frank W. Geology and Groundwater Resources of the Matanuska Valley Agricultural Area, Alaska. U.S.G.S. Water Supply Paper 1494, 116 p., 3 folded maps. 1960. U. S. Corps of Engineers. Environmental Analysis of the Upper Susitna River Basin Using Landsat Imagery. CRREL Report 80-4. 1980. U.S.G.S. Geology and Coal Resources of the Little Susitna District Matanuska Coal Field, Alaska. U.S.G.S Bulletin No. 1058-D. 1959. U.S.G.S *Geology and Ore Deposits for the Willow Creek Mining District. Geological Survey Bulletin No. 10-04. No date. U.S.G.S. "The Alaska Earthquake, March 27, 1964: Effects in Communities", Chapter A-G, Prof. Paper 542. 1965. U.S.G.S. "The Alaska Earthquake, March 27, 1964: Effects on Transportation, Communiciations, and Utilities", Chapter A-D, Prof Paper 545. 1965. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Interim Report on Seismic Studies for Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Chapter 1-14. 1980. 279 HYDROLOGIC Acres American Incorporated. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Plan of Study. Alaska Power Authority. 200 p. 1980. Alaska Water Study Committee. Anticipating Water and Related Land Resource Needs. (Draft). Southcentral Water Resources Study (Level B), 119 p. 1980. Balding, G. 0. Water Availability, Quality, and Use in Alaska. U.S.G.S. Open-file Report 76-513, 236 p. 1976. BLM Susitna Hydropower Feasibility Study - Final Environmental Assessment Record. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska, 100 p. 1979. Carlson, Robert F. , Richard D. Seifert and Douglas L. Kane. Effects of Seasonability and Variability of Streamflow on Nearshore Coastal Areas. Final Report, Institute of Water Resources, University of Alaska, Report No. IWR-78, 114 p. 1977. Carlson, Robert F. and Gunter Weller. A Catalog of Hydroclaimatological Data for Alaska's Coastal Zone. Institute of Water Resources, University of Alaska, Report No. 25. Sea Grant Report No. 72-2. 1972. Dean, Kenneth. Susitna Basin Planning Background Report Surficial Geology of the Susitna-Chulitna River Area, Alaska - Part 2 - Maps. Northern Remote Sensing Laboratory, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska. 1980. Environmental Services Limited. Point MacKenszie Industrial Siting Study. 'Prepared for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 27 p. 1978. HUMAN AND CULTURAL RESOURCES -Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department, Background Report, Phase 1: Comprehensive Development Plan, April 1978. Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. Economic Development Program for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Volume 1: Annual Overall Economic Development Program Report, July 1, 1979 - June 30, 1980. (July, 1980). 280 Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. Economic Development Program for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Volume 11: Economic Conditions, Development Options and Projections. (July 1980). U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1980 Census Advance Counts (1981). U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. County and_qLity Data Book, 1977. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1978. 281 MAPS A BIOPHYSICAL COASTAL BOUNDARIES B COASTAL HABITATS C SPECIAL HABITATS AND ANADROMOUS STREAMS D GEOPHYSICAL HAZARDS E HUMAN AND CULTURAL RESOURCES F PRELIMINARY MANAGEMENT AREAS G AREAS WHICH MERIT SPECIAL ATTENTION I i L i U t. t - I i I t - i t t t- L , t" 3 6668 14109 8386 I I