The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMatanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Plan 1983KA Susitna Fiie Copy File # 69-3lf MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN CONCEPT APPROVED AUGUST 1983 01-A35LH BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR CENTRAL OFFICE POUCH AW OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET JUNEAU: ATASKA 92811 DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ———_— SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE NORTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE Fourth Street Eagle Street Seventh Avenue Pouch AW, Room 306 Suite 307 . Station H Juneau, AK 99811 Anchorage, AK 99503 Fairbanks, AK 99701 Phone: (907) 465-3562 Phone: (907) 272-3504 Phone: 907) 456-3084 June 1, 1984 RECEIVED JUN S 1984 To: Alaska Coastal Management Program Participants ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Subject: Effective Date of Amendments to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program Several minor amendments to the approved Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coasta] Management Program were submitted to the Federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) on May 1, 1984, for incorporation into the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). Public notice of the submission was given as required. In a letter dated May 29, 1984, OCRM agreed to incorporate these amendments as a routine program implementation into the ACMP. On June 8, 1984, a public notice announcing this action will be published in the Anchorage Daily News, Juneau Empire, and Mat-Su Frontiersman. A copy of this notice is enclosed. This letter constitutes the formal notice required to federal and State agencies and affected persons. Beginning June 8, 1984, federal, State, and local consistency determinations will be made in accordance with this amendment. A complete copy of the approved amendment is enclosed. Addi- tional copies are available from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department, P.O. Box B, Palmer, Alaska 99645, 745-4801, or from our office. Please call David Cohen, Staff Analyst at 465-3562, if you have any questions about this notice or the subject amendments. “Wak Robert L. Grogan Associate Director Enclosure sn84052501ldcb NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM June 8, 1984 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION Several amendments to the approved Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program (MSBCMP) will be filed with the Lieutenant Governor's Office and go into effect on June 8, 1984. As of June 8, review of projects within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough for consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) will be based on the approved plan with these amendments. These amendments to the MSBCMP were approved by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council on April 26, 1984, Copies of amendments are available from the Division of Governmental Coordination, Pouch AW, Juneau, AK 99811, Telephone 465-3562. As provided in Federal regulations, these amendments have been incorporated as a routine program implementation, into the ACMP by the Federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Department of Commerce. Notice of the Federal review was given on May 4, 1984, Amendments Approved for Incorporation into the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program June 8, 1984 Note: (Underlined Text is added, [BRACKETED TEXT] is deleted.) 1. Page 3-4 No. 7-c Transportation. Revise copy to read: Construction of transportation facilities may adversely affect[s] water quality through increased runoff, sedimentation and may damage[s] important habitat such as wetlands. 2. Page 3-5 No. 9-c Agriculture. Revise copy to read: There is a lack of road access to several areas [ACRES] of potential agricultural land. as Page 3-5 No. 9-d Agriculture. Revise copy to read: Agricultural practices may be [ARE] detrimental to water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and air quality. 4. Page 3-6 No. 11 Subsistence. Revise copy to read: a. Subsistence may exist within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and those areas identified as meeting the State's definition of subsistence will be acknowl- edged in accordance with the State law. fa. INAPPROPRIATE STATE LAND DISPOSALS ARE INTERFERING WITH A SUBSISTENCE WAY OF LIFE IN THE DISTRICT INCLUDING EXCESSIVE DFNSITY COMPARED TO FISH AND GAME RESOURCES, IMPRACTICAL SIZE COMPARED TO NATURAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS, POOR DESIGN, OBSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONAL ACCESS AND GENERAL DETERIORATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. b. STATE SPORTS HUNTING AND FISHING LAWS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE DISTRICT'S SUBSISTENCE NEEDS. c. THE SUBSISTENCE WAY OF LIFE DEPENDS UPON THE CARRYING CAPACITY OF THE LAND TO SUPPORT IT. d. THE SUBSISTENCE WAY OF LIFE IS DEPENDENT UPON GOOD FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INCLUDING HABITAT PROTECTION. Amendments to -2- June 8, 1984 the MSBCMP e. THE SUBSISTENCE WAY OF LIFE EQUATES WITH PRESERVA- TION AND WISE MANAGEMENT OF THE NATURAL ENVIRON- MENT. ] 5. Page 3-11 Goal III-b. Delete copy as indicated: {b. DEVELOPMENT, ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACT FLOODPLAIN MAPS (1982) RELATING TO FLOOD HAZARDS WITHIN THE DISTRICT. ] 6. Page 3-16 Goal XI-c,d,e. Delete copy as indicated: Lc. IDENTIFY AND PLAN FOR SUBSISTENCE AREAS CONTAINING SUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO SUPPORT SUBSISTENCE COMMUNITIES WHILE RECOGNIZING THE CARRYING CAPACI- TY OF THE LAND. d. DISCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT IN SUBSISTENCE AREAS WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE SUBSISTENCE WAY OF LIFE SUCH AS ACCESS ROADS AND HIGH POPULATION DEN- SITIES. é. SUBSISTENCE ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE DESIGNATED WITH A SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION PROHIBIT-— ING ACTIVITIES WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY IMPACT THIS RESOURCE. ] 7. Bottom of Page 4-4 and Top of Page 4-5 Council Adopted Coastal District Boundary. Revise copy to read: The width of this extended boundary [IS THE WIDTH OF THE WATER COURSE AND] includes all lands and waters within the 100-year floodplain or 200 feet on each side as measured from the ordinary high water mark, whichever is greater. This includes all_ lands and waters encompassed by the extended boundaries even though they may be higher in elevation than the 100-year floodplain (i.e., islands in a braided stream or river): Moose Creek Kroto Creek Lower Kroto Creek (Deshka River) [TALACHULITNA RIVER] Talachulitna Creek Little Willow Creek Little Susitna River Skwentna River Amendments to -3- June 8, 1984 the MSBCMP Yentna River Kahiltna River Chulitna River Lake Creek Susitna Creek Montana Creek Sheep Creek Kashwitna Creek Willow Creek Talkeetna River Matanuska River 8. Middle of Page 4-5 Council Adopted Version of Coastal District Boundary. Revise copy to read: Based upon anadromous fish distribution in the most recent ADF&G Atlas (1983) of anadromous fish streams, the following boundary extensions are included in the MSBCMP coastal district up to the 1000-foot elevation contour: Moose Creek Kroto Creek Lower Kroto Creek [TALACHULITNA RIVER] Talachulitna Creek Little Willow Creek Willow Creek Kashwitna Creek Sheep Creek Montana Creek Talkeetna River Lake Creek Little Susitna Amendments to -4- June 8, 1984 the MSBCMP 9. Page 5-9, Policy 3 is revised to read: Subdivisions outside the road - served areas of the Borough, including subdivisions of State land into lots of less than 10.0 acres, shall be designed so as to maintain, to the greatest extent possible, fish and wildlife productivity and existing uses. In addition, the following shall be provided for all such subdi- visions: a. Feasible access. Feasible access includes legal access and physical access, such as airstrip, water, rail or roads. Such feasi- ble access shall be provided to all subdi- visions except that subdivisions of State land described above shall be exempted from the requirement of physical access to the extent not funded by the State when the Commissioner of DNR finds, with respect to each subdivision, that the Borough has been given an opportunity either to construct access for State subdivisions, with expenses recouped from the proceeds of the State sale, or to acquire, market and develop the proposed subdivision and construct the access with proceeds from the sale. Construction of such access must begin within one year of the time of submittal of the plat by DNR to the Borough Platting Authority and be completed within a reasonable period. b. Reasonable access to energy resources for individual heating purposes including but not limited to firewood. If firewood is the principal energy resource, consideration will be given to the sustained yield carrying capacity of the area for firewood production. c. Reasonable access to suitable supply of water for individual consumption purposes. d. Environmental suitability for sewage and garbage disposal. e. Reasonable use and access to public lands adjoining State land disposals. Amendments to -5- June 8, 1984 the MSBCMP 10. Page 5-16 No. 1 Subsistence. Revise copy to read: The State standard (6 AAC 80.120) is adopted as part of the MSBCMP [THE STATE STANDARD REQUIRES THAT DISTRICTS RECOGNIZE AND IDENTIFY ANY AREAS THAT ARE USED FOR SUBSISTENCE ACTIVITIES. SUBSISTENCE USES AND ACTIV- ITIES ARE CURRENTLY PRESENT THROUGHOUT THE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH]. ll. Page 5-17 No. 2 Air, Land, and Water Quality. Revise copy to read: Land clearing, grading, filling and alteration of natural drainage features shall be minimized. Areas cleared of vegetation and not developed shall be revegetated with [NATIVE] plants to deter erosion and restore pre-alteration habitat productivity within one year from time vegetation was removed. 12. Appendix "D" Page D-3. Revise copy to read: 18. [TALACHULITNA RIVER] Talachulitna Creek BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR POUCH AW JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811 PHONE: (907) 465-3562 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION RECEIVED March 29, 1984 “PR 5 1984 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY To: Alaska Coastal Management Program Participants Subject: Minor amendments to the approved Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program (MSBCMP) was adopted by the Coastal Policy Council (CPC) on December 8, 1983; adopted by the Borough Assembly on January 17, 1984; and then filed with, the Lieutenant Governor on February 15, 1984. Shortly after the final adoption by the Borough Assembly, the Borough Planning Department requested that the Coastal Policy Council consider several amendments to the MSBCMP. The Borough request is enclosed. As required by the Alaska Coastal Management Program Regulation (6 AAC 85.120(c)), the Office of Coastal Management (OCM) has reviewed the proposed amendments to determine if they are Significant. The Office of Coastal Management's findings, which are also enclosed, indicate that these amendments are not significant. In view of this finding, OCM recommends that the proposed amendments be incorporated into the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program as a routine program implementation. This determination is subject to review by the Coastal Policy Council. Any CPC member or the coastal resource district IMay request such a ‘review. A CPC meeting has been scheduled for April 26, 1984. Please call David Cohen at 465-3562 if you have any questions about this letter or our findings. Thank you for your participation in the Alaska Coastal Management Program. Sincerely, Me Robert L. Grogan Associate Director Enclosures dc84032302dca 01-A35LH Attachment To Letter of March 29, 1984 Proposed Amendments to the Approved Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program The Office of Coastal Management has reviewed the subject amend- ments as required by 6 AAC 85.120(c) to determine if they are significant amendments. Our findings indicate that there amend- ments do not meet the criteria contained in 6 AAC 85.900(11) and therefore can be incorporated into the district program as a routine program implementation. The determination is based on the following criteria and findings for significant amendments. A. Results in a Major Revision, Addition or Deletion to the Policies or Implementation Methods or Authorities. These amendments include minor word changes to four issues in Chapter 3 of the MSBCMP. The word changes clarify the issues to reflect public concerns for transportation, agriculture and subsistence. Three objectives in Chapter 3 are also revised or deleted. Goals for floodplain maps and subsistence resource protec- tion are deleted. A goal relating to development of a transportation system linking the district to Anchorage is revised, In addition, two policies in Chapter 5 are revised. These include a Subsistence policy and an Air, Land and Water Quality policy. Subsistence policy number 1 on page 5-16 is revised to eliminate an unnecessary qualification to the State standard (6 AAC 80.120). Air, Land and Water Quality policy number 2 on page 5-17 is revised to allow revegeta- tion of cleared areas with non-native plants if appropriate. The Borough has determined that native plants may not always be the best plants for revegetation to deter erosion. These amendments make no major revisions, additions or deletions to the policies or implementation methods or authorities included in the approved MSBCMP. Alters the District Boundaries, other than by Technical Adjustments. The boundary of the coastal zone within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough was originally described in Chapter 4 of the MSBCMP. A revised version of Chapter 4 was adopted by the Council at the time of program approval. These proposed amendments to the boundary description are a further clarification of the boundary description. The most substantive change in the district boundary description is a clarification of the area contained within Attachment To Letter of March 29, 1984 Page 2 the extended boundary for rivers and creeks. The proposed boundary description clarifies that lands within the the 100-year floodplain include islands within braided channels even though they may be higher in elevation than the 100-year floodplain. An error was also discovered in the name of one anadromous stream identified in the boundary chapter. Talachilitna Creek was erroneously identified as a river in the boundary description. These amendments make technical adjustments to the boundaries of the MSBCMP. Designates an Area Which Merits Special Attention or Alters an_ Existing Area Which Merits Special Attention Designation. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Plan proposes six areas as Areas Which Merit Special Attention (AMSA). It is the district's intent that additional planning be conducted before these areas are adopted as significant amendments to the MSBCMP. No new AMSAs are designated or previous designations altered by these proposed amendments to the MSBCMP, Restricts or Excludes a Use of State Concern not Previously Restricted or Excluded. These amendments to the MSBCMP do not restrict or exclude any new uses of State concern, In view of the above findings The Office of Coastal Management recommends that these amendments be incorporated into the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program as a routine program implementation. Pursuant to 6 AAC 85.120(c), matters of routine program implementation may be incorporated into the district program without Coastal Policy Council action. Matanuska-Susitna Borough BOX B, PALMER, ALASKA 99645 e PHONE 745-4801 PLANNING DEPARTMENT LAND MANAGEMENT - PLATTING - PLANNING February 9, 1984 Mr. David Cohen, Staff. Analyst Office of Coastal Management Office of Management and Budget Division of Governmental Coordination Pouch AW Juneau, AK 99811 Dear Mr -eohen: Yai The Matanuska-Susitna Borough requests that the following amendments to the MSBCMP (December, 1983) be considered by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council at their next meeting in May, 1984. Please note that all underlined copy is new copy unless otherwise indicated and all bracketed copy is proposed for deletion. Pg. 3-4 No. 7-c Transportation. Revise copy to read: Construction of transportation facilities IMay adversely affect[s] water quality through increased runoff, sedimentation and may damage[s] important habitat such as wetlands. Pg. 3-5 No. 9-c Agriculture. Revise copy to read: There is a lack of road access to several areas [ACRES] of potential agricultural land. Pg. 3-5 No. 9-d Agriculture. Revise copy to read: Agricultural practices may be [ARE] detrimental to water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and air quality. Pg. 3-6 No. 11 Subsistence. Revise copy to read: Delete a, b, c, d and e and replace with: a. Subsistence may exist within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and those areas identified as Meeting the State's definition of subsistence will be acknowledged in accordance with State law. Pg. 3-11 Delete Goal III-b. Pg. 3-15 Delete Goal XI-c, d, e. Pg. 3-17 Goal XIII-d. Revise copy to read: investigate the feasible [D] development of a public transportation system linking the District with Anchorage. Bottom of Pg. 4-4 and Top of Pg. 4-5 Council Adopted Coastal District Boundary. Revise copy to read: The width of this extended boundary [IS THE WIDTH OF THE WATER COURSE AND] includes all lands and waters within the 100-year floodplain or 200 feet on each side as measured from the ordinary high water mark, whichever is greater. This includes all lands and waters encompassed by the extended boundaries even though they may be higher in elevation than the 100-year floodplain (i.e. islands ina braided stream or river): Moose Creek Kroto Creek Lower Kroto Creek (Deshka River) [TALACHULITNA RIVER] Talachulitna Creek Little Willow Creek Little Susitna River Skwentna River Yentna River Kahiltna River Chulitna River Lake Creek Susitna River Montana Creek Sheep Creek Kashwitna Creek Willow Creek Talkeetna River Matanuska River Middle of Pg. 4-5 Council Adopted Version of Coastal District Boundary. Revise copy to read: Based upon anadromous fish distribution in the most recent ADF & G Atlas (1983) of anadromous fish streams, the tollowing boundary extensions are included in the MSBCMP coastal district up to the 1000-foot elevation contour: Moose Creek Kroto Creek Lower Kroto Creek [TALACHULITNA RIVER] Talachulitna Creek Little Willow Creek Willow Creek Kashwitna Creek Sheep Creek Montana Creek Talkeetna River Lake Creek Little Susitna Pg. 5-16 No. 1 Subsistence. Revise copy to read: The State standard (6AAC 80.120) is adopted as part of the MSBCMP [THE STATE STANDARD REQUIRES THAT DISTRICTS RECOGNIZE AND IDENTIFY ANY AREAS THAT ARE USED FOR SUBSISTENCE ACTIVITIES. SUBSISTENCE USES AND ACTIVITIES ARE CURRENTLY PRESENT THROUGHOUT THE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH] . Pg. 5-17 No. 2 Air, Land, and Water Quality. Revise copy to read: Land clearing, grading, filling and alteration of natural drainage features shall be minimized. Areas cleared of vegetation and not developed shall be revegetated with [NATIVE] plants to deter erosion and restore pre-alteration habitat productivity within one year from time vegetation was removed. Appendix "D" Pg. D-3. Revise copy to read: 18. [TALACHULITNA RIVER] Talachulitna Creek These proposed amendments are a result of public testimony received during the Borough's formal adoption of the Coastal Policy Council adopted MSBCMP, as well as the Borough's interest in further specifying specific issues, goals, objectives and policies. Thank you in advance for your timely consideration of these amendments. . Sincerely, CRs 9 Gires Michelle R. Stearns Senior Planner mu cc: Robert Stickles, Planning Director 01-A35LH BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR FONE Aa ENG Bile Gd f PHONE: (907) 465-3562 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET * FEB 21 1984 DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ALASKA POWER AUThuiiTy February 16, 1984 To: Alaska Coastal Management Program Participants SUBJECT: REVISED ADDENDUM #1 OF THE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. On February 9, 1984 you were mailed a memorandum, with enclosures, announcing the effective date of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program. An error was made on page 3 of Addendum #1 dated February 15, 1984. The second paragraph under item # 10 should be a separate item. The additional item is from Page 5-14, Agriculture Policy 1. This memorandum transmits a revised version of Addendum #1 of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program. Please note: This change does not effect the effective date of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program. It went into effect on February 15, 1984. Please call me at 465-3562 if you have any questions about this notice or the district plan. Sincere dD O Gow. David L. Cohen Staff Analyst Enclosure cc: Michelle Stearns, Palmer Robert Stickles, Palmer sn84021503dca February 15, 1984 Revised Addendum #1 the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program Note: ( Underlined text is added, [BRACKETED TEXT] is 1. 5. 6. deleted.) At page 2-31, add: The Soil Conservation Service has completed a detailed Flood Plain Management Study for Kashwitna River and Wasilla, Cottonwood, and Lucille Creeks, dated May 1982. At page 3-4, reword issue 5(e) as follows: Development of a timber industry may degrade wildlife habitat, viewshed, recreational values and water quality. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough has revised the de- scription of the coastal boundary. The revised description is attached. At page 5-8, Policy 5 is revised to read as follows: Development shall be sited, designed, constructed, and managed so as to preserve natural and cultural features [THAT ARE VALUABLE AND SCARCE] in the district. Public access to [VALUABLE AND SCARCE] natural and cultural features shall be preserved and maintained, and where appropriate, increased. Page 5-8, Policy 7 is not enforceable as written. Page 5-8, the following definitions are added: Industrial development includes the commercial production and sale of goods and services. Types of development considered industrial include, but are not limited to, forestry, mining, fishing, communications, wholesale trade, manufacturing, utilities and transporta- tion. Mat/Su Plan Addendum -2- February 15, 1984 7. 8. Page Page Commercial development includes economic devel- opment activity, but at a reduced scale of development compared to industrial development. Types of development considered commercial include, but are not limited to, retail trade businesses, service stations and other private businesses which provide service and employment. Port development includes waterfront development activity. Types of development considered port development include, at a minimum, a site ona waterway which provides harbor or dock facilities. 5-9, Policy 1 is revised as follows: Recognizing that premature and scattered devel- opment needlessly degrades rivers, lakes and coastline open space, conflicts with other appropriate uses and causes extra public costs for public services, new development shall [BE LOCATED IN ALREADY DEVELOPED AREAS. INDIVIDUAL VARIANCES MAY BE GRANTED BY THE BOROUGH WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT'S IMPACT IS DEEMED MINIMAL] minimize its impact by consolidating development where possible. 5-9, Policy 3 is deleted from the approved plan and will be subject to mediation: (STATE LAND DISPOSALS FOR SUBDIVISIONS OUTSIDE THE ROAD-SERVED AREAS OF THE BOROUGH SHALL BE DESIGNED SO AS TO PRESERVE FISH AND WILDLIFE PRODUCTIVITY AND MAINTAIN, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE, EXISTING USES. IN ADDITION, THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL REMOTE SUBDIVISIONS: a. FEASIBLE ACCESS. FEASIBLE ACCESS INCLUDES LEGAL AND PHYSICAL (CONSTRUCTED) ACCESS SUCH AS AIRSTRIP, WATER, EXISTING RAIL AND ROAD ACCESS. FEASIBLE ACCESS MUST BE PROVIDED TO ALL PARCELS. b. ENERGY RESOURCES, SUCH AS FEASIBLE SUPPLY OF CORDWOOD FOR INDIVIDUAL HEATING PURPOSES. Cc. WATER SUPPLY. WATER SUPPLY INCLUDES ACCESS TO A FEASIBLE SUPPLY OF WATER FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION PURPOSES, NOT NECESSARILY A COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM. Mat/Su Plan Addendum -3- February 15, 1984 9. 10. ti. 12. Page Page Page Page d. ENVIRONMENTAL SUITABILITY FOR SEWAGE AND GARBAGE DISPOSAL. e. USE AND ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS ADJOINING STATE LAND DISPOSALS SHALL NOT BE RESTRICTED OR REDUCED. 5-13, Policy 2 is revised as follows: Sand and gravel may be extracted from coastal waters, riverbeds, floodplains of rivers, and intertidal areas provided there is no signifi- cant impact on fish productivity, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to coastal extraction which will meet the public need for sand and gravel [AND THE ACTIVITY IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH ESTABLISHED BOROUGH CODE]. 5-17, Policy 2 is revised as follows: Land clearing, grading, filling and alteration of natural drainage features shall be minimized. Areas cleared of vegetation and not developed shall be revegetated with native plants to deter erosion and restore pre-alteration habitat productivity within one year from time vegeta- tion was removed. 5-14, Agriculture Policy 1 is revised a follows: [AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER WHICH MINIMIZES DEGRADATION AND DESTRUCTION OF] Agriculture shall be practiced in accordance to the sound soil and water conservation principles which minimize adverse impacts to air, land, and water quality and maintain or enhance [IMPORTANT] fish and wildlife habitat and recreational values. 5-17, Policy 6 is revised as follows: Mitigation techniques for activities along, and in, rivers, lakes and streams shall include replacing stream bank vegetations where possible; creation of oil and grease separators prior to road development runoff entering rivers, lakes, and streams, Creation of settlement systems prior to development runoff entering stream corridors thereby decreasing sedimentation; and mitigation of any changes in stream flow [REGIONS] regimes. Mat/Su Plan Addendum -4- February 15, 1984 13. 14. Page 5-18, Policy 2. All development shall meet historic preservation objectives of the district as outlined by the Historic Preservation Survey (1981) page 2-58 and 2-59, including revitalization and utilization of historic resources. [Note: These objectives are outlined on pages 2-58 to 2-59 of the MSBCMP, and are adopted as enforceable policies of the district program. ] At page 7-12, paragraph 3(b) is reworded as follows: b. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers: Permits under Section 9 and 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 authorizing: 1) the con- struction of dams and dikes in navigable waters of the United States, and 2) other obstructions or alterations in navigable waters of the United States respectively. Section 10 permits are also required for the construction of artificial islands, installations, and other devices on the Outer Continental Shelf pursuant to Section 4(e) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act as amended. Permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizing the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States. sjn/1655 Matanuska-—Susitna Borough Coastal Management Plan Prepared by: Michelle R. Stearns, Project Manager Matanuska-~Susitna Borough Planning Department P.O.Box B Palmer, AK 99645 Robert J. Stickles, Planning Director The preparation of this report was financed by funds from the Alaska Coastal Zone 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. To ourselves... There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, on more uncertain in its Success, than to take the Lead in the introduction of a new onder of things. CONCEPT APPROVED MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Table of Contents Page Matanuska-Susitna Borough i Purpose of MSBCMP ii Acknowledgements iii List of Figures and Maps iv Chapter 1: Introduction Where Does the MSBCMP Come From i-1 What is the District Coastal Management Area 1-3 How Does the MSBCMP Work 1-3 History of the MSBCMP 1-5 Chapter 2: Coastal District Inventory and Analysis Natural Resources: Inventory and Analysis Methodology 2-1 Coastal Habitats and Resources 2-3 Physical Oceanography 2-8 Wildlife 2-10 Water Resources 2-17 Climate and Air Quality 2-22 Geology and Geophysical Hazards 2-24 Hazards 2-28 Cultural Resources: Inventory and Analysis Land Status 2-39 Land Use 2-44 Population 2-50 Transportation 2-51 Cultural Facilities 2-56 Chapter 3: Issues, Goals and Objectives Issues of the MSBCMP 3-1 Goals and Objectives of the MSBCMP 3-10 Chapter 4: Coastal District Boundary Areas of Direct Interaction and Direct Influence 4-2 Chapter 5: Policy Development Subject Uses and Activities 5-1 Proper and Improper Use Determination 5-3 Uses of State Concern 5-4 Enforceable Rules 5-6 Chapter 6: Areas Meriting Special Attention Susitna Flats State Game Refuge 6-5 Goose Bay State Game Refuge 6-8 Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge 6-10 Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain 6-13 Nancy Lake State Recreation Area 6-17 Point MacKenzie Industrial Port/Park 6-20 Chapter 7: Chapter 8: Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Bibliography Implementation District Organization for MSBCMP Implementation Methods and Authorities used for Implementation Consistency Review Process and Procedures State Actions Federal Actions Monitoring and Enforcement Recommendations Chapter 80 and 85 ACMP Public Participation Summary Technical Natural Resource Data Coastal District Boundary - Legal Description MSBCMP Review Checklist 7-1 7-1 7-3 7-7 7-10 7-15 D-1 Matanuska-—Susitna Borough Coastal Management Plan Matanuska-—Susitna Borough Edna Armstrong, Mayor Gary Thuriow, Manager Assembly Elizabeth Barry Barbara Carr Dorothy Jones John Musgrove Rose Paimquist Al Strawn Vern Ungerecht Planning Commission Guy Woodings, Chairman Carol Christiansen Cart DePriest Walt Harris Frank Langill Denvy Saxowsky Bob Tucker PURPOSE The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Plan is intended to be a reflection of local concerns and Alaska Coastal Management Act Standards. This district plan recognizes the interrelationship of available resources with resource use, and is a voice of the issues, preferences and direction of the Borough in the development and management of its resources. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This significantly amended version of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Plan was revised and written by Michelle R. Stearns. As Project Manager, she benefitted tremendously from the help of many others, including: Claudio Arenas, Former Planning Director; Rodney Schulling, Pat Owens, Lindsey Finney and Mary Utter, Planning Department Staff; Jim Sinnett, Map Graphics; Amy Kyle and Diane Mayer, Office of Coastal Management; Wendy Wolf, Office of Management and Budget; Glenn Seaman, Dimitri Bader, and Michael McGuiness, Alaska Department of Fish and Game; Larry Lodwick, Paul Pinard, and Tim Rumfelt, Department of Environmental Conservation; Merlin Wibbenmeyer, Chris Beck and Gary Johnson, Department of Natural Resources; Bill Paulick, Department of Commerce and Economic Development; Roger Maggard, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; David Tremont, Department of Community and Regional Affairs; Wayne Pichon, United States Fish and Wildlife Service; Bill Lawrence, United States Environmental Protection Agency; Wayne Boden, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; Jim Wood, United States Army Corps of Engineers; and Pat Travers, United States Department of Commerce. . iii 2-1 2-2 2-3 4J=1 Map #1 Map #2 Map #3 Map #4 Map #5 Map #6 List of Figures and Maps Title Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management District Program Elements MSBCMP Planning Process MSBCMP Review, Hearing. and Adoption Process Game Management Units Geology Annual Population Growth Rates MSBCMP Consistency Determination Implementation Mechanisms for MSBCMP Pocket Maps Township/Range Inventory Grid Areas Meriting Special Attention Land Ownership and General Use Roads, Trails and Power Corridors Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas Coastal Habitat and Resources iv Follows Page 1-3 1-3 1-3 1-3 1-3 2-7 2-24 2-50 7-3 INTRODUCTION This document is the Concept Approved Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program (MSBCMP) also referred to as the District program. It is intended for public, Borough, State and Federal agency review and comment. Based upon public and agency comments received through this review process, a final coastal management program (CMP) will be developed and adopted by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council and the District. In addition to the coastal management plan, this document also contains some explanatory information. (Figure 1-5 describes the review, hearing and adoption process) . WHERE DOES THE MSBCMP COME FROM? Federal Coastal Zone Management Act 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, aesthetic values, as well as the need for economic development. 1-1 Alaska Coastal Management Act The pressures on coastal resources which prompted Congress to enact the Coastal Management Act are intensely present in Alaska. Advances in oil and gas exploration, mineral extraction technologies and rapid growth and development along coastal regions of Alaska result in substantial economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts on coastal communities and their coastal resources. The size and diversity of Alaska's coastal area and wealth of coastal resources requires specially adapted organizational arrangements for coastal management. These specialized needs are reflected in the passage of the Alaska Coastal Management Act of 1977 (AS 44.19.891-894 and AS 46.40), providing a state coastal management program methodology based upon the partnership of shared state and local management responsibilities for coastal areas and resources. The Alaska Coastal Management Act created the Alaska Coastal Policy Council in the Office of the Governor. One of the responsibilities of the Council has been to adopt use, habitat and resource standards for the Alaska Coastal Management Program and guidelines for the development of district coastal management programs. The standards and guidelines were subsequently approved by the legislature and accepted into the Alaska Administrative Code, serving as the minimm requirements for coastal management in Alaska. Both the local coastal resource districts and State agencies are guided 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 (ACMP) specify the planning process local coastal resource districts 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 Matanuska-Susitna Borough, are responsible for developing district coastal management programs that meet State requirements. These local coastal management programs serve as building blocks of the Alaska Coastal Management Program, through which local, 1-2 State, Federal governments and the private sector operate to manage Alaska's coastal resources and promote their wise use and development. WHAT IS THE DISTRICT COASTAL MANAGEMENT AREA? The Matanuska-Susitna Borough's natural resource base has various characteristics. The Borough's coastline extends for approximately seventy miles from the Kenai Peninsula Borough in the South, 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. This coastal area is characterized by extensive’ tidal flats interspersed with low-level vegetated bluffs. (Figure 1-1). The variety of coastal resource characteristics within the District 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 this area is a wealth of natural, cultural, aesthetic and economic resources which support a variety of existing coastal land and water uses and activities. These uses and activities include residential and recreational housing, industrial and commercial activities, wildlife management, recreation, tourism, mining and mineral processing, timber harvesting and agricultural production. (Figure 1-2 identifies the Matanuska-Susitna Borough's coastal management district within the Borough). HOW DOES THE MSBCMP WORK? Standards and Guidelines of the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) (6 AAC 80 and 6 AAC 85) establish minimum requirements for inclusion in a district program. These requirements are reproduced in detail in Appendix A. (The location of each of these requirements is cross referenced by MSBCMP chapter in Figure 1-3). The MSBCMP follows a typical planning process of inventory/analysis - issues/goals/objectives - policies - implementation (illustrated in Figure 1-4) indicating the way the chapters of this document interrelate. ~% pt. barrow efairbanks MATANUSKA Figure 1-1 north _ to fairbanks 7 o—> |glennallen to anchorage vz Figure 1-2 appendices 7 || 6 5 4 3 fie scat a tsp 1 [TT _ * =o a ae ‘ Se ‘ fae z Pet Te P+ tT — * * * * * * Se ~te] [| | ee ig ie ies ea eet ae tll eel Te om ie ee ne Sema oe TE | none identified none identified eS cE Po pn iS See eee ee |+]>f>]-]e[-[> p> L % | ela |e | | chapter 2 * * program elements needs-goals-objectives organization boundaries resource inventory resource analysis subject uses-activities proper and improper uses policies implementation public participation coastal development recreation energy facilities transportation-utilities fish-seafood processing timber harvest-processing mining-mineral processing geophysical hazard areas offshore areas estuaries wetlands-tideflats vegetated bluffs barrier islands-lagoons exposed high energy coasts rivers, lakes, streams important upland habitat air, land, water quality historic, prehis., arch. resources subsistence areas meriting special attention Figure 1-3 Natural and Cultural Resource Inventory CHAPTER 2 :+*pUses & Activities Coastal Development Energy Facilities Issues, Goals & Objectives CHAPTER 3 Fish & Seafood Processing Proper and Improper Use Identification [omer jc Mining & Mineral Processing CHAPTER 5 Implementation Transportation & Utilities CHAPTER 7 Uses and Activities s Subject to MSBCMP ubsistence Habitats | Geophysical Hazard Areas CHAPTER 5 Recommendations Areas Meriting Special Attention CHAPTER 8 Recreation CHAPTER 6 Air, Land & Water Quality Historical & Arch. Sites Coastal Management Boundary CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 MSBCMP Planning Process Figure 1-4 MSBCMP REVIEW, HEARING AND ADOPTION PROCESS 90 DAY PERIOD 70 DAY PERIOD Public Hearing ACPC May Hold Public Hearing on Draft Distributed MSBCMP 175 Copies March 1983 Borough Assembly seeteeeeee) Gives Concept Approval to MSBCMP Notice given to ACPC and Public (60 days) re: + Concept Approval . . Copy of Concept OCM Distributes Concept Approved MSB and Public OCM Submits ACPC Approval/ PUBLIC HEARING PE cu wire MSBCMP with OCM Comments to Revised Findings Disapproval of August 16, 1983 oO w Preliminary ACPC and Conclusions MSBCMP Amendments, and Findings & Concl. Public Hearing = Draft Notice (30 days) prior Public Hearing —— i Borough Response to OCM Findings/ Conclusions . and Conclusions Agency Comment Deadline 30 days from Receipt of Draft : Borough Findings : : Borough Prints Concept Approved prerrssseree* Draft - 275 copies ACPC Alaska Coastal Policy Council MSBCMP Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program OCM Office. of Coastal Management Figure 1-5 Chapter 2, the inventory and analysis element, includes descriptions, interpretation and analysis of natural and cultural resources. Natural resources include all mandated resources and habitats as well as others of local significance. Cultural resources include existing uses as well as historical, prehistoric, and archeological resources. Pocket maps #2-6 contain natural and cultural resource information relating to Chapter 2. Chapter 3 contains issues issues relating to resource use considerations. These were developed from, and have contributed to, the need for further natural and cultural resource inventory and analysis information. Goals have been developed on the basis of local values and desires to address identified issues. Objectives were then developed to help achieve each goal. Coastal management policies are specific guidelines created to direct development decisions in ways consistent with adopted goals and objectives. They are to be applied to land and water uses and activities subject to the District program. Chapter 5, Policy Development, describes subject uses and activities and delineates the policies of this program which are to be applied. These enforceable rules are criteria for evaluating development proposals against resource values which have been identified in the District. Ideally stated, if all policies are followed, the objectives of this program will be attained. If all objectives have met the goals set for the District, development which respects identified resource values will be fulfilled. Chapter 7, Implementation, describes the techniques that will be used to ensure that the District program is carried out. Various tools will be used including a consistency review system of existing applicable Borough, State and Federal regulations. There will be no additional permit systems established by the District. The District program enforceable rules will be emphasized in the Federal and State consistency review process. Areas Which Merit Special Attention (AMSA), Chapter 6, were identified by the District in recognition of their specific coastal resource and use values. They are a product of the inventory and analysis of existing natural and cultural resources and are a tool to help achieve program objectives. Program policies have also been established to develop and protect resources forming the basis of AMSA designations. Pocket map #2 contains boundary information relating to AMSA designations. Boundaries of the District program include those that identify the entire area subject to the provisions of the program. These boundaries were based on State program guidelines and the District findings of resource inventory and analysis. Chapter 4, Pocket map #1 and Appendix D include information relating to District boundary definition. A summary of the public participation program for the development of the District plan is described in Appendix B. Public input into the development of each element has been facilitated through the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum. Opportunities for public review of, and comment on, all products has been continually provided throughout the Public Hearing Draft review period. It is important to note that this program assumes, and is designed to accommodate, the development of new and more detailed natural and cultural resource information as it becomes available. The criteria and evaluation methods employed allow the definition of land use suitability environments by their natural characteristics including development limitations and any applicable enforceable rules and policies for land and water use in the District. HISTORY OF THE MSBCMP The Matanuska-Susitna Borough began work on its District coastal manage- ment program in mid 1979. Progress to date can be highlighted by describing the reports that have been issued: 1. First Annual Progress Report - June 1979 : Developed with the assistance of the firms Simpson, Usher, and Jones; Dames and Moore; and A. W. Burns Co., this document reported progress to date on the various coastal program elements and set forth 1-5 3. recommendations on how to camplete the program. Among its contributions were references to Borough comprehensive planning goals and objectives of May 1978, cataloging of natural and cultural resource inventory work to date and preliminary designation of Areas Meriting Special Attention. It also included a report entitled: Matanuska-Susitna Borough Surficial Geology (Generalized) with Distribution of Mineral Discoveries, prepared by A.L. Renshaw Jr., P.E.. This report represents the geological resource and analysis information of the District coastal management program. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program, Phase I Completion Report - May 1981: Prepared for the Borough by the firms of Maynard and Partch and Woodward - Clyde Consultants. This document included: - Identification of preliminary coastal issues, goals and objectives; - Additional resource inventory and analysis; and - Preliminary boundary definitions. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program, Execu- tive Summary - Mid 1981, prepared by Maynard and Partch. This document was a summary of District coastal management planning, the Phase I Completion Report and additional efforts through June 1981. It was intended to educate public and private industry officials about the District's efforts. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program, Phase II A Program Report - September 1981: Prepared by Maynard and Partch and Woodward - Clyde Consultants. Advances of the program reflected in this document included: - Final recommended boundary; - Further delineation of issues, goals and objectives; and - Introduction of implementation measures. 1-6 5. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program, Public Hearing Draft, Preliminary Review Copy Phase II B, September 1982: Prepared by Maynard and Partch and Woodward - Clyde Consultants. This work was extensively edited by the Borough Department of Planning. Natural and cultural resource inventory and analysis; issues, goals and objectives; policy development; proposed AMSA designations; and implementation were revised by the Borough. Phase III - Completion of the MSBCMP The District is completing its Coastal Management Program utilizing the Department of Planning staff. In this final phase, the Public Review Draft was revised to integrate it with the District's Draft Comprehensive Plan and to incorporate comments received on the MSBCMP Public Review Draft. The Public Review Draft was distributed to local, State, Federal agencies, the general public and conments were solicited and received. Activities are being conducted which will lead to State Coastal Policy Council approval. Current Planning & the MSBCMP Since the Borough began development of its Coastal Management Program in 1979, a number of other major planning efforts have been undertaken. They are described below followed by a general discussion of their relationship to the MSBCMP. Although each of these plans has a different scope, they involve a portion of the same geographic area and must be closely coordinated. 1. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comprehensive Plan: The Borough Comprehensive Plan is addressing land use, transportation and public facility requirements throughout the entire Borough. The focus of this plan is the road accessed and privately owned portion of the Borough, but this plan also integrates and expands upon the following planning efforts. 2. State Resource Management Plans: The Matanuska-Susitna - Beluga Area Plan; The Willow SubBasin Plan; and The Hatcher Pass and Fish Creek Management Plans: The State Department of Natural Resources, in cooperation with the Borough, has already completed the Willow SubBasin Area Plan and is cur- rently involved in the Matanuska-Susitna Beluga Area Plan. This plan is concerned with the area outside of the Willow SubBasin within the Borough and includes the Beluga coal field area outside of the Borough. These area plans guide land use decisions and establish land management guidelines for State owned lands. The focus of the Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga Area Plan is the non-road accessed portion of the Borough where the resources of concern are agriculture, forestry, fish and wildlife, recreation, settlement, subsurface mining and transportation. The Department of Natural Resources management plans magnify portions (management units) of the Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga Area Plan for which general guidelines are prepared and develop more specific plans for these areas. Plans for areas within the Borough are currently being prepared for the Fish Creek and Hatcher Pass Management Units which were identified in the Willow SubBasin Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior/Bureau of Land Management: The BLM has revised its Southcentral Land Use Plan to address the potential for mineral entry, mineral leasing, and settlement entry. Much of the Federally-owned land in the northeastern corner of the Borough is now opened for mineral entry and mineral leasing. A decision on settlement entry has been deferred and is being coordinated with the State and the Borough comprehensive planning. The Denali Scenic Highway Study (ANILCA 1311) is scheduled for completion by December, 1983. This study is a Federal, State, and local cooperative effort to make recommendations to the 1-8 Governor and the Secretary of the Interior on the desirability of a National Scenic Highway designation along the route. The guidelines for the recommendations are to provide a symbolic and a physical connection between the national parks (Denali and Wrangell-St. Ellias) in Southcentral Alaska, to consider the importance of protecting the scenic and recreation values, and to enhance the experience of persons traveling between those parks by motor vehicles. 4. Other Plans: Studies underway which relate to the MSBCMP include The Knik Arm Crossing Study, Alaska Power Authority's powerline corridor studies, the Susitna Hydroelectric Power Project planned for the upper Susitna River and Enstar's natural gas pipeline study of the Beluga to Anchorage corridor. Summary All of these plans have a common purpose to allocate specific land and water resources to particular uses and activities. The District's coastal management program provides a vehicle to ensure that the District's coastal land and water resource values are respected while the goals of these other plans are accomplished. While other uses may be considered, the District coastal management plan ensures a provision of policies and standards for subject uses, activities and issues including those of State concern within the Federal and State Coastal Management Program guidelines. The environmental data required by these planning efforts is a shared resource between the District and State agencies, providing a common natural and cultural resource inventory and analysis process. Once campleted and adopted, the State and Borough resource management plan for the Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga area and the Borough Draft Comprehensive Development Plan will be added to this coastal management program as amendments and under the procedures of the Office of Coastal Management. INTRODUCTION The following is a summary analysis of natural and cultural resource information of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. It inventories the natural resources of habitats, wildlife, air, land, water and cultural resources and presents their interrelationship to one another within the Borough. One purpose of the analysis is to speculate on human utilization of the Borough's natural and cultural resources. Potential development which can enhance or detract from this resource base include energy related projects, transportation, port facility and mining and mineral processing activities. The Point MacKenzie Industrial Port Site project, Knik Arm Crossing, Susitna Hydroelectric Project and the Beluga and Susitna Coal Fields are all major potential economic development projects which may also effect environmental changes within the District. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough's natural and cultural resource base is fragile and requires continual management in its development. Economic development, population growth and expanded resource extraction has, and will continue to, place increased demands on the District's coastal areas and its resources. In particular, the relatively undeveloped coastal area which includes the three State Game Refuges and the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project; the District's recreational resources; and important coastal wildlife habitats and waters all deserve careful management and development to realize the goals of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Plan. (Note: A more detailed listing of natural and cultural resource information is included in Appendix C). METHODOLOGY The natural and cultural resource inventory and analysis process assesses present conditions and anticipated demands on the District's coastal resources; evaluates the resource's ability to meet these demands; and projects any significant anticipated changes in inventory characteristics based upon human utilization. The Coastal Zone Management Act specifies that permissible land and water uses should consider development and utilization of natural and cultural resources as well as conservation activities. 2-2 COASTAL HABITATS AND RESOURCES There are eight coastal habitats identified in the Alaska Coastal Management Program. These habitats include: offshore areas; estuaries; wetlands and tideflats; rocky islands and seacliffs; barrier islands and lagoons; exposed high energy coasts; rivers, streams and lakes; and important upland habitat. Not all of these coastal habitats are present within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. For example, some coastal habitat categories within the District have been modified or combined to conform to the natural characteristics of the District. Offshore and estuarine areas have been combined as one coastal habitat and vegetated bluffs has replaced rocky islands and seacliffs as a coastal habitat. Barrier islands and lagoons and exposed high energy coasts, as coastal habitats, do not exist in the District (Pocket Map #6). Offshore and Estuarine Areas All offshore areas of the District are considered estuarine. Offshore areas are waters and submerged lands seaward of the coastline. An estuary is technically defined as a waterbody with a free connection to the sea in which sea water becomes considerably diluted by fresh water. This is the case in the offshore and estuarine areas of the District where Knik Arm and Upper Cook Inlet have an unrestricted connection to the sea and salinities are greatly reduced with fresh water runoff. As a result, the offshore and estuarine habitat classifications have been combined and include all waters and submerged lands beyond mean lower low water to the offshore limits of the District. Human utilization of these offshore habitats is presently very limited. Future utilization of these coastal resources could change due to implementation of proposed projects such as development and construction of the Knik Arm Crossing or an industrial port/park and new town at Point MacKenzie. Harvesting of marine mammals has been of limited and minimal importance in the offshore area of the District. A small commercial fishery 2-3 operates in the area offshore of the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge. This activity has been limited to approximately ten set gill net sites that are usually fished from June 25 to August 15 each year. Two twelve-hour fishing periods have typically been held each week during this time. Management activities of salmon stocks in the District are primarily effected through the control of escapements from the drift gill net fishing in central Cook Inlet. Wetlands and Tideflats Wetlands include those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil (substrate) conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, fresh water and salt marshes, forested and treeless bogs, muskegs, wet and moist tundra, wet riparian corridors, and similar areas. Tideflats include mostly unvegetated areas that are alternately exposed and inundated by the falling and rising of the tide. Utilization of resources in the wetland and tideflats habitat is well documented for the State Game Refuges along the District coastline. As a result, this section focuses on resource use of the wetlands and tideflats within the State Game Refuges. Both tideflats and wetlands are extensive in the District's coastal zone. Portions of these entensive areas of tideflats along Knik Arm and Upper Cook Inlet have been designated State Game Refuges. These areas include Susitna Flats (301,950 acres*), Palmer Hay Flats (25,340 acres*) and Goose Bay (13,262 acres*). (Pocket Map #2). The primary purpose of all three refuges is to protect, maintain and enhance fish and wildlife populations and habitats in agreement with other components of the ecosystem. All three refuges are State regulated to protect waterfowl habitat and the Susitna Flats Game Refuge is regulated to protect big game habitat, particularly moose and black bear. 2-4 The primary human uses of wetlands and tideflats are hunting for waterfowl and moose, and trapping of furbearing mammals. Critical management issues in these areas are increased hunter access to disperse concentrated hunting pressure, effects of increased human access on waterfowl, moose and their habitats and effects of agricultural activities on drainage in this habitat. *Refuge acreage includes uplands, tidelands and submerged areas. Vegetated Bluffs The vegetated bluffs coastal habitat designation was used by the District to replace the rocky island and seacliff habitat found in 6 AAC 80.130 of the Alaska Coastal Coastal Management Program. A rocky island and seacliff habitat typically refers to rocky shores with steep faces, offshore rocks, and capes. The District has none of these characteristics. This habitat classification was modified to refer to the high coastal bank areas (generally between 25 and 100 feet) in the District. Rather than rock composition, these 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 Game Refuge. Typical vegetation in these areas is young mixed forest of spruce and birch. There is little wildlife use of the bluff habitat presently and similarly, there is presently little human use of this habitat. However, development of a Knik Arm crossing or of the proposed Point MacKenzie Industrial Port site would significantly affect the human utilization of this habitat. In addition, the vegetated bluffs of Point MacKenzie along the Knik Arm are surrounded on both sides by State game refuges. Consequently, any future development in this area will affect future wildlife use of this habitat as well as the game refuge use. Rivers, Streams and Lakes The District has an extensive network of rivers, streams and lakes. The three major rivers within the District - the Susitna, Matanuska, and Knik - provide approximately 70 percent of the fresh water entering Upper Cook Inlet. Freshwater runoff occurs during spring, summer and fall. In winter, frozen rivers, lakes, and streams provide transportation corridors. Rivers in the District are generally safe for vehicular travel approximately between mid-December and the beginning of April. The rivers, streams and lakes habitat includes all surface freshwater systems within the District. Rivers, streams and lakes provide permanent habitat for many species and act as a conduit and spawning area for anadromous fish. All of the rivers, streams, and lakes in the District provide vital habitat for resident and anadromous fish, large and small upland manmals and birds. i The primary human use of river, stream and lake habitat is recreation oriented including sport fishing, hunting, boating, rafting, canoeing, hiking, camping and picnicing. Road access is a key factor for recreational fishing. Increased road access will have immediate localized effects due to increased fishing efforts at selected sites and possible environmental changes caused by road construction. Effects of road construction can increase sedimentation of streambeds and restrict movement of anadromous fish. Development activities such as transportation and utility projects, logging, agricultural, recreational, urban and industrial development also have an impact on the District's rivers, streams and lakes habitat and ultimately the fisheries' productivity and resource use. These activities create changes in stream flow regimes, remove foliage from stream banks, increase surface runoff and introduce large amounts of sediment or other foreign materials into the rivers and streams. Important Upland Habitats 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 District. 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/willow/alder. These areas are frequently interspersed among poorly drained wetlands and lakes, streams and rivers. Upland use activities which occur in the District are often extensions of activities found along river corridors and in wetland habitats. Asa result, sharp distinction in uses among these three habitats is difficult. Important upland habitats within the District include those areas associated with heavy wildlife use, especially areas meeting particular seasonal or life cycle needs such as winter or summer forage areas, Calving areas, denning areas, and migration corridors. Winter habitat is usually the most limited and any loss may have severe effects on wildlife productivity. The Borough contains portions of four State Game Management Units (GMU), 13A, B, D and E, 14A, B and C, 16 A and B and 19C. (Figure 2-1). These game management boundaries include substantial upland habitat outside of the District coastal boundary but within the Borough boundary. Statistics indicate that the majority of the upland moose hunting (outside GMU 16B) occurs near the District's road system within the 1000 foot contour. Much of the black bear harvest likewise occurs within the 1000 foot contour. The upland river systems of Lake Creek, Little Susitna River, Susitna River, Theodore River, Chuitna River, Alexander Creek, Yenta River and Skwentna River are prime moose 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. All of these sites are within the Borough but some are outside of the coastal management district boundary. Weather conditions, harvest practices and access are some of the various 2-7 i north Ca 10 miles A to fairbanks 7 VA to —> _ |glennallen 7 "= to anchorage . Matanuska-Susitna Borough Zz Game Management Units O Coastal District : Figure 2-1 factors that can influence the size and location of upland moose harvests. Statistics indicate that during the early 1970's over 160 moose were found dead in the upland area from Alexander Creek and the Susitna River north to Talkeetna. Not until mild winters in more recent years have the District's moose populations recovered. PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY The coastline of the District 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. The natural forces that are capable of producing significant oceanic hazards in Upper Cook Inlet apply to the District coastline as well. The following information summarizes the oceanographic setting of the District with respect to circulations, tides, bathymetry, sediment and transport. Circulation Circulation and local tidal currents are important oceanographic factors in Cook Inlet. Circulation patterns which are 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 bathmetry, 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 appproximately 2-3 percent of the wind speed to tidal current velocities in some localities. Tides Tides in the Upper Cook Inlet region are semidiurnal 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. Ebb currents are strong but have a short duration. A large gyre (spiral motion) develops in the region during the last half of ebb flow in Knik Arm, causing upstream flow along the east shore. Tides in Upper Cook Inlet are more dynamic, with extreme conditions producing currents of 4 knots, and sometimes 6 to 8 knots. 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 colum. Bottom current speeds of 1.2 to 1.8 knots can be estimated from the formation of sand bottom waves in the mud flats. The high latitude (62°N) of Cook Inlet 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 the entire water colum. Bathymetry Cook Inlet can be considered a coastal plain estuary 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 ams 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 form the southern, and only, coastal boundary of the 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 origin. 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 Am. The average total suspended sediment for the Matanuska and Knik Rivers is approximately 16 million tons for April to September (months of highest sediment load) while average load from October to March diminishes to 135,000 tons. The maximum daily suspended sediment load recorded for the Matanuska River is 1.3 million tons, and 2.0 million tons for Knik River. Approximately 10 million tons of suspended sediment (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 River delta. 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 the District's river currents. WILDLIFE The fish and wildlife resources of the District's coastal area are among the most diverse and abundant in the State of Alaska. Fish and wildlife species present are photographed, viewed, hunted, trapped and fished by recreational, commercial and subsistence users residing within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and adjacent areas. The bulk of the users reside in Anchorage, with many additional users coming from the Kenai Peninsula and Fairbanks areas. 2-10 The economic importance of fish and wildlife resources to the Mat-Su Borough and the regional economy is significant. Preliminary investigations from the Susitna Area Plan study (scheduled for release in March 1984) indicate that during 1980, more than 69,000 recreational fishermen and 19,000 hunters spent over 700,000 user days in the area and spent an estimated $44 million for equipment and services, including guide and taxidermy fees. Recreational activities (excluding fishing and hunting) amount to nearly 950,000 user days annually. In addition, commercial fishermen received over $7 million from Susitna Basin fish which generated over $32 million for processors and retailers. The following section discusses the fish and wildlife species commonly found in the District coastal area. The primary source for this discussion is ADF&G, Habitat Division, 1982, Fish and Wildlife Resource and Public Use Information for Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga Study Area. Mammals Moose Moose are very abundant in the District coastal area. They are generally found in all areas except steep rocky alpine slopes and north-facing deep-snowfall areas. Important moose concentration areas are located along all river and stream valleys from alpine areas to the outlets of the waterways. Most south-facing foothills, lowlands, and mountainous areas at and below treeline are also important. Moose utilize a variety of habitat types, all of which are considered necessary for maintaining the area's large moose population. Moose are largely dependent on vegetation in early successional stages which may occur in disturbed areas, at timberline, and within riparian zones. Plant species used by moose include willow, birch, aspen, poplar, spruce, alder, cottonwood, and a variety of herbaceous species. These plants may also occur in uplands, wetlands, and particularly in riparian zones from sea level to alpine elevations. 2-11 Moose summer range is considered extremely important for calf production and for providing the nutritional requirements of moose populations in preparation for breeding and winter survival. The amount of fat and prime meat produced by moose is directly related to the amount and quality of moose summer habitat available. Moose lowland summer habitat occurs throughout the District coastal area. Summer feeding habitats consist of willow, birch, aspen, spruce, grass, aquatic plants, and alder plant comminities. These plant communities may occur in widely distributed stands, isolated patches, or in large concentrated stands. Alpine shrub areas are also important for summer feeding and for breeding. Moose winter habitat occurs mostly within lowland riparian and wetland areas, and on south-facing alpine slopes and other upland areas supporting preferred browse species. The winter habitat provides adequate energy sources for body maintenance during winters of average snowfall. Moose densities in summer and winter habitat are generally similar, except during severe winters when higher densities occur on winter range as moose become concentrated in areas where browse remains available. Black Bear Black bear are found throughout the District coastal area. During spring, summer, and fall, bear distribution is largely determined by food availability. Black bear are opportunistic feeders, eating both plant and animal foods. Upon emergence from hibernation, new green vegetation is the main food item, but they will eat carrion. Newborn moose are frequently consumed later in the spring and early summer (late May through June) by black bear. Salmon are often utilized heavily during the spawning season, and berries are the most important food item in late summer and fall. Black bear habitat is closely associated with timber areas and dense alder growth. 2-12 Brown Bear Brown bear are generally less common in the District coastal area as black bear. Brown bear feeding habitats are similar to the black bear. Distribution of brown bear is similar to black bear, however, brown bear are more commonly found and harvested at higher elevations and in remote mountainous areas such as the headwater areas of the Talkeetna, Susitna, and Yentna Rivers. Small Game and Furbearers There are 15 species of furbearers which range from moderately to very abundant in the District coastal area. These species include: beaver, coyote, red fox, lynx, marmot, marten, mink, weasel, muskrat, land otter, red squirrel, Arctic ground (parka) squirrel, flying squirrel, -wolf, and wolverine. Five important species of small game occur in the District: rock, white-tailed, and willow ptarmigan, spruce grouse, and snowshoe hare. Furbearers may be found in nearly all habitat types, although most species occur in riparian, wetland, or forested areas. Small game occupy a variety of habitat types. Rock and white-tailed ptarmigan are most commonly found at higher elevations in willow, alder, and other alpine shrub communities. Snowshoe hare and willow ptarmigan are most commonly found in willow and mixed shrublands. Hares also use forested habitats commonly used by moose. Spruce grouse are nearly always associated with mature spruce forests. Marine Mammals Harbor seals and beluga whales often utilize the offshore areas of the District. 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 and estuarine coastal habitat area is limited to spring, summer and fall due to extreme weather conditions. 2-13 Birds The District tideflats and associated wetlands are important waterfowl and shorebird habitat for both breeding and migration. Most waterfowl nesting occurs at the interface of the marsh and shrub habitats. Key areas for duck staging and brood rearing include the Jim-Swan lakes areas, Palmer Hay Flats, Goose Bay and Susitna Flats. Approximately 75% of the ducks utilizing these wetlands are dabblers, primarily pintails, mallards, and green-winged teals. Scaups are the primary diving ducks found in the coastal wetlands. The population size and composition of migratory waterfowl shift continuously. These daily changes reflect the constant departure and arrival of new individuals. Seasonal variations also occur and reflect the timing of migrations for different species. Trumpeter swans are abundant on the Palmer Hay Flats during both spring and fall migration and have been observed to use other open waters in the District coastal area. Canada, white-fronted, and snow geese also utilize the coastal tideflats, wetlands, and nearby agricultural fields. Numerous other waterfowl and shorebirds utilize the wetland and tideflat habitats found in the District coastal area. Primary human use of the game refuge wetlands is recreational oriented, including hunting, fishing, trapping (although this typically occurs within the riverine habitat), and nature enjoyment. The Susitna Flats Game Refuge and Palmer Hay Flats Game Refuge rank first and second respectively among State Game Refuges for the number of hunter days spent waterfowl hunting per year. Duck harvests from the Susitna Flats Game Refuge rank highest in the state while Palmer Hay Flats Game Refuge duck harvests are typically second. Goose harvests are also very substantial. (See Appendix C.) Waterfowl harvests are strongly influenced by hunter access. Hunting pressure in the District coastal areas is often temporarily concentrated. Duck hunting season typically extends between September 2-14 and December or January; however, one third to one half the hunting effort is expended between September 1 and September 10 every year. Due to limited access within the Palmer Hay Flats Game Refuge and the surrounding area, hunting is usually restricted to the Duck Flats and Cottonwood Creek areas which are accessible by road or boat. Access to Goose Bay State Game Refuge is limited to roads along the northern and western boundaries. The Susitna Flats Game Refuge is accessible only by boat or plane where hunters concentrate around landing sites rather than along road access points. Four wheel drive access to the Susitna Flats Game Refuge is possible from a non-maintained road which heads south from the Big Lake Area. Primary use of coastal wetlands by raptors occurs during spring and fall migrations. Bald eagles are the most abundant species and are usually associated with waterfowl presence on the Palmer Hay Flats and with spawning salmon in anadromous streams. Peregrine falcons utilize the coastal wetlands and use the Susitna River as a migration route. Resident raptors which breed in the coastal area include goshawks, greathorned owls, and hawk owls. Migratory raptors which breed in the coastal area include marsh hawks and red-tailed hawks. Passerines are abundant throughout the coastal area with thrushes, warblers, and dark-eyed juncos being particularly common. Anadromous and Freshwater Fish Anadromous fish in the District coastal area includes all five species of Pacific salmon (chinook, sockeye, coho, pink, and chum), steelhead, trout, Dolly Varden, and smelt. Nearly every clear water stream in the District coastal area provides important spawning habitat for one or more species of Pacific salmon. All streams provide important migration corridors for adult as well as juvenile salmon. During summer months, nearly every creek, stream, river, slough, rivulet and back-water area connected to major waterways leading to Cook Inlet provides juvenile salmon rearing habitat. In late fall, juvenile chinook and coho salmon inhabiting summer rearing areas that are susceptible to severe winter 2-15 conditions migrate to lakes and streams where ice and water conditions are more favorable for winter survival. During their second sumer, juvenile coho salmon migrate back to these areas. Chinook salmon migrate directly to the ocean. Juvenile coho salmon generally spend a second winter in freshwater before migrating to the ocean. Since most adult sockeye salmon spawn in lake systems, their offspring generally remain in those lake systems for two years before migrating seaward. Pink and chum salmon fry migrate to the ocean after emergence from spawning grounds rather than overwintering in freshwater. The Susitna River drainage is the major spawning drainage in Cook Inlet for chinook, pink, and chum salmon. Significant runs of sockeye also use the extensive lake system associated with the Susitna River drainage, including the Yentna, Skwentna and Talachulitna River. All salmon use the offshore and estuarine coastal habitat area as they prepare to enter these river systems. Freshwater fish in the District coastal area includes land locked coho, rainbow trout, grayling, northern pike, burbot, and whitefish. Northern pike are considered non-native to the area as a result of illegal introductions into the waters of the Mat-Su Borough. Other freshwater fish found in the lakes, rivers, and streams of the coastal area include sticklebacks, suckers, and sculpins. The majority of the clear water streams, lands and rivers in the coastal area are important for sustaining freshwater fish. The larger rivers, such as the Susitna River, are used primarily for migration and as essential wintering habitat when ice inhibits activities in many of the small tributaries. The Susitna River drainage provides many of the most important recreational fishing rivers and streams in the state. Statistics indicate that the Deshka River, Lake Creek, Alexander Creek, Clear Creek, Little Willow Creek, Rabbit Slough, Kepler Lake Complex, Lucille Lake, Big Lake and the Nancy Lake Recreation Area are some of the most heavily fished rivers and lakes. Statistics also indicate that Finger Lake, Little Susitna River, Sheep Creek, Willow Creek and Montana Creek are the most heavily fished areas. 2-16 Rivers, streams and lakes throughout the District provide good harvests of coho salmon, Dolly Varden and grayling. Chinook salmon within the District are caught primarily on drainages on the west side of the Susitna River, especially the Deshka River and Alexander Creek. The east side drainages provide the greatest pink and chum salmon catches; Willow and Montana Creeks are prime producers of pink salmon, and Willow Creek, Montana Creek, and the Little Susitna River are prime producers of chum salmon. Drainages between and including the Little Susitna River and Knik Arm provide the largest harvests in the District for landlocked salmon, sockeye salmon and rainbow trout. Finger and Lucille Lakes have the highest catch of landlocked salmon, while the Little Susitna River has the highest catch of coho salmon. Cottonwood Creek generally has the highest catch of sockeye salmon while the Little Susitna River has the second largest harvest of sockeye salmon. The Big and Kepler Lakes have the highest harvest of rainbow trout. WATER RESOURCES The water found within the District is a renewable resource that has increasing demands placed on it as development of the District increases. The District's natural users of water include vegetation, fish and wildlife. Development within the District can potentially lead to a multitude of new demands on the water resource. These demands can include community development, timber harvesting, road building, oil and gas development, mining, sand and gravel extraction, fish hatcheries, irrigation and hydroelectric development. A significant demand for any type of development is community 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 gallons per day (gpd) per capita. In remote areas, such as Skwentna where individuals are sometimes required to carry water by hand, consumption typically drops to about 5 gpd per capita. Although some of the above mentioned development users are not currently utilizing the water resources of the District, the potential does exist and therefore (ultimately) their development will affect the District's 2-17 natural watershed characteristics and its water quality. Many watershed problems within the District are associated with landforms or slopes where geologic erosion and sediment production is naturally high. These areas can be particularly sensitive to such upland activities as timber harvesting and transportation corridor construction. On many of these landforms, however, influences, such as shallow slopes, coarse-textured soils with high permeability, thick organic layers, and rapid revegetation, render the land less sensitive to human activities. Geologic factors within the District also influence the amount and quantity of ground water available through structure and distribution of aquifers. Landforms and water currents influence the mixing characteristics of water, an important consideration in disposing of treated and untreated wastes. The following inventory presents a summary of surface and ground water resources and quality, and associated water resources' analysis. Surface Water Resources The Susitna and Matanuska Rivers are the two major streams bordering most of the developed land in the District. Numerous smaller streams, which are tributaries to the Susitna and Matanuska Rivers or to Upper Cook Inlet or Knik Am, also provide a potential surface water source for the comminities in the District. Most of the major streams in the District 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 silt and glacial flour. The average discharge of gaged streams in the District (such as the Knik, Matanuska, Susitna, Little Susitna, and Skwentna Rivers), indicates that there is an ample supply of surface water available from these streams. This average discharge is typically exceeded in the months of May through September when rainfall, glacier melt and snowmelt 2-18 are at a maximum. Peak flows typically occur in June, 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. 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 until late April or May. There are many lakes in the District which can be termed surface water resources. The largest lakes include Big Lake, Wasilla Lake, Lake Lucille and Nancy Lake which are all used for recreational purposes. Most lakes feed small streams and therefore contribute to their flow regulation. Ground Water Resources The best potential source of ground water in the District is located in the Susitna lowlands. Well yields of 1,000 gpm (gallons per minute) can be expected near major streams in this area. Most wells serving communities in the District yield 10 to 50 gpm. The Palmer city well #3 located north of Palmer has yielded 325 gpm at a well depth of 625 feet; an irrigation well south of Palmer typically yields 200 gpm at a depth of 95 feet; and the well at Big Lake summer camp yields 300 gpm at a well depth of 31 feet. Well water in the District is characteristically 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 Wasilla and westward. The most successful wells are drilled 50 to 150 feet below the surface. Wells that yield 10 to 50 gpm are usually 75 to 150 feet deep. Springs occur along the base of the mountains in the District. The largest known spring is located near Palmer where it flows at a rate of 150 to 200 gpm. 2-19 Water Quality All major rivers are sustained primarily by snow and glacial melt water. 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 District has been recorded in the Knik River near Palmer (See Appendix C). The average annual yield for this area is 6,000 tons per year. The Knik, Matanuska and Susitna Rivers and Susitna River tributaries carry the bulk of sediment load during the summer months. 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 than ground water. It is also softer than ground water. Generally speaking, the quality of surface water in the District 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/1 and is mainly of the calcium magnesium bicarbonate type. The Matanuska River near Palmer contains a higher concentration of sulfate than other streams in the District. This phenomena is attributed to the presence of coal mines near Palmer, the drainage from which enters tributaries of the Matanuska River. A high iron content is known to exist in ground water within the District. Water taken from shallow wells drilled in alluvium contain high concentrations of iron. Ground water resources characteristically 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 well water in the area. The presence of sulfate in the well is attributed to the theory that the well 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 well seems to fluctuate with the river level and sulfate content. Palmer well water also contains a high concentration of boron. Both 2-20 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 Palmer and Wasilla. The nitrate present in this region appears to be geologic in origin. Water Resources Analysis Surface water and ground water resources in the District are largely untapped. Lakes and streams can provide large quantities of water throughout the year. Ground water is plentiful in the aquifer along the Susitna River and its tributaries. Future water needs for the District communities of Palmer, Wasilla, Houston, Willow, Big Lake and Montana can be supplied from this aquifer. Following is a water resources analysis of these communities. 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 the Matanuska River east of town. The ground water source near Fishhook Road appears to be intermittent. Some wells in the area have dried up or yield only a minimum amount of water. Other wells in the area are providing adequate quantities of water. Wasilla - There is an adequate supply of ground water available near Wasilla, although the water is close to the surface and contamination of the shallow ground water aquifer and lakes is possible. Wells were contaminated by adjacent septic tanks in 1970. Houston - The supply of ground water available to Houston is sufficient to meet the present and projected future needs of its population. Willow - Willow water supplies are adequate. 2-21 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. CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY The climate of the District is in the transition zone between coastal and continental climates. The annual precipation 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 is shown in Appendix C. The highest recorded temperature in the Borough, outside of the coastal management district was 91° F in Talkeetna. The lowest recorded temperature in the District was -56° F in Willow. The coldest period usually occurs in January, while the highest temperatures usually occur in June because of the amount of sunlight and less cloud cover. As the mean daily temperature rises, breakup (ground thawing) begins in late March or early April and continues through the month of May in same poorly drained areas. In the fall, rapidly decreasing sunshine causes the mean daily temperature to decrease below 32° F on about October 25 each year. Lower temperatures are generally associated with higher elevations in the District. Mean annual precipitation recorded within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough varies from 14 to 29 inches, which includes snowfall of about 45 to 119 inches. Mean annual precipitation would be greater at higher elevations. About one half of the total precipitation occurs as snow in the winter and about one half is contributed by rains. The amount of precipation in the District is inadequate for most agricultural development and irrigation is required. (See Appendix C). 2-22 Air quality in the District is classified by the Department of Environmental Conservation as Class 2 P.S.D. (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) which is considered excellent. The most significant pollutant is currently not associated with industrial development, but is blowing dust which occurs naturally in the District from associated winds. Winds can 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. Winds in the District of Upper Cook Inlet are generally moderate; however, they occasionally are very gusty during the winter months. High speed winds occur throughout the basin when an atmospheric pressure gradient is established over the entire Inlet. Average wind speeds are low. Prevailing winds in December and January are northerly and have the lowest average wind speed. 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 downslope 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. 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 the Interior. These winds start as low level air movement from the Copper River Basin, moving westward through the Matanuska River Valley, turning southward near the Palmer area and then flowing down Cook Inlet. 2-23 Southeast winds flowing over the Chugach Range are called "Knik Winds" when they blow across Knik Galcier and "Turnagain Winds" when they blow across Turnagain Arm. Wind speeds of 100 mph have been recorded at the west base of Chugach Mountain valleys (Eagle River, Peters Creek, Ship Creek). These speeds diminish rapidly as the winds spread 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. 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. Air inversions within the District can create hazards if traffic or industrial facilities increase. 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. The potential development of the Point MacKenzie area could produce more pollution for Anchorage. However, the concentrations of S05, NO,, and NO, are presently very low level in the Anchorage airshed. These substances are the major pollutants produced by a petroleum facility. GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICAL HAZARDS The District is located within 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 2-2) lies approximately 400 km (250 miles) south of the Borough. Numerous geologic hazards in the District 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, Eagle River, Bruin Bay and Castle Mountain cross the District and are 2-24 “7ept. barrow 4 McKINLEY STRAND fs 2 CASTLE MTN. FAULT eS 3 FAIRWEATHER FAULT %~ Indicates epicenter of February 28, 1979, St. Elias earthquake, the most recent large event in the region. @fairbanks MATANUSKA ketchikan Figure 2-2 part of a broad arcuate fault system including the Denali and Fairweather faults to the east of the Borough boundaries. Faults classified as active are those along which there has been displacement within the last 100,000 years. The active fault within the District includes the Castle Mountain Fault. The McKinley Strand of the Denali Fault is also active and is found outside of the coastal management district in the Borough. (Figure 2-2). Mount Spurr, which is located 13 km (8 miles) south of the District boundary, is the northernmost volcano in a chain of 24 active volcanic centers extending along the Alaska Peninsula. (Figure 2-2). This active volcanoe is a surface expression of the subducting plate beneath the District. Due to the andesitic composition of the volcanos, eruptions tend to be explosive. Regionally, the District is within a highly active tectonic setting with resultant seismic and volcanic phenomenon. The District is bounded on three sides by mountain ranges. The Alaska Range forms the west and north boundary, while the Talkeetna and Chugach Mountains collectively form the eastern boundary. The Matanuska River Valley is bounded on the north by the Talkeetna Mountains and on the south by the Chugach Mountains. (Figure 2-1). The following geological information summarizes data from Matanuska-Susitna Borough Surficial Geology (Generalized) with Distribution of Mineral Discoveries, by A.L. Renshaw Jr., June 1979. Bedrock geology in the westcentral and central Alaska Range is primarily stratified sedimentary rocks of Mesozoic age with a southeastern wedge of Upper Tertiary continental deposits. The westcentral Alaska Range is intruded by Mesozoic felsic to intermediate composition igneous rocks which are expressed topographically by Mount Spurr (quartz monzonite to granite), and Mount Susitna and Little Mount Susitna mountains (granodiomite 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 2-25 rocks with a central core of Jurassic through Tertiary felsic igneous rock. A segment of Paleozoic rock crops out in the center of the batholith. Younger Mesozoic metasedimentary rock crop out in the northwestern Talkeetna Mountains. Slivers of Paleozoic sedimentary and Mesozoic metamorphic rocks crop out in the southwestern Talkeetna Mountains along the Castle Mountain Fault, which traverses the southern edge of the Talkeetna Mountains through the District. Bedrock geology along the walls of the Matanuska River 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 Valley floor is composed of Tertiary and Cretaceous felsic igneous rock. The main portion of the District is occupied by the Cook Inlet-Susitna Lowland, which is overlain by glacially derived Pleistocene deposits. Periods of glaciation have sculpted the lowlands and surrounding mountains. The earliest and most extensive glaciations have been Mount Susitna and Caribou Hills. 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. 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 following glaciations the Matanuska-Knik ice lobe did not coalesce with ice flowing down the Susitna River. The District contains landforms which resulted from glacial, fluvial, lacustrine, periglacial and paludal processes. During the glacial 2-26 advances, bedrock was scoured and debris was 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 District lowlands, the drumlins and ridges give way to flat, poorly drained areas of glaciolacustrine deposits. These lowlands are underlain by a thick sequence of coalbearing 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 District. Alluvial fans are extensive along the Alaska Range front and a few occur in the Talkeetna and Chugach Mountains outside of the District. A large alluvial fan deposit has accumulated where the Matanuska and Knik Rivers drain into the Knik Arm. (Appendix C contains a geological glossary) . Mineral Resources Metallic mineral deposits exist throughout the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Lode deposits generally occur along the borders of large igneous intrusions and along major fracture zones. Copper and associated minerals are found in the northern section of the Borough, the Alaska Range and the Talkeetna Mountains. Gold is indigenous to the entire Borough and is the primary mineral mined during the past 80 years, with a recent increase in hard rock gold mining activity. Other metallic minerals, such as tin, platinum and copper, have been mined mainly as by-products associated with gold mining. Coal and gravel are the principal economic, non-metallic resources available in the Borough and coastal district. Major coal deposits occur in the Broad Pass, Susitna and Matanuska Coal Fields. Matanuska and Broad Pass deposits have been mined since the early 1900's. Large potential reserves have also been identified in the Susitna-Beluga Fields, although no mining development has occurred to date. 2-27 Oil and gas leases occur throughout the Susitna River Basin, with the heaviest concentration in the southern portion of the basin adjoining upper Cook Inlet. Most District lands, appear at this time, however, to have low petroleum potential. HAZARDS Flooding The quantity of water flowing past a given point in a specified unit of time is called discharge; it is usually expressed in cubic feet per second (cfs), gallons per minutes (gpm) or million gallons per day (mgd). Flood discharges on several streams within the District have been calculated by the U.S. Geologic Survey from records of previous maximum known flood events, theoretical calculations and are included in Appendix C. A standard flood which is used for establishing floodplain boundaries for planning purposes is the 100 year flood. Such a flood has a one percent chance of occurrence in any year, or a 26 percent chance of occurring in a 30 year period. It is advantageous to locate new construction out of the floodplain of a 100 year flood, or if it is necessary to construct within the floodplain, locate the construction on fill or above the flood elevation. Estimated 100 year flood discharges for various streams in the District are given in Appendix C. The 100 year floodplain boundaries within the District 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 interval flood. 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. 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. 2-28 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 capability 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. Because of the increased flooding as a basin is developed, structures built adjacent to the present 100 year floodplain may be in the 100 year floodplain within a decade if substantial development occurs. Damaging floods from the Knik River in the District have been found to occur only when Lake George, a glacier-dammed lake, releases its waters; the largest such flow occurred in 1958 when a peak of 359,000 cfs was recorded. Very little private property damage has been documented other than some damage to crops and cleared land. 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. Lake George is the largest and best documented glacier-dammed lake in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and probably all of Alaska. The Knik River near Palmer is famous for destructive outburst flooding from Lake George. Since 1918, at least, the lake emptied annually, 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 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. Since 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 fran 1949 to 1966 changed systematically rather than 2-29 randomly as is usual for non-outburst 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. The maximum flood discharge per unit area of 300 cfs/mi? associated with the release of Lake George is roughly six times the value that would be expected for a 100 year flood on a river of that size. Other glacier-dammed lakes also affect streams in the District; these include Strandline Lake affecting the Beluga River in the southwest corner of the District and many small unnamed lakes affecting the Matanuska, Skwentna, Yentna, Kahiltna, Tokositna and Chulitna Rivers. Strandline Lake released in mid-July 1979, causing large floods along the Beluga River. 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 District have recently been studied in detail by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (1982). A detailed study by the Corps of Engineers (1980) has been done for the Willow area which has been rated low average in hazard potential. (See Appendix C). Willow Creek and its tributary Deception Creek were studied in detail, the results of which indicated that approximately 3900 acres (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. 2-30 In another study by the 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 miles upstream of the Parks Highway to its mouth at the 100 year floodplain included approximately 1,400 acres (2.3 mi’) in the Little Willow 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 general summary of the flood hazard potential of several commnities in the District indicate that flood hazard potential is mostly due to stream overflow and local drainage problems. (See Appendix C). The frequency of occurrence is generally low to low-average and the majority of the communities that were rated were given a low flood hazard rating. 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. (It should again be noted here that the Federal Emergency Management Agency recently - November 1982 - released a preliminary Flood Insurance Study which will aid the District in the identification of flood hazards and administration of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973). Icing Icings (also called aufeis, naleds, and glaciation) are defined 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 braided river floodplains, at culverts, 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; 2-31 2. A subsurface constriction such as bedrock, less pervious 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 are a relatively localized hazard in the District and have been found to occur along portions of Willow, Montana, Wasilla and Bodenburg Creeks. Many areas in the District have the potential to be affected by icings, including nonflood plain areas. Icings forming in stream channels reduce the capacity of the channel to carry flow, resulting in more extensive flooding than would otherwise occur during spring runoff. Stream Bank Erosion Stream bank erosion results from any single or combination of processes that include: 1. High water velocities eroding and transporting the material from the site; 2. Thawing of ice rich soils, which, as a result, lose their structural stability and slide into the stream channel; 3. Ice blocks being transported during breakup, gouging material from the banks; 4. Wind driven waves impacting the banks; and 5. 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 may cause increased bank erosion or bed scour elsewhere along the stream. Similar to icings, stream bank erosions is a localized hydrologic 2-32 hazard. Stream bank erosion problems are likely in certain locations along the major rivers and streams in the District. Communities in the District with potential stream bank erosion hazard problems include Palmer and Wasilla. Ice The highest concentrations of sea ice are formed north of the forelands in Upper Cook Inlet. Several different types of ice are found including sea ice, beach ice, stamukas, estuary and river ice. Sea ice is formed by freezing of a thick 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 and covering 3 to 4 tenths of the Inlet. Sea ice is more abundant in Cook Inlet than the other types of ice listed above. Two forms of sea ice - floe ice and block ice - are the most prevalent forms of ice found in the District. The movement of block ice and floes in Upper Cook Inlet is controlled 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 floes. 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 hour period by winds. Excessively large floes are not formed in Knik Arm because of the large 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 it on the flats with some pieces stacked 6n top of others. High tides pick up these cakes of ice and carry them to mid-stream where current velocities are maximum. In mid-channel, 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, floe travel is restricted to Upper Cook Inlet. 2-33 Most ice blocks are formed as shore-fast ice or are built up on the periodically flooded mud flats in Upper Kink Arm. Ice blocks are 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 ice forms on the mud flats of the District when the ebbing tide exposes the mud to cold air, causing the upper layer of mud to freeze. Water overlying the frozen mud freezes on flood tide. Beach ice is eventually pulled away from 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 floes become lodged on top of stamukas when the tide recedes. Overhanging pieces can break off and produce ice cakes as great as 20 feet thick. Estuary and river ice are produced by freezing of fresh water. Estuary ice isa thin crust of ice that forms over mud flats and shallows in the District. 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. The location and size of icings is very site specific. Icings also change in size from one year to the next as a result of different climatic conditions controlling their formation. For example, climatological conditions in the Point MacKenzie area of the District generally produce about two and one-half feet of floe ice during the ice season. However, the mean floe size for a 100 year recurrence period is three and one-half feet. Any floes forming or being carried into Cook Inlet are broken up by large tidal variations and currents. 2-34 Occasionally, floes reach 1,000 feet in diameter. Ice coverage for the entire Cook Inlet can reach a maximum 30 to 40 percent. Constraints associated with ice hazard in the District include restrictions on development adjacent to the coastline and special design considerations for structures built in Upper Cook Inlet and Knik Arm waters. Ice floes that are moved by tides and winds can gouge shorelines, cause shoreline erosion and can exert significant forces on offshore structures. Stamukas, shorefeast ice and beach ice can remove surface layers on beach material if the ice is lifted by high tides and transported away by tidal currents or winds. Such material removal may impact near shore development projects within the District. Seismicity As a result of its dynamic tectonic setting, the Uniform Building Code has placed the District in Seismic Zone 4 (on a scale of 0-4) where structural damage caused by earthquakes is generally the greatest. Damage due to earthquakes is caused primarily by ground rupture, ground failure and ground shaking. Ground rupture damage is usually restricted to the area on or near the fault tract. Ground failure in the form of liquefaction may occur in the District in areas of thick unconsolidated deposits where the water table is at or near the ground surface. Areas of potential liquefaction in the District include the flood plains of major streams and alluvial fans. Ground shaking effects can be amplified in the areas of fine silt 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 including local uplift and subsidence, consolidation of soils, landslides and avalanches. Records from the 1964 Alaska earthquake indicate that structural damage in the District was minor with landslides recorded on Point MacKenzie. Ground cracking occurred in the swampy areas along streams. Cracks were also 2-35 noted on the alluvial fans which flank the Chugach Mountains on either side of the Knik River Valley. Storms Storms like ice are another hazard of oceanic origin that contribute to the District's coastal erosion. Storm winds produce "sea waves" of significant height and intensity of which are capable of eroding and significantly altering beach formations. Shorelines composed of loose gravel and fine-grained sand such as those within the District coastline are generally more vulnerable to significant wave damage, whereas, rocky headlands and high sea cliffs are not. Storm waves in upper Cook Inlet generally seldom exceed four feet. Mass Wasting Hazards related to mass wasting in the District include landslides, avalanches and rock glaciers. These phenomenon can be seismically induced or result from the particular rock structure, seasonal spring thaw and slope of the debris, rock or snow. Landslide describes the downhill movement of earth, rock, mud or debris such as the occurence along the vegetated bluffs of the District. Avalanche refers to similar movements of snow and ice. Processes which trigger landslides are rainfall, erosion, earthquakes and man-induced cutting and filling. Mass movement phenomenon usually affect lower mountain slopes and the margins of valley floors and are especially active during periods of spring thaw. Avalanche chutes are present on steep mountain slopes (30-40°) but are most abundant in the north and east areas of the District including Mount Susitna. Avalanche hazard is directly related to snow accumulation and steep slopes, specifically those greater than 30 degrees. Spring runoff on south facing 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 accumilate at the bottom of the chutes near the base of the valley walls. 2-36 Rock glaciers are located on many floors of narrow mountain valleys. These landforms are developed from talus and other mass wasting debris which form tongues of rock fragments moving slowly downslope. Rock glaciers are generally found Borough-wide and not necessarily within the District. Volcanic Mount Spurr is located 13 km south of the District boundary and is the closest active volcanic peak to the District. As a result of Mount Spurr's close proximity, primary volcanic hazards are considered a threat. These volcanic hazards 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 in 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. 2-37 INTRODUCTION As the first Russian explorers arrived in Alaska in the eighteenth century, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough was already thinly settled by Athabascan Indians, specifically by the Tanaina group. Although the Athabascans moved seasonally and led a subsistence way of life as hunters, fishers, and gathers, they established only scattered villages in the Cook Inlet region. The area remained thinly settled through the early twentieth century by which time settlement was limited to the native village of Tyonek (outside of Borough) and a few scattered homesites. During the following decades, additional incentives for settlement were provided by gold mining, agriculture and to a lesser extent, coal. Construction of the Alaska railroad between 1915 and 1917 opened local markets for Matanuska Valley agricultural products and attracted an influx of homesteaders. Coal mining towns in the Borough such as Chickaloon, Eska and Sutton formed along the railroad. In 1935, the federal government initiated the Matanuska Colony farm settlement in which a group of approximately 200 families were relocated in the Matanuska Valley. The intent of the federal relocation program was to determine the feasibility of establishing a self sustaining agricultural commmnity in Alaska. The Palmer Independent School District was formed in 1935 and remained active until the formation of the Borough. Gold mining and agriculture remained the economic mainstays of the region through the mid 1960's. The Willow Creek, Nelchina, Yentna and Talkeetna mining districts were the principal locations of mining activity. Coal mining was also important economically to the area with the Jonesville coal mine providing a source of power for Anchorage until the 1960's. A farmer's cooperative served for over twenty years as the nucleus for social, political and economic development of the agriculturally 2-38 dominant Matanuska Valley until incorporation of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough as a second class borough in 1964. Throughout the latter half of the 1960's agricultural, as well as coal, output began to fade. High competition and production costs significantly reduced the amounts of agricultural activity in the Borough to levels well below the peak years attained in the early sixties. Despite a decrease in agricultural and mining activities, the area experienced substantial population growth in the 1960's and 1970's, growing at a pace comparable to Anchorage. At statehood in 1959, the total population of the area now contained in the Borough was 5,188. This climbed to 6,509 by 1970 and to over 20,000 in 1980. Much of the recent population growth is attributable to people who commute to jobs in Anchorage, the North Slope or other areas outside the Borough. Many of the existing communities and settled areas reflect historical settlement patterns. Approximately 90% of the 26,000 residents (1982) of the Borough are located within a fifteen mile radius of Wasilla, primarily in or near Palmer, Houston, Big Lake and within the coastal Management district. Other areas of relatively concentrated settlement are distributed along the Parks and Glenn Highways with increased densities at communities such as Talkeetna, Trappers Creek and Sutton. The remainder of the inhabitants are scattered throughout the Borough in rural or remote areas, often near mines or at sites accessible by water, air or rail. (It should be noted here that this section includes land status, land use, population, transportation, recreation and cultural facilities. Public facilities and services inventory and analysis is included in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Draft Comprehensive Plan). LAND STATUS State land Throughout Alaska's history, the Territory of Alaska, the University of 2-39 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 was 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 (4%) 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, 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 Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Much of the University land has been leased 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 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 (14%) 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 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 District were selected under this authority and patented to the State. (Pocket Map #3). The selection process for state land contains three distinct steps prior to final acquisition of the federal patent by the State. The process includes 2-40 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. The State is the largest land holder within the District. (Pocket Map #3). With the exception of State lands accessible by the Glenn or Parks highway, Borough roads or the Burma road, most state lands in the District are remote and accessible only by plane, boat or foot. Three State game refuges and the Nancy Lakes State Recreation Area are located within the District. In addition, the majority of lands in the District west of the Susitna are in State ownership with minor private and Borough holdings. Borough land When the Matanuska-Susitna Borough was incorporated in 1964 it 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 District are divided into selected lands, tentative approved lands and patented lands. (Pocket Map #3). 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 lands indicates a wait 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. 2-41 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 same school sites and administrative facilities, all of the Borough land was acquired from the State. Borough lands within the District are predominantly located west of the Susitna River and between the Little Susitna River and the Susitna River. (Pocket Map #3). Most of the larger parcels of Borough land are adjacent to lakes and streams with high recreational value accessible by plane, boat, foot or 4 wheel drive vehicle. Smaller parcels of Borough land are located throughout the Palmer, Wasilla and Big Lake areas as well as along the Parks and Glenn Highway Corridor. Private land Private land owvership in the District, other than Native land, has evolved through Federal land allocation laws, State land sales and Borough land sales. (Pocket Map #3). 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. Generally, private land holdings within the District (other than native corporations) are concentrated along the Glenn and Parks highway corridor and along the road network of the Palmer-Wasilla area, Big Lake area and along Knik Road. (Pocket Map #3). Numerous small private landholdings are scattered throughout the remote portions of the District west of the Susitna River as a result of State and Borough land sales. Private lands in remote areas are often waterfront holdings or 2-42 near airstrips which allow for access. Overall, the majority of private lands in the District are of high value capable of supporting development. 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 District. 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 lands conveyed to Native corporations have been identified. At one time, dual ownership occured 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) which 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.). As a result, the North Anchorage Land Agreement between the State and Eklutna, Inc. was executed in early 1983. Native lands within the District are restricted to small parcels of village selected lands in the Palmer Hay Flats and Jim-Swan Lakes areas and tracts of conveyed land to Cook Inlet Regional Corporation (CIRI) in the western portion of the District (Beluga area). The lands in the Beluga area were selected because of their high value development potential. Permits, claims and leases All of the tide and submerged lands along Knik Arm in the District 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 2-43 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 until new regulations are adopted. 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 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 District, both onshore and offshore, is available for oil and gas leasing. Very little interest has ever been shown in the eastern portion of the District. The oil and gas lease sales for Upper Cook Inlet 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 is found in the vicinity of Theodore Creek, located west of the Susitna River. LAND USE Generalized land use within the District is divided between settlement 2-44 areas (those areas adjacent to the Parks and Glenn highway corridors and the Palmer-Wasilla-Big Lake road network) and those remote areas accessible only by plane, boats or foot. Settlement related uses and activities are dominant in the Palmer-Wasilla-Big Lake area and along the Parks and Glenn highway corridor. Such settlement uses include residential subdivision, local businesses, commercial and industrial services, recreational use, timber processing, tourism and agriculture. Uses most prevalent in the remote reaches of the District include recreational, hunting, fishing, placer mining, commercial trapping and bush settlement. Agriculture The period fram 1910 through 1914 represented the first period of active agricultural homesteading in the Matanuska~Susitna Valley. Significant commercial agricultural production did not develop until the 1950's and 1960's after the establishment of the Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station in Palmer (1917). The emphasis of the Station was on milk, forage, potatoes and vegetable production and set the pace for the fast growing agricultural industry which peaked in 1962. Since then increasing production costs, competition, taxes and aging farmers has led to a decrease in agricultural activity. Although the bulk of cultivable soils lie between the drainages of the Yentna and Susitna Rivers, the majority of farming currently takes place around Palmer and the Matanuska River Valley. Agriculture potential in the Borough is a function of the demand for local agricultural products and competing uses for agricultural lands (e.g. subdivision, speculation, commercial development etc.). The impacts of high labor and production costs on the ability of Alaskan farmers to compete with outside suppliers and the development of a necessary production and distribution infrastructure, including roads, processing plants and marketing facilities continues to place Matanuska-Susitna Borough farmers at an economic disadvantage when compared to outside farmers. 2-45 Despite such factors, the potential exists for future increased agricultural production in the Borough. The Point MacKenzie Agricultural and Dairy Project (Pocket Map #3) has recently attempted to reestablish the local agricultural economy within the Borough. The establishment of a State and Borough land base for agriculture and the development of road access into prime agricultural areas are prerequisites for a sound agricultural presence in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Timber Processing The Matanuska-Susitna Borough forests are not particularly dense; stands of birch, spruce, and limited poplar species including aspen, cottonwood and balsam poplar are interspersed with swampy areas. Additionally, the District's tree species are small when compared to the coastal species. Many of the timber lands within the Borough are in State ownership. The State makes lands available at a fee considerably less than Washington and Oregon. There are several factors which have constrained the development of a major timber industry in the Borough including high logging, transportation and milling costs. In addition, much of the logging operation must be restricted to sporadic operation during the winter months when swamps are frozen. The Borough imports most of its lumber and has historically been unable to meet the increasing demands for firewood, houselogs and finished lumber. The lack of access and necessary infrastructure, lack of timber sales on public forest lands, the small size of individual private forest areas, and the high costs of logging, transportation and milling have and will continue to constrain forestry potential in the Borough. There are a number of conditions which are prerequisites to the further development of the local forest industry including a committed resource base from which a relatively continuous supply of commercial quality raw material can flow. Loggers and mill operators will not risk capital on the current tenuous and intermittent supply of timber. In addition, one 2-46 of the major reasons why the industry has been unable to develop a market for processed products (finished limber, veneer, etc.) is that they have been unable to guarantee a continuous supply of the products. It is also important that sale contracts be let for periods longer than a single season. Existing loggers and mill operators complain of being uanble to borrow money bacause of not being able to show a guaranteed source of timber for a few years. This can only be done through longer term timber contracts (3 to 5 years). Subsurface Minerals Most of the Borough has low potential for oil and gas development. Only noncommercial traces of gas have been found to date in the Susitna basin. Oil and gas leases are dispersed throughout the Susitna basin with concentration heaviest in the southern portion which adjoins the Upper Cook Inlet basin. Industry interest in the Susitna basin portion of the state oil and gas lease sale no. 33 (May 1981) was low. Several tracts were leased but most of the sale activity occurred in the Upper Cook Inlet basin where commercial oil and gas finds exist. State lease sales no. 40 and no. 49, scheduled for 1983 and 1986 respectively, will include lands not previously offered or areas not leased in the basin. The known coal resources of the District include the Susitna and Beluga Coal Fields. (Pocket Map #6). Due to topography and limited access routes, exploration and exploitation of these resources has been minimal. The quality of the coal in the Susitna Coal Field ranges from sub-bituminous to lignite. The majority of this field has low potential for coal development. Attention has recently been focused on coal deposits in the Beluga area, especially at the western edge of this field which is outside of the District boundary. Beluga coal has high potential for near term development because its large reserves have close proximity to tidewater for transportation and there appears to be developable Pacific-Rim markets for this resource. There are an estimated 500 million tons of coal which could be surface mined in the Beluga deposits and an estimated gross potential of 55 billion tons in the entire Susitna Coal Field Range. 2-47 Recreation The District and adjacent lands within the Borough are richly endowed with natural resources providing unlimited opportunities for recreational uses and activities. The majority of the District is considered remote and without road access. Areas accessible by road, particularly along the Parks and Glenn Highway Corridors and the Palmer-Wasilla-Big Lake road network are extremely important in providing access for the greatest amount of people to the most varied recreational opportunities including boating, overnight camping, picnicing, berry picking, fishing, hunting, cross-country skiing, snowmachining, dog mushing, wildlife viewing and hiking. Access via air, river, snow machine, horse, foot or all-terrain vehicles to the remote reaches of the District and adjacent Borough lands provides a rustic and natural experience for the recreational enthusiast. Increasing competition from other land uses, and increasing user demands both in terms of number of users and range of recreational opportunities sought by these users, place limitations upon the ability of the natural recreational resources to meet the public need. The enhancement and creation of recreational facilities, such as parks, is one method of responding to this need. Development of Boroughwide trail and river access programs, expansion of existing recreational facilities and cooperative State and local management of recreational opportunities are also methods of responding to this need. Although the Matanuska-Susitna Borough has area-wide parks and recreation authority, these powers have historically not been exercised to the degree available. Typically local parks and recreation projects such as playgrounds and ballfields are built and maintained by the Cities of Palmer, Wasilla and Houston, non-profit organizations and the Borough School District. State recreational facilities within the Borough are under the jurisdiction of the Alaska State Park System. 2-48 Tourism Outdoor recreation is the primary drawing force for the Matanuska-Susitna 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 camping. Fishin and boating are popular on the many lakes and streams in the Borough. Hunters are attracted to the region by the abundance of moose and caribou and by various waterfowl found in the extensive tidal marshes bordering Knik Arm. Other attractions include historic sites at Wasilla and Knik, skiing and snowmobiling and scenic vistas found Borough wide. The out-of-state tourist visiting the Borough has been increasing. Out- of-state tourists 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). Hunters using the Matanuska-Susitna Borough are principally from Anchorage. The Glenn and Parks Highways are the principal take-off points for hunting, fishing and most other activities. Consequently most lodges, facilities, etc., are located at regular intervals along those transportation routes. Other points of destination in the Borough include State and local public campgrounds, Nancy Lake State Recreation Area, Denali State Park, Hatcher Pass, Talkeetna and Lake Louise. Tourism and recreation is, and will continue to be, an important and expanding sector of the Borough economy. As the Borough experiences significant population growth in the years ahead, tourism will increase the demand for recreational oopportunities. It is important for the Borough to establish and secure an adequate land base to provide recreational opportunities as more public land becomes private. (Note: A tourism study for the Borough entitled Phase II Development Plan, Overall Tourism Development Program for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, was completed in March, 1982 by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co.). 2-49 POPULATION Populational trends Population levels within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough in recent years have been volatile. Growth characteristics have varied greatly between 1960 and the present. During the 1960's, the population of the Borough increased by over 25% from 5,188 in 1960 to 6,509 people in 1970. The majority of the increase occurred between 1960 and 1966 when the popu- lation reached 6,481. This represents a 24.9% increase. Between 1966 and 1970 the population increased only by .4%. In the 1970's the popu- lation growth levels increased rapidly but continued to fluctuate. During that decade the overall population of the Borough increased by almost 200%. A number of different estimates have been used for the current population of the Borough. The 1980 census indicated a population of 17,776 in 1980. The Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs certified the estimated 1981 population as 19,123. The Department of Community and Regional Affairs determined the 1982 population of the Borough to be 26,002. Even the lowest of these figures indicates a strong growth during the previous decade. Figure 2-3 shows the percent of growth per year between 1970 and 1982. This table is based upon the Matanuska-Susitna Borough's census counts and population estimates. 2-50 Figure 2-3 ANNUAL GROWTH RATES 1970 - 1981 Year Population Growth Rate 1970 6,509 (census) -- 1971 7,337 (estimate) 12.7% 1972 7,176 (estimate) -2.2% 1973 8,170 (census) 13.9% 1974 9,600 (estimate) 17.5% 1975 10,848 (estimate) 13.0% 1976 14,606 (count) 34.6% 1977 16,724 (estimate) 14.5% 1978 20,370 (estimate) 21.8% 1979 23,177 (estimate) 13.8% 1980 17,776 (census) -23.3% 1981 19,123 (estimate) 7.6% 1982 26,002 (sample census) 35.2% The overall growth trend shown in figure 2-3 indicates a strong underlying population base development while still allowing for significant fluctuation. In the early 1970's a strong growth of 12% and 14% per year reflected the overall growth in the southcentral region that resulted from anticipation of the pipeline development. As the pipeline was delayed for construction the growth declined in the 1972-1973 period. As the pipeline construction began in full swing through the mid-1970's, pipeline-associated growth in the Borough increased rapidly with a peak of growth in 1976 of over 34%. The total growth between 1973 and 1977 was over 100%. Communities throughout the State have historically been characterized with boom and bust economies which has made it difficult for governmental planning and long term business investment to succeed. The Borough's growth rate has been more on the plus side and less on the "bust" side. TRANSPORTATION The Borough, as part of its comprehensive planning process, conducted a 2-51 study to evaluate transportation needs in the Borough and coastal management district. (Pocket Map #4). The study inventoried nonstate roads and made recommendations for improvement of the existing Borough maintained transportation system and projected future transportation needs at the local level. Copies of this plan are available from the Borough Department of Planning. Roads The 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. Completion of the Parks Highway in 1971 was an important step in land transportation by allowing access to the north half of lands west of the Susitna River. The following section contains a discussion of State DOT/PF and Borough transportation proposals within, or possibly having significant impact on the District. STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION/PUBLIC FACILITIES CONSIDERATIONS (DOT/PF) Both short term and long term transportation possibilities are being considered. Short term refers to projects that are presently receiving serious study (e.g., preliminary feasibility/engineering studies), but are not yet funded by the legislature. Long term refers to those projects that have been only informally discussed. No decision has been made to fund long term projects; nor has an appropriate transportation mode (road or rail) been determined. Only general routes have been recommended. Short Term Possibilities 1. Knik Arm Crossing: The crossing has been under consideration for at least 15 years. A preliminary engineering study is 2-52 2. presently being done and is expected to be completed in October 1984. If the state legislature decides to fund the project, the crossing is expected to be campleted within five years after construction begins. The cost of the project will depend on the type of structure built. Preliminary costs for one alternative from Elemendorf Air Force Base, across Knik Arm, through the Matanuska-Susitna Borough north to Houston, has been estimated at $513.7 million (1983 $) and $640.4 million (1989 $). The crossing would tie Anchorage to Point MacKenzie, and provide a route that would shorten the distance between Anchorage and Fairbanks by 30-50 miles depending upon which alternative route is built. Past studies indicate that the crossing would bring substantial residential development pressures in the southern portion of the District and stimulate economic development, including a possible industrial port/park area site at Point MacKenzie. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Access Road: A chosen corridor for rail and road leads from the existing Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad at Gold Creek and extends to the Devil Canyon Dam site. It is proposed that the Watana Dam site will be accessed by a south bound spur road from the Denali Highway. Susitna River Access: DOT/PF has developed a scheme for providing access to lands west of the Susitna River consisting of either a road, rail or both from the Parks Highway or Alaska Railroad west across the Susitna River in the vicinity of Alexander. On the west side of the river, one spur would head northwest through Rainy Pass towards McGrath. The second spur would travel south to Beluga, and from there west along the Chakachatna River, through Merrill Pass toward the Kuskokwim River. Although the system described is a long term possibility only, the District portion of the route between the Parks Highway and east side of the Susitna River is 2-53 proposed for construction to provide access to agricultural lands in the Fish Creek area within the next 10 years. Term Possibilities Susitna Road: The Susitna Road would provide access into 18,000 acres along the east side of the Susitna River from near Willow to the Susitna Game Flats. The Willow Subbasin Plan designates this area for commercial timber management with some agricultural and grazing use. The recommended route branches off the Parks Highway and travels south and parallel to the Susitna River for 24 miles. The primary use of this road would be for forestry and hunting activities, and therefore would not need to be of the same quality of other regional roads. MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH The Borough has requested the FY'84 legislature to fund two categories of roads: those of regional significance and local roads and trails. Roads of Regional Significance 1. Fish Creek Access -- Phase 1: The Borough requested $2,500,000 from the legislature to fund the engineering and construction of a road leading from Point MacKenzie west across the Little Susitna River. This segment would be the beginning of a road that would provide access to the proposed agricultural project on Borough and state lands in the Fish Creek drainage area. In addition, the Department of Natural Resources is currently preparing a detailed road layout which provides access into various portions of the Fish Creek area. (This is the first portion of a possible transportation corridor leading further west discussed under the DOT/PF proposed roads short term possibilities section.) 2-54 LOCAL ROADS AND TRAILS The Borough requested state funds to construct seven connector roads to increase the efficiency of the existing road network. The Borough also requested funding for trail maintenance, right-of-way acquisition, design and construction. The monies requested are intended for construction and maintenance of separated pathways (off road bike paths) along state maintained roads and for other off-road trails. The highest priority paths are those along the Old Glenn Highway and near schools along Bogard Road and the Palmer-Wasilla Highway. Off road trails within the Borough serve both regional and local needs. i The trails which are of regional significance include the following: (1) the first 10 miles of the Iditarod Trail off of Knik Road; (2) the i Chickaloon-Knik-Nelchina Trail system and (3) the Skwentna Ice Trail (Moose Creek to Skwentna). Trails proposed for construction which are primarily of local significance are along the west and south sides of Lazy Mountain, in the Keplar-Bradley Lake area and near Bogard-Trunk Road. Railroads The Alaska Railroad is the only railroad serving Alaska, was built by the federal government between 1914 and 1922 and to date, remains the only federally operated railroad in the country. One mainline rms north and south through the District and provides access to Fairbanks, Anchorage and Seward. A spur also 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 rail route. The Parks Highway was built paralleling the railroad line. The primary function of the railroad in the Borough is the delivery of goods, particularly gravel and timber. A passenger service is provided that allows access to Denali National Park. For residents who live beyond the end of the roadways and scheduled stopping 2-55 points, the train still stops on request. A future spur has been planned to Pt. MacKenzie supporting potential industrial and agricultural development in the Point MacKenzie area. Although there are no construction plans, analysis of a rail crossing at Knik Arm (possibly at Point MacKenzie) will be included in DOT/PF's preliminary engineering study of the Knik Arm Crossing to be completed in 1984. Air transportation There are approximately 30 small air fields which have been classified for public use in the Borough. Approximately 14 others are restricted or are in poor or uncertain condition. Lakes and other bodies of water are used for float planes, or ski planes in the winter months. Air transportation is a primary means of access to remote areas of the Borough for Anchorage recreational visitors. The largest airport in the District is the Palmer Municipal airport, 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. Water transportation There is no substantial use of waterways for anything other than pleasure craft and recreation in the District at this time. Feasibility studies are underway on possible commuter service by hovercraft via Knik Arm to Anchorage. Additionally, Anchorage is the principal port in the area for cargo bearing ships. CULTURAL FACILITIES Cultural facilities within the District include libraries and museums. Library services are provided by the Cities of Palmer and Wasilla, and non-profit library associations. The two cities have library powers within their respective communities and contract with the Borough to provide similar services to Borough residents who live outside of the Boundary. 2-56 The Knik Museum and Mushers Hall of Fame, the Wasilla Historical Museum, the Transportation museum and the Talkeetna Historical Museum are the major museums in the Borough. An additional historical museum is located in the Palmer Visitor's Center. Knik Museum The Knik Museum and Mushers Hall of Fame is located along the Knik Road approximately 14 miles south of Wasilla. The museum is housed in one of only two original structures remaining from Knik townsite. The museum, operated by the Wasilla-Knik-Willow Creek Historical Society under lease from the Borough, specializes in artifacts, paintings and photographs of Iditarod Trail races and mushers. Wasilla Museum Located in Wasilla, the Wasilla Museum is housed in a log structure built in 1931 as a community hall. Since remodeling in 1967, the building has served as both museum and visitors information center. The museum showcases a wide variety of utensils, tools and other personal items used by the area's settlers. The Wasilla-Knik-Willow Creek Historical Society also operates this facility which is leased from the City of Wasilla. Transportation Museum The Transportation Museum is located on the fairgrounds of the Alaska State Fair in Palmer. Its inventory of transportation oriented vehicles and machinery ranges from antique snowmobiles to full restored historical aircraft. The historic items are housed within an Alaskan Railroad passenger train, itself a historic means of transportation, and a recently constructed building located among the fair's complex of permanent structures. The small museum located within the Palmer Visitors Center offers tourists and visitors a view of historic items relating to the farm colony era of the Matanuska Valley. 2-57 HISTORICAL RESOURCES A Boroughwide inventory of historic sites, commissioned by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Historical Preservation and Restoration Commission, was completed in December 1981. The purpose of the survey was to locate, identify, photograph, catalogue and research a preliminary number of historic and prehistoric sites within the Borough's boundaries. The survey concentrated on sites and structures established prior to the arrival of Matanuska Valley colonists in 1935. The survey and inventory from this report is incomplete, yet provides an initial data base of information valuable to the preservation of the Borough's cultural heritage. Five buildings in the District are known to be on the National Register of Historic Places: The original Wasilla Elementary School; Teeland's Store; the Wasilla Depot; the Knik Pool Hall/Museum in Knik; and the United Protestant Church manse and garage in Palmer. Two other structures, the Wasilla Museum and the Independence Mine, are under consideration for inclusion. The major recommendations of the 1981 survey are to develop a Historic Preservation Management Plan which would incorporate, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Initiate nomination of important buildings, sites, and structures for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Buildings meeting the 50-year requirement and deemed suitable for nomination to the National Register at this time are listed below: a. Fairview School; b. Werner Farm; c. John Springer Cabin and Barn; d. Lakeview School; e. Dave Reedy Cabin; £. | Woodward Cabin and Barn; ve Forks Roadhouse; h. Chickaloon House (Lucas Place); i. Chickaloon House (Gladson House) ; 2-58 3. Chickaloon Bridge; k. Felton Fishhook House and Cabins; a Felton Store and Post Office; m. Palmer Depot; n. Willow Section House; o. Sunshine Section House; Pp. Talkeetna Section House, Tool Sheds, & Depot; q. Talkeetna Historic District; rs University Experimental Farm; s. Austin Meekins Hunting Cabin ty Roy Cornelius Homestead; u. Jake Metz Cabin; v. Wrinkle-Faced Swanson Cabin; WwW. Howard Ross Cabin and Warehouse; and x. Tyone Village. The final report also states that all of the Colony farms office buildings, stores and churches from the 1930's colonization, will meet the 50-year requirement for nomination to the National Register in 1985, at which time the list of eligible sites will immediately double or triple. Coordinate the development of the Historic Preservation Management Plan with the overall planning efforts of the Borough including the MSBCMP, the Comprehensive Development Plan and capital improvement planning. 2-59 INTRODUCTION Issues, goals and objectives are the major elements that make a district coastal management program local. Issues are identified by local people and evolve from local circumstances. They are what is important within the planning area or the major concerns that must be addressed in the planning process. They require resolution, or at least principal consideration as decisions are made concerning the future. Goals derive from issues. They are the long range purposes of the district program which in attempting to resolve local issues give the program its direction or philosophical base. Objectives are more specific and shorter range statements of aims, similar to interim goals. Usually a set of objectives is constructed with the overall aim of achieving a larger purpose or goal. Since objectives are capable of measurement and evaluation, progress toward their achievement can be perceived. Policies are the next logical construct in this chain of more and more detailed consideration of local coastal management program issues. Policies are specific courses of action which, when adopted by the responsible level(s) of government, are designed to influence and determine decisions and actions in such a way as to help achieve one or more of a plan's objectives. The District program for policy development is addressed in Chapter 5 of this plan. It is important to note here that the District's coastal resource issues are interrelated; goals may very directly support one another; each objective may aid in the accomplishment of more than one goal; and each policy may affect more than one objective. ISSUES OF THE MSBCMP Issues of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program (MSBCMP) have been identified relative to natural and cultural resources 3-1 within the District. Uses and activities of concern to coastal management programming in Alaska as defined by the Alaska Coastal Management Act (ACMA) have also been included where appropriate. The issues of the MSBCMP overlap with concerns of the other major planning efforts developing within the Borough such as the Borough Draft Comprehensive Development Plan and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga Area Plan. The major purpose of the District coastal management program is balanced management of coastal land and water resources. The balance is between development and protection of the natural and cultural resources of the Borough's coastal district. The MSBCMP is a policy statement which directs development needs associated with the District. Sources of issues of the MSBCMP are: 1. Local coastal resource inventory and analysis. Resource sensitivities, use incompatibilities, development limitations and abilities were identified through this process. 2. Local attitudes toward coastal land and water resources and their use. These attitudes were determined through direct efforts of this program (Appendix B - Public Participation Summary) and from public input gained through other planning efforts. 3. Program generated. Issues were identified by applying mandated ACMA guidelines to the District resource inventory, and identifying potential conflicts between these guidelines, pressures and needs for development. The following is a listing of issues identified through one or more of the above mentioned sources and which relate to the development of the District coastal management program. 1. 2. 3. 4. Related to General Program a. There is a strong desire for local influence over District coastal resource management and for increased local control of the resolution of issues related to coastal resource development. Coastal Development a. There will continue to be increasing and competing pressures for development within the District and for use of its coastal resources. The District has long sought to develop an industrial port/park complex at Point MacKenzie on the Knik Arm. The District continues to encourage cooperative planning and development of the Knik Arm Crossing. Coastal development which is water dependent, such as public access, should be encouraged in the District. Energy Facilities a. There is a need to cooperatively identify, plan and develop energy facilities within the District for local, regional and national interests. There is a need to minimize adverse environmental and social effects while satisfying the need for increasing energy consumption levels. There is a need to site hydroelectric facilities so as to minimize adverse impact to important fish and wildlife . habitat, scenic and other recreational values. Fisheries, Commercial Fishing, Fish and Seafood Processing a. b. Hatcheries and fisheries are important existing uses of the District's coastal resources. There is a need to maintain and support the economically significant commercial fishing industry which received over $7 million from Susitna Basin fish in 1980. This activity, in tum, generated $32 million for processors and retailers. (Preliminary figures from ADF and G, Susitna Area Plan). 3-3 5. Timber Harvest and Processing a. Cc. Insufficient land in the District is currently committed to sustained yield, long-term timber management, for the development and support of a significant and integrated local timber industry. Demand for firewood and other personal use timber products is currently greater than the ability to provide accessible supply. Demand for accessible supply will increase with the rapid residential growth being experienced in the District. Lack of access limits timber development and management. Agricultural and settlement pressures compete with needs of any potential forest industry. Development of a timber industry in the District degrades wildlife habitat, viewshed, recreational values and water quality. Mining and Mineral Processing ae Incompatible surface use reduces the potential for mineral development within the District and increases the cost of such development. Several methods of mineral extraction have the potential for destruction or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat, air, land, water quality and recreation potential. There is an increasing awareness of the need to provide access to areas with mineral development potential. Transportation a. b. Access is critical to the development of coastal land and water resources and is now inadequate. Identification and reservation of appropriate material sites (sand and gravel) is essential to road, railroad, airport and port development. Construction of transportation facilities adversely affects water quality through increased runoff, sedimentation and damages important habitat such as wetlands. 3-4 8. 10. Utilities a. The District is heavily impacted by current use and demand for utility lines and corridors. If uncoordinated, this will lead to serious waste of land and capital, interference with other development needs, creation of unnecessary visual pollution and degradation of important scenic values. Agriculture a. There is a need for more land in agricultural production to establish an industrial critical mass and to provide for agricultural self-sufficiency. Land suitable for agricultural cultivation is limited and site specific and is also in competition with other resource uses such as timber, wildlife habitat, historic, transportation, utilities and settlement. There is lack of road access to several acres of potential agricultural land. Agricultural practices are detrimental to water quality, habitat and air quality. Agricultural development in the District has historical significance to the original settlement of the area. Recreation a. b. Cc. Inadequate facilities exist to meet demand for outdoor recreational experiences. There is a need to maintain and enhance the District's high quality and readily accessible recreational values such as the human use of fish and wildlife resources including fish and wildlife viewing, scientific study and education. There is inadequate public access to fishing streams, rivers, lakes and the District coastline. Important viewsheds are threatened by insensitive development. 11. 12. ae a. Existing trails are being lost through transfer of title to land without reservation of right of way or easement through development. Tourism is widely valued in the District and requires development to attract and support this resource. Littering is a problem and is associated in part with inadequate maintenance of public recreational areas in the District. Poorly planned State land disposals threaten recreational values and access to recreational opportunities. Development immediately adjacent to major rivers and streams is not desireable and can be detrimental to public access. Subsistence Inappropriate State land disposals are interfering with a subsistence way of life in the District including excessive density compared to fish and game resources, impractical size compared to natural development limitations, poor design, obstruction of traditional access and general deterioration of environmental quality. State sports hunting and fishing laws are not compatible with the District's subsistence needs. The subsistence way of life depends upon the carrying capacity of the land to support it. The subsistence way of life is dependent upon good fish and wildlife management practices including habitat protection. The subsistence way of life equates with preservation and wise management of the natural environment. Offshore Areas and Estuaries Anadromous fish activity is dependent upon offshore and estuarine habitat and in potential conflict with oil and gas resource exploration within this coastal resource. 3-6 13. 14. 15. 16. Wetlands and Tideflats a. Wetlands as District habitat are important elements of the hydrological cycle and are threatened by development and resource use including construction of public facilities. There is a lack of definition within the District of critical wetlands which must be protected to distinguish them from others which are more expendable or at least less sensitive. Hunting pressure is concentrated in the District's wetlands where there is also a need for additional access to these habitats. Runoff from agricultural activities, including feedlots and fields to which pesticides and herbicides have been applied, is a threat to wetland habitat and water quality. : Wetland habitat is being lost through drainage caused by human activities and natural tidal action. Rocky Islands and Sea Cliffs (Condition does not exist in the District) . Vegetated Bluffs (Replaces Rocky Islands and Sea Cliffs) a. The District's vegetated bluffs offer spectacular scenic opportunities and are highly attractive for coastal development including public access. Seismic activity, wind and water erosion and landslides can create hazards in the development of these bluffs. Barrier Islands and Lagoons (Condition does not exist in the District). Exposed High Energy Coasts (Condition does not exist in the District). 3-7 17. 18. 19. Rivers, Streams and Lakes a. Issues related to rivers, streams and lakes are interrelated to all other habitats, water quality, geophysical hazards, coastal development and subsistence issues. b. Public access to fishing streams, rivers and lakes is limited, and associated recreational facilities are inadequate. c. Public access to rivers, streams and lakes is continually lost through land conversions to private ownership without easement. dad. The environmental and recreational quality of major lakes, river and stream corridors within the District is seriously degraded by poor quality development and construction. Important Upland Habitat a. Domestic livestock utilizing upland habitat can damage spawning beds for anadromous fish. b. Public access to valuable upland hunting areas is lost to private property development without retention of public access. c. Limited road access to upland game areas increases the resource and habitat pressures and detracts from the recreational experience. d. Development activities in the upland habitat can affect wetlands and river corridor habitat because of their ecological link. Air, Land and Water Quality a. Air quality issues in the District are interrelated and complicated by the proximity of metropolitan Anchorage. b. Development poses serious threats to water quality through improper timing of activities, wastewater disposal, improper development within floodplains, wetland encroachment, destruction of watershed and 20. 21. 22. inadequate construction setbacks from shorelines and stream banks. Scattered settlement without adequate public transportation encourages air pollution through increased commuter traffic. Growth of development within the District increases the competition for ground and surface water resources. Wind borne dust from silt bars in the major braided river channels of the Knik, Matanuska and Susitna Rivers is the chief air pollutant in the District. Air inversions occur in the District causing air quality problems because of certain types of industrial development, increased engine emissions and agricultural burns. Historic, Prehistoric and Archeological Resources a. Areas of the District which are important to the study, understanding or illustration of national, state or local - history must be identified and protected. There is a need for the promotion and development of a Borough-wide Historic Preservation Management Plan. There is a need for revitalizing and utilizing the District's historic resources. Geophysical Hazards a. Hazardous situations are created by ignoring geophysical and other hazards which are significant in the Distict. Development within these areas generally amplifies the hazard such as within floodplains or seismic areas. Economic Development a. There is a need for private and public economic development of the District's natural resources such as tourism, recreation and industrial potential. 3-9 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MSBCMP Issues related to one resource or use of concern within the District program often relate to others: Water quality concerns relate to the use of streams and wetlands and to mineral extraction and processing activities. This phenomena is a function of the difficulty of discretely categorizing coastal resources, the relationship between these resources, their wise use and the ecological system which draws elements of the natural environment into mutually supportive relationships. It is also apparent that specific issues have a need for conflict resolution and that issues such as lack of adequate access which affect several resource values can be summarized by providing access to all. The goals and objectives statements which follow should be viewed as interrelating to the entire list of District issues as well as toa i specific resource or use issue. GOAL I: Maximize local control over coastal land and water resource use and development decisions within the District. Objectives a. Development of the District coastal management program which addresses local needs. b. Facilitate permit procedures for all levels of government by simplifying local process, coordination and centralizing permit applications at the local level. c. Public agencies assisting contractors in obtaining required permits prior to granting of permit. d. Review and update the MSBCMP at least every two years to keep it current. e. Integrate the goals and objectives of the District coastal management program with local community plans of the Borough and the Borough Draft Comprehensive Development Plan. 3-10 Integrate the goals and objectives of the MSBCMP with the State and Borough Susitna Area Plan. Identify State and Federal actions which affect the District's coastal areas and points of coordination and standards for consideration. GOAL II: Reserve and develop adequate and appropriate space for water dependent activities adjacent to coastal waters. Objectives Identify and designate coastal areas meriting special attention within the District. Development of adequate water dependent public facilities and utilities to serve transportation, industrial, port, recreational and community needs. Identify, reserve and develop adequate public access to the District's coastal water resources. GOAL III: Incorporate design requirements for geophysical and other hazards into the development activities within the District. Objectives Inventory, analyze and update data relative to the implementation of development hazards within the District. Development, adoption and implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Act floodplain maps (1982) relating to flood hazards within the District. GOAL IV: Develop public recreational facilities which are adequate to meet local, regional and tourist demand ensuring public access to coastal land and waters resources. 3-11 Objectives Development of all outdoor recreation plans involving the District including State and Borough sponsorship. Development of public land management policies such as right-of-way or easement provisions which designate and retain public access to important scenic values and natural resources. Development of a public recreational access plan for the District. Inventory, identify and provide for adequate easements across all public lands for trails within the District. Ensure that important potential recreational areas such as Borough-wide trail corridors are not lost through public or private development projects. Development of information systems which help create public access to recreational opportunities within the District. Promote, coordinate and develop tourism planning within the objectives of the District coastal management program. GOAL V: Development of energy facilities within the District for local, regional and national needs. Objectives Energy facility development which minimizes negative environmental and recreational impacts through facility design and selection of transmission corridors. Coordination and a cooperative working arrangement between the State, Federal and Borough involved in energy facility planning, siting and development. Consolidation of energy facility corridors where feasible and prudent. Identification and development of energy facilities of local, regional and national interest including the use of coastal land and water resources for the siting of ports, mining and 3-12. mineral processing sites and hydroelectric power sites. 1. Susitna River Hydroelectric Project 2. Point MacKenzie Industrical Port/Park Site 3. Beluga Coal Fields 4. Susitna Coal Fields 5. Enstar Natural Gas Pipeline GOAL VI: Continued economic development and coordination of short and long term transportation and utility plans for the Borough including the coastal management district. Objectives Development of transportation and utility plans which coordinate design alignment and construction with State and private transportation and utility plans. Development of road and rail access plans for currently non-accessed areas of the District, especially those areas containing resources of significant economic potential such as agriculture, mining, forestry, recreation and fish and game. Identification and reservation of material sites (i.e. sand and gravel) for road, railroad, airport and port development. Coordinate trails planning and design with transportation and utility development within the District. Transportation and utility development policies which support the protection of important viewsheds and scenic values within the District. GOAL VII: Identify and designate areas of the District suitable for location and development of facilities related to fisheries and hatcheries. ; 3-13 Objectives State administration and State Legislature adequately funding fisheries rehabilitation and enhancement work for the streams north of Anchorage, particularly within the drainage of the Susitna River in the Borough. Cooperative State and Alaska Power Authority investment in fisheries and rehabilitation work which demonstrates the feasibility of maintaining and enhancing existing fish runs produced in the Susitna River. GOAL VIII: Develop sound economic timber management practices within the District. Objectives Increase land committed to sustained yield, long term timber management within the District. Identify and manage areas for personal use wood products such as firewood and house logs. Identify and improve access to areas with timber management potential. Commitment to the consideration of fish and wildlife habitat, viewshed, recreational values and water quality in the development of sound timber management practices. GOAL IX: Development of mining and mineral processing activities within the District while reducing the potential for conflicting environmental concerns. Objectives a. Reduce the potential for incompatible surface uses with mining and mineral processing activities through early coordinated planning. 3-14 Provision of increased access to areas with high mineral development potential. Development of mitigation policies addressing water sedimentation, groundwater depletion activities, fish and wildlife habitat, air and land quality and recreation values. GOAL X: Identify, establish and develop an economically viable agricultural industry within the District which contributes to the State and local economy. Objectives Development of an agricultural preservation program for the aquisition of development rights in agricultural lands in the District to maintain agricultural lands in agricultural productim. | 2 Develop acess to lands through roads, railroads, ‘ts and other transportation facilities with high potential for agricultural use in the District. j Regulate agricultural practices which may result in © environmental impacts posing threats to wildlife, habitats or human activities. GOAL XI: Recognize and protect the subsistence way of life in the District. Objectives a. Wildlife management practices which support the subsistence way of life. State and Borough remote settlement policies which provide for and protect the subsistence way of life. 3-15 Identify and plan for subsistence areas containing sufficient resources to support subsistence communities while recognizing the carrying capacity of the land. Discourage development in subsistence areas which is not supportive of the subsistence way of life such as access roads and high population densities. Subsistence activities should be designated with a special land use district classification prohibiting activities which would adversely impact this resource. GOAL XII: Manage District habitats so as to maintain or enhance the biological, physical and chemical characteristics of the habitat which contribute to its capacity to support living resources. Objectives Adopt State Standards (6 AAC 80.130) for habitats including offshore and estuarine areas, wetlands and tideflats, vegetated bluffs, rivers, streams and lakes and important upland habitat. Retain natural streambanks and shoreline habitat as wildlife corridors where feasible and prudent. Minimize and control development activities in important upland game habitat as identified by Alaska Department of Fish and Game. GOAL XIII: Recognize and protect air, land and water quality in the District. Objectives a. Incorporate into the District coastal management program the statutes pertaining to and the regulations and procedures of 3-16 the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation with respect to the protection of air, land and water quality. b. Development of policies for the identification and management of important watersheds in the District. c. District participation in The South Central Clean Air District and The Upper Cook Inlet Clean Air Authority. d. Development of a public transportation system linking the District with Anchorage. e. Development of policies to mitigate wind borne particles originating from unvegetated sand and silt bars in the District's braided river channels. GOAL XIV: Identification of historic resources, their protection, development and management. Objectives a. Development and implementation of a Borough-wide Historic Preservation Management Plan . b. Development of specific preservation policies addressing the preservation, restoration and reuse of historic, prehistoric and archeological resources such as trails, sites and structures in the Borough. Cc. Collaboration of the City of Palmer, the City of Wasilla, the City of Houston and the Borough in promoting recreation, tourism and historic preservation activities Borough-wide. GOAL XV: Private sector initiative in helping to establish a viable economic base. Objectives a. Conduct economic research. b. Define and conduct economic development programs which are attractive to business and industry. 3-17 Increase employment opportunities which help to diversify the Borough's economic base. Develop and maintain an economic development program which promotes tourism, recreation and industrial development. 3-18 INTRODUCTION The preliminary inland and seaward extent of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough coastal district was based on Biophysical Boundaries of Alaska's Coastal Zone published by the Office of Coastal Management and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G, 1978). 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's extensive shoreline. The coastal boundaries developed by ADF&G were based on a regional review of available information concerning the geology, oceanography and biology for each major segment of the coastline (e.g., Upper Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound, Bering Sea, etc.). The boundaries were then 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 was met, the Borough was able to adjust its coastal management boundaries to reflect new or more detailed resource information. The inland extent of the Borough coastal district could then be based on political jurisdictions, township 4-1 lines, cultural features, planning areas, watersheds, topographic features (e.g.contour lines), uniform setbacks, or the dependency of uses and activities on water access. 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 continuum. The intensity of biological and physical land/sea exchanges within this continuum 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. As defined by ADF&G, the area of direct interaction is that area of the coast, 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 Borough coastal district 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 District is defined to include the extent of saltwater intrusion into marshes and rivers and areas of active coastal erosion (e.g. vegetated bluffs fronting Knik Arm). Saltwater intrusion occurs up to 6 miles inland in the Susitna Flats and as far as 20 miles upstream in the Susitna River. The vegetated coastal bluffs experience rapid erosion and 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 District. The area of direct influence is that area of the District 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 direct influence in the District includes the marine waters of Upper Cook Inlet south to Kalgin Island (actual Borough boundary in Upper Cook Inlet). Turbulent mixing between marine water 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 District 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 1000-foot elevation contour. The area of direct influence extends up the main stem of the Susitna River to include Devil Canyon and includes important uplands which directly support or impact coastal processes. The upland extent of direct influence in the District is delineated by the 200-foot upland elevation contour. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough initially adopted the biophysical boundaries established by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game as its coastal area boundary. This boundary included all areas within the 200-foot coutour, except on major river drainages such as the Susitna River, where the boundary was set at the 1000-foot contour. During the development of the coastal management program the biophysical boundaries were reviewed by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program Citizen/Agency Joint Forum, Borough Planning Department and the Borough Planning Commission. Three different options for coastal boundaries were developed. Coastal boundary option 1 included both the biophysically determined areas of direct 4-3 interaction and direct influence within the 200' contour. Coastal boundary option 2 was based on biophysical characteristics up to the 1000-foot elevation contour in the Borough. Coastal boundary option 3 was developed as a mid-range alternative between the 200' contour biophysical coastal boundary and the 1000-foot elevation contour in the Borough. The inland extent of the coastal boundary for boundary option 3 was based on survey lines (township, range, and sections) and highways, thereby providing a definite "hard" easily identifiable boundary for coastal management decision making. Coastal boundary option 3, with minor survey line adjustments, was selected by the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum. (Pocket Map #1). In addition, Forum members agreed to include within this coastal boundary all major drainages and their primary tributaries up to the 1000-foot elevation contour. This action was taken primarily to protect anadromous fisheries of the Borough. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Commission reviewed the coastal boundaries set by the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum and adopted the recommended management area boundaries for coastal management purposes. The total area included within the Planning Commission adopted Borough coastal district is approximately 4000 square miles. The District includes approximately 200 square miles of offshore area and approxi- mately 75 miles of coastline. Appendix D includes the legal description of the District and the inland extent of the coastal boundary. Where the coastal management boundary intersects the below listed rivers and creeks, the boundary extends to the 1000 foot contour level. The width of this extended boundary is the width of the water course and 200 feet on each side as measured from the ordinary high water mark: Moose Creek Skwentna River Montana Creek Kroto Creek Yentna River Sheep Creek Lower Kroto Ck. (Deshka River) Kahiltna River Kashwitna Creek Talachulitna River Chulitna River Willow Creek Little Willow Creek Lake Creek Talkeetna River Little Susitna River Susitna River Matanuska River 4-4 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to provide policies and environment management guidelines for Borough, State and Federal decisions for coastal land and water uses in the District. The policies and standards listed in this chapter are adopted as the enforceable rules of the District coastal management program and will be used to evaluate proposed developments and other actions. The Borough's evaluation of State and Federal actions will result in a written recommendation to the proper State offices either recommending (with conditions), or not recommending, the approval of a proposed development use within the District. The decision on whether or not to approve a proposed Federal action is made by thé Alaska State Office of Management and a incorporating the District's review comments. The Matanuska=| Borough's contribution to that decision is an advisory staten carries great weight. in the final outcome. g ‘ SUBJECT USES AND ACTIVITIES All uses and activities that are dependent upon coastal access or that would affect coastal habitats and processes, coastal air, land and water quality, historical and recreational values are subject to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program. These include all commercial and industrial uses and all residential development requiring the application of Borough Code Title 15, 16 and 17 requirements. Ata minimum, these uses and activities include: 1. Coastal Development Industrial and port development Commercial development Residential development including State land disposals Dredging and filling 2. Energy Facilities Exploratory drilling vessels Petroleum production platforms Pipelines and rights of way Petroleum or coal separation, treatment and storage facilities ING plants and terminals Oil terminals and other port development for the transfer of energy products Petrochemical plants, refineries and associated facilities Hydroelectric projects Other electric generating power plants Transmission lines Geothermal facilities Tidal power 3. Fisheries, Fish and Seafood Processing Fishery enhancement Aquaculture and hatcheries Seafood processing 4, Timber Harvest and Processing Firewood and houselog cutting Sustained yield forest management activities 5. Mining and Mineral Processing Sand and gravel extraction Coal mining and development Mineral, general - gold mining 6. Transportation Airports, landing strips and float plane bases Ports and docks Highways and roads Railroads 7. Utilities Oil, gas pipelines and rights of way Hydroelectric power corridors and rights of way Parking facilities Navigation improvements and aids Utility lines Sewer treatment plants Water and sewer lines Solid waste disposal Communication facilities Watercourse and flood control facilities 8. Agriculture Commercial agricultural production 9. Recreation Consumptive development Non-consumptive development PROPER AND IMPROPER USE DETERMINATION The Matanuska-Susitna Borough adopts the following criteria to determine if proposed uses and activities or land and water use designations (including uses of State concern) within the District are considered proper or improper. Proposals subject to the District coastal management program must meet the following criteria before approval. In addition, land and water uses and activities within the District will be considered proper if they comply with the regulations of the State and Federal agencies exercising lawful jurisdiction in the coastal area, and if they comply with the applicable ordinances and regulations of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.- 1. MSBCMP Policies, Guidelines and Enforceable Rules: Uses and activities shall be consistent with the policies and rules in this chapter of the MSBCMP. These policies adopt and expand upon State standards for uses and activities and will be incorporated into Title 17 of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Code. 2. Water Dependency: Priority use of the shoreline (including lakes, rivers, streams and coastline) shall be accorded to uses and activities which are water dependent or water-related and to those uses and activities which are neither water-—dependent or water-related for which there is no feasible and prudent inland alternative to meet the public need for the use or activity. A water dependent project/facility is defined as one that must have direct access or proximity to, or be located in, the water resource in order to fulfill its basic purpose. A water related activity is defined as one not directly dependent upon access to a water resource, but which provides goods or services that are directly associated with water dependence and which, if not located adjacent to the water, would result in a public loss of quality in the goods or services offered (State of Alaska, Office of Coastal Management and U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Office of Coastal Zone Management, 1979). Land and water uses and activities within the District will be considered improper if they are not consistent with the policies and provisions of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Plan; or if they do not comply with or cannot be modified to comply with applicable local, State and Federal regulations. USES OF STATE CONCERN The MSBCMP recognizes that certain uses and activities are of State concern and will not arbitrarily or unreasonably restrict or exclude these uses. Uses of State concern are those land and water uses that significantly affect the long-term public interest. These uses, subject to Alaska Coastal Policy Council definition of their extent, include: 1. Uses of national interest, including the resources for the siting of ports and major facilities which contribute to meeting national energy needs, construction and maintenance of navigational facilities and systems, resource development of Federal land, and national defense and related security facilities that are dependent upon coastal locations; 2. Uses of more than local concern, including those land and water uses which confer significant environmental, social, cultural or economic benefits or burdens beyond a single coastal resource district; 3. The siting of major energy facilities or large-scale industrial or commercial development activities including oil and gas exploration, development, production, and transportation which are dependent on a coastal location and which, because of their magnitude or the magnitude of their effect on the economy of the State or the surrounding areas, are reasonably likely to present issues of more than local significance; 4. Facilities serving statewide or interregional transportation and communication needs; and 5. Uses in areas established as State parks or recreational areas under AS 41.20 or as State game refuges, game sanctuaries or critical habitat areas under AS 16.20. District Issues of State Concern Among the most important of the uses of State concern in the Matanuska- Susitna Borough Coastal Management District, but not limited to, are: 1. Conservation and maintenance of general air, land and water quality; 2. The siting of major energy facilities such as the Susitna River Hydro Project; 3. Large scale industrial, commercial and community port development, such as at Point MacKenzie; 4. Transportation development such as the Knik Arm Crossing and functional highway and road transportation systems; 5. Development, management and human use of fish and wildlife resources and their economic significance to the Borough and the regional economy; 6. Conservation of established State game refuges and critical habitats; 7. Conservation of anadromous fish waters; 8. Disposition of forest and mining resources; Os Settlement and residential land uses; 10. Agricultural development and protection; 11. Development and management of a viable tourism and recreational industry; and 12. Management of historic, prehistoric and archeological resources. ENFORCEABLE RULES The District's coastal management boundary encompasses extensive reserves of natural and cultural resources. The ability of these coastal lands and resources to adapt to development pressure varies throughout the District which results from measures such as geophysical constraints, biological resources and coastal habitat. The policies identify Borough-wide goals and objectives within the District coastal management program and are designed to guide activities and resource use by assessing the natural abilities of the District's coastal lands and resources. These policies are a guide for the programming and actions of agencies and organizations currently carrying on, or anticipating, development activities within the District coastal management boundary. Appropriate enforceable rules of specific coastal resource uses apply to all coastal uses and activities where applicable. Development is defined as applying to all subject uses and activities of the District program. Minimize is defined as representing the least possible degree of development impact. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT 1. General policies for coastal development include: In planning for and approving development in coastal areas, the District shall give, in the following order, priority to: a. Water-dependent uses and activities in or adjacent to rivers, lakes, streams and uses and activities along its coastline; b. Water-related uses and activities in or adjacent to rivers, lakes, streams and uses and activities along its coastline; and c. Uses and activities which are neither water-dependent nor water-related for which there is no feasible and prudent inland alternative to meet the public need for the use or activity. The placement of structures and the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the coastal management area must, at a minimum, comply with the standards contained in Parts 320-330, Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Vol. 47, No. 141, July 22, 1982. Specifically, the standards of Part 320.4, General Policies for Evaluating Permit Applications, will be utilized as applicable to the review of all development proposals. Dredging and filling shall not be allowed in tideflats and wetlands, submerged lands and waterbodies important for migration, spawning or rearing of anadromous or resident fish unless no feasible and prudent alternative exists. The Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing and Migration of Anadromous Fishes, ADF&G will be used to identify and protect important anadromous waters in the District. Development must be sensitive to the ecosystem in which it is located and incorporate mitigating measures into its design to minimize adverse impacts on that ecosystem. Development shall be sited, designed, constructed and managed so as to preserve natural and cultural features that are valuable or scarce in the District. Public access to valuable and scarce natural and cultural features shall be preserved and maintained, and where appropriate, increased. The type and concentration of development in an area shall be dictated by the physical limitations and opportunities of the area. Physical conditions such as soil characteristics, slopes, geological features, surface and sub-surface drainage, water tables, floodplains and shoreforms shall be taken into consideration when planning development in an area. The District recognizes existing areas of development and nonconforming uses within the coastal management boundary. Such recognition does not imply the allowance of similar uses and activities in the District in the future. In addition to the above general policies, for all coastal development, policies and enforceable rules for industrial, commercial and port development include: 1. Port, dock, commercial and industrial facilities shall be sited, designed, constructed and operated in a manner that minimizes excavation and disturbance to anadromous and resident fish and wildlife, and the alteration of the shoreline, tideflats and wetlands. Industrial users of the shoreline shall minimize the negative aesthetic impact of their use and activities, shall enhance and maintain the positive visual aspects of their development and provide recreational opportunities for public viewing of such positive aspects whenever practical and safe. Aesthetic values include scenic corridors, areas and vistas, open space, parks and recreation. 3. Design criteria and performance standards for industrial, commercial and port development shall be required in order to maintain a high aesthetic appeal and prevent unsightly incompatible development. 4. Preference will be given to industrial, commercial or port uses which promote physical and visual access to the shoreline, when such access does not cause interference with operation or hazards to life and property. In addition to the above general policies for all coastal development, policies and enforceable rules for residential coastal development include: & ; 5 ¢ 1. Recognizing that premature and scattered development needlessly degrades rivers, lakes and coastline open space, conflicts with other appropriate uses and causes extra public costs for Public services, new development shall be located in already developed areas. Individual variances may be granted by the Borough where the development's impact is deemed minimal. 2. Community open space areas shall be identified and planned for. 3. State land disposals for subdivisions outside the road-served areas of the Borough shall be designed so as to preserve fish and wildlife productivity and maintain, to the greatest extent possible, existing uses. In addition, the following resources shall be available for all remote subdivisions: a. Feasible access. Feasible access includes legal and physical (constructed) access such as airstrip, water, existing rail and road access. Feasible access must be provided to all parcels. Energy resources, such as a feasible supply of cordwood for individual heating purposes. Water supply. Water supply includes access to a feasible supply of water for individual consumption purposes, not necessarily a community water system. Environmental suitability for sewage and garbage disposal. Use and access to public lands adjoining State land disposals shall not be restricted or reduced. ENERGY FACILITIES 1. Criteria identified in 6 AAC 80.070 shall be used for siting and approving energy facilities in the District including: a. Site facilities so as to minimize adverse environmental and social effects while satisfying industrial requirements; Site facilities so as to be compatible with existing and subsequent adjacent uses and projected community needs; Consolidate facilities; Consider the concurrent use of facilities for public or economic reasons; Cooperate with landowners, developers and Federal agencies in the development of facilities; Select sites with sufficient acreage to allow for reasonable expansion of facilities; Site facilities where existing or planned for infrastructure, including roads, docks and airstrips, is capable of satisfying industrial requirements; Select harbors and shipping routes with least exposure to reefs, shoals, drift ice and other obstructions; Encourage the use of vessel traffic control and collision avoidance systems; Select sites where development will require minimal site clearing, dredging and construction in productive habitats; Site facilities so as to minimize the probability, along shipping routes, of spills or other forms of contamination which would affect fishing grounds, spawning grounds and other 5-10 biologically productive or vulnerable habitats, including marine mammal rookeries and hauling out grounds and waterfowl nesting areas; Site facilities so that design and construction of those facilities and support infrastructures in coastal areas of Alaska will allow for the free passage and movement of fish and wildlife with due consideration for historic migratory patterns and so that areas of particular scenic, recreational, environmental or cultural value will be protected; Site facilities in areas of least biological productivity, diversity and vulnerability and where effluents and spills can be controlled or contained; Site facilities where winds and air currents disperse airborne emissions which cannot be captured before escape into the atmosphere; Select sites in areas which are designated for industrial purposes and where industrial traffic is minimized: } population, centers; and : Select sites where vessel movements will not result ii overcrowded harbors or interfere with fishing operations and equipment. Energy facilities shall be sited, designed, developed and operated to minimize impacts on, and ensure continued use of, aquatic and terrestrial fish and wildlife habitats. Energy facilities shall be developed and operated in a manner that will ensure fish passage and minimize alteration of fish and wildlife habitat and instream flows. Energy facility developers shall provide to the District, ina timely manner, nonproprietory information, reports, transportation and logistics plans and summaries of studies in sufficient detail for its planning purposes. FISH AND SEAFOOD PROCESSING 1. The State standard (6 AAC 80.090) is adopted as part of the MSBCMP. 5-11 TIMBER HARVEST AND PROCESSING 1. The State standard (6 AAC 80.100) and superceding provisions of the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act (11 AAC 95.050 through 11 AAC 95.180) are adopted as part of the MSBCMP supplemented by the following policies. Timber harvest activities shall be planned and managed so as to: a. Minimize adverse environmental impacts on fish and wildlife habitat; b. Ensure the free passage of anadromous and resident fish in coastal waters, rivers, streams and lakes; c. Minimize conflict with recreational uses and activities; d. Minimize sedimentation, erosion and interference with drainages; and e. Aid in the preparation of land for agricultural uses. Mitigation plans for scenic value protection are required where timber harvest activities are planned and managed so as to mitigate the degradation of viewshed. Mitigation plans are required where timber harvest activities are planned and managed so as to protect riverbanks, streambanks and other shorelines from adverse visual impacts. Access to sufficiently large acres of land for viable, sustained yield and long term timber management practices shall be maintained, or where appropriate, provided for. MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING 1. The State standard (6 AAC 80.110) is adopted as part of the MSBCMP. The State policy requires mining and mineral processing to be consistent with all elements of this program, any State and Federal regulations and also compatible with adjacent uses and activities. 5-12 Sand and gravel may be extracted from coastal waters, riverbeds, floodplains of rivers, and intertidal areas provided there is no significant impact on fish productivity, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to coastal extraction which will meet the public need for sand and gravel and the activity is not in conflict with established Borough Code. Gravel extraction sites shall be consolidated where feasible and practical. Mining and mineral processing activities shall be planned and managed so as to minimize degradation of fish and wildlife habitat, air and water quality and recreational values. Reclamation plans shall be a requirement of all gravel extraction activities. All gravel extraction parcels shall be subject to Borough Ordinance 74-52 which states that Borough land in parcels forty (40) acres or larger and which consist of forty (40) percent or more Soil Conservation Service capability classes II and III shall be classified agricultural unless the Assembly finds that such land is unsuitable for agricultural purposes. Access to viable mining and mineral processing activities within the Borough shall be maintained, or where appropriate, provided for. TRANSPORTATION 1. The State standard for transportation (6 AAC 80.080) is adopted as a part of the MSBCMP. Transportation routes shall be sited inland from the shoreline and avoid important fish and wildlife habitat areas unless no feasible or prudent alternative exists to meet the public need for the route. 5-13 3. Highway, road and airport design and construction shall minimize alteration of fish and wildlife habitat, water courses, wetlands, aesthetic and recreational resources. 4. Adequate provisions for maintenance of natural drainage, fish and wildlife habitat requirements and viewshed protection shall be required. Viewshed includes all those land surfaces that are visible from a given viewpoint. 5. Design criteria and performance standards for transportation development shall be required in order to maintain a high aesthetic appeal and prevent unsightly incompatible development. Aesthetic values include scenic corridors, areas, vistas, open space, parks and recreation. UTILITIES 1. The State standard for utilities (6 AAC 80.080) is adopted as a part of the MSBCMP. 2. Utility corridor development shall be consolidated. In establishing corridors, adequate space shall be reserved to allow additional use where it is projected. In evaluating options for consolidation of utility corridors, each applicant shall document said options during the planning process. A documented visual impact analysis shall also be required. 3. Where feasible and prudent, important fish and wildlife habitat, scenic and recreational values shall be retained when establishing utility corridors. A documented mitigation plan for these resources shall be required. AGRICULTURE 1. Agricultural practices shall be conducted in a manner which minimizes degradation and destruction of air, land, water quality, important fish and wildlife habitat and recreational values. 5-14 RECREATION 1. The State standard (6 AAC 80.060) is adopted as a part of the MSBCMP. The standard requires districts to designate areas for recreational use. The Standard also requires that high priority be given to maintaining and, where appropriate, increasing public access to coastal water. The following areas are designated as recreational areas: a. Susitna Flats State Game Refuge b. Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge c. Goose Bay State Game Refuge d. Nancy Lake Recreation Area e. Willow Creek Corridor f. Knik Arm Wetlands Area g.- Jim/Swan Lakes Area h. Little Susitna River Corridor i. Iditarod Trail j. State waysides and campgrounds Priority shall be given to maintaining, and where appropriate, increasing public access to coastal waters, wetlands, rivers, lakes, streams and uplands for fishing, hunting, scenic viewing and other recreational activities. Priority shall be given to developing and maintaining multi-use trail systems. Easements, right-of-way and other means shall be used in acquiring and maintaining trail access during land transfers. Priority shall be given to the recreational development of areas having potential for high quality recreational use because of physical, biological, cultural or historical features. 5-15 SUBSISTENCE The State standard (6 AAC 80.120) is adopted as a part of the MSBCMP. The State standard requires that districts recognize and identify any areas that are used for subsistence activities. Subsistence uses and activities are currently present throughout the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. COASTAL HABITATS The State standard (6 AAC 80.130) is adopted as part of the MSBCMP. The following habitats are subject to coastal management standards: a. Offshore areas and estuaries; b. Wetlands and tideflats; c. Vegetated bluffs; d. Rivers, streams and lakes including all major anadromous drainages and their primary tributaries identified on page 4-4 up to the 1000-foot elevation contour. The width of this extended coastal area is the width of the water course and 200 feet on each side measured from the ordinary high water line; and e. Important upland habitat. Development shall maintain a minimum seventy-five (75) foot set back from the high water mark of any watercourse excepting sewerage disposal system development which shall maintain a one hundred (100) foot setback from any water source. The standards for coastal resources and habitats are those included in Appendix A, pg. A-5 and A-6. Coastal habitats shall be managed to maintain and enhance the physical, biological and chemical characteristics which contribute to the maintenance of their integrity. 5-16 Upland habitats shall be managed 1)to protect important fish and wildlife production and harvest areas, surface water quality, and natural groundwater recharge areas, 2)to maintain habitat productivity and diversity, natural drainage patterns, and vegetative cover on steep slopes and along streambanks and shorelines, 3)to prevent excessive runoff and erosion, and 4)to provide for open space, scenic and recreational values. Activities in wetlands shall be conducted in a manner that will maintain natural drainage patterns and wetlands productivity. Mitigation techniques for activities along, and in, rivers, lakes and streams shall include replacing stream bank vegetation where possible; creation of settlement systems prior to development runoff entering stream corridors thereby decreasing sedimentation; and mitigation of any changes in stream flow regions. LAND AND WATER QUALITY Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the statutes pertaining to, and the regulations and procedures of, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation with respect to the protection of air, land and water quality are incorporated in the ACMP and as administered by that agency, constitute the components of the MSBCMP with respect to those purposes. Land clearing, grading, filling and alteration of natural drainage features shall be minimized. Areas cleared of vegetation and not developed shall be revegetated with native plants to deter erosion and restore pre-alteration habitat productivity. HISTORIC, PREHISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES a The State standard (6 AAC 80.150) is adopted as a part of the MSBCMP. 5-17 All development shall meet historic preservation objectives of the District as outlined by the Historic Preservation Survey (1981) page 2-58 and 2-59, including revitalization and utilization of historic resources. HAZARDOUS AREAS The State standard (6 AAC 80.050) is adopted as a part of the MSBCMP. Known geophysical hazard areas and areas of high development potential in which there is a substantial possibility that geophysical hazards may occur are: a. Knik/Matanuska River Floodplains; b. Susitna and Little Susitna River Floodplains; and c. Point MacKenzie vegetated bluffs and coastline. Development in areas identified above shall not be approved by the appropriate State authority or District until siting, design and construction measures for minimizing property damage and protecting against loss of life have been provided. Development shall typically be precluded in rapidly eroding, slide prone or geologically unstable shorelines. Any development proposed for these areas shall be based upon a geotechnical investigation attesting to the safety of the area and specific engineering practices or structures that would alleviate or mitigate the hazard. Surface modification that would induce excessive erosion, undermine the support of nearby land or unnecessarily scar the landscape shall be limited. 5-18 INTRODUCTION 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 resources. These areas where a demonstrated need for special management efforts exist may be designated as "areas which merit special attention" (AMSA). The Alaska Coastal Management Act defines areas which merit 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 incompatible use, 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..." Criteria used as a basis for designating a coastal area as an area which merits special attention include: A. Areas of unique, scarce, fragile or vulnerable natural habitat, cultural value, historical significance, or scenic importance; B. Areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources; J. Areas of substantial recreation value 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; Areas of significant hazard due to storms, slides, floods, erosion or settlement; 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 within a coastal district program rests with the District. Six coastal areas within the District have been recommended for consideration as areas which merit special attention (Pocket Map #2): 1. 2. 3. Susitna Flats State Game Refuge; Goose Bay State Game Refuge; Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge; 5. 6. Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain; Nancy Lake State Recreation Area; and Point MacKenzie Industrial Port/Park Site; In accordance with Alaska Coastal Management Program Standard 6 AAC 80.160, the following information is to be provided for each area which merits special attention and so designated in a district coastal Management program: The basis or bases for designation under AS 46.40.210(1) and 6 AAC 80.160 (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; 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 resources 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 have been proposed 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 the fish and wildlife resources within the refuges. The Knik-Matanuska River Floodplain area has also been proposed as an area which merits special attention because it provides essential habitat for waterfowl and wildlife resources as well as substantial recreational opportunities for residents of the District. The Borough proposes these four areas as areas meriting special attention and encourages future development of management plans for each area. More detailed management schemes for these four areas are beyond the scope of this document. Designation of these areas as AMSA's and approval of management plans for them would be a significant amendment to this program. The District proposes Nancy Lake State Recreation Area as an area meriting special attention. This recommendation is made to encourage the existing development of the joint management efforts for this area by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. This designation should be considered as recognition and an endorsement of the on-going cooperative State and Borough management planning efforts for this site. It should be noted that a refuge management plan for the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge was completed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in 1983. Draft refuge management plans have been developed for the Goose Bay and Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuges. In addition, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources completed the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area Master Plan in April 1983. The development of a management plan for the sixth AMSA, the Point MacKenzie Industrial Port/Park site, will begin in Fall, 1983 upon conceptual approval of the District coastal management program. By adding special area identification elements to the District coastal management program, the future financial and Management resources of the District and its coastal management program may be focused on these areas. SUSITNA FLATS STATE GAME REFUGE 1. Primary Values and Bases for Designation: 2. The primary value of the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge AMSA designation is to protect, maintain, enhance and manage the fish and wildlife populations and habitats with other components of the ecosystem assuring the provision of sustained opportunities for limited public recreational use. Also included in this primary value is the provision for specific 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 includes 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 recreational 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. Geographic Location and Description: Coastal Region: Upper Cook Inlet Coastal Region Area: 301,950 acres Coordinates: Susitna River 61° 17' 23" N, 150° 34' 05" W USGS QUADRANTS: 1:250,000 Tyonek; 1:63,360 Tyonek Al, A2, A3, Bl, B2, and B3 6-5 The Susitna Flats State Game Refuge is an expansive coastal lowland on the northwest side of Upper Cook Inlet (Map #2). The refuge is located predominantly within the District 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. The Susitna Flats State Game Refuge area also provides for fishing, hunting of waterfowl, moose, bear and wildlife viewing, photography and other seasonal recreational opportunities. The Alaska State Legislature created the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge in 1976 to ensure protection and adequate management of this area. Existing Ownership, Jurisdiction and Management: The Susitna Flats State Game Refuge is State owned and managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Private inholdings 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. Present Uses and Activities, Anticipated Conflicts: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is legislatively mandated to 6-6 protect, maintain, enhance and manage the fish and wildlife resources and habitats of the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge while providing for public recreational uses of the fish and wildlife resources and habitats. Examples of public usage of the refuge include waterfowl hunting, big game hunting, sports fishing, commercial fishing, trapping, wildlife viewing, 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 State Game Refuge area increases, public recreational opportunities in the Refuge will increase accordingly. In addition to the public recreational uses, oil and gas exploration and development activities are underway in portions of the Refuge. Oil and gas lease sales for the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge area were held prior to the passage of legislation establishing the Refuge. Exploration and development activities operate under the terms of pre-existing leases and have resulted in a number of test wells and all-weather road systems in the western portion of the Refuge. Oil and gas exploration and development activities in the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge is likely to increase in the future as a result of State oil and gas lease sales in Upper Cook Inlet. Future lease agreements are expected, if found compatible with the multiple-use management concept of the Refuge. Anticipated conflicts continue to arise over 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 proposed Point MacKenzie Industrial Port/Park and potential associated residential development, the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project, the Susitna Hydro Project and Enstar natural gas pipeline could all have significant impacts on fish and wildlife resources in the Refuge and public usage of those resources. 6-7 1. 2. Proposed Management Scheme: This coastal management plan does not develop a proposed management scheme for the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge. It encourages the cooperative planning efforts of the Borough, State and Federal governments in the future development of a potential management scheme including a statement of proper and improper uses in the area; a statement of policies to be applied in managing the area; and an identification of the authority to implement the management scheme. GOOSE BAY STATE GAME REFUGE Primary Values and Bases for Designation: The primary value of the Goose Bay State Game Refuge AMSA designation is to protect, maintain, enhance and manage the fish and wildlife populations and habitats with other components of the ecosystem and to assure the capability of providing sustained opportunities for public recreational uses. The bases for this AMSA designation under the Alaska Coastal Management Act and Program includes 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 recreational 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. Geographic Location and Descriptions: Coastal Region: Upper Cook Inlet Coastal Region Area: 13,262 acres 3. Coordinates: Goose Creek 61° 22' 30" N, 149° 52' 57" W 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 miles southwest of Palmer. The Goose Bay State Game Refuge is located entirely within the boundaries of the District and encompasses some 13,262 acres (Map #2). 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 wildlife viewing, photography, waterfowl hunting, and other recreational uses. The Alaska State Legislature created the Goose Bay State Game Refuge in 1975 to ensure protection and adequate management of the area. Existing Ownership, Jurisdiction and Management: The Goose Bay State Game Refuge is State owned and managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Private, university, and federal inholdings exist within the Refuge, however, Refuge restrictions only apply to State-owned land and adjacent waters in the Refuge. Present Uses and Activities, Anticipated Conflicts: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is legislatively mandated to protect, maintain, enhance and manage the fish and wildlife resources and habitats of the Goose Bay State Game Refuge area while providing for public recreational uses of the fish and wildlife resources and habitats. Examples of public usage of the refuge include wildlife viewing, photography, waterfowl hunting and other recreational activities. Anticipated increased public usage of the refuge will occur as a result of proposed development of an industrial port/park complex at Point MacKenzie, proposed Knik Arm Crossing and the existing Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project. Proposed Management Scheme: This coastal management plan does not develop a proposed management scheme for the Goose Bay State Game Refuge. It encourages the cooperative planning efforts of the Borough, State and Federal governments in the future development of a potential management scheme including a statement of proper and improper uses in the area; a statement of policies to be applied in managing the area; and an identification of the authority to implement the management scheme. PALMER HAY FLATS STATE GAME REFUGE Primary Values and Bases for Designation: The primary value of the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge AMSA designation is to protect, maintain, enhance and manage the fish and wildlife populations and habitats with other components of the ecosystem and to assure the capability of providing sustained opportunities for public recreational use. The bases for this AMSA designation under the Alaska Coastal Management Act and Program includes 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 recreational 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. 6-10 2. Geographic Location and Description: Coastal Region: Upper Cook Inlet Region Area: 25,340 acres Coordinates: Palmer Slough 61° 30' 00" N, 149° 25' 00" W 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 along the north shore of Knik Arm, 10 miles southwest of Palmer and 28 miles northeast of Anchorage (Map #2). The refuge is located within the District 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 District 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 wildlife and waterfowl viewing and photography. The Alaska State Legislature created the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge in 1975 to ensure protection and adequate management of the area. Existing Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management: The Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge is State owned and managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The refuge legislation includes uplands that have recently been conveyed to the State through the North Anchorage Land Agreement, 1983. Uplands within 6-11 T16N, RIE, S.M. include most of the area known as Duck Flats. 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 refuge. The District has long recognized the importance of the Palmer Hay Flats as a recreational area. In 1974, the Borough Assembly adopted the Palmer 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 (Map #2). Permitted uses within the Palmer Hay Flats Recreation Area Special Land Use District include single-family residences, produce and fruit production, home occupations and campgrounds. Present Uses and Activities, Anticipated Conflicts: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is legislatively mandated to protect, maintain, enhance and manage the fish and wildlife resources and habitats of the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge while providing for public recreational uses of the fish and wildlife resources and habitats. Recreation is the major use of the Palmer Hay Flats area including waterfowl hunting, fishing, wildlife 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 Flats area will increase in the future as a result of increasing development to the southwest of this area. The potential impacts of increased recreational use include modifications to terrain, disturbance of wildlife, reduction of aesthetic resources and conflicts with other resource users. 6-12 1. Proposed Management Scheme: This coastal management plan does not develop a proposed management scheme for the Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge. It encourages the cooperative planning efforts of the Borough, State and Federal governments in the future development of a potential management scheme including a statement of proper and improper uses in the area; a statement of policies to be applied in managing the area; and an identification of the authority to implement the management scheme. In addition, the United States Fish and Wildlife Services's report entitled Upper Knik Arm Wetlands - A Proposal for Designation as an Area Meriting Special Attention (November 1982) should be used as a basis for further development of this AMSA. KNIK/MATANUSKA RIVER FLOODPLAIN Primary Values and Bases for Designation: The primary value of the Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain AMSA designation is to acknowledge severe flood hazard potential along the Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain. Flat topography makes this area highly susceptible to flooding. In addition, the potential exists for severe floods resulting from an outburst of glacial-dammed Lake George. Lake George has flooded the Knik River annually from 1918 through 1966, except for 1963. 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. The Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain also contains areas of essential habitat for waterfowl and wildlife resources and areas of substantial recreational opportunities for residents of the District. The bases for this AMSA designation under the Alaska Coastal Management Act and Program includes areas of unique, scarce, 6-13 2. fragile, or vulnerable national habitat, cultural value, historical significance, or scenic importance; 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. Geographic Location and Description: Coastal Region: Upper Cook Inlet Coastal Region Area: Approximated 54,000 acres Coordinates: Knik/Matanuska River 61° 30' 00" N, 149° 15' 00" W USGS Quadrants: 1:250,000 Anchorage; 1:63,360 Anchorage B5, B6, and C6 The Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain encompasses the large coastal lowland floodplains situated at the head of Knik Arm (Map #2). These two major rivers share a common floodplain which is approximately five miles wide at the point of entry into Knik Am. 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 and extend up the Knik River to the District boundary and up the Matanuska River to Sutton, which is outside of the District boundary. The western boundary of the Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain AMSA is approximated by the Glenn Highway. 6-14 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 District containing residential development, farms, and the major transportation corridor between Anchorage and the interior. Existing Ownership, Jurisdiction and Management: The Federal Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (PL85-303 and 508) conveyed all tidelands, submerged lands and shorelands under all navigable waters to the State of Alaska upon statehood. 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. 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 holding of Borough-patented land located adjacent to the south shore of the Matanuska River within the District, east of Bodenburg Butte. Native selected lands are extensive throughout the floodplain 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. Through the North Anchorage Land Agreement, Eklutna, Inc. and the State now own the land in T16N, RIE-R4E, S.M. (This area includes most of the Knik River south to the District boundary.) In addition, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (PL 96-487) provided 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.) 6-15 Present Uses and Activities, Anticipated Conflicts: Present uses in the Knik/Matanuska River Floodplain are diverse and include recreational uses, agricultural uses, residential development, transportation and mineral extraction, including gravel. Recreational uses in the Knik/Matanuska Floodplain area include waterfowl hunting, moose hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, wildlife viewing and photography. Winter recreation in the area includes snowmachine use, cross country skiing and dog mushing. Anticipated conflicts arise as a result of increased development in the area. The area's close proximity to Anchorage makes it attractive for suburban residential development. The potential for renewed advance of the Knik Glacier and glacial outburst flooding from Lake George is uncertain. The flat topography of this floodplain area makes it susceptible to seasonal flooding. Proposed Management Scheme: This coastal management plan does not develop a proposed management scheme for the Knik-Matanuska River Floodplain Area. Rather, it encourages the cooperative planning efforts of the Borough, Federal and State governments in the future development of a potential management scheme including a statement of proper and improper uses in the area; a statement of policies to be applied in managing the area; and an identification of the authority to implement the Management scheme. It should be noted that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has already completed two studies concerning the Knik Arm wetlands (Knik Arm Wetlands Study, 1981), one of which recommends an AMSA designation for portions of this area. (Upper Knik Arm Wetlands - A Proposal for Designation as an Area Meriting Special Attention, 1982.) 6-16 NANCY LAKE STATE RECREATION AREA Primary Values and Bases for Designation: The primary value and purpose of a state recreation area is to provide a maximum level of outdoor recreational opportunity based on the natural values of the area and its ability to sustain use without adverse affects on natural systems. The basis for the AMSA designation under the Alaska Coastal Management Act and Program includes areas of unique, scarce, fragile or vulnerable natural habitat, cultural value, historical significance, or scenic importance and areas of substantial recreational value or opportunity. Geographic Location and Description: Coastal Region: Upper Cook Inlet Region Area: Approximately 22,685 acres Coordinates: 61° 42' N, 150° 01' Ww (Nancy Lake State Recreational Area Entrance) USGS Quadrants: 1:250,000 Anchorage and Tyonek; 1:63,360 Anchorage C-8 and Tyonek C-1 The Nancy Lake State Recreation Area, which includes the waters of Nancy Lake and more than 130 other lakes and ponds, is located in the heart of the lower Susitna Valley in the District (Map #2). The entire Nancy Lake State Recreation Area lies within the boundaries of the District. The Susitna River runs approximately four miles to the west-northwest of the recreation area; the Little Susitna River cuts through the southeast corner of the recreation -area; and the Parks Highway passes to the northeast of Nancy Lake. The community of Willow is situated three miles to the north of the recreation area. 6-17 Water is the dominant feature in the Nancy Lake State Recreational Area with lakes, ponds, streams, and wetland habitat occupying close to half of the total acreage of the recreation area. Over 9,000 years ago, retreating glaciers resulted in the formation of elongated lakes, hills, and ridges orientated in a northeast to southwest direction within the recreation area. The significance of the recreation area lies in its quiet, graceful and natural beauty and the relatively easy access from populated areas. The State Division of Parks estimates that over 80 percent of the visitors to the recreation area are from the Anchorage area, located seventy miles to the southeast. Existing Ownership, Jurisdiction and Management: The State of Alaska is the dominant land owner within the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area. There are twenty nine separate private parcels, containing 305 acres of private land within the boundaries of the recreation area. Private recreational cabins exist on a number of the parcels. Access to private parcels within the recreational area exists and is assured until such time when the individual parcels are acquired by the Division of Parks. The State of Alaska retains the right to the subsurface estate beneath all land and water in the recreation area. The existing ownership of lands adjacent to the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area is varied. Mixed Borough and State land holdings are found in the Susitna corridor area to the west and the Ronald Lake area to the east of the recreation area. Borough land is also found in the Moraine Ridge area south of Red Shirt Lake. Lands adjacent to the Little Susitna River southeast of the recreation area are primarily in State ownership. Major private land holdings exist north of the recreation area and adjacent to the shores of Nancy Lake and Red Shirt Lake. 6-18 The State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks is the lead agency charged with the responsibility for the management of the recreation area. The Nancy Lake State Recreation Area was originally established by the Alaska Legislature and approved by the Governor on April 7, 1967. This act reserved all of the acreage within the recreation area for public recreation and protected the recreation area from uses incompatible with public recreation. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough established a special land use district for the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area in 1974. The land use district's purpose is to reinforce legislative intent in establishing the recreational area and discourage nonrecreational development and uses. Present Uses and Activities, Anticipated Conflicts: Present land and water uses in the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area are predominantly recreation orientated. Examples of such uses include camping, picnicing, hiking, canoeing, fishing, wildlife viewing, cross-country skiing, snowmachining and dog mushing. Future increases in local and regional population will have the greatest impact and influence on the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area. Factors which could influence the population of the District include construction of the Susitna hydroelectric projects; the proposed Knik Arm Crossing; potential coal development; and the proposed Point MacKenzie development. These development projects would induce population growth in the District and a resultant increase in the demand for recreational areas and facilities such as those found at Nancy Lake State Recreation Area. With the increase in demand for recreational facilities and areas, land use conflicts will arise within the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area. These include a need to maintain quiet and natural areas from those areas which allow motorized vehicles and are more developed due to their proximity to the main park road; use of private lands within the recreation area boundaries may 6-19 5. 1. result in conflict if such areas are utilized for nonrecreational purposes; adjacent private development near the recreation area would result in increased access to private lands within the recreation area, obtrusive development along the entrance to the recreation area, undesirable noise and other encroachment problems that could significantly reduce the value and enjoyment of public recreation; overhead powerlines planned as part of the power delivery system from the Susitna Hydroelectric Project would cause significant impact if routed through the recreation area; future road networks planned to serve areas surrounding the recreation area would open up undesirable new access and introduce visible and audible transportation corridors that would jeopardize future management and public option for recreational development and use of the recreation area. Proposed Management Scheme: This coastal management plan does not develop a management scheme for the Nancy Lake Recreation Area. This designation as an area meriting special attention should be considered as recognition and an endorsement of the current and on-going cooperative State and Borough planning efforts for this area which include a statement of proper and improper uses in the area; policies to be applied to managing the area; and identification of the authorities to implement the management scheme. POINT MACKENZIE INDUSTRIAL PORT/PARK SITE Primary Values and Bases for Designation: The primary value of the Point MacKenzie Industrial Port/Park site is that it offers adequate acreage and location for an industrial port/park facility on Knik Arm. This site also represents the only opportunity for a water-dependent and water-related industrial port/park facility in the District. It also has the potential for providing a feasible location for coastal recreational access 6-20 through a mixed use industrial port/park development plan including community development. The basis for this AMSA designation under the ACMP includes areas where development of facilities is dependent upon the utilization of, or access to, coastal waters. Geographic Location and Description: Coastal Region: Upper Cook Inlet Coastal Region Area: Approximated 26,000 acres Coordinates: 61° 16' 57" N, 149° 55' 20" W 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/Park site is located near the mouth of Knik Arm in Upper Cook Inlet (Map #2). The entire Point MacKenzie Industrial Port/Park site area is located within the boundaries of the District. This area is bounded on the north by the Goose Bay State Game Refuge, 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 Agricultural Project. The proposed Point MacKenzie Industrial Port/Park 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 vegetated bluffs near the head of Knik Arm. Mudflats, lowland coastal marshes, bogs, small lakes, low shrubs and mixed lowland forests are found throughout the area. Waterfowl and wildlife are also present in the area but not in the abundance found in adjoining State game 6-21 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. Existing Ownership, Jurisdiction and Management: 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/park site (T14N, R4W, SM, Sections 24 and 25). Borough-selected lands and Borough tentative-approved lands are found extensively throughout the Point MacKenzie area. University holdings are contained within the large block of Borough-patented land adjacent to Knik Arm. Smaller private and Native holdings are found throughout the greater industrial port/park 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. Present Uses and Activities, Anticipated Conflicts: Present land uses in the Point MacKenzie area consist of scattered homesites, recreational sites and a few private airstrips. Design of road construction has been underway for extension of a road through the Point MacKenzie area from Knik Arm Road, pending location of the proposed Knik Arm Crossing. Point MacKenzie has been considered by the District as a desirable site for a large-scale industrial port/park complex serving the Borough, South Central Alaska and the Interior. Development in 6-22 the Point MacKenzie area will result in the development of a new town around the industrial port/park complex on Knik Arm and within the AMSA designation. The industrial 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. In 1980 the Dow-Shell Group considered Point MacKenzie as one of six possible locations for a petrochemical facility in Alaska. They anticipated that a number of new and largely permanent jobs would develop for residents of the District through this development. At this time the Dow-Shell Group estimated that employment during the construction phase would exceed 2,400, while employment during the operation phase of the initial plants would number about 1,000. In addition to a petrochemical facility at Point MacKenzie, a West German firm considered Point MacKenzie as an export center for Beluga coal. The firm indicated that low grade Beluga coal could be utilized in a coal-fired generation plant at Point MacKenzie, providing electricity to industries in the area, while high-grade Beluga coal would be exported to foreign markets. Anticipated conflicts arise over impacts on air and water quality attributed to the potential development of an industrial port/park complex at Point MacKenzie. Operation of a coal-fired generation plant and a petrochemical facility at this site might seriously affect air quality standards in the Anchorage metropolitan area, four miles southeast of Point MacKenzie. In addition, development of a new town, support facilities and new transportation routes would place increased recreational and developmental pressures on fish and wildlife habitats and resources in the area and in the adjacent State game refuges. 6-23 Proposed Management Scheme: Development of a proposed management scheme for the Point MacKenzie Industrial Port/Park site will begin in Fall, 1983, pending local concept approval of the District coastal management program. The proposed scheme will include a statement of proper and improper uses in the area; policies to be applied to managing the area; and identification of the authorities to implement the management scheme. 6-24 INTRODUCTION The challenge in implementing a district coastal management program is how to maximize the use of existing land and water use controls to achieve improved management of the coastal zone while minimizing the need for additional controls. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program attempts to address land and water uses within its coastal area while maximizing the use of existing Federal, State and local regulations and controls. It is only where those controls are inadequate to meet Federal and State coastal management requirements that additional local guidelines and policies have been added by the District. DISTRICT ORGANIZATION FOR MSBCMP IMPLEMENTATION The Borough Manager is the chief administrative officer within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The Planning Director, reporting to the Borough Manager, is charged with administrative functions of the District coastal management program and has final responsibility for a decision to deny, approve or conditionally approve a local project application. The Planning Director will have administrative assistance through the Planning Department to manage and supervise the certification of consistency and technical review. Application review and evaluation, consistency recommendations and field checks will be accomplished by Planning Department staff under the direction of the Planning Director. METHODS AND AUTHORITIES USED FOR IMPLEMENTATION The MSBCMP uses a wide range of methods and authorities to implement its goals and objectives. Borough ordinances and resolutions are one critical element. Title 15 of the Borough Code regulates planning, the T=1 comprehensive plan process and establishes the Planning Commission. Title 16 regulates subdivision activities. Title 17 establishes zoning for the Cities of Palmer, Houston and Wasilla (performance standards), and establishes special land use districts for: 1. Nancy Lake State Recreation Area; - Palmer Hay Flats Recreation Area; Denali State Park; - Creekside Estates; 5. Talkeetna Mountains; 6. Flood Hazard Use Districts; 7. Moose Creek Reserve; and zoning regulations for planned unit developments (P.U.D.). These ordinances include many performance standards which complement the policies and rules of the MSBCMP. bh = Ww . The MSBCMP relies heavily upon State and Federal statutes and regulations as authorities behind its policies and rules. The MSBCMP shall establish application review procedures which are coordinated with those State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction over the uses, activities or habitats affected. In addition, the District shall foster the consultative process as an exchange of information among major project developers including Federal and State agencies, and the District, to ensure that potentially adverse socioeconomic impacts are recognized and, to the extent reasonably practicable, minimized, and that positive impacts of the project are enhanced. The enforceable rules of the MSBCMP are those set forth in Chapter 5. The Borough Planning Director will review proposals for activities within the District and determine consistency of the proposals with the District plan. The Planning Director will reach a determination of consistency within 24 days of receipt of all proposals. The nonconsistency determination decisions will include conditions and reasons for finding proposals not consistent with the District program. The roles played by the Planning Department, Planning Commission and Borough Assembly are discretionary and strictly operational. Local project appeals of Planning Department consistency determinations will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Assembly if necessary (Figure 7-1). When the Borough is participating in the State's consistency review process, the final decision is made at the State level. Any appeals of the State's consistency decision will have to be made to the State (Figure 7-2). CONSISTENCY REVIEW PROCESS AND PROCEDURES Local Projects Local projects will enter the coastal management review process at the time of application for a special land use permit (Title 17), subdivision or short plat approval (Title 16) or through comprehensive plan consistency (Title 15). Applications must contain sufficient information addressing compliance with Borough adopted ordinances and codes including a brief description of proposed activity with an appropriately scaled map showing location and plan of proposed development. Appendix E includes the MSBCMP Review Checklist which will be used by the Planning Director for consistency determinations. The Planning Department will respond to the applicant within ten (10) working days as to whether the information submitted is complete or if more information is required. Such supplemental information may include additional drawings, plans, specifications, project management schedules, data and statements of anticipated impacts on coastal resources. The entire consistency review process for local projects will be completed within 24 days by the District. The Planning Department will review each application specifically in terms of the MSBCMP Review Checklist. The Planning Department will then determine whether or not the application is consistent with District Ordinances, Codes and Regulations. Applications which are not at variance with the Code may be approved immediately by the Planning Director and the Planning Department may report the action to the Planning Commission during its regular meetings. Applications for which MSBCMP CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION Judicial Review MSB Assembly* Acting as Board of Adjustment If public appeals Board of Adjustment action, there is Judicial Review as provided for under Rule 45, Rules of Appellate Procedures of the State of Alaska. MSB Planning Commission If public appeals MSB Planning Commission action, the MSB Assembly acting as Board of Adjustment reviews and takes action at Public Hearing. MSB Planning Department If public asks for Variance of Regulations or requests a change in the code, the Planning Commission reviews and takes action at Public Hearing. Makes Consistency Determination *The MSB Assembly may appoint a Hearing Officer instead of sitting on the Board of Adjustment. Figure 7-1 IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS FOR APPROVED MSBCMP State Tocal cee er ) { Title 29/Charter (Sec. 307) Standards *DEC 401 *DNR Land *Comprehensive Plan Disposals *Land Use Ordinances *DFG Title 16 *Special Land Use *Etc. Districts *Subdivision Ordinances *Etc. *Corps 404 *BLM OCS *USFS Timber Harvest *Etc. Policies, Procedures, Implementation Mechanisms Implementation and Mechanisms Implementation *State Clearing- Enforceable Mechanisms house Con- Rules *Permits (Title 17) sistency *C.I.P. Review (A-95) *Leases *Permits *Leases *Permits consistency *Leases determination *Direct Fed. Actions Land and Land and Land and Water Use Decision Water Use Decision Water Use Decision Figure 7-2 a formal and written consistency analysis is not needed must meet all of the following criteria: 1. The project or action is found to be in compliance with all rules applicable to special land use districts or geographic areas significantly affected by the proposed action; The project or action is consistent with all rules applicable to the affected uses, activities, habitats and resources; and The project or action is consistent with the management plan for any AMSA which it will significantly affect. If any one of those criteria is not satisfied by an application, then a Written Analysis will be required and will become a record of how and on what basis the consistency determination has been made. There are three instances when a written analysis addressing the consistency of the proposed Federal, State or local project or action with the approved District program shall be prepared: 1. For all State and Federal consistency determination recommendations (including activities listed under uses of State concern) which are sent to the State and which are to receive great weight; For all major activities within the District requiring local approval such as major subdivision or platting approvals (Title 16) or Title 17 permits; When the balancing provisions of the District program are to be applied. The balancing provisions of the program refer to those rules which state that development can occur provided that some standard of performance is reached or state that activities which do not meet the standard can occur under certain circumstances. For example, fill in a wetlands area could occur provided that normal water flow is not restricted. Similarly, stream crossings could occur provided spawning salmon are not disturbed. In the course of the preparation of a Written Analysis, the following shall be included in the Planning Director's recommendation: 1. Specific stipulation(s) in the form of a performance standard (s) ; 2. Rationale or justification for requesting that the stipulation(s) be incorporated into the consistency determination; 3. Binding provisions of the District program cited by policy ordinance and legal reference number by chapter and section. Recommended changes to the project shall be as specific as possible indicating what, when, where and under what performance standards the activity is to be or can be conducted. Care shall be taken to use enforceable language. The Written Analysis shall list any specific enforceable rules with which the proposed action is not consistent and shall describe why the proposed action is not consistent with it. The Written Analysis shall state what actions the applicant could take, if any, to make the proposal consistent with the MSBCMP. This statement would then become the basis for conditional approval of the application. Conditional approvals shall comply with the guidelines for conditions and changes listed above. Projects which are found to be consistent with the MSBCMP policies and rules and which are found to contribute towards the goals and objectives of the program shall be recognized for that fact with findings explaining why the project is supported by the District. In this way, the District will positively identify and influence the approval of needed and desirable coastal development. State and Federal Projects Federal and State actions, including permitting, construction, planning 7-5 and financial assistance within the coastal management boundary are subject to consistency reviews. In addition, actions of Federal and State agencies outside of the coastal management boundary, but within the Borough boundary, can be reviewed by the District if "spillover" effects occur that have an effect on the coastal management District. A "spillover impact" can be attributed to any Federal or State action, use, or activity that may have an impact on the District's coastal area, including all coastal waters and resources. Federal or State actions, uses, or activities are most likely to have "spillover impacts" on river, stream, and lake habitat. Often, disturbance of river, stream, and lake habitat outside of the coastal area, or on Federal lands within the coastal area, may have a direct "spillover impact" on coastal waters and resources downstream from the disturbance or activity. A Federal or State action, use, or activity may be determined to have a "spillover impact" if the activity is found, for example, to affect any anadromous water body, degrade water quality, alter instream flow, block the migration of anadromous or resident fish, increase sedimentation into anadromous waters, alter fish spawning or overwintering habitat, or disrupt riparian and wetland vegetation. Local consistency review of State actions begins when the agency forwards the materials to the District for review and comment. Local consistency review of Federal actions begins when licence or permit applications are received by the District from the State Clearinghouse in accordance with procedures established by the Governor's Administrative Order 54. The list of State and Federal actions, including the materials to be reviewed for consistency, follows this section. The Planning Director, within twenty-four (24) days, will conduct the consistency review process with a Written Analysis based upon enforceable rules of the MSBCMP. This Written Analysis will be consistent with the guidelines for Written Analysis listed under Local Projects. Findings of positive consistency shall be used whenever appropriate to positively identify and influence the State and Federal permitting of needed and desireable development. Figure 7-2 highlights the coastal land and water use decision process for the MSBCMP. 7-6 State Actions All State actions directly affecting the District are subject to review for consistency with the adopted MSBCMP. The State is most likely to affect the coastal area through direct activities, licenses, permits, leases and state spending. 1. Direct state activities: Development projects, including planning, construction, modification or removal of public works or facilities and state land disposals and classifications are examples of actions which might be taken directly by the State that could produce major changes in the District. State agencies conducting such activities shall decide whether they directly affect the District and shall determine whether the proposed actions are consistent with the State's coastal management standards and, where applicable, with the MSBCMP. Licenses, permits and leases: Licenses, permits and leases that the State issues and that might directly affect the state's coastal area include the following: a. Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Alaska Public Utilities Commission: certificates of public convenience and necessity required for any individual, association or corporation to own, operate, manage or control a public utility (systems for the transmission or transportation of water, electricity, gas, steam, sewage and refuse) AS 42.05; 3 AAC 48); Alaska Power Authority: reconnaissance and feasibility study (AS 44.83). b. Department of Environmental Conservation: Air quality permits required to operate (AS 46.03; 18 AAC 50); Air quality permits to open burn (AS 46.03.020; AS 46.03.710; 18 AAC 50); Surface oiling permits (AS 46.03.740; 18 AAC 75); Granting of a hazardous waste permit regulating the 7-7 handling, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes (AS 46.03.302; 18 AAC 75.130); Approval of subdivision plans for adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal (AS 46.03; 18 AAC 72); Approval of plans for construction, modification or operation of a sewage system or treatment works (AS 46.03; 18 AAC 72); Certificates of reasonable assurance that applications for federal licenses or permits which may result in discharges into navigable waters comply with appropriate requirements of state law (Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977); Permits for disposal of wastewater into or on Alaska land or water or into a publicly operated sewage system (AS 46.03; 18 AAC 72). Department of Fish and Game (AS 16.20; AS 16.05; 5 AAC 95): The Alaska Department of Fish and Game will review all Title 16 permits for consistency with the MSBCMP. Many of the uses and activities requiring Title 16 permits occur either outside the MSB coastal area or, if within the coastal area, have no detrimental or significant impact on coastal waters and resources. ADF&G will contact the MSB only on those permit actions that are determined by the Department to have a significant impact on the MSB coastal area, including all coastal waters and resources. When a permit action is determined to significantly impact the MSB coastal area, the Department will forward the appropriate permit materials to MSB for review and comment. A permit action or activity may be found by ADF&G to have a "significant impact" on the MSB coastal area if the proposed permit action or activity has the potential to adversely affect any anadromous water body, degrade water quality, alter instream flow, block the migration of anadromous or resident fish, increase sedimentation into anadromous streams, or alter fish spawning and overwintering habitat. Department of Natural Resources: Permits for off-shore locatable mineral prospecting (AS 38.05; 11 AAC 82, 86, 88); Leasing state-owned upland, tideland and submerged land for the purposes other than for the extraction of natural resources (e.g., cargo docks and small boat harbors) (AS 38.05; 11 AAC 58, 11 AAC 62); Granting of requests for Conditional Use Permits and Variances to existing state zoning regulations (11 AAC 91.100; 11 AAC 91.090); Granting of requests for Land Use Permits for surface activities and the usage of equipment on Special Use Lands (AS 38.05.330; 11 AAC 96, 11 AAC 58, 11 AAC 86, 11 AAC 62); Granting of a Right-of-Way or Easement Permit for the construction of a road, trail, ditch, pipeline, telephone line or similar use or improvement on State land (AS 38.05.330; 11 AAC 58.200); Permits for general use of state-controlled tideland and submerged land (e.g., float homes and log storage) (AS 38.05; 11 AAC 62); Permits to appropriate water occurring in a natural state in Alaska (AS 46.15; 11 AAC 93); Permits to construct dams (AS 46.15; 11 AAC 93); Material applications using DNR form 10-143(155) (AS 38.05; 11 AAC 76); Planning and land classification (AS 38.04, AS 38.05; 11 AAC 55); Land disposals (AS 38.05; 11 AAC 67); Oil and gas leasing (AS 38.05; 11 AAC 83); Coal prospecting permits and leasing (AS 38.05; 11 AAC 84, 11 AAC 90); Geothermal resources' prospecting permits and leasing (AS 38.05; 11 AAC 84); Mining leases for locatable metallic ores (AS 38.05; 11 AAC 86); Grazing leases (AS 38.05; 11 AAC 60); Shore fisheries (AS 38.05; 11 AAC 64); Mineral lands lease (AS 38.05; 11 AAC 82); Oil and gas lease plan of operation approval (AS 38.05; 11 AAC 83); Oil and Gas Lease Unit plan of operations approval (AS 38.05, 11 AAC 83); Timber sale contracts (AS 7-9 38.05; 11 AAC 76); Material sales contract or permit (AS 38.05; 11 AAC 76). e. Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; Permits for placement, modification or maintenance of an encroachment across or along a State highway, State maintained highway or a highway funded in whole or in part by Federal funds (AS 19.25; 17 AAC 10); Permits to place or maintain utilities (railroads, public utilities, publicly owned fire and police signal systems and street lighting systems) under, on, in or over a state highway right-of-way (AS 42.05; 3 AAC 48). f£. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough reserves the right to amend this listing of licenses, permits and leases upon consultation with the appropriate State agencies. Federal Actions Federal actions that are subject to review for consistency include (1) direct Federal activities, (2) Federal licenses and permits and (3) Federal assistance programs that significantly affect the District's coastal zone. The Alaska Division of Policy Development and Planning has signed memoranda of understanding with most of the key Federal agencies that conduct activities in the State's coastal area. While the memoranda of understanding specify actions that will most likely directly affect the State's coastal area, it is, nevertheless, the Federal agencies themselves that decide whether a consistency determination is warranted in any given instance. 1. Direct Federal Activities: If a Federal agency decides that any of the following activities would directly affect the State's coastal area, it would determine whether the proposed action complies with the State's coastal management standards and, where appropriate, the MSBCMP. Direct Federal activities that could affect coastal resources include: All development 7-10 projects, which includes planning, construction, modification or removal of public works or facilities; Acquisition, use or disposal of land or water resources; Federal waste disposal plans for a Federal facility; Federal agency activities requiring a Federal license or permit; Federal assistance for housing development to entities other than State or local governments (e.g. private interests or native organizations) ; Environmental impact statements required under the National Environmental Policy Act for all major projects involving Federal funds. Federal Exemptions: Federal activities on Federal lands are exempt from the Federal consistency requirement unless such activity can be determined to have a spillover effect outside those lands. Direct Federal activities may also be exempt if other Federal laws or unforseen circumstances prevent Federal agencies from being fully consistent with State standards and with the MSBCMP. For example, a natural disaster may call for quick responses from Federal agencies in ways that might not always be consistent with State standards and approved district programs. Federal permits, licenses or assistance may also be excused from the consistency requirement if the proposed activity is in keeping with the objectives and Purpose of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act and is vital to national security. The escape clause in the consistency provision of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act is not as easy to use as it may seem at first glance. Congress did not forsee many instances in which federal agencies would not be able to comply with State and local coastal management programs. The intent of the Federal act is that differences are to be ironed out before State and local programs are approved and that later exemptions from the consistency requirement are to seldom occur, and then only under unusual circumstances. 7-11 Federal Licenses and Permits: Certain Federal licenses and permits may directly affect the District. If the Federal agency that would issue the license or permit decides that the activity would directly affect the coast, it would direct the applicant to certify that the proposed activity would be consistent with the State's coastal management standards and also with approved district programs. Listed below are licenses and permits that might directly affect the District. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service: Permits for water easements on USFS lands. Permits for construction on USFS lands. Permits for mineral materials extraction from USFS lands. Special use permits where the activity would significantly affect the coastal zone. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers: Permits under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, authorizing the construction of bridges, causeways, dams and dikes and obstruction of waters of the United States. Permits under Section 4(F) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and amendment, authorizing artificial islands or fixed structures on the outer continental shelf. Permits under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, authorizing discharges of dredge or fill material into navigable waters (also subject to State certificate of reasonable assurance) . Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Licenses for the construction and operation of nonfederal hydroelectric power developments and associated transmission lines under Sections 4(e) and 15 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 787(c) and 808). Orders for interconnection of electric transmission facilities. Certificates of public convenience and necessity required for the construction and operation of 7-12 natural gas pipeline facilities, including both interstate pipeline and ING terminal facilities under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717(c)). Permission and approval for the abandonment of natural gas pipeline facilities under Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717(f£) (b)). Department of the Interior: Permits and licenses for drilling and mining and related facilities on public lands (BIM). Permits for pipeline rights-of-way on public lands and the outer continental shelf. Permits and licenses for rights-of-way on public lands. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard: Permits for construction or modification of bridge structures and causeways across navigable waters. Permits for siting, construction and operation of deepwater ports. Permits for facilities and vessels to handle hazardous materials. Environmental Protection Agency: Compliance with regulations of 40CFR Part 112 for spill containment and countermeasure (SPCC) plans. Permits required under Section 402 of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended, authorizing discharge of pollutants into navigable waters (also subject to State certification of reasonable assurance). Compliance with regulations of Section 405 of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended, authorizing disposal of sewage sludge. Permits for new sources or for modification of existing sources and waivers of compliance allowing extensions of time to meet air quality standards under Section 112 (c) (1), of the 1972 Clean Air Act. Permits for the construction or modification of certain designated sources of air emissions to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in areas cleaner than 7-13 required by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and to fulfill the requirements of the Clean Air Act, Sections 160-169, as amended in 1977. Exemptions granted under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Permits and licenses for the siting, construction and operation of nuclear facilities. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough reserves the right to amend this listing of licenses, permits and leases upon consultation with the appropriate Federal agencies. Federal Assistance Programs: Certain Federal financial assistance programs could also directly affect the District and, moreover, enable the Borough to finance ports, water supply projects, sewer systems and other projects through which the Borough could implement the MSBCMP. Applications for Federal assistance are subject to consistency review only if the Federal agency from which they would be obtained decides that the activities financed by the requested assistance would directly affect the coastal area. Federal financial assistance programs that might directly affect the State's coastal area are not listed. The departments that administer the pertinent Federal programs are listed below: a. Department of Agriculture b. Department of Commerce Cc. Department of Health, Education and Welfare dad. Department of the Interior e. Department of Transportation f. Environmental Protection Agency 7-14 MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT In accordance with Title 17 of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Code it will be the responsibility of the District Planning Department to monitor all Federal, State and local activities within the District to ensure that the policies and conditions of the District program are being implemented. There are two reasons for field checking (monitoring) the decisions which have been made based on the District program. The first is to assure that those projects which are found to be consistent with the District program are actually being conducted properly. The second is to assure that activities which require some type of consistency determination have indeed received one. Techniques for field checking of coastal activities shall include: a. Routine field inspections by District personnel trained in implementation of the District coastal management program; b. Periodic checking on specific projects or locations; Cc. Request for copies of field reports and trip reports from State and Federal personnel commonly in a position to make field observation, and coordination of inspection of sites with these personnel; and d. Regular examination of aerial photographs and other remote sensing information. Enforcement actions are initiated when a person, organization or agency has violated the requirements of the District program ordinance or approval that included a consistency determination (including possible conditions) that are based on the District program. The first step in an enforcement action is an attempt by the District at informal resolution to the problem. This will serve in most cases to end the matter, since many people may not be aware of what the actual requirements of the District program are. If, however, 7-15 informal means fail, one of three enforcement avenues shall be appropriate: District Enforcement: The District has the power to enforce its own ordinances. If the violation of the District coastal management program occurs as part of a violation of a land use ordinance, subdivision ordinance, or local permit system, the District can gather the necessary information and the matter shall proceed in the same way enforcement of any violation of a local ordinance would. State Enforcement: The District coastal management program is as much a part of State law as it is of local law. If the District determines that a violation of the coastal management program has occurred as part of a violation of a State permit condition, it can report the violation to the responsible State agency. The responsible state agency shall handle the matter in conjunction with the Alaska Department of Law. Federal Enforcement: Same as State enforcement where a Federal regulatory permit process is involved. 7-16 INTRODUCTION The following constitute key recommendations in the implementation of the MSBCMP. Implementation will enable the Borough to satisfy specific State coastal management requirements while achieving local goals and objectives. Realistically, it is expected that their implementation will take place over a period of time and on a piecemeal basis, based upon the timely availability of data and funding sources. 1. All Borough planning activities should be in conformance with the provisions of the MSBCMP and the ACMP, including but not limited to, the following: a. Public access, trails, parks and recreational planning; b. Historic resources' planning; and c. Subsistence resources' planning. The Planning Department should continue and complete the development of the Draft Matanuska-Susitna Borough Trails Plan (1982) and adopt its recommendations as a Borough-wide trails plan. The Borough Historian (in cooperation with the Planning Department) should undertake immediate development of a Borough-wide Comprehensive Historic Preservation Management Plan while also considering the establishment of an Historic District within the Borough. The Planning Department should continue the development of the Comprehensive Development Plan while participating in the joint Borough and State Susitna Area Plan. Both efforts are necessary to identify uses, disposition and development of Borough lands. 8-1 10. 11. The District should designate, develop and adopt management plans for the six proposed Areas Meriting Special Attention. The Planning Department should begin plans for development of an industrial port/park complex at Point MacKenzie. The Planning Department should conduct a feasibility study to determine viable applications of a geographic information system (G.I.S.) for the implementation of the MSBCMP and Borough Comprehensive Development Plan. The Planning Department should, as funds become available, prepare a wetlands management plan for the coastal district. The Planning Department should, as funds become available, conduct economic development studies and programs to help foster the economic diversification of the Borough. Until such time as the Borough Comprehensive Development Plan and Transportation Plan is adopted, the MSBCMP shall serve as general policy for those Borough lands outside of the District. The MSBCMP shall be reviewed and updated bi-annually. APPENDIX A PART 6. ALASKA COASTAL POLICY COUNCIL Chapter 80. Standards of the Alaska Coastal Manage- ment Program 85. Guidelines for District Coastal Manage- ment Programs CHAPTER 80. STANDARDS OF THE ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Article 1. Government Process 2. Uses and Activities 3. Resources and Habitats 4. Areas Which Merit Special Attention 5. General Provisions ARTICLE 1. GOVERNMENT PROCESS Section 10. Coverage of chapter 20. Public participation and information 30. Program management and coordination 6 AAC 80.010. COVERAGE OF CHAPTER. (a) This chapter contains standards for the use of and application by districts and state agencies in carrying out their responsibilities under the Alaska Coastal Management Act (AS 46.40, and AS 44.19.891 — 44.19.894). (b) Nothing in this chapter or in any district program displaces or diminishes the authority of any state agency or local government with respect to resources in the coastal area. Uses and activities conducted by state agencies in the coastal area must be consistent with the applicable district program and the standards contained in this chapter. In authorizing uses or activities in the coastal area under its statutory authority, each state agency shall grani authorization if, in addition to finding that the use or activity complies with the agency’s statutes and regulations, the agency finds that the use or activity is consistent with the applicable district program and the standards contained in this chapter. A-1 (c) At a minimum, the council will review this chapter annually. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.020. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION. (a) The council will provide adequate, effective, and continuing opportunities for public participation from the beginning of the Alaska coastal management program. The council will give notice of when and where opportunities for public participation will be provided before adoption of guidelines and standards, review and approval of district programs and amendments to district programs, and amendments to the Alaska _ coastal management program. (b) The council will not approve a district program or significant amendment of a district program unless evidence of _ significant opportunities for public participation at the district level has been provided. (c) The council will make available to the public information and educational materials conceming coastal management, in understandable form, including (1) a guide for the development of district programs; (2) maps and narratives describing physical and biological characteristics to be used in establishing boundaries of coastal areas; (3) areas recommended for council designation as areas which merit special attention; (4) maps showing the ‘distribution and abundance of coastal fish and wildlife species with commercial, recreational, subsistence, or general ecological importance; (5) an identification of major data and information sources concerning coastal management; (6) a summary of information regarding coastal regions; (7) summaries of public hearings and workshops; (8) films and slide programs; (9) written material summarizing or explaining the Alaska coastal management program; and (10) the council’s annual report to the legislature. (d) At public meetings concerning the Alaska coastal management program, the council will ensure that, when requested and reasonably necessary, translation into the appropriate Native language is provided. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.030. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION. (a) The Office of Coastal Management is the designated lead agency for the Alaska coastal management program. The Office of Coastal Management shall (1) present the staff position regarding matters before the council; (2) coordinate the activities of state agencies Participating in the Alaska coastal management program; and (3) review state and federal actions for consistency with the Alaska coastal management program, subject to council review. (b) The council will initiate an interagency program of comprehensive resource management for each geographic region listed in AS 44.19.891(a)(1). Regional programs will (1) assist the council and = districts in identifying uses of state concern and developing management policies for these uses; (2) provide resource, social, and economic information on a coordinated regional basis; and (3) assist the council and districts in identifying, avoiding, or minimizing existing or potential conflicts. (c) Plans and recommendations developed as part of the regional program described in (b) of this section must be transmitted to the district through the Office of Coastal Management. District planning efforts must demonstrate review and consideration of these plans and recommendations. If the final district program proposed does not agree with the regional program plans and recommendations, the differences will be resolved by the council. (d) The council will prepare a manual of standards for the management of land and water uses in the coastal area to assist in the development of district and state agency programs. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 ARTICLE 2. USES AND ACTIVITIES Section 40. Coastal development 50. Geophysical hazard areas 60. Recreation 70. Energy facilities 80. Transportation and utilities 90. Fish and seafood processing 100. Timber harvest and processing 110. Mining and mineral processing 120. Subsistence 6 AAC 80.040. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT. (a) In planning for and approving development in coastal areas, districts and state agencies shall give, in the following order, priority to: (1) water-dependent uses and activities; (2) water-related uses and activities; and (3) uses and activities which are neither water-dependent nor water-related for which there is no feasible and prudent inland alternative to meet the public need for the use or activity. (b) The placement of structures and the discharge of dredged or fill material into coastal water must, at a minimum, comply with the standards contained in Parts 320-323, Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (Vol. 42 of the Federal Register, pp. 37133 — 47 (July 19, 1977)). (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67; am 8/18/79, Reg. 71) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.050. GEOPHYSICAL HAZARD AREAS. (a) Districts and state agencies shall identify known geophysical hazard areas and areas of high development potential in which there is a substantial possibility that geophysical hazards may occur. (b) Development in areas identified under (a) of this section may not be approved by the appropriate state or local authority until siting, design, and construction measures for minimizing property damage and protecting against loss of life have been provided. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44:19.893 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.060. RECREATION. (a) Districts shall designate areas for recreational use. Criteria for designation of areas of recreational use are (1) the area receives significant use by persons engaging in recreational pursuits or is a major tourist destination; or (2) the area has potential for high quality recreational use because of physical, biological, or cultural features. (b) Districts and state agencies shall give high priority to maintaining and, where appropriate, increasing public access to coastal water. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67;am 8/18/79, Reg. 71) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.070. ENERGY FACILITIES. (a) Sites suitable for the development of major energy facilities must be identified by the state in cooperation with districts. (b) The siting and approval of major energy facilities by districts and state agencies must be based, to the extent feasible and prudent, on the following standards: (1) site facilities so as to minimize adverse environmental and social effects while satisfying industrial requirements; (2) site facilities so as to be compatible with existing and subsequent adjacent uses and projected community needs; (3) consolidate facilities; (4) consider the concurrent use of facilities for public or economic reasons; (5) cooperate with landowners, developers, and federal agencies in the development of facilities; (6) select sites with sufficient acreage to allow for reasonable expansion of facilities; (7) site facilities where existing infrastructure, including roads, docks, and airstrips, is capable of satisfying industrial requirements; (8) select harbors and shipping routes with least exposure to reefs, shoals, drift ice, and other obstructions; (9) encourage the use of vessel traffic control and collision avoidance systems; (10) select sites where development will require minimal site clearing, dredging and construction in productive habitats; (11) site facilities so as to minimize the probability, along shipping routes, of spills or other forms of contamination which would affect fishing grounds, spawning grounds, and other biologically productive or vulnerable habitats, including marine mammal rookeries and hauling out grounds and waterfowl nesting areas; (12) site facilities so that design and construction of those facilities and support infrastructures in coastal areas of Alaska will allow for the free passage and movement of fish and wildlife with due consideration for historic migratory patterns and so that areas of particular scenic, recreational, environmental, or cultural value will be protected; (13) site facilities in areas of least biological productivity, diversity, and vulnerability and where effluents and spills can be controlled or contained; (14) site facilities where winds and air currents disperse airborne emissions which cannot be captured before escape into the atmosphere; (15) select sites in areas which are designated for industrial purposes and where industrial traffic is minimized through population centers; and (16) select sites where vessel movements will not result in overcrowded harbors or interfere with fishing operations and equipment. (c) Districts shall consider that the uses authorized by the issuance of state and federal leases for mineral and petroleum resource extraction are uses of state concern. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67; am 8/18/79, Reg. 71) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.080 TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES. (a) Transportation and utility routes and facilities in the coastal area must be sited, designed, and constructed so as to be compatible with district programs. (b) Transportation and utility routes and facilities must be sited inland from beaches and shorelines unless the route or facility is water-dependent or no feasible and prudent inland alternative exists to meet the public need for the route or facility. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67; am 8/18/79, Reg. 71) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.090. FISH AND SEAFOOD PROCESSING. Districts shall identify and may designate areas of the coast suitable for the location or development of facilities related to commercial fishing and seafood processing. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.100. TIMBER HARVEST AND PROCESSING. (a) Commercial timber harvest activities in the coastal area must be conducted so as to meet the following standards: (1) the location of facilities and the layout of logging systems must be sited so as to minimize adverse environmental impacts; A-4 (2) free passage and movement of fish in coastal water must be assured and (3) timber harvest and timber management ac- tivities must be planned so as to protect stream- banks and shorelines, minimize adverse impacts on fish resources and habitats, and minimize adverse impacts on wildlife resources and habitats. (b) Commercial timber transport, storage, and processing in the coastal area must be conducted so as to meet the following standards: (1) onshore storage of logs must be encouraged where compatible with the objectives of the Alaska Coastal Management Program; (2) sites for in-water dumping and storage of logs must be selected and these activities conducted so as to minimize adverse effects on the marine ecosystem, minimize conflicts with recreational uses and activities, be safe from storms, and not constitute a hazard to navigation; (3) roads for log transport and harvest area access must be planned, designed, and constructed so as to minimize mass wasting, erosion, sedimentation, and interference with drainage, and must be adequately maiutained until they are returned to their pre-road natural drainage patterns (put-to-bed); and (4) stream crossings, including bridges and culverts, must be kept to a minimum number, designed to withstand seasonal high water and flooding, and must provide for free passage and movement of fish. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67; am 8/18/79, Reg. 71) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.110. MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING. (a) Mining and mineral processing in the coastal area must be regulated, designed, and conducted so as to be compatible with the standards contained in this chapter, adjacent uses and activities, statewide and national needs, and district programs. (b) Sand and gravel may be extracted from coastal waters, intertidal areas, barrier islands, and spits, when there is no feasible and prudent alternative to coastal extraction which will meet the public need for the sand or gravel. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67; am 8/18/79, Reg. 71) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.120. SUBSISTENCE. (a) Districts and state agencies shall recognize and assure opportunities for subsistence usage of coastal areas and resources. (b) Districts shall identify areas in which subsistence is the dominant use of coastal resources. (c) Districts may, after consultation with appropriate state agencies, Native corporations, and any other persons or groups, designate areas identified under (b) of this section as subsistence zones in which subsistence uses and activities have priority over all nonsubsistence uses and activities. (d) Before a potentially conflicting use or activity may be authorized within areas designated under (c) of this section, a study of the possible adverse impacts of the proposed potentially conflicting use or activity upon subsistence usage must be conducted and appropriate safeguards to assure subsistence usage must be provided. (e) Districts sharing migratory fish and game resources must submit compatible plans for habitat management. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 ARTICLE 3. RESOURCES AND HABITATS Section 130. Habitats 140. Air, land, and water quality 150. Historic, prehistoric, and archaeological resources 6 AAC 80.130. HABITATS. (a) Habitats in the coastal area which are subject to the Alaska coastal management program include (1) offshore areas; (2) estuaries; (3) wetlands and tideflats; (4) rocky islands and seacliffs; (5) barrier islands and lagoons; (6) exposed high energy coasts; (7) rivers, streams, and lakes; and (8) important upland habitat. (b) The habitats contained in (a) of this section must be managed so as to maintain or enhance the biological, physical, and chemical characteristics of the habitat which contribute to its capacity to support living resources. (c) In addition to the standard contained in (b) of this section, the following standards apply to the management of the following habitats: (1) offshore areas must be managed as a fisheries conservation zone so as to maintain or enhance the state’s sport, commercial, and subsistence fishery; (2) estuaries must be managed so as to assure adequate water flow, natural circulation patterns, nutrients, and oxygen levels, and avoid the discharge of toxic wastes, silt, and destruction of productive habitat; (3) wetlands and tideflats must be managed so as to assure adequate water flow, nutrients, and oxygen levels and avoid adverse effects on natural drainage patterns, the destruction of important habitat, and the discharge of toxic substances; (4) rocky islands and seacliffs must be managed so as to avoid the harassment of wildlife, destruction of important habitat, and the introduction of-competing or destructive species and predators; | (5) barrier islands and lagoons must be managed so as to maintain adequate flows of sediments, detritus, and water, avoid the alteration or redirection of wave energy which would lead to the filling in of lagoons or the erosion of barrier islands, and discourage activities which would decrease the use of barrier islands by coastal species, including polar bears and nesting birds; (6) high energy coasts must be managed by assuring the adequate mix and transport of sediments and nutrients and avoiding redirection of transport processes and wave energy; and (7) rivers, streams, and lakes must be managed to protect natural vegetation, water quality, important fish or wildlife habitat and natural water flow. (d) Uses and activities in the coastal area which will not conform to the standards contained in (b) and (c) of this section may be allowed by the district or appropriate state agency if the following are established: (1) there is a significant public need for the proposed use or activity; (2) there is no feasible prudent alternative to meet the public need for the proposed use or activity which would conform to the standards contained in (b) and (c) of this section; and (3) all feasible and prudent steps to maximize conformance with the standards contained in (b) and (c) of this section will be taken. (e) In applying this section, districts and state agencies may use appropriate expertise, including regional programs referred to in sec. 30(b) of this chapter. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.140. AIR, LAND, AND WATER QUALITY. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the statutes pertaining to and the regulations and procedures of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation with respect to the protection of air, land, and water quality are incorporated into the Alaska coastal management program and, as administered by that agency, constitute the components of the coastal management program with respect to those purposes. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 A-6 6 AAC 80.150. HISTORIC, PREHISTORIC, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Districts and appropriate state agencies shall identify areas of the coast which are important to the study, understanding, or illustration of national, state, or local history or prehistory. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 460.40.040 ARTICLE 4. AREAS WHICH MERIT SPECIAL ATTENTION Section 160. Areas which merit special attention 6 AAC 80.160. AREAS WHICH MERIT SPECIAL ATTENTION. (a) Any person may recommend to a district or to the council areas to be designated as areas which merit special attention. Districts shall designate in district programs areas which merit special attention. Areas which are not in districts and which merit special attention shall be designated by the council with the concurrence of appropriate state agencies, municipalities, and _ villages affected by the designation. Designations must include the following information: (1) the basis or bases for designation under AS 46.40.210(1) or (b) of this section; (2) a map showing the geographical location, surface area and, where appropriate, bathymetry of the area; (3) a description of the area which includes dominant physical and biological features; (4) the existing ownership, jurisdiction, and management status of the area, including existing uses and activities; (S) the existing ownership, jurisdiction, and management status of adjacent shoreland and sea areas, including existing-uses and activities; (6) present and anticipated conflicts among uses and activities within or adjacent to the area, if any; and (7) a proposed management scheme, consisting of the following: (A) a description of the uses and activities which will be considered proper and the uses and activities which will be considered improper with respect to land and water within the area; (B) a summary or statement of the policies which will be applied in managing the area; and (C) an identification of the authority which will be used to implement the proposed management scheme. (b) In addition to the categories contained in AS 46.40.210(1), areas which merit special attention may include the following: (1) areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gathering, and foraging; (2) areas with special scientific values or opportunities, including those where ongoing research projects could be jeopardized by development or conflicting uses and activities; and (3) potential estuarine or marine sanctuaries. (c) Management schemes for areas which merit special attention must preserve, protect, enhance, or restore the value or values for which the area was designated. (d) As used in this section, ‘‘areas which merit special attention” has the same meaning as in AS 46.40.210(1). (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67; am 8/18/79, Reg. 71) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 ARTICLE 5. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 900. Definitions 6 AAC 80.900. DEFINITIONS. Unless the context indicates otherwise, in this chapter (1) “barrier islands and lagoons” means depositional coastal environments formed by deposits of sediment offshore or coastal remnants which form a barrier of low-lying islands and bars protecting a salt-water lagoon with free exchange of water to the sea; (2) ‘“‘coastal water” means all water bodies in the coastal area, including wetlands and the intertidal area; Alaska Coastal (3) “council” means the Policy Council; (4) “district” means a_ coastal district as defined in AS.46.40.210(2); resource (5) “district program” means coastal management program; a district (6) ‘‘estuary” means a semiclosed coastal body of water which has a free connection with the sea and within which seawater is measurably diluted with freshwater derived from land drainage; (7) ‘“‘exposed high-energy coasts’ means open and unprotected sections of coastline with exposure to ocean generated wave impacts and usually characterized by coarse sand, gravel, boulder beaches, and well-mixed coastal water; (8) ‘facilities related to commercial fishing and seafood processing” includes hatcheries and related facilities, seafood processing plants and support facilities, marine industrial and commercial facilities, and aquaculture facilities; (9) “geophysical hazard areas” means those areas which present a threat to life or property from -geophysical or geological hazards, including flooding, tsunami run-up, storm surge run-up, landslides, snowslides, ‘faults, ice hazards, erosion, and littoral beach process; (10) “mining and mineral processing” means the development of mineral resources extracted in tidal rivers, coastal water, and on continental shelves of the open sea, and found in surface, subsurface, and aqueous deposits; (11) “offshore areas” means submerged lands and waters seaward of the coastline; (12) “rocky islands and _ seacliffs’’ means islands of volcanic or tectonic origin with rocky shores and steep faces, offshore rocks, capes, and steep rocky seafronts; (13) “tideflats” means mostly unvegetated areas that are alternately exposed and inundated by the falling and rising of the tide; (14) “transportation and utility routes and facilities” include power transmission lines, mineral slurry lines, oil and gas pipelines, land and marine corridors, railways, highways, roadways, air terminals, water and sewage transfer, and facilities required to operate and maintain the route or facility; (15) “upland” means drainages, aquifers, and land, the use of which would have a direct and significant impact on coastal water; (16) ‘“‘uses of state concern” has the same meaning as in AS 46.40.210(6); (17) “water-dependent” means a use or activity which can be carried out only on, in, or adjacent to water areas because the use requires access to the water body; (18) “‘water-related” means a use or activity which is not directly dependent upon access to a water body, but which provides goods or services that are directly associated with water-dependence and which, if not located adjacent to water, would result in a public loss of quality in the goods or services offered; (19) ‘“‘wetlands” includes both freshwater and saltwater wetlands; “freshwater wetlands” means those environments characterized by rooted vegetation which is partially submerged either continuously or periodically by surface freshwater with less than .5 parts per thousand salt content and not exceeding three meters in depth; ‘saltwater wetlands” means those coastal areas along sheltered shorelines characterized by halophytic hydrophytes and macroalgae ex- tending from extreme low tide to an area above extreme high tide which is influenced by sea spray or tidally induced water table changes; (20) “feasible and prudent” means consistent with sound engineering practice and not causing environmental, social, or economic problems that outweigh the public benefit to be derived from compliance with the standard which is modified by the term “feasible and prudent”; (21) “including” means including but not limited to; (22) “major energy facility” includes marine service bases and storage depots, pipelines and rights-of-way, drilling rigs and _ platforms, petroleum or coal separation, treatment, or storage facilities, liquid natural gas plants and terminals, oil terminals and other port development for the transfer of energy products, petrochemical plants, refineries and associated facilities, hydroelectric projects, other electric generating plants, transmission lines, uranium enrichment or nuclear fuel processing facilities, and geothermal facilities; ‘‘major energy facility” means a development of more than local concern carried out in, or in close proximity to, the coastal area, which meets one or more of the following criteria: (A) a facility required to support energy operations for exploration or production purposes; (B) a facility used to produce, convert, process, or store energy resources or marketable products; (C) a facility used to transfer, transport, import, or export energy resources or marketable products; (D) a facility used for in-state energy use; or (E) a facility used primarily for the manufacture, production, or assembly of equipment, machinery, products, or devices which are involved in any activity described in (A)—(D) of this paragraph. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67; am 8/18/79, Reg. 71) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 Chapter 85. GUIDELINES FOR DISTRICT COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Article 1. Program Elements (6 AAC 85.010— 6 AAC 85.110) 2. Government Process (6AAC 85.120— 6 AAC 85.150) 3. General Provisions (6 AAC 85.900) ARTICLE 1. PROGRAM ELEMENTS Section 10. Coverage of chapter 20. Needs, objectives, and goals 30. Organization 40. Boundaries 50. Resource inventory 60. Resource analysis 70. Subject uses 80. Proper and improper uses 90. Policies 100. Implementation 110. Public participation 6 AAC 85.010. COVERAGE OF CHAPTER. (a) This chapter contains guidelines for the use of and application by districts in carrying out their responsibilities under the Alaska Coastal Management Act (AS 46.40 and AS 44.19.891 — 44.19.894). (b) At a minimum, the council will review this chapter annually. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.030 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 85.020. NEEDS, OBJECTIVES, AND GOALS. Each district program must include a statement of the district’s overall coastal management needs, objectives, or goals, or the district’s comprehensive land and resource use plan. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.030 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 85.030. ORGANIZATION. Each district program must include a description of the .district program organization for coastal management. Budgetary and staff needs and, where appropriate, a schedule for necessary reorganization must be included. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.030 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 85.040. BOUNDARIES. (a) Each district must include a map of the boundaries of the coastal area within the district subject to the district program. Boundaries must enclose those lands which would reasonably be included in the coastal area and subject to the district program if they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. (b) Before council approval of the district program, initial boundaries must be based on Biophysical Boundaries of Alaska’s Coastal Zone (published by the Office of Coastal Management and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1978, a copy of which is on file with the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, and which is available from the Office of Coastal Management) and must include the zone of direct interaction and the zone of direct influence. (c) Final boundaries of the coastal area subject to the district program may diverge from the initial boundaries 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. (d) If the criteria in (c) of this section are met, final boundaries of the coastal area subject to the district program may be based on political jurisdiction, cultural features, planning areas, watersheds, topographic features, uniform setbacks, or the dependency of uses and activities on water access. (e) The boundaries of the district must be sufficiently compatible with those of adjoining areas to allow consistent administration of the Alaska coastal management program. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67; am 8/18/79, Reg. 71) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 85.050. RESOURCE INVENTORY. Each district program must include a resource inventory which describes, in a manner sufficient for program development and implementation (1) habitats listed in 6 AAC 80.130 that are found within or adjacent to the district; (2) major cultural resources that are found within or adjacent to the district; (3) major land and water uses and activities which are conducted within or adjacent to the district; (4) major land and resource ownership and management responsibilities within or adjacent to the district; and (5) major historic, prehistoric, and archaeological resources which are found within or adjacent to the district. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.030 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 85.060. RESOURCE ANALYSIS. Each district program must include a resource.analysis which describes, in a manner sufficient for program development and implementation (1) significant anticipated changes in the matters identified under sec. 50 of this chapter; (2) an evaluation of the environmental capability and sensitivity of resources and habitats, including cultural resources, for land and water uses and activities; and (3) an assessment of the present and anticipated needs and demands for coastal habitats and resources. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.030 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 85.070. SUBJECT USES. Each district program must include a description of the land and water uses and activities which are subject to the district program. The uses and activities mentioned in ch. 80 of this title are, if applicable, subject to the district program. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.030 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 85.080. PROPER AND IMPROPER USES. Each district program must include a description of the uses and activities, including uses of state concern, that will be considered proper, and the uses and activities, including uses of state concern, that will be considered improper within the coastal area, including land and water use designations. This description must be based on the district’s statement of overall needs, objectives, or goals, or the district’s comprehensive land and resource use plan, under sec. 20 of this chapter, and must be consistent with the standards contained in ch. 80 of this title. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.030 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 85.090. POLICIES. Each district program must include a summary or statement of the policies that will be applied to land and water uses and activities subject to the district program and the process which will be used to determine whether specific proposals for land and water uses and activities will be allowed. It shall be the general policy of the district to approve specific proposals for uses and activities within areas designated for those uses and activities under sec. 80 of this chapter. Districts shall use existing means appropriate for the evaluation of specific proposals to the greatest extent feasible and prudent. Policies and procedures under this section must be consistent with the standards contained in ch. 80 of this title and must meet the following criteria: (1) comprehensiveness, so as to apply to all uses, activities and areas in need of management; (2) specificity, so as to allow’ clear understanding of who will be affected by the district program, how they will be affected, and . whether specific proposals for land and water uses and activities will be allowed; and A-10 (3) enforceability, _ so as to insure implementation of and adherence to the district program. (Eff. 7/18/78. Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.030 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 85.100. IMPLEMENTATION. Each district program must include a description of the methods and authoritv which will be used to implement the district program. Methods and authority must be adequate to insure program implementation, and any additional methods or authority which are required must be specified. Methods and authority include land and water use plans, municipal ordinances and resolutions, (including shoreline, zoning, and subdivision ordinances and building codes), state and federal stututes and regulations, capital improvement programs, the purchase, sale, lease, or exchange of coastal land and water resources, cooperative agreements, tax exemptions for nondevelopment purchase of development rights, memoranda of understanding, and coordinated project or permit review procedures. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.030 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 85.110. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. Each district program must include evidence of effective and significant opportunities for public participation in program development under sec. 130 of this chapter. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.030 ARTICLE 2. GOVERNMENT PROCESS Secticn . 120. Submittals to council 130. Public involvement 140. Coordination and review 150. Council review 6 AAC 85.120. SUBMITTALS TO COUNCIL. (a) During program development, districts shall submit brief annual progress reports concerning program development to the council. (b) Following adoption of the final program, districts shall submit brief annual progress reports concerning program implementation to the council. (c) All significant amendments to the district program must be submitted to the council for approval. The Office of Coastal Management shall review proposed amendments to determine if council approval is required. This determination is subject to council review when requested by a council member. (d) Districts shall give conceptual approval to district programs and significant amendments to district programs before their submission to the council. The district program as approved by the council becomes effective upon adoption by the district. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.030 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 85.130. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT. (a) No less than two public meetings must be held within the district during program development to inform the public and receive comments concerning the program. A brief summary or report of the matters considered at the public meeting held under. this subsection must be prepared by the district, made available to the public, and retained for inclusion in the record file referred to in set. 150(c) of this chapter. (b) At least 60 days before giving conceptual approval to the district program or significant amendment to the district program, the district shall give written notice to the council and any person who has requested such notice in writing, as well as public notice of the proposed action by conspicuous advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation within the district. In addition, notice must be given by radio and by posting in villages and municipalities within the district. The notice must specify the time and place of a public hearing on the proposed action and the availability for review of the proposed district program document or significant amendment to the district program. The public hearing under this subsection may be held not sooner than 30 days after notice is given. At the public hearing, each person must be given the opportunity to present statements, arguments, or contentions, orally or in writing. Districts shall insure that, where approprite, translation into the appropriate Native language(s) is A-11 provided. The district shall consider all relevant matter presented to it. A written transcript or electronic recording of the public hearing must be submitted to the council. (c) In addition to the requirements of (b) of this section, districts shall provide publicly advertised opportunities for public involvement in the development of all program elements contained in secs. 20—110 of this chapter. (d) Districts shall provide the public, in a timely manner and in understandable form, information explaining the district coastal Management program, the requirements of public participation in program development, how and when the public may participate in program development, what information is available, and where that information may be obtained. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67; am 8/18/79, Reg. 71) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 85.140. COORDINATION AND REVIEW. Districts shall provide opportunities for coordination and review by federal, state, and local governmental agencies, including adjacent districts, and other persons with a significant interest in coastal resources or who are conducting or may conduct uses and activities that have or are likely to have a direct and significant impact on the district’s coastal area. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.030 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 85.150. COUNCIL REVIEW. (a) When a district program or significant amendment to a district program is given conceptual approval by the district, the program or amendment, together with the transcript or recording of the public hearing held under sec. 130(b) of this chapter and all other material on which the district based its decision, must be submitted to the council. (b) Within 30 days after submission of the district program or amendment under (a) of this section, the Office of Coastal Management shall issue its recommendation. The recommendation may be based, in whole or in part, on matters not submitted by the district under (a) of this A-12 section. Any matters so used must be identified in the recommendation and placed in the record file under (c) of this section. The recommendation must contain findings and conclusions based on this chapter, the standards contained in ch. 80 of this title, AS 46.40.060, and AS 46.40.070. The recommendation must be served on the district, the council, all persons who testified or submitted timely written statements at the public hearing held under sec. 130(b) of this chapter, and all persons who have requested the recommendation in writing. Broad pudlic notice of the recommendation must be given. (c) A’ record file containing all matter submitted by the district under (a) of this section, the Office of Coastal Management’s Tecommendation under (b) of this section, and all matters on which the recommendation was based must be maintained at the Office of Coastal Management and at a convenient location within the district. (d) Within 30 days after service of the recommendation, any person served with the recommendation may serve on the council comments on the recommendation. Within 30 days after public notice of the recommendation, any other person may serve on the council comments on the recommendation. Within 10 days after the deadline for serving comments on the council under this subsection, the Office of Coastal Management may submit additional matter to the council in response to the comments. All comments served and_ all additionai matter submitted under _ this subsection will be placed in the record file. The Office of Coastal Management shall respond to all comments within 30 days of receipt. (e) Within 20 days after the deadline for the Office of Coastal Management’s submission of additional matter to the council under (d) of this section, the council will approve or disapprove the district program, in whole or in part. The council’s decision will contain findings and conclusions based on this chapter, the standards contained in ch. 80 of this title, AS 46.40.060, and AS 46.40.070. The council’s findings and conclusions will be based upon matters contained in the record file. The council will, in its discretion, adopt the findings and conclusions of the Office of Coastal Management by reference. The council will serve its decision under this subsection on the district and on all persons who submitted timely comments on the staff recommendation under (d) of this section, and will place the decision in the record file. (f) Ifthe council’s decision under (e) of this section disapproves, in whole or in part, the district program, the decision will specify the date and location for the initial mediation session under AS 46.40.060(b). Mediation sessions will be held with due regard for the convenience of the participants. Any person may attend mediation sessions. (g) If the council and district reach accord in mediation sessions held under (f) of this section, the council will, within 20 days after reaching accord, serve its modified decision on the district and all persons who were served with the council’s decision under (e) of this section, and will place the modified decision in the record file. The modified decision will contain findings and conclusions, based on the record file and additional matters adduced during mediation, necessary to demonstrate that the modified decision does not violate this chapter, the standards contained in ch. 80 of this title, AS 46.40.060, or AS 46.40.070. (h) If the council and the district do not reach an accord, the council will, within 20 days after its determination that an impasse has been reached, set the matter for an adjudicatory hearing under AS 46.40.060(c). Notice of the hearing under AS 44.62.370(c) will be served on the district and all persons who were served with the council’s decision under (e) of this section. Any person served with notice of the hearing under this subsection may intervene as a party to the hearing. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67; am 8/18/79, Reg. 71) . Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 On two occasions within the last six months, the Alaska Coastal Policy Council has adopted revisions to 6 AAC 85.150. The first adopted revisions effecting sections (a), (b), and (d) were submitted to the Department of Law for their review on September 12, 1980. The second adopted revisions effecting sections (f) and (h) will be submitted to the Department of Law the week of October 13, 1980. Upon completion of A-13 the Department of Law’s review, the revised regulations will be filed with the Lieutenant Governor and will take effect 30 days thereafter. The following is 6 AAC 85.150 incorporating all above regulation revisions: 6 AAC 85. 150. COUNCIL REVIEW. (a) When a district program or significant amend- ment to a district program is given conceptual approval by the district, the district shall prepare proposed findings and conclusions based upon this chapter, the standards contained in ch. 80 of this title, AS 46.40.030, AS 46.40.060 and AS 46.40.070. The district’s proposed findings and conclusions, along with a copy of the concep- tually approved program, shall be submitted to the Office of Coastal Management, on a form to be provided by it, at least 30 days prior to sub- mittal of the program or significant amendment to the council for its review. The proposed find- ings and conclusions and a copy of the concep- tually approved program, will be served on any person who testified or submitted timely written statements at the public hearing held under sec- tion 130(b) of this chapter and to any other per- son upon request by that person to the Office of Coastal Management. The Office of Coastal Management shall prepare its recommendation, which must include findings of fact and conclu- sions based upon the authorities cited in this sec- tion, and submit its recommendations to the council as provided for under (b) of this section. The recommendation may be based, in whole or in part, on matters not submitted by the district under (a) of this section. Any matters so used must be identified in the recommendation and ‘placed in the record file under (c) of this section. The district is responsible for submitting a suffi- cient number of copies of the district program or significant amendment to the Office of Coastal Management for distribution to persons enumerated in (b) of this section. The district must simultaneously submit the transcript or recording of the public hearing held under sec. 130(b) of this chapter and all other materials on which the district based its decision. (b) Upon submission of the district program or significant amendment under (a) of this section, the Office of Coastal Management shall serve on the district, the council, and all persons who testified or submitted timely written statements at the public hearing held under sec. 130(b) of this chapter a copy of its recommendation. (c) A record file containing all matter sub- mitted by the district under (a) of this section, the Office of Coastal Management’s recommen- dation under (b) of this section, and all matters on which the recommendation was based must be maintained at the Office of Coastal Manage- ment and at a convenient location within the district. (d) Within 45 days after service of the recom- mendation, any person served with the recom- mendation may serve upon the council com- ments on the recommendation. Comments which are not timely filed will not be considered. Within 25 days after the deadline for serving comments on the council under this subsection, the Office of Coastal Management shall submit additional matter to the council in response to the comments. All comments served and all ad- ditional matter submitted under this subsection will be placed in the record file. Within the time provided for in this subsection the council may hold public hearings on the program or signifi- cant amendment. (e) Within 20 days after the deadline for the Of- fice of Coastal Management’s submission of ad- ditional matter to the council under (d) of this section, the council will approve or disapprove the district program, in whole or in part. The council’s decision will contain findings and con- clusions based on this chapter, the standards contained in ch. 80 of this title, AS 46.40.060 and AS 46.40.070. The council’s findings and conclusions will be based upon matters con- tained in the record file. The council will, in its discretion, adopt the findings and conclusions of the Office of Coastal Management by reference. The council will serve its decision under this subsection on the district and on all persons who submitted timely comments on the staff recom- mendation under (d) of this section, and will place the decision in the record file. (f) If the council’s decision under (e) of this section disapproves, in whole or in part, the district program, the unapproved portion must be sumitted to mediation as requred by AS 46.40.060(b). Mediation sessions will be con- ducted as follows: (1) The parties to the mediation will be the council and the district. The parties shall within 10 days from the date of the council’s decision under (e) of this section agree upon the selection of a mediator. If the parties cannot agree, they A-14 shall immediately cause a letter to be sent to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service ask- ing it to appoint a mediator. If that mediator is unacceptable to either party, that party shall re- quest the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to submit to the parties the names of three qualified mediators. Upon receipt of these names, each party shall strike one name from the list and the remaining name will be the mediator. Any mediator shall perform his or her duties in a manner which comports with the standards of conduct set out in the Code of Pro- fessional Conduct for Labor Mediators, 9 C.F.R. 1400 735-20, effective April 13, 1968, in- corporated by reference in this paragraph. * (2) Before the commencement of media- tion, the council may call for one or more public hearings in the district concerned for the pur- pose of discussing those portions of the program subject to mediation. Public hearings must be preceded by 30 days notice. If public hearings are held, districts shall insure that, where reasonably requested, translation, into the ap- propriate Native language is provided. (3) All public hearings must be electronical- ly recorded. Oral or written testimony may be submitted, except that unduly repetitious testimony may be excluded. The oral testimony and written submissions constitute the hearing record, which must be transmitted to the media- tor. (4) Mediation sessions must be held within the district. The mediator shall schedule the ses- sions with due regard for the convenience of the parties upon at least seven days notice, except that the parties may, by mutual consent, waive the notice period. The parties shall mutually agree upon the place of the meeting. (5) The mediator shall schedule the first mediation session to be held as soon as possible after he or she has been selected. At the initial session, the mediator shall establish reasonable tules of procedure. Mediation sessions must be conducted in a manner so that the parties will have the assurance and confidence that informa- tion disclosed to the mediator will remain confi- dential. The mediator shall determine the length and frequency of mediation sessions; however, if an accord is not reached within 60 days from the initial session, an impasse will be declared by the mediator. By mutual consent of the parties and the mediator, this deadline may be extended for a period not to exceed an additional 30 days. (6) If the mediator determines that an im- passe has been reached, he or she shall notify the parties in writing within 10 days after the deter- mination is made. (7) If the mediator determines that an ac- cord has been reached, he or she shall direct the parties to set out in writing the terms of the agreement. This agreement, to be signed by the parties, signifies the final settlement of outstan- ding disputes, subject to ratification at a public meeting by the official bodies of each party, and may be set aside only for fraud, misconduct, or gross mistake. With the approval of the parties, mediation may be used to resolve any dif- ferences which may arise as the result of such public meetings. (h) If the council and the district do not reach an accord, the council will, within 20 days after a determination that an impasse has been reached, set the matter for an adjudicatory hearing under AS 46.40.060(c). Notice of the hearing under AS 44.62.370(c) will be served on the district and all persons who were served with the council’s deci- sion under (e) of this section. Any person served with notice of the hearing under this subsection may intervene as a party to the hearing. (eff. 7/18/78), Reg. 67; am / / , Reg. ) *The code of Professional Conduct for Labor Mediators is published at 31 Fed. Reg. 5423 (April 6, 1966). Authority: AS 44.19.892 AS 46.19.893 AS 46.40.030 AS 46.40.040 AS 46.40.060 A-15 ARTICLE 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 900. Definitions 6 AAC 85.900. DEFINITIONS. Unless the context indicates otherwise, in this chapter (1) “beaches” means the area affected by wave action directly from the sea; (2) “marine coastal water” means water adjacent to shorelines which contains a measur- able quantity of seawater, including sounds, bays, lagoons, bayous, ponds and estuaries, and the living resources which are dependent on these bodies of water; (3) “council” means the Alaska Coastal Policy Council; (4) “district” means a coastal resource district as defined in AS 46.40.210(2); (S) “district program” means a district coastal management program; (6) “islands” means bodies of land sur- rounded by water on all sides; interior por- tions of major islands may be excluded from the coastal area if uses of these islands do not cause direct and significant impacts on coastal waters; (7) “saltwater wetlands” has the same mean- ing as that contained in 6 AAC 80.900(19); (8) “transitional and intertidal areas” means areas subject to periodic or occasional inunda- tion by tides, including coastal floodplains, storm surge areas, tsunami and hurricane zones, and washover channels; (9) “feasible and prudent” has the same meaning as in 6 AAC 80.900; and (10) “including” has the same meaning as in 6 AAC 80.900. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67; am 8/18/79, Reg.71) Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 APPENDIX B: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department's approach to citizen participation encompassed public involvement with the coordination of major program elements. The creation of the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum, brought together the broad public policy interests of the commmity and the operational concerns of local, State, and Federal agencies with coastal management program responsibilities. The Citizen/Agency Joint Forum encouraged public participation, understanding, and feedback through workshops and public hearings, discussion, technical review, evaluation and coordination of program elements. The Citizen/Agency Joint Forum carried out four important functions during the early stages of coastal management program development. This included the following: ° The forum reviewed and evaluated previous Borough policies, goals, and objectives as a means of assembling a statement of current issues, goals, and objectives that reflect the concerns of Borough residents and governmental agencies regarding coastal development. ° The forum looked at participation functions as an educational process through promoting an understanding of the characteristics, values and roles of the coastal area. This process allowed Borough residents to 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 educated the consultant study team during the review process. Local familiarity with data and perceptions of the forum assisted the consultants to initially address public and agency concerns. B-1 ° The forum facilitated the administration of the Borough Coastal Management Program through participation in its development. Sixteen Citizen/Agency Joint Forum meetings and workshops were held during the early development of the Borough Coastal Management Program. A public hearing was also held during this development phase. These workshops and meetings took place between February 1981 and January 1982. Many of these meetings were jointly held with members of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Commission, staff members of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Community and Regional Affairs, the Borough Planning Department and others. This appendix contains summaries of the sixteen Citizen/Agency Joint Forum meetings and workshops. Cassette tapes of Forum discussions and actions are available from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department. In addition to the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum, numerous workshops were held with participating agencies in the development and review of the Public Hearing Draft during the months of April, May, June and July, 1983. This appendix contains summaries of this public participation element of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program. B-2 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 Michael McGuiness. The Mat-Su Borough Planning Department was represented by Rodney Schulling and Rick Feller. There were eight members of the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum in attendance. The meeting consisted of an audio-visual presentation on coastal management in the Mat-Su Borough given by the Maynard and Partch consultant team. A brief question and answer period followed the presentation. The four main topics covered during the presentation were: Citizen/Agency Joint Forum Organization and Activities. Development of the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program. Mat-Su Borough Goals and Objectives. Mat-Su Borough Coastal Boundaries and Definitions. o 00 0 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 McGuiness and John Isaacs. The Mat-Su Borough Planning Department was represented by Rodney Schulling and Rick Feller. Forum members in attendance were Jim Bird, Jack Corey, Bud Goodyear, Mitch Henning, James Herman, Barbara Lacher, Al Larson, Bob Lundell, Elsie O'Bryan, and Guy Woodings. 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: ° Mat-Su Borough. coastal boundaries. Review of coastal issues in the Mat-Su Borough. ° Coastal management goals and objectives. B-4 SUMMARY WORKSHOP ON COASTAL ISSUES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY 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 Planning Department was represented by Rodney Schulling. Forum members in attendance were Jay Bergstrand, Larry Engel, Bud Goodyear, Jim Hermon, Barbara Lacher, Bob Lundell and Myron Stevens. 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: ° Acceptance of Minutes. Mat-Su Borough Coastal Boundaries. ° Revised Issues, Goals and Objectives. B-5 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 attendance were Jim Bird, Russ Cotton, Larry Engel, Bud Goodyear, James Hermon, Bob Hurley, Barbara Lacher, Bob Lundell, Elsie O'Bryan, and Myron Stevens. Ed Busch and Lamar Cotton, Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs (ADCRA) and Debra Clausen, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) were in attendance at the meeting. 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. Mat-Su Borough Coastal Boundaries. Resource Inventory - Land Status in the Mat-Su Coastal Area Policy and Technical Coordination between Mat-Su Coastal Management Program and Mat-Su Comprehensive Development Plan. o0o°0 0 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 Mat-Su Borough Planning Deaprtment was represented by Rodney Schulling, Rick Feller and Lila Hemphill. Forum members in attendance were Jay Bergstrand, Larry Engel, Bud Goodyear, James Hermon, Bob Hurley, Barbara Lacher, Al Larson, Bob Lundell, Gary Silvers and Vern Ungerecht. 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: ° Acceptance of Minutes. ° Resource Inventory - Habitat Classifications in the Mat-Su Coastal Area. ° Resource Inventory - Fish and Wildlife Resources in the Mat-Su Coastal Area. ° Resource Inventory - Geophysical Characteristics in the Mat-Su Coastal Area. ° Discussions on Resource Inventory maps. 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 John Isaacs. The Mat-Su Borough Planning Department was represented by Rodney Schulling and Lila Hemphill. Forum members in attendance were Jim Bird, Bud Goodyear, Barbara Lacher, Bob Lundell and Guy Woodings. Larry Reeder, Regulatory Functions Branch, U.S. Amy Corps 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: ° Acceptance of Minutes ° Wetlands in the Mat-Su Borough - Role of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ° Resource Analysis and Geographic Classifications of Mat-Su Borough Coastal Area. SUMMARY WORKSHOP ON RESOURCE INVENTORY MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM MONDAY, JUNE 15, 1981 This was the seventh 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 Isaacs. The Mat-Su Borough Planning Department was represented by Rodney Schulling. Forum members in attendance were Jay Berkstrand, Jim Bird, Larry Engel, Bud Goodyear, James Hermon, Bob Hurley, Bob Lundell, Gary Silvers and Guy Woodings. The intent of the workshop session was for the consultant team to complete presentation of resource inventory and analysis findings, discuss areas which merit special attention in the Borough and present Forum members with Phase I Completion Report of the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program. ‘Topics highlighted during the workshop session included: ° Acceptance of Minutes. ° Resource Inventory - Human and Cultural Resources in the Mat-Su Coastal Area. ° Areas Which Merit Special Attention in the Mat-Su Coastal Area. ° Presentation and Review of Phase I Completion Report, Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program. SUMMARY MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1981 This was the eighth 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. Forum members in attendance were Jay Bergstrand, Larry Engel, Bud Goodyear, and Guy Woodings. A quorum was not present. The intent of the workshop session was for the consultant team to receive comments on the Phase I Completion Report and to discuss tasks to be completed during Phase II of program development. ‘Topics highlighted during the meeting included: Review of Minutes. Technical Comments. Review of Scheduled Tasks and timeline for Phase II. Finalization of Coastal Issues, Goals, and Objectives Statement. Initiation of Policy Development Discussion. ° Discussion on Coastal Management Area Boundary. o 00 0 ° B-10 SUMMARY MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC HEARING THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 1981 This was the first public hearing on the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Commission and Citizen/Agency Joint Forum acted as hosts for the hearing, presenting the Phase I Completion Report of the Matanuska- Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program for public review. The Borough Planning Commission was represented by Robert Tucker; the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum was represented by Bud Goodyear, Jay Bergstrand, Barbara Lacher and Elsie O'Bryan; and the Maynard and Partch/Woodward-Clyde consultant team was represented by Stuart Denslow, Michael McGuiness and Larry Rundquist. The intent of the public hearing was to acquaint the citizens of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough with the coastal management program and to receive citizen input on the Phase I Completion Report. A summary of the Phase I Completion Report and related work efforts completed through June 30, 1981 were provided to the public. ‘The public hearing format included: Formal Introductions. Coastal Management Program Presentation. Questions and Answers. Testimony 0°06 9 B-11 SUMMARY MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1981 This was the ninth meeting of the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum with the Maynard and Partch consultant team. The consultant team was represented by Stuart Denslow and Michael McGuiness. The Mat-Su Borough Planning Department was represented by Lee Wyatt. Forum members in attendance were Jay Bergstrand, Larry Engel, Bud Goodyear, Barbara Lacher (Borough Assembly), Bob Lundell, Vern Ungerecht (Borough Planning Commission) , and Guy Woodings (Borough Planning Commission). The purpose of the workshop session was for Forum members to establish a coastal management area boundary for the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program. To aid discussion on and selection of a coastal Management area boundary, the consultant team made a presentation on coastal boundary options available to the Mat-Su Borough. ‘Topics highlighted during the meeting included: ° Presentation of coastal boundary options. ° Determination of coastal management area boundary. B-12 SUMMARY MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MAT-SU BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM POINT MACKENZIE PORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 22, 1981 This was the tenth meeting of the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum with the Maynard and Partch consultant team. The meeting was jointly held with the Mat-Su Borough Planning Commission and the Point MacKenzie Port Advisory Committee. The consultant team was represented by Stuart Denslow and Michael McGuiness. The Mat-Su Planning Commission was represented by Ken DeCamp, Robert Tucker, Vern Ungerecht and Guy Woodings. The Mat-Su Planning Department was represented by Rodney Schulling. The Point MacKenzie Port Advisory Committee was represented by Clint Dice, Wayne Burton and Roger Elliott. Forum members in attendance were Jay Bergstrand and Bud Goodyear. The purpose of the meeting was to integrate the advisory efforts of the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum with the Mat-Su Borough Planning Commission in order to facilitate review and development of the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program in a timely manner. Topics highlighted during the meeting included: ° Creation of a Coastal Management Task Group to the Planning Commission. ° Progress report by the Point MacKenzie Port Advisory Committee. ° Review and adoption of revised issues, goals, and objectives statement. Planning Commission adoption of coastal boundaries. Discussion on policies applicable to coastal management in the Mat-Su Borough. B-13 SUMMARY OF MAT-SU BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PORTION THEREOF NOVEMBER 9, 1981 BIG LAKE, ALASKA This was the eleventh meeting of the Mat-Su Borough Planning Commission Citizen/Agency Joint Forum with the Maynard and Partch consultant team. The meeting was held with the Planning Commission as part of their regular monthly program. The consultant team was represented by Stuart Denslow. The Mat-Su Borough Planning Commission was represented by Ken DeCamp, Robert Tucker and Guy Woodings. The Mat-Su Borough Planning Department was represented by Lee Wyatt and Rodney Schulling. The purpose of the coastal management agenda item was three-fold: 1. Continue the review, discussion and development of the policy statement for coastal management. 2. Review proposed Memoranda of Understanding between the Mat-Su Borough and the Alaska State Divisions of Policy Development and Planning implementing OMB Circular A-95 Coastal Management Act of 1972 (as amended). 3. | Review proposed Memoranda of Understanding between the Mat-Su Borough and the Alaska Departments of: Natural Resources, Fish and Game, Environmental Conservation, Transportation and Public Facilities, Commerce and Economic Development and Community and Regional Affairs. B-14 SUMMARY MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1981 This was the twelfth meeting of the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum with the Maynard and Partch consultant team. The consultant team was represented by Stuart Denslow and Michael McGuiness. The Mat-Su Borough Planning Department was represented by Lee Wyatt. Forum members in attendance were Jim Bird and Bud Goodyear. The purpose of the workshop session was three-fold: Continue the review, discussion and development of the policy statement for coastal management. Review proposed Memoranda of Understanding between the Mat-Su Borough and the Alaska State Division of Policy Development and Planning implementing OMB Circular A-95 Coastal Management Act of 1972 (as amended). Review proposed Memoranda of Understanding between the Mat-Su Borough and the Alaska Departments of: Natural Resources, Fish and Game, Environmental Conservation, Transportation and Public Facilities, Commerce and Economic Development, and Community and Regional Affairs. B-15 SUMMARY MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MAT-SU PLANNING COMMISSION CITIZEN/ADVISORY JOINT FORUM POLICY WORKSHOP SESSION DECEMBER 7, 1981 This was the thirteenth meeting of the Mat-Su Borough Planning Commission - Citizen/Agency Joint Forum with the Maynard and Partch consultant team. The consultant team was represented by Stuart Denslow and Michael McGuiness. The Mat-Su Borough Planning Conmission was represented by Ken DeCamp, Robert Tucker, and Guy Woodings; the Mat-Su Borough Planning Department was represented by Lee Wvatt; and the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum was represented by Jim Bird and Bud Goodyear. The purpose of the policy workshop session was to continue the review, discussion, and development of a comprehensive policy statement for the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program. The draft policy statement from the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program Phase II, Part A Progress Report was utilized as a point of discussion. Soluble issues discussed during the policy workshop session concerned: the inclusion of a grandfather clause policy statement addressing - existing areas of development and nonconforming uses in the coastal area; the authority and responsibility of the Planning Commission in making changes or alterations to the coastal management program; and the development of a glossary to help clarify terminology used in the coastal management program. In addition, specific wording changes were made to portions of the draft policy statement. Participants of the policy workshop session agreed to hold another policy workshop session to complete review and comment on the draft policy state- ment and discuss proposed Memoranda of Understanding between the Borough and various state agencies. The date of the next Planning Conmission/Forum policy workshop is scheduled for 2:00 p.m., December 14, 1981. B-16 SUMMARY MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM POLICY WORKSHOP SESSION DECEMBER 14,1981 This was the fourteenth meeting of the Mat-Su Borough Planning Commission - Citizen/Agency Joint Forum with the Maynard and Partch consultant team. The consultant team was represented by Stuart Denslow and Michael McGuiness. The Mat-Su Borough Planning Commission was represented by Robert Tucker and Guy Woodings; the Mat-Su Borough Planning Department was represented by Lee Wyatt; and the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum was represented by Jim Bird and Bud Goodyear. Chris Beck of the Department of Natural Resources was also in attendance. The purpose of the policy workshop session was to complete the December 7 policy workshop review, discussion and development of a comprehensive policy statement for the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program. The draft policy statement from the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program Phase II, Part A, Progress Report was utilized as a point of discussion. Soluble policy issues discussed during the policy workshop concerned: the inclusion of a preamble to the policy statement which allows the Mat-Su Borough to require conditional use review of development proposals in conservation areas; the development of management area policies for Subsistence, Coastal Habitats, Geophysical Hazards, Historic Resources, and Air, Land and Water Quality; the development of specific definitions for terms utilized throughout the policy statement. Wording changes were made throughout the policy statement text. In -addition, Chris Beck of the Department of Natural Resources discussed the possible interfacing between the coastal management program, the land use plan for public lands in the Borough and the Borough comprehensive plan. B-17 A third policy workshop session has been scheduled for 1:30 p.m., January 11, 1982. The consultant team will provide the Planning Commission and the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum members with an updated coastal management policy statement prior to the workshop session. The updated policy statement will address issues and wording changes discussed in the policy workshop sessions. Proposed Memoranda of Understanding between the Borough and various state agencies will be reviewed and discussed at the January workshop session. B-18 SUMMARY MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM POLICY WORKSHOP SESSION JANUARY 11, 1982 This was the fifteenth meeting of the Mat-Su Borough Planning Commission - Citizen/Agency Joint Forum with the Maynard and Partch consultant team. The consultant team was represented by Stuart Denslow and Michael McGuiness. The Mat-Su Borough Planning Commission was represented by Robert Tucker, Vern Ungerecht, and Guy Woodings; the Mat-Su Borough Planning Department was represented by Lee Wyatt; and the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum was represented by Jim Bird and Bud Goodyear. The purpose of the workshop session was for the Planning Commission and Citizen/Agency Joint Forum members to review the revised Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program Policy Statement. The revised policy statement incorporated all comments and input from the December 7 and 14, 1981 policy workshop sessions. Stuart Denslow, of the consultant team, opened the workshop session by presenting the Planning Commission and Citizen/Agency Joint Forum with the revised policy statement. Planning Commission and Forum members made minor wording alterations and additions to the revised policy statement as presented. Acting as the Coastal Management Task Group to the Planning Commission, Planning Commission and Forum members adopted a resolution recommending conceptual approval of all coastal management program work to date, including the revised policy statement (wording alterations noted) presented at the January 11, 1982 policy workshop session. The resolution further recommended continuation of coastal management program work activities toward completion of a Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program Public Hearing Draft in June 1982. The Coastal Management Task Group's resolution was subsequently approved by the full Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled evening meeting on January 11, 1982. B-19 SUMMARY MAT-SU BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITIZEN/AGENCY JOINT FORUM IMPLEMENTATION WORKSHOP SESSION JANUARY 27, 1982 This was the sixteenth meeting of the Mat-Su Borough Planning Commission Citizen Agency Joint Forum with the Maynard and Partch consultant team. The Mat-Su Borough Planning Commission was represented by Robert Tucker and Guy Woodings; the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum by Bod Goodyear; the Mat-Su Borough Planning Department was represented by Rodney Schulling; the consultant team was represented by Stuart Denslow. The purpose of the workshop session was for the Planning Commission and Citizen/Agency Joint Forum members to further review the overall implementation element of the Coastal Management Program. The workshop group reviewed in-total the Alaska Coastal Policy Council Resolution No. 21 and the policy paper entitled "Implementing the District Program" as guidelines in further developing the implementation portion of the Mat-Su Coastal Management Program as outlined in the Phase II, Part A, progress report. Considerable discussion on enforceable rules and consistency recommendations resulted. The consultant team was directed to separate the enforceable rules from the recently adopted policy statement for Mat-Su CMP. The "model" checklist for consistency recommendations was also reviewed in detail. The workshop group discussed field checking and enforcement in relation to current Borough permitting and enforcement requirements. A tentative agreement was reached that the Mat-Su Planning Department would be responsible for conducting consistency reviews, making consistency recommendations, field checking, and enforcement of the Borough Coastal Management Program. B-20 SUMMARY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION APRIL, MAY, JUNE, JULY 1983 March 1983 - Public Hearing Draft distributed. Written comments due May 6, 1983. April 25, 1983 - Public Meeting on MSBCMP at regular Borough Planning Commission meeting. Resolution 83-22 passed recommending Assembly approval. April 26, 1983 - General review meeting on MSBCMP with Federal and State participants. June 10, 1983 - Policy review meeting on MSBCMP with Federal and State participants. July 13,14,15,16, 1983 - Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Concept Approve MSBCMP advertised in Frontiersman, Valley Sun and Anchorage Times newspapers. August 3, 1983 - "Notice" sent to Skwentna Post Office Houston " " Talkeetna " " Willow 7 7 Sutton " " Palmer " 7 Big Lake " " Trapper Creek Community Council Meadow Lakes " " Willow " " KFQD Radio Station KABN Radio Station KGOT-FM Radio Station B-21 August 10,11, 1983 - "Notice" advertised in Frontiersman and Valley Sun newspapers. August 16, 1983 - Public Hearing on MSBCMP at regular Borough Assembly Meeting. Resolution 83-96 passed recommending Concept Approval of MSBCMP. B-22 APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY Climate Data | CLIMATIC DATA FOR SELECTED AREAS IN THE MATANUSKA~SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL DISTRICT Sunmer Winter Extreme ‘Temp. Temp. Temp. Average High Low High Low High Low Precip. Snowfall Wind (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) (inches) (inches) (knots) Wasilla 69 43 43 4 90 -30 19 Si 5.8 Palmer 67 «44 42 6 90 -35 17 64 3.8 Willow 70 40 33-10 90 -56 24 - = Skwentna 69 44 40 -4 90 -50 29 119 2 Matanuska ote - - 91 -41 21 45.4 - Agriculture Experiment Station Source: Alaska Regional Profiles: Southcentral Region. 1974 Wind (knots) 53 87 Geological Data GEOPHYSICAL 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. Coriolis effect: The intergral force caused by the earth's rotation that deflects a moving body to the right (east) in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left (east) in the Southern Hemisphere. 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. Cc-2 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 virtue 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. 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 swamp 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. Cc-3 Stamukas: Stacks of layered ice that have been beached and frozen to the beach; also referred to as ice cakes. Subduction zone: 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. CENOZOIC Stratified Sedimentary and Volcanic Rocks in Part Metamorphosed Quaternary Qh Holocene Deposits - Alluvial, glacial, lacustrine, swamp, landslide, and beach deposits. Qp Pleistocene Deposits - Alluvial, glacial, dune sand, loess, terrace and pediment gravel, and reworked sand and silt deposits. Tertiary 12 Lower Tertiary 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 mTc 1Tc Upper Tertiary - Sandstone, siltstone, claystone, minor conglomerate 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. Middle Tertiary - Sandstone, siltstone, conglomerate, claystone, and coal beds. Includes the Healy Creek Formation (Oligocene and Miocene) in the central Alaska Range; the Gakona Formation (Oligocene) in the east-central Alaska Range; and the Tsadaka Formation (Oligocene) in the Matanuska Valley. Lower Tertiary - Claystone, siltstone, sandstone, conglomerate, and coal beds. Includes the Chickaloon and Wishbone Formations in the Matanuska Valley and equivalent rocks in the Cook Inlet area. Includes rocks ranging in age from Paleocene through Eocene. c-5 Txc Paleocene - Conglomerate, arkose, sandstone, coaly shale, and shale. Consists of the Cantwell Formation in the central Alaska Range and the Arkose Ridge Formation in the Matanuska Valley. Volcanic Rocks Tv Tertiary - Acidic lava flows, mostly rhyolite and trachyte with some andesite south of the central Alaska Range; basalt flows and associated pyroclastic rocks in Talkeetna Mountains. Granitic Rocks Tg Tertiary - Epizonal to typabyssal quartz monzonites and granites in the central Alaska Range; mainly rhyolite and trachyte in the Matanuska Valley. TKg Tertiary and Cretaceous - Granodiorite to granite in the Alaska- Aleutian Range batholith and quartz diorite and granodiorite in the Talkeetna batholith. Bath are of Late 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. MESOZOIC Stratified Sedimentary and Volcanic Rocks in Part Metamorphosed Cretaceous K Cretaceous rocks - Shelf deposits of sandstone, siltstone, shale, limestone, claystone, conglomerate, mudstone, and procellanite raning in age from Early Cretaceous (Valanginian) to Late Cretaceous (Maestrichtian). Rocks of Aptian age apparently absent. Includes the Matanuska Formation in the Matanuska Valley. C-6 uMz uMz uMz Cretaceous and Jurassic Rocks - Argillite, shale, graywacke, conglomerate, lava, tuff, and agglomerate; almost barren of fossils; probably includes rocks ranging in age from Early Jurassic to Late Cretaceous. In places moderately to highly (amphibolite faces) metamorphosed. Cretaceous and Upper Jurassic(?) Rocks - Graywacke, slate, argillite, with minor conglomerate, volcanic detritus, and interbedded amfic volcanic rocks. Mainly of Late Cretaceous (Maestrichtian) 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. Mildly metamorphosed, locally to greenschist facies. Cretaceous and/or Upper Jurassic Rocks - A deep-water clastic sequence of siltstone, graywacke, arkose, and conglomeratic sandstone chaotically juxtaposed with a sequence containing massive pillow basalts and associated radiolarian chert, argillite, and minor ultramafic rocks and marble. Mildly metamorphosed (prehnite-pumpellyite facies). In part a melange. Consists of the McHugh Complex. Jurrassic 1d Lower Jurassic Rocks - Sandstone and argillite interbedded with volcanic flows and pyroclastic rocks of the Talkeetna Formation in the Cook Inlet area and southern Talkeetna Mountains. Triassic <P Triassic and Permian Rocks - Argillite and limestone with siltstone and conglomerate and abundant gabbroic sills along east-central Alaska Range. Includes upper part of Mankomen Group of Middle Pennsylvanian to Early Permian age. Volcanic Rocks Triassic TV Triassic - Basaltic lava, commonly amygdaloidal, with local thin interbeds of volcaniclastic rocks, and local basal conglomerate. Includes the Nikolai Greenstone and related rocks of Middle and/or Late Triassic age. Granitic Rocks Cretaceous Kg Cretaceous - Granodiorite with subordinate granite, quartz monzonite, and diorite. Includes extensive migmatitic granodiorites in the central Alaska Range. Jurassic Jg Jurassic - Quartz diorite and granodiorite of Early and Middle Jurassic age in the Alaska-Aleutian Range batholith; granodiorite with subordinate quartz monzonite and quartz diorite of probable early Middle Jurassic age in the Talkeetna batholith. MESOZOIC AND(OR) PALEOZOIC Ultramafic Rocks MzPzum Mesozoic and(or) Paleozoic - Serpentinized perioditite Metamorphic Rocks MzPzm Mesozoic and(or) Paleozoic - Metaplutonic, metasedimentary, and metavolcanic rocks near Anchorage and amphibolite - facies schist along south side of Matanuska Valley. c-8 PALEOZOIC Stratified Sedimentary and Volcanic Rocks In Part Metamorphosed Pz Paleozoic Rocks - Near Cantwell in south-central Alaska Range, limestone, slate, and conglomerate with some fossils of Devonian age. West of Chulitna River, unfossiliferous argillite and graywacke, mildly metamorphosed. 1Pzp (Lower Paleozoic and(or) Precambrian Rocks - Highly metamorphosed clastic rocks. Includes Keevy Peak Formation and rocks formerly included in the Birch Creek Schist. Permian PP Permian and Pennsylvanian Rocks - Basaltic to andesitic lavas and their derivative volcaniclastic rocks, tuffs, minor gabbro, and local shallow-water sedimentary rocks. Includes Skolai Group of Early Permian age, equivalent rocks in the Streina Formation, the Tetelna Volcanics of Pennsylvanian age, and related unnamed rocks. In the Talkeetna Mountains, metamorphosed mainly to green-schist facies, locally to amphibolite facies. Ultramafic Rocks Pzum Paleozoic - Peridotite, dunite, and pyroxenite of probable Paleozoic age northeast of Anchorage. c-9 Summary of Basic Development Constraints Associated with Geophysical Hazards in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal District Avoid Hazare Hazard Ar GEOLOGIC-SEISMIC . Fault traces x Liquefaction x Ground shaking Frozen soils “ann GEOLOGIC - VOLCANIC Directed explosions Glowing avalanche Flash floods Mudflows Landslides Ash fall x a pereng GEOLOGIC - MASS WASTING - Landslides x - Avalanches x" x - Rock glaciers x HYDROLOGIC - FLOODING = Within floodway - In floodway fringe “x HYDROLOGIC - ICINGS - All locations x % HYDROLOGIC - BANK EROSION - All locations x OCEANIC - ICE - Coastal erosion x x - Coastal flooding x x OCEANIC - SEISMIC - Coastal erosion x - Coastal flooding x OCEANIC - STORMS ~ Coastal erosions = Coastal flooding When both avoidance and design opticns are identified, av: preferred. Glacial Advances in the Cook Inlet Basin Glaciation Age Associated Events in Cook Inlet Alaska 200-4,800 yrs ago? Minor sea level fluctuations Interglacial Period - High Sea Level stand Naptowne 6 ,000-30,000 yrs ago! Glacial lake Interglacial Period - High Sea Level Stand Knik 38,000-65 ,0007 Glacial lake Interglacial Period - Deep Weathering Eklutna 25,0001-119,0007 yrs ago Cook Inlet ice filled Interglacial Period - Major Weathering Caribou Hills Begin Retreat) Cook Inlet ice filled 155,000-190,000° yrs ago to 3,000 ft. abcve mean sea level Interglacial Period - Deep Weathering Mt. Susitna Older than 110,000 yrs ago Cook Inlet ice filled to 4,000 ft. above mean sea level }earbon-14 date Boulder count date (estimated) SOURCE: Susitna Basin Planning Background Report, 1980 and 7th International Conaress on Quaternary... Central and Southcentral Alaska, 1977. c-10 Water Resource Data 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 43,452 Matanuska River near Palmer 3,857 2,794,000 2,493 Cottonwood Creek near Wasilla 16 11,680 10 Little Susitna River near 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 71,120 Source: U.S.G.S. 1971. Break-up and freeze-up dates determined from stream flow measurements Most probable break-up date Knik River Matanuska River April 24-May 3 April 26-May 4 Little Susitna River May 2-May 11 Susitna River May 5-May 14 Source: Institute of Water Resources Report No. Alaska, 1977. IWR-78, University of Estimated 100 Year Flood Discharge for Streams in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management District 100 Year Flood Drainage Discharge Stream Approximate Location im?) (cfs) (cfs/mi*) Susitna R at Talkeetna®), 11,035 268,000 24.3 at Gold Creek 6,160 120,000 19.5 Matanuska R nr Palmer? 2,070 49,100 23.7 Talkeetna R at mouth® 2,015 97,000 48.1 Little Susitna R nr mouth® 320 24,200 75.6 at Parks Highway a 175 15,200 86.9 at Wasilla-Fishhook R‘ 62 8,190 132 Willow Ck at mouth? “258 16,900 65.5 Little Willow Ck at Parks Highway° 157 12,300 78.3 Sources: ® Corps of Engineers, 1972; Conservation Service, 1980; » tamke, 1979; © soil and ~ Corps of Engineers, 1980. Note: Discharge per unit area is larger for smaller drainage areas. c-11 aximum Known Flood Discharge on Streams in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Area Location Drainage Period of Maximum Known Flood Station Arga Record Discharac No. Stream Latitude Longitude (mi*) (years/dates) Flood Tefsy (efs7miy 15281000 Knik R nr Palmer 61°30'18" = 140°01'50" 1,180 42 (1935-76) 1958 —-355,000a 300 - Kings R nr Sutton 61°43'58" = 148°44"52" 151 Miscellaneous 1971 9,800 64.9 - Granite C nr Sutton 61°46'46" = 148°50'12" 52.5 Miscellaneous 1971 58,600b 1,120 15283500 Eska C nr Sutton 61°43"44" = 148°54"31" 13.4 1971 1,680 125 - Noose C nr Sutton 61°43'32" — 149°03"00" 40.7 Miscellaneous = Aug. 10, 1971 18,000 422 15284000 Matanuska R at Palmer 61°36'34" = -149°04"16" 2,070 26 (1949-74) Aug. 10, 1971 82,100b 39.7 - Wasilla C nr Palmer 61°38'47" = 14991145" 19.3. Miscellaneous 1971 700 36.3 1528€000 Cottonwood C nr Wasille 61°34'30" = -149°24+35" 28.5 6 (1949-54) 1949 55 1.93 15289800 Fishhook C nr Palmer 61°45'05" = -149°13 "40" 8.52 3 (1963-66) 1963 960 113 15290000 Little Susitna R nr Palmer 61°42'32" —-149°13*36" 61.9 26 (1948-76) 1971 7,840 127 15292000 Susitna R nr Gold C 62°46'04" = 14994128" 6,160 27 (1949-76) 1964 90,700 14.7 15292400 Chulitna R nr Talkeetna 62°33'31" = -150°14*02" 2,570 17 (1958-76) 1967 75,900 29.5 15292700 Talkeetna R nr Talkeetna 62°20'49" —-150°01'01" 2,007 13 (1964-76) 1971 67,400 33.6 15292780 Susitna River nr Sunshine 62°10'35" 1501018" 11,500 Miscellaneous 1971 200,000 17.4 15292800 tontana C nr Montana 62°06'32" —-150°03"12" 164 10 (1963-72) 1971 6,970 42.5 15292900 Goose C nr Montana 62°03'42" — 150°03"20" 14.5 9 (1963-71) 1964 530¢ 36.5 15293000 Caswell C nr Caswell 61°56'55" —-150°03"14" 19.6 14 (1963-76) 1965 207 10.6 15294025 Moose C nr Talkeetna 62°19'00" —-150°26+30" 52.3 5 (1972-76) 1972 35.4 15294300 Skwentna R nr Skwentna 61°52'23" 15192201" 2,250 17(1959-76) 1971 22.2 15294350 Susitna R at Susitna Station 61°32'41" ° 150°30'45* 19,400 2(1974-76) 1975 173,000 8.9 * Glacier dammed lake release flood. > Rainfall flood was augmented by the release of stored water from an unnamed lake after embankment was breached. © rloods from Sheep Creek overflow on 10 August 1971 reached 3,270 cfs in Goose Creek. Summary of MNocunented Flood Nazard Potential in Communities in the Natanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management District. Type of Flooding Percent Frequency of Flood of Stream Ice or Log Local Community Community Hazard Occurrence Overflow Jams Icings Drainage Coastal Affected Alexander Ave x x 20 a Butte nigt? x 2 Houston Low Low x x 1,2 Noose Creek Low-Ave x x 1 Palmer Low Low x x 10 1,2 Sutton Low Low x 60 1,2 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 Engineers, 1980a b High flood hazard applies to low lying areas only C-12 Wildlife Data 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 = 111 74 86 80 33 32 31 15 16 13 1979 Survey: Unrestricted de 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 “hci sanyo from N = 117 77 92 83 36 38 34 17 21 15 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_ refuge/activity 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 ll 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 time for tabulation. Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game C-13 Fish and wildlife habitats and recreational reservation on public lands within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal District. Name Little Susitna River pe of Easement 4-mile recreational corridor 2. Susitna River 4-mile fish and wildlife habitat corridor (all contained within Susitna Flats Refuge) 3. Theodore River 4-mile recreational corridor (all contained within Susitna Flats Refuge) 4. Yentna & Skwentna Rivers 4-mile recreational and fish and wildlife habitat corridor 5. Alexander Creek 4-mile recreational corridor (and Sucker Creek) 6. Lake Creek 4-mile recreational corridor Source: Governor's Committee 1980 Moose Harvest in GMU's (14a, 14b, 16a, 16b) during 1970 to 1979. Number Number of Estimated of Moose Moose = 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 4297a 18 1975 ~ 1975 435 1108a 39 1976 3311 708 1358a 52 1977 4593b 987 3872a 25 1978 4654 1277 3960a 32 1979 2961 933 3570 26 a Only portions of GMU's censused. b Data Source: C-14 extrapolated to correct for missing reminder letters. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Verified Moose Mortality (excluding hunting) in Alaska's Game Management Subunit 14A During the Calendar Period June 1 - May 31, 1972-73 through 1978-79. ROAD KILL INCIDENTAL/TRAIN KILL ILLEGAL KILL WINTER KILL TOTAL Ad. Ad. 2 Tot. Ad. Ad. Calf ? Tot, Ad. Ad. Calf 7? ‘Tot. Ad. Ad. Calf 7? Tot. HE, S Mo OF. OM. -—HX RRR LL BRM PR LL 1972-73 4 20 6 4 2 36 o 2 0 1 5 3 31 2 6 7 49 o 0 0 © o ® 90 1973-74 20«17—Ci«7 S28 1 4 2 2. 14 20370202 02«7~— 49 2 1203 «0 7 103 1974-75 8 «28 «210 130 «43 5 16 6 138.843 3-5-4090 © 0 3 4 +o 7 145 1g75-76** 0 20 5 3 1 29 2 20 1 1 5 1 86 1 0 3 123 © 1 06 0 o 1 48 1976-77 7 28 6 15 0 56 2 4 0 12 a 7°99 6 © 0 o 15 o 1 0 1 oO 2 80 1977-78 «= 9934 6 1727 o 1 2 0 2 5 2 2 0 0 2 6 © 1 0 0 0 1 79 1978-79 15 42 8 30 13 108 3 3 2 2 4 12 4 7 1 3 28 43 o 1 1 0 «7 9 172 * —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 springs of 1973, 1975, and 1976. Verified Moose Mortality (excluding hunting) in Alaska's Game Management Subunit 14B During the Calendar Period June 1 - May 31, 1972-73 through 1978-79, ROAD KILL INCIDENTAL/TRAIN KILL ILLEGAL KILL TOTAL ‘Ad. Ad. Calf 2? Tot. Ad. Ad. Calf 7? Tot. Ad. ad. calf ? ‘Tot. aa. Tot. BEM RL MS Pom RL LUM Bm rR LD Me 1 0 0 0 2 3 o 4 2092 3 1 0 0 0 o 1 1 ° 0 1 1s 2 3 0 1 2 6 o 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 © 0 ° 0 9 1 0 2 0 2 5 4 16 2 8 19 49 0 1 0 1 9 2 o o 1 1 © 2 58 © 0 © 0 2 1 © 0 0 0 06 o 1 0 © © 0 1 © 0 0 0 06 ° 2 2 203 0 1 7 o 1 0 0 1 200 2 0 0 0 2 © © © 0 o ° a o 2 0 1 2 5 o 0 © 0 § 5 0 © 0 o 4 4 1 0 0 © o 1 15 6 16 110 8 4 21°39 11 «9 «91 #171 1 4 0 0 0 5 o 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 springs of 1973, 1975, and 1976. SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game Cc-15 Number of waterfowl (other than ducks) utilizing the 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 11 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 92 21 1978 May Swan 23 5 Goose (all sp.) 149 52 150 Sandhill Crane 2 18 August White-fronted Goose 500 Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game c-16 Numbers and Nensities 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 > 13273 784 3427 Yo 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. 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 ll 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: Alaska Department of Fish and Game C-17 Cook Inlet Refuge Duck Harvest 1971-1979. reent of reent of Duck Harvest Statewide tewide 1971-1976 Duck Harvest 1977-1979 Duck Harvest Refuge TOI 157s 15731574 1575 1576 average = 1971-1976 S17 —I575—I575_ 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 4 11406 3306 = :1261* 5324 4.98 Goose Bay NS NS 22382 287/351 510 846 0.9 1570367459 799 0.7 1971-1976 data calculated from Statewide Waterfowl Hunter Mail Survey; 1977-1979 data calculated from USFWS collection survey. NS = Not Surveyed *USPWS evidently attributed harvest from Palmer Hay Flats to Upper Cook Inlet figures. Cook Inlet Refuge Goose Harvest 1971-1979. Percent of Percent of Goose Harvest Statewide Statewide 1971-1976 Goose Harvest 1977-1979 Goose Harvest Refuge TSvI 15721573 1574 19751576 average —=—«:1971-1976 517 15781575 average 1977-1979 Susitna Flats 699 357 1030 224 173 418 478 3.3 NS 766 0438 602 4.1 Palmer Hay Flats 45 65 287° 112173 72 121 0.8 NS ° ° Goose Bay NS NS ° ° 0 ° ° 0.0 NS NS NS 1971-1976 data calculated fron Statewide Waterfowl Hunter Mail Survey; 1977-1979 data calculated from USFWS collection survey. NS = Not Surveyed Waterfowl Hunter Days and Average Harvest Per Day on Cook Inlet Refuges, 1971-1976. Percent of Average Average Hunter Days State waterfowl ducks/ Geese/ 1971-1976 hunter days day/ day/ Refuge I97l_ 1972 15731974 1575 1576 average 1971-1976 hunter = hunter Susitna Flats 3885 ©3798 «= 7060 «3763-3112 $280 4473 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 Calculated from Statewide Waterfowl Hunter Mail Survey. Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game c-18 Knik Arm Drainage* Sport Fish Harvest and Effort by Fisheries and Species, 1980. Days King Silver Land Red Pink Chum Rainbow Dolly Take Water System Fished Salmon Salmon Locked Salmon Salmon Salmon Trout Vardenl/ Trout Grayling Burbot Other Little Susitna River 22,420 646 6,302 0 2,127 3,918 465 1,748 ° 181 9 1,059 Wasilla Creek (Rabbit Slough) 5,726 ° 3,555 0 o 310 9 189 ° ° 0 ° Cottonwood Creek 9,268 ° 3,375 o 2,660 ° ° 439 o o 0 e Wasilla Lake 1,642 0 0 43 0 0 oO 181 0 o 0 o Finger Lake 6,483 ° 0 10,685 0 0 o ° 0 0 o 6 Kepler Lake Complex 8,597 ° 0 2,807 0 0 0 0 0 = 1,016 0 ° Lucille Lake 0 ° 3,633 0 0 9 9 0 0 9 9 Big Lake 0 ° 189 43 0 ° 7,585 594 ° 43 o Nancy Lake Recreation area, including Nancy Lake 9,153 ° ° 146 69 o ° 2,540 327 749 o 34 a3 Others 23,248 0 2,798 1,997 275 473 60 = 11,382 2,015 TS 8,317 9-224 34 Total 102,530 646 16,030 19,500 5,674 4,701 534 29,368 += 12,484 2,118 1514310 1,136 Knik Arm Drainage: All waters inside the area bounded by Little Susitna River on the north and west and the Knik Arn on the south, including all drainages of the Matanuska and Knik Rivers. (Boundary streams are included in the area.) 1/Dolly Varden & Arctic Char East Side Susitna Drainage* Sport Fish Harvest and Effort by Fisheries and Species, 1980. Days King Silver Land Red Pink Chum Rainbow Dolly Take Water System Fished Salmon Salmon __Locked__Salmon Salmon Salmon Trout Vardenl/ Trout Grayling Burbot Other Willow Creek 29,011 289 1,207 ° 83 989 1,168 636 0 1,863 o 116 Caswell Creek 4,963 215 1,126 0 77 19 154 83 0 353 26 26 Montana Creek 19,287 559 2,684 ° 257 571 854 167 0 655 13 13 Sunshine Creek 5,208 13e* 1,534 ° 116 225 193 39 0 0 39 ° Clear (Chunilna) Creek 4,388 = 172 661 ° 6 385 950 751 o 1,348 32 32 Sheep Creek 8,041 45* 430 ° ° 648 385 83 0 728 45 0 Little Willow Creek 8,190 32* 494 ° 77 270 353 122 0 1,156 0 13 Others 12,216 45* 2,234 1,663 257 1,445 2,658 790 267 1854 212 520 Total 91,304 1,370 10,368 1,663 873 4,552 6,715 2,671 267 10,959 367 720 * East Side Susitna Drainage: All east side drainages of River below its confluence Oshetna River. [ish taken fishing from the east bank Susitna River are included area. ** King salmon less than 20 inches. 1/Dolly Varden & Artic Char Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Gane, 1980 Data, Mills. the Susitna with t while of the in thii he Statewide Harvest Study - C-19- West Cook Inlet-West Side Susitna River Drainages* Sport Fish Harvest and Effort by Fisheries and Species, 1980. Days King Silver Red Pink Chun Rainbow Dolly Lake Fished Salmon Salmon Salmon Salmon Salmon Trout Vardenl/_ Trout Grayling NP Berbot _RC__ Othe SALTWATER: Boat 928 0 69 17 17 0 0 o o ° oO 0 oO 103 Shoreline 871 0 146 2 69 o o 2 o 2 o © $3,934 0 SALTWATER TOTAL 1,799 0 215 26 86 ° 0 0 ° 0 o 0 53,934 103 FRESHWATER: Deshka River (Kroto Creek) 19,364 3,685 2,290 0 689 0 4,305 0 0 1,817 ° 224 O 69 Lake Creek 8,325 775 2,351 267 2,101 69 2,144 121 o 1,972 103 0 0 o Alexander Creek 6,812 1,438 999 52 809 121 1,945 353 0 1,145 0 oO 0 ° Talachulitna River 2,542 32204 491 112 276 17 379 982 0 1,713 0 0 0 ° Chuit River 614 ijee 258 0 69 0 301 146 oO 0 0. 0 ° 0 Theodore River 700 izes 370 0 232 oO 250 129 0 ° 0 0 0 oO Lewis River 43 0 O 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 o ° ° oO Other Rivers 4,998 129** 6,010 34 362 284 1,722 603 181 1,808 0 448 ° o Shell Lake 414 0 ° 198 0 oO 103 0 69 0 0 oO oO 0 Whiskey Lake 29 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 ° o 0 Hewitt Lake 471 0 ° 0 0 0 9 ° 0 0 0 o o oO Judd Lake 814 0 0 267 0 0 86 723 0 232 o o 0 ° Other Lakes 2,999 o o 181 oO o 2,092 43 198 560 129 34 o 34 FRESHWATER TOTAL 48,125 6,182 12,769 1,111 4,538 491 13,345 3,100 448 9,247 232 706 oO 103 GRAND TOTAL 49,924 6,182 12,984 1,137 4,624 491 13,345 3,100 448 99,247 232 706 «53,934 206 * West Side Cook Inlet-West Side Susitna River Drainages: All West side Susitna River drainages and all west side Cook Inlet waters southward to Cape Fish taken while fishing from the west bank of the Susitna River are included in Douglas. this area. ** King salmon less than 20 inches. 1/Dolly Varden & Artic Char Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Statewide Harvest Study - 1980 Data, Mills. C-20 Lakes Stocked in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal District e of Fish Lake Rainbow Trout Silver Salmon Grayling Kink Lake x Marion Lake x Rockey Lake Loon Lake Lucille Lake Finger Lake Johnson Lake Long Lake Irene Lake Bradley Lake Harriet Lake x Echo Lake Kepler Lake Matanuska Lake South Rolly Lake Little No Luck Lake Big No Luck Lake x D6 >6 Oe > eM OO 6 4 bad Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1978 Rivers Identified on ADF&G Resource Maps as Critical Habitat Big Game River or Stream Salmon Bear Moose Furbearers Little Susitna River Co PCKS x Alexander Creek KS Co P Winter Lower Sucker Creek KS Co P Winter Yentna River KS Co CP x x Lake Creek S Co CPK Skwentna River Co CPKS x Red Creek Co CP x Talachalina River Co CPK Deshka River (Krato R.) Co PKS x x Trapper Creek Co K . Moose Creek Co PKCHS x Susitna River KS Co PCH X x x Sheep Creek K Co CP x 1 Co - Coho (Silver, P - Pink (Humpback), C - Chum (Dog), K - King (Chinook), S - Sockeye (Red). Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1978 c-21 Mammals which may occur in the Knik Arm wetlands studv area, upland habitat and within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal District. Species Scientific Name Major Vegetation Types* Masked shrew Sorex cinerus 3-16 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 oeconumus 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 dorsatus $,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 Dall sheep Ovis dalli 1c Mountain goat Oreamnos americanus 10 *(1) Aquatic vegetation, (2) Marshes, (3) Wet meadows, vegetation of levees, bars, and mudflats, (5) Willow thickets, (6) Ver Myrica fens, (7) Alder thickets, (8) Ericaceous shrub-sphaqnum bogs, (9) Black spruce forests, (10) Cottonwood, birch & white spruce forests. (4) Herbaceous Mammals which may occur in the Knik Arm wetlands study area wetlands and tidelands habitat, in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal District. Species Scientific Name Major Vegetation Types* Masked shrew Sorex cinerus 3-10 Dusky shrew Sorex obscurus 3,5,6,7,8,9,10 Northern water shrew Sorex palustris riparian Northern bog lemming Synapomys borealis 3,6,8 Lemmus trimucronatus Cleathrionomys rutilus Microtus pennsylvanicus o Brown lemming Red-backed vole Meadow vole Oy, Www ' OHH OV oo Tundra vole Microtus oeconumus 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 rat Myotis lucifugus 1-10 Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 1,2,3,4,6 Coyote Canis latrans 3-10 Red 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 1 5,7,9,10 / *(1) Aquatic vegetation, (2) Marshes, (3) Wet meadows, (4) Herbaceous 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. 1981 Source: Knik Arm Wetlands Study, C-22 Birds which may occur in the Knik Arm wetlands study area Observec Status, Species in 1986 Season” Common loon Gavia immer R-s Arctic loon Gavia arctica U-s Red-throated loon Gavia stellata R-m Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegna x C-s Horned grebe Podiceps auritus x Great blue heron Ardea herodias Whistling swan Olor columbianus x Trumpeter swan Olor buccinator x Canada goose Branta canadensis x Black brant Branta nigricans White-fronted goose Answer albiforms x Snow goose Chen hyperborea x Mallard Anas platyrhynchos x Pintail Anas acuta x Green-winged teal Anas Carolinensis x Blue-winged teal Anas discors x Northern shoveler Spatula clypeata x European wigeon Mareca penelope American wigeon Mareca americana x Canvasback Aythya valisineria x Redhead Aythya americana Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris x Greater scaup Aythya marilla x Lesser scaup Aythya affinis x Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula x Barrow's goldeneye Bucephala islandica x Bufflehead Bucephala albeolc x Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis Harleguin duck Histrionicus histrionicus White-winged scoter Melanitta deglandi Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata Black scoter Oldemia nigra Common merganser Mergus merganser x Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator x Goshawk Accipiter gentilis x Sharpeshinned hawk Accipiter straitus x Red-Tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis x Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus x Golden eagle Aquila chyrsaetos x Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucccephalus x Marsh hawk Circus cyaneus x Osprey Pandion haliaetus x Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Merlin Falco columbarius x American kestrel Palco sparverius x m Sandhill crane Grus canadensis x C-m,U-s American coot Fulica americana x Ca Semi-palmated plover Charadrius semipalnmatus x U-s Kildeer Charadrius Vociferus U-s American golden plover Pluvialis dominica x U=-m Black-bellied plover Squatarola squatarola R-n 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 Lesser 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 Arenaria 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’ Ereuhetes pusillus R-m Western sandpiper Ereuhetes mauri U-n 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 lp = resident, U = uncommon, s = summer, f = fall, w = winter, m= migrant, C = common, p = permanent resident, Ca = casual. C-23 Birds identified in the Knik Arm wetlands study area and which probably occur throughout the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal District uplands Observed Status 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 2 C-s,R-w Varied thrush Ixoreus naevius x C-s Hermit thrush Hylocichla guttata x U-s Swainson's thrush Hylocichla ustulata x C-s Grey-cheeked thrush Hylocichla minima U-s Townsend's solitaire Myadestes townsendi R-s Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa U-p Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula x A-s Water pipit Anthus spinoletta x C-s Behemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulus x U-p,A-£ 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 Rev 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 i A-s,R-w Golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla C-s Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca x C-s,R-w Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza lincolnii C-s Song sparrow Melospiza melodia U-s Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus x Cen Snow bunting Phectrophenax nivalis Uem,U-w 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 Rugous 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 Black-backed three-toed woodpecker Piocoides arcticus R-p Northern three-toed woodpecker Piocoides 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 Ces 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 1p = resident, U = uncommon, s = summer, f = fall, w = winter, m = migrant, C = common, p = permanent resident, Ca = casual. Source: Knik Arm Wetlands Study, 1981. C-24 APPENDIX D COASTAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION In accordance with the Citizen/Agency Joint Forum's selection of a coastal boundary based on survey lines and related man-made features, the legal description delineates the Mat-Su Borough coastal management area to include all lands and waters within the following townships or portions of townships described on a protracted basis whether surveyed or unsurveyed. T12N, R7, 8, 9W: All that portion within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough boundary. T13N, R4, 5, 6W: All that portion within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough boundary. T13N, R7, 8, 9W: All. T14N, R3, 4W: All that portion within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough boundary. T14N, R5 thru 11W: All. TI5N, R2, 3W: All that portion within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough boundary. T1I5N, R4 thru 11W: All. T16N, RIE: All that portion within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough boundary. T16N, R2, 3E: All. T16N, R4E: Sections 4 thru 10, 13 thru 36. D-1 T16N, R5E: Sections 19 thru 21, 28 thru 33. T16N, Rl, 2, 3W: All that portion within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough boundary. T16N, R4 thru 13W: All. T17N, Rl, 2E: All. T17N, R3E: Section 6 thru 8, 16 thru 22, 25 thru 36. T17N, R4E,: Section 31. T17N, Rl thru 12W: All. T18N, R2E: All. T18N, R3W: Section 15 thru 36. T18N, R4 thru 12W: All. T19N, R4W: All that portion lying west of the east boundary of the Parks Highway right-of-way. T19N, R5 thru 12W: All. T20N, R4W: All that portion lying west of the east boundary of the Parks Highway right-of-way. T20N, R5 thru 12W: All. T21N, R4W: All that portion lying west of the east boundary of the Parks Highway right-of-way. T21N, R5 thru 12W: All. T22N, R4W: All that portion lying west of the east boundary of D-2 the Parks Highway right-of-way. T22N, R5 thru 12W: All. T23N, R4W: All that portion lying west of the east boundary of the Parks Highway right-of-way. T23N, R5 thru 12W: All. In addition, where the above described boundary intersects the below- listed rivers and creeks, the management boundary extends upstream to the 1000-foot contour level. The width of this extended boundary is the width of the water course and 200 feet on each side as measured from the ordinary high water mark: Skwentna River Yentna River Kahiltna River Chulitna River Susitna River Talkeetna River Montana Creek Sheep Creek Kashwitna River Little Willow Creek Willow Creek Little Susitna River Matanuska-River 14. Lake Creek 15. Moose Creek 16. Kroto Creek 17. Lower Kroto Creek (Deshka River) 18. Talachulitna River rPrP oO DOAN KHUN FWD mH Oe . . . . . . . . : rPoH won 7s D-3 APPENDIX E Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program Review Checklist The Planning Director will review proposed actions for consistency by considering the following factors: 1. Kind of action proposed: a. Federal ° Direct Federal activity, including development projects Permit or license Exploration, development and production plans ° Federal assistance b. State ° Direct activities ° Permits, approvals and leases e.—_ Iecal ° Capital improvement projects ° Permits (Title 17) ° Subdivision and platting approvals (Title 16) 2. Type of action proposed (i.e. industrial, commercial, residential or public utility). 3. Location of actions within the coastal management District, in whole or in part. 4. How will the action affect the coastal area? Describe any: a. Significant changes in the manner in which land, water, or coastal area natural resources are used. b. Significant limitations on the range of uses of coastal area natural resources. c. Significant changes in the quality of coastal area natural resources. 10. What administrative areas will be significantly affected? a. Land use district. (Comprehensive Plan) b. Resource management unit or subunit. (Department of Natural Resources) c. Service area. (Matanuska-Susitna Borough) dad. Within Area(s) Meriting Special Attention e. Other. (e.g. Special Port District) What uses, activities, resources and habitats will be significantly affected. a. Offshore areas. b. Estuaries. c. Wetlands and tideflats. d. Rivers, streams and lakes. e. Important upland habitats. f£. Air, land and water quality. g. Surface and ground water. h. Historic, prehistoric and archaeological resources. i. Coastal or river floodplains. 3. Hazardous areas. k. Subsistence resources. Consistency with policies spelled out in the District plan. Will action necessitate a decision which requires a Written Analysis? (See page 7-4). Is the action consistent with local land and water use controls administered by the Planning Department? (Title 16 and Title 17)? Is the action consistent with land use districts (Title 17) or management units or subunits of related Borough plans (i.e. Willow Sub-Basin Plan)? If not, name the specific districts or management areas with which the action is not consistent and describe briefly why the action is not consistent. E-2 11. 12. Is the action consistent with potential or proposed management plans for any Areas Meriting Special Attention in which the action is located? If not, briefly state why. If the action is not consistent with the District goal or policy for a land use district, management unit or subunit, use, habitat, activity or resource; a management plan for an Area Meriting Special Attention; other land or water use control; state what actions or measures, if any, could be taken to make the action consistent. E-3 BIBLIOGRAPHY MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Biophysical Boundaries for Alaska's Coastal Zone. April, 1978. ISSUES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Land Use Issues and Preliminary Resource Inventory, Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga Cooperative Planning Program, Vol. 1 of 2, May, 1982. DOWL Engineers, Growth Potential, Development Issues, Settlement Patterns, Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga Cooperative Planning Program, Vol. 2 of 2, May, 1982. : Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department. Goals Statement, Phase II: Comprehensive Development Plan. May, 1978. Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. Economic Development program for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Volume I: Annual Overall Economic Development Program Report, July 1, 1979 - June 30, 1980. July, 1980. Simpson Usher Jones, Inc. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program. First Annual Progress Report - 1979. NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Alaska's wildlife Habitat: Vol. I. Juneau, ADF&G, 1973. Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat: Vol. II. Juneau, ADF&G, 1978. Alaska's Fisheries Atlas: Vol. I and II. Juneau, ADF&G, 1978. State Game Refuges, Critical Habitat Areas and Sanctuaries. Juneau, ADF&G, 1979. Susitna Flats Refuge Management Plan. Anchorage, ADF&G, 1980. Draft Goose Bay Refuge Management Plan. No date. Draft Palmer Hay Flats Refuge Management Plan. No date. 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 Conserva- tion Service, Interagency Cooperative Susitna River Basin Study Agreement #58 04368 16, 1980. Matanuska-Susitna Natural Resources Maps. Anchorage, ADF&G, 1981. Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing and Migration of Anadromous Fishes, April, 1982. The Use of Moose and Other Wild Resources in the Tyonek and Upper Yentna Areas - A Background Report. ADF&G Division of Subsistence, March, 1983. Traditional Resource Uses in the Knik Arm Area: Historical and Contemporary Patterns. ADF&G, Division of Subsistence, December, 1981. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Susitna Basin Land Use and Recreation. 1980. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Land Use Plan for Public Lands in the Willow Sub Basin. October, 1981 Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Land Use Issues and Preliminary Resource Inventory, Volume 1 of 2, Planning Background Report. May, 1982. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Division of Parks. Nancy Lake State Recreation Area Master Plan, Draft. June, 1982. 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—Down- stream. Submitted to Alaska Power Authority, 1981. Bader, Dimitre, J. Didrickson, L. Engel, and S. Kubic. Fish and Game Distribution Public Use Resource Maps: Draft. Anchorage, ADF&G, 1981. Balding, C.O. 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 (ESL). Point MacKenzie Industrial Siting Study. Prepared for Matanuska- Susitna Borough, 1978. Environmental Services Limited. Point MacKenzie Industrial Siting Study. Prepared for the 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. for 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. Pre- pared for U.S. Dept. of the Amy, Alaska Dis- trict, Corps of Engineers, 1972. 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. Gatto, Lawrence. Baseline Data of the Oceanography of Cook Inlet, Alaska: CRREL Report 76-25. Hanover, New Hampshire, U.S. Ammy 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 II: 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 I: 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 I: Black Bear and Brown Bears. Juneau, ADF&G, 1980. Annual Report of Survey - Inventory Activities Part II: Deer, Elk, and Moose. Juneau, ADF&G, 1980. Howard E.E., E.R. Needles, H.C. Tammen and R.N. Bergendoff. Knik Arm Highway Crossing - Anchorage, Alaska. Prepared by HNTB Consulting Engineers for the State of Alaska Department of Highway, 1972. McKnight, Donald. Annual Report of Survey - Inventory Activities, Part I: Moose, Deer, and Elk. Juneau, ADF&G, 1973. Annual Report of Survey - Inventory Activities, Part II: 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 I: Deer, Brown/Grizzly Bear, Sheep, Bison, Elk, and 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, 1980 and 1981. 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. University of Alaska Environmental Information and Data Center. Juneau, 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 Activities: Waterfowl. Juneau, ADF&G, 1974. Report of Survey and Inventory Activities: Waterfowl. Juneau, ADF&G, 1975. 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 Activities: Waterfowl. Juneau, ADF&G, 1980. Tinm, Dan and Dick Sellers. Report of Survey and Inventory Activities: Waterfowl. Juneau, ADF&G 1979. Timn, Dan and Phil Havens. Report of Survey and Inventory Activities: Waterfowl. Juneau, ADF&G, 1973. GEOPHYSICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS Acres American Incorporated. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Plan of Study. Alaska Power Authority. 200 p. 1980. Alaska Division of Emergency Services. Greater Anchorage Area Earthquake Response Study. 1980. Alaska Water Study Committee. Anticipating Water and Related Land Resource Needs. (Draft). Southcentral Water Resources Study (Level B), 119 p. 1980. Balding, G.O. Water Availability, Quality, and Use in Alaska. U.S.G.S. Open-file Report 76-513, 236 p- 1976. 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. BIM Susitna Hydropower Feasibility Study - Final Environmental Assessment Record. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska, 100 p. 1979. Capps, Stephen R. Geology of the Upper Matanuska Valley, Alaska. U.S.G.S. Bulletin No. 791, ISSN 0083-1093, 92 p. 1927. 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 Hydroclimatological Data for Alaska's Coastal Zone. Institute of Water Resources, University of Alaska, Report No. 25. Sea Grant Report No. 72-2. 1972. 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 Chulitna 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) Map. 1976. Environmental Services Limited. Point MacKenzie Industrial Siting Study. Prepared for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 27 p. 1978. Grantz, Authur. 1927. Stratigraphic Reconnaissance of the Matanuska Formation in the Matanuska Valley, Alaska. U.S.G.S. Bulletin No 1181-1, 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. 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 Federal-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 (1 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, Susitna River Basin, Alaska. Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Geol. and Geoph. Surveys, Open-file Report No. 107E, 1 map. 1978. Nelson, S.W. and B.L. Reed. Surficial Deposits Map of the Talkeetna Quadrangel, Alaska. U.S. Geol. Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map, MF870J, Scale 1:250,000. 1978. Pewe, Troy L. 7th International Congress on Quaternary, Denver, Boulder, Central and Southcentral Alaska...State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geo. and Geoph. Surveys, 141 p., 5L. 1977, 1975, 1965. R & MConsultants. New Capital City Environmental Assessment Program, Phase I, Geotechnical Studies, Geological Materials and Hazards Analysis. December, 1978. Reger, R.D. Reconnaissance Geology of the Talkeetna-Kashwitna Area Susitna River Basin, Alaska. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Division of Geo. and Geoph. Surveys, Open-file Report No. 107A. 1 map. 1978. Schoephorster, Dale B. Soil Survey of Matanuska Valley Area, Alaska. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with Alaska Agricultural Experiment 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, Communications, 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. CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Land Use Plam for Public Lands in the Willow Sub Basin. October 1981. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Matanuska- Susitna-Beluga Cooperative Planning Program; Land Use Issues and Preliminary Resource Inventory. Volume 1 of 2, Planning Background Report. May 1982. DOWL Engineers. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comprehensive Planning Program; Growth Potential, Development Issues, Settlement Patterns. Volume 2 of 2, Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga Cooperative Planning Program. May 1982. Frank Orth and Associates, Inc. Alaska Power Authority Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Environmental Studies Final Report, Subtask 7.05: Socioeconomic Analysis. April 1982. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department, Back- ground Report, Phase I: Comprehensive Develop- ment Plan, April 1978. Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. Economic Development Program for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Volume I: Annual Overall Economic Development Program Report, July 1, 1979 - June 30, 1980. (July, 1980). Overall Economic Development Program, Inc. Economic Development Program for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Volume II: 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 City Data Book, 1977. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978. AREAS MERITING SPECIAL ATTENTION Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Draft Goose Bay Refuge Management Plan. No Date. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Draft Palmer Hay Flats Refuge Management Plan. No Date. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Draft Operational Management Plan Susitan Flats State Game Refuge. No date. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Waterbird Use of and Management Considerations for Cook Inlet State Game Refuges, Draft. 1979. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks. Nancy Lake State Recreation Area Master Plan, Draft. June 1982. Environmental Services Limited. Point MacKenzie Industrial Siting Study. 1978. Northern Technical Services. Point MacKenzie Hydrographic Study. April 1980. Northern Technical Services. Draft Industrial Development Profiles. March 1981. Northern Technical Services. Point MacKenzie; An Economic Opportunity. April 1979. Ritchie, R., J. Curetolo and A. Batten. Knik Arm Wetlands Study. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. January 1981. POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Land Use Plan on Public Lands in the Willow Sub Basin. October 1981. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Matanuska- Susitna-Beluga Cooperative Planning Program. Land Use Issues and Preliminary Resource Inven- tory. Volume 1 of 2, Planning Background Report. May 1982. DOWL Engineers. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comprehen- sive Planning Program; Growth Potential. Devel- opment Issues. Settlement Patterns. Volume 2 of 2, Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga Cooperative Planning Program. May 1982. DOWL Engineers. Draft Comprehensive Development Plan Matanuska-Susitna Borough. February 1983. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department. Goals Statement, Phase II: Comprehensive Development Plan. May 1978. IMSBCMP MAP LEGEND 3 MAP LEGEND 3 RESERVES: | of Coie | a BASSAS RTS < PSS i SO Re RERAESS SV 1 RSS BY : EN Re ‘a NNANNARARSAS SESe_y oe ESSE . RRA NSRANSSSASANAAN RS: SESE EY PEERAGE RY Se SSESSSSR NT RRR Sh SSSA PRR SSN RASS SRS SSR SO SS LAND OWNERSHIP & GENERAL USE Fairbanks PRINCE wILuiAM y SOUND 2 SCALE IN MILES NSSSNSNSNS Ss MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1964 Alaska Coastal Management Program The preparation of this map was financed, in part, by funds tram the Alscka Coastal Management Program and the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, U. S. Department of Commerce, administered by the Division of Community Planning, Department of Gommunity and Regional Affairs, and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly. MSBCMP MAP LEGEND G&G COASTAL HABITAT AND RESOURCES ESTUARINE TIDELANDS seh, TIMBER AREAS VEGETATED AREAS HIGH/MODERATE POTENTIAL, BLUFFS Y Lz FLOOD PLAINS AREAS OF MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM betta Junction i Pe? anCKORAGL 7 Anchorage A ane BORCUSK Alaska Coastal Management Program PRINCE mua CAA SOUND The preparation of this map was financed, in part, by funds from the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, U. S. Department of Commerce, administered ‘by the Division of Community Planning, Department of Cammunity and Regional Aftairs, and the Matanuska~Susitna Borough Assembly. ROADS, TRAILS & POWER CORRIDORS ING TRAIL SYSTEMS MSBCMP MAP LEGEND 4 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BORDUGH & q gf 9 0 a a F 2 Wi = Ww 0 q 2 ¢ 2 a q F ti) a 0 oO Alaska Coastai Management Program 4 K - KING (CHINOOK) S - SOCKEY (RED) CO - COHOCE (SILVER) P - PINK (HUMPBACK) MSBCMP MAP LEGEND 5 FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS SS lIMPORTANT Mt ose| SUMMER RANGE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2 ae = au ! SUSITNA Glennal Gienp Alaska Coastal Management Program The preparation of this map was financed, in part, by funds fram the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Office of Coastal Zone Manage jonal ind Atmospheric Administra tion, U. S. Dey 1 Co dministered ‘by the Division of Communit ty Planning, Department of Community and Regional Aftairs, and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly g é BCALE IN MILES[o>~ “2 ‘4 @ a | MONTANA CREEK MSBCMP MAP LEGEND 1 TOWNSHIP - RANGE INVENTORY GRID Tean Raw MAP 1 MAP 2 MAP 3 MAP 4 MAP 5 MAP 6&6 INVENTORY GRID SPECIAL ATTENTION AND GENERAL USE POWER CORRIDORS HABITAT AREAS AND RESOURCES TOWNSHIP/RANGE AREAS MERITING LAND OWNERSHIP ROADS, TRAILS, AND FISH AND WILDLIFE COASTAL HABITAT MSB-CMP MAP INDEX T22n RAW Where the coastal management boundary intersects the below listed rivers and creeks, the boundary extends to the 1,000 foot contour level. The width of this extended boundary is the width of the water course and 200 feet on each side as measured from the ordinary high water mark. : ai Moose Creek Skwentna River Montana Creek Lake Creek Yentna River Sheep Creek Talachulitna Creek Kahiltna River Kashwitna River Matanuska River Chulitna River Little Willow Creek Kroto Creek Susitna River Willow Creek Lower Kroto Creek (Deshka River) Talkeetna River Little Susitna River v 2 r R7Ww ao LOCKWOOD JAKE T19N RIOW CLEAR cnn TISN RZE FISH CRK COTTONWOOD LAKE | 7N ATE | a WOLVERINE CRK THREEMIWE LAKE RN BELUGA LAKE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LAKE LORRAINE BELUGA RIVER 150° J Fairbanks c ; T1I3N RSW T12N RBW Alaska Coastal Management Program The preparation of this map was financed, in part, by funds irom the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, U. S. Department af Commerce, administered’by the Division of Community Planning, Department of Community and Regional Affairs, and the Matanuska~Susitna Borough Assembly. s SCALE IN Miles eo So Abn | MSBCMP MAP LEGEND 2 AREAS MERITING SPECIAL ATTENTION st REZREATIO a2 | cITY OF HOUSTON KEPLE R LAKES COTTONWOOD LAKE CITY OF WASILLA Ke Qo city OF PALMER 5 Lf 0 ; cw v /S00SE CRK’ MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM POINT MACKENZIE INDUSTRIAL PORT/PARK SUSITNA FLATS STATE GAME ce taeda ° orc = Alfai SCALE IN MILES[Q—~ ~5 “4d Aw |