Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Alaska Water Assessment Summary Report 1977
ATER ASST ALASKA REGION SPECIFIC PROBLEM ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCES Prepared by ALASKA WATER STUDY COMMITTEE as Regional Sponsor for the U.S. Water Resources Council August 1977 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Specific Problem Analysis was produced under the sponsorship of the Alaska Water Study Committee, currently co-chaired by Robert Cross of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Alaska Power Administration, and Ernst Mueller of the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conser- vation. The Committee extends its heartfelt thanks both to its members and to many others whose hard work and dedication have brought this work to completion. The Committee feels special mention is due a number of people and organiza- tions. Amos Alter and Jim House served as co-chairmen of the Committee during the earlier stages of the Assessment and provided invaluable guidance and assistance. Several Federal, State, and private organizations and the Alaska Federation of Natives provided highly qualified personnel to form the Study Team which performed the study and report writing. The Study Team was co-directed by Jim Cheatham (Federal), Alaska Power Administration, and Lauris Parker (State), Alaska Department of Environ- mental Conservation. The Study Team included the following members: Major Joseph L. Perkins and Dick Griffith, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Ed Nygard, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs; Neil Michaelson, U.S. Bureau of Land Management; Bob Bottge, U.S. Bureau of Mines; Ron Hyra, U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation; Gary O. Balding, U.S. Geological Survey; Ralph Bell, U.S. Soil Conservation Service; Dan Bishop, private consultant. on fish and wildlife; and John Vacek, Enid Holsopple, and David Gray, Alaska Federation of Natives. Several State of Alaska agencies performed work essential to the Alaska Water Study. Early in the development of the State Regional Future Section of the Technical Memorandum for Activity Two, a task force of State agency representatives lent the benefit of their expertise for the purpose of presenting the desires of Alaska's people on the future development of the State. Led by Greg Capito of the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation, the members of the task force included: Ernst Mueller, Jerry Reinwand, Guy Martin, Robert Weeden, Kae Allred, Dick Eakins, John Williams, Kevin Waring, Ike Waits, Mike Kaill, John Palmes, John Becker, Dave Gale, Mike Taylor, Bob Bursiel, Ray Meketa, and Jim Cheatham. A special economic and population forecast entitled Projected Employment and Population Changes in Selected Regions of Alaska through the Year 2000 was prepared by the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development. Richard Eakins and John Williams were responsible for most of this project which formed the basis for a substantial part of the State Regional Future Section of the Technical Memorandum for Activity Two. Other State contributors that deserve recognition include the Graphic Arts Section of Health and Social Services, the Central Duplicating Section, Department of Administration, and the Legislative Print Shop, all of which rendered assistance in producing the reports leading to this Summary Report. Kae Allred and John Clark of the Governor's Office, Division of Policy Development and Planning, gave invaluable advice on the State's perspective, while Mike Hershberger, Department of Environ- mental Conservation, was of great assistance in final editing and writ- ing. Gary O. Balding of the U.S. Geological Survey produced an important study of basic information entitled Water Availability, Quality, and Use in the Alaska Region. This study has been used extensively in the Assessment. Additional expertise was provided by task forces formed to feed new information into the analysis during the production of the Technical Memorandum for Activity Three. These task forces were guided by: Dan Bishop, Dick Griffith, David Gray, Bob Cross, Joe Alter, Gary Balding; Jerry Sargent, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; Fred Lotspeich, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Jim Meckel, U.S. Geological Survey. Valuable assistance in writing parts of the Summary Report was also provided by Allen Curtes, Brent Petrie, and Dave DeRuwe, Alaska Depart- ment of Natural Resources, and Dick Logan, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Special thanks go to many employees of the Alaska Power Administration which provided administrative assistance: Marlene Ciraulo, Darlene Edwards, Leitha Ryder, Sandra Williams, Betty McVey, Beverly Braden, Ethyl Nayudu, Nanci Jack, and Martha Quinn, who all patiently typed and retyped the various reports of the Assessment; to Lenore Melin and Sadie Rosenberger who kept track of the funds; to Joe Ebner, Fran Toland, and Gary Franzen, who drafted numerous maps, tables, and illustrations for the reports; to Otto Whitfield who served as liaison with the U.S. General Services Administration Printing Office and oversaw the produc- tion of many of the Assessment reports; and to Kathleen Berry who helped with the writing and editing. Additional copies of the Alaska Water Assessment reports may be obtained from the Alaska Power Administration, P.O. Box 50, Juneau, Alaska, 99802. II. III. Iv. vi. VII. WET. CONTENTS TITLE ACKMOWTCOGCMION ES. oS ere 2s 116-2 on dese. 0, verse) Woe en ane Contents . . . 2. 2 6 ee 8 ew te tt ee ee 8 ewe Pntroduction |. j.| |. = ss 6) |e « ols le be jell qe) tele 3° Conclusions & Recommendations ..........2.4.. Overview . 2. 2 ee we ee ee eee ee Statewide (Regional) Conclusions & Recommendations Generat| |. js) |. = “2s, o| 5) ote lt |e |e fers) lel G] Lb Remote Village Water .........4..+2642.-. Instream Water . . . 2. 2. 2 2 ee we ew ee ee ee Energy . 2 2 2 6 6 © 6 2 ee ee ew ww ww we Water Availability ............+24.2.42.+24 Flooding... . 2... 6 2 ee ee ee ee ee ee Navigation, Navigability and Ports ........ Specific Recommendations . ............. Summary of the State-Regional Future ........ Water & Related Land Problems ........... AYCELC| 2/3 je fe] joe ee lle S 2 |e fed |e! fe) fe! fe] wl 6 Kotzebue Sound. ........4+-+4.2.24242.2.- Norton Sound... .... 2... 2. 2. 2 ee ee wee Upper Yukon-Canada ........ e222 eee eee Upper Yukon . . 2. 1 2 ee we ee ew ee ee Central Yukon ..... 2. 2 ee ee eee ee ee Tanana . 2. 2. 2 2 © © © © © © ww ww ew ww ew we ww Koyukuk . 2. 1 2 ee we ew ee ee we ee ee ee Lower Yukon ... . ee 2 ee ee ee ew ee ew ee Kuskokwim Bay ........ 2... 222. ee eee Bristol Bay ........2..4.64+6464646404848888 Aleutian . 2... 6 6 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee Kodiak-Shelikof ...........4..+22442.+- Cook Inlet . 2. 2 2 6 2 6 2 ee ew ew we ew ew ew Gulf of Alaska... .. 2. 2. ee ee ee ee Southeast . 2... 6 2 ee ew we we we we ee Implications of Not Solving the Water and Related Land Problems . . 2. 2 6 « © 2 © © © © © eo ew tw te ww Regional Views of Present and Emerging National Issues Summary, Specific Problem Analysis Activities .... Appendices ....... @ | «|e fel te] | er ele = « A. Alaska Water Study Committee .......... B. Study Team... . 2. 2. 2 2 we ee we ee ee ee C. Public Review ..........4.2424 2428486 D. . Comments . . 2. 2. 2 2 2 6 6 2 6 8 ew ew et tw E. Socio-Economic Characteristics by Subregions . . F. Volumetric (Water) Requirements by Subregions . G. Issue Papers (Printed under separate cover) .. PAGE NO. aml 13 14 15 a7, 20 22 27 30 33 35 43 5g 62 64 66 68 79 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 95 99 107 LE 112 13 114 136 166 172 184 ILLUSTRATIONS NUMBER TITLE PAGE NO. a CASMOLLG. SONGS... we kk 8 ete lee) bea te Ae eS 2 2. Permafrost . 2. 2 6 ss 2 ee ew tw te te te te tw ww 4 3. Rural Subsistence Use Areas ..........22.4. 6 4. Groundwater Location in Permafrost .......... 26 5. Alaska's Land Status ..............e84.-. 49 6. Socio-Economic Characteristics, Statewide ...... 51 Py Volumetric Requirements, Withdrawals, Fresh Water, State Totals . . . . . . . . . . 2s ss ss 52 8. Volumetric Requirements, Withdrawals, Saline Water, State Totals ............6.6424+242208-. 53 9. Volumetric Requirements, Consumptive Use, Fresh Water, State Totals .........24..+.+222428-.2 54 10. Volumetric Requirements, Consumptive Use, Saline Water, State Totals ..........42.4.2242. Bo ids Water Supplies . 2. 6 6 6 oie ee ee 56 12. Instream Flow Needs .........4.26424+424048-4 57 13. Water & Related Land Problem Areas with Seven Areas of Major Significance .............4.. 60 The prints of century old engravings and sketches used in this report present a view of Alaska in its wilderness days. I. INTRODUCTION fy an MARITIME kor eo ALASKA WATER ASSESSMENT MAP ‘SHOWING CLIMATIC ZONES SOMES GISTTahed the rivers Tey Of Alaska A@°e ° T NOILWALSNTII INTRODUCTION Alaska comprises a land area of 586,000 square miles, with a coastline in excess of 46,300 miles. Variations in climate range from temperate rainforest to high arctic. The distinguishing characteristics of this area are cold weather and water. One-third of the nation's water crop is found here. Glacier melt, precipitation, and groundwater sources account for the water volume. Numerous coastal and interior mountain ranges affect climatic varia- tions, with the St. Elias coastal range exceeding 19,000 feet elevations and the Alaska interior range exceeding 20,000 feet. The climate is usually described in four zones: a Maritime zone, which generally includes Southeast Alaska, the gulf coast and the Aleutian Islands; an Arctic zone, which reflects the stark realities of the most northerly latitude; an Interior zone, somewhat shielded by mountains and distance from both the Arctic and the Maritime influences; and a Transi- tion zone, evidencing characteristics of both the Maritime and the Interior climatic zones. Climatic factors influence both life forms and life styles considerably, primarily because of the cold. The cool, moist maritime climate is host to the extensive coastal forests of Southeast Alaska and the gulf coast and the grasslands of the Aleutian Islands. The transition and interior climates generally have warmer summers but much colder, longer winters. Alaska's waterways and coastlands are diverse. Major river systems, all ranking among the major rivers of America, include the Copper, Susitna, Kuskokwim, Kobuk, Noatak, and Colville. The Yukon River drains roughly 40 percent of the State along a 2,000-mile-plus length. Extensive natural waters occur over a great area of Alaska and include Lake Iliamna, 1,115 square miles in extent and the largest natural freshwater lake in the United States outside the Great Lakes system. HYDROLOGIC SUB-REGIONS oo Arctic Northwest. Yukon Southwest South-central Southeast PERMAFROST Generally underlain by continuous permafrost FHI retain oy stcontinuous permafrost ===] underlain by tsolated masses of permafrost Generally free from permafrost SOURCE: ENVIRONMENTAL ATLAS OF Published by t KA sl sy the University of Alaska Seale in miles @ NOILWALSATII Natural water supply is abundant when considering the State as a whole, but can be quite limited locally. Much of the Interior and Arctic climatic zones is characterized by low precipitation and runoff. Although runoff in inches may be low, the percent of precipitation which occurs as runoff is high. Be- cause of cold winters and perma- frost, vast areas of the State have little available water during much of the year. Other areas which have either extensive groundwater re- sources or extensive lake systems may have fairly substantial winter water supplies, even though their winters are long and cold. KRKKKKKKKEKREKKKKKKKEKKKKKKKKEKKKKKEK COLD WINTERS AND PERMA- * FROST POSE STRICT LIMITS* TO THE AVAILABLE WATER «* * * * + FF FF OF SUPPLY. KREKKKKKKKKEKKKEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK One important value of the waterways, wetlands, shores, and estuaries is the habitat they provide for fish and wildlife. The extensive salmon runs, waterfowl nesting, rearing, and resting areas, marine mammals, and generally high values for fish and game are extremely important considera- tions for any water and related land planning in Alaska. Unlike the rest of the country, there has been relatively little phys- ical development of the State's water resources. For example, there are no large dams in the State; existing flood control and navigation works are generally of local impact and there is little developed irrigation work for agriculture. On the other hand, natural watersheds and wetland systems have been significantly altered in the vicinity of larger cities. In addition, there is work both underway and planned that will involve extensive changes for water and related land. Examples include the many stream crossings involved in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, proposals for Major hydroelectric development on the Susitna River, near completion of the State's first major flood control project on the Chena River near Fairbanks, and fairly extensive logging in the coastal forests. Alaska has a small but growing population. The present population of approximately 408,500 is largely urban and that trend will probably continue. The urban areas consist of a relatively few cities which have most or all of the amenities and problems of cities elsewhere in the country, although often tempered by the cold climate and a larger number of remote villages which have an incredibly complex set of problems and a different set of amenities. Many Alaskans, especially those in villages, continue to rely on a subsistence economy and preservation of a subsistence culture is extremely important to them. The Alaska economy is complex and will become more so in the future. Major inputs to the economy for the next few years will involve renewable and non-renewable natural resources development, government activity at all levels, and continued development of support and service industries. Barro HYDROLOGIC SUB-REGIONS PRINCIPAL RURAL SUBSISTENCE USE AREAS Yukon Scale in miles € NOLLVALSNTTI Major changes are underway as a result of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), and this will, the long term future economy of the State. Alaska Native corporations will become the largest non-govern- ment land owners in the State and their holdings will include some of the most valuable renewable and non-renewable natural resources. ANCSA also provides for a large new commitment of land in Alaska for to a large extent, influence KKK KKK KKK KKK KK KK KKK KKKKEKKKKK KEKE NATIVE CORPORATIONS WILL OWN SOME OF THE MOST VALUABLE NATURAL RE- SOURCES IN ALASKA. - KKKKKKEKKKKKKKEKKKKKKKKKKKEKKKKKKKEEE + Fe Fe + + ee OF conservation uses--up to 80 million acres for new National Parks, Forests, Refuges, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. Apart from ANCSA, there are several other proposals for new wilderness or other preservation areas. Also, in parallel with ANCSA, the State will proceed with selection of its 103 million acre land entitlement under the 1959 Statehood Act. All this means that, in the next several years, there will be wholesale changes in ownership and management of Alaskan land and re- sources; changes that will, toa great extent, determine future use and management of Alaska's water and related land resources. KKKKKKKKKKKKEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKRKKRE * WHOLESALE CHANGES IN LAND * OWNERSHIP WILL DETERMINE * THE FUTURE USE AND MANAGE- * MENT OF MUCH OF ALASKA'S * RESOURCES. * KKRKKKKKKEKKEKKKEKKKEKEKKEKEKKEKKEKKKKEKKEKKEE e+e et 6 Oe © In most cases, demands for Alaskan resources are functions of the national and international economy. This is just as true of tourism and the demand for new conservation lands as it is for demands for agricultural products, fisheries, energy, and minerals. Thus, it should not be at all surprising that national, State and local desires may not be in harmony. The Alaska Water Assessment The Alaska Water Study Committee sponsored the Specific Problem Analysis portion of the 1975 National Water Assessment in Alaska. This work has FR KKK KR RK KKK KIRK KKK IK KKK RIK RRR RK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * been termed the Alaska Water Assess- * THE ALASKA WATER ASSESSMENT * ment. The general purpose of the * Alaska Water Assessment is to pre- * IS A FIRST LOOK AT PRESENT sent the State perspective on water * AND POTENTIAL WATER AND and related land problems along with * information sufficient for the Water * RELATED LAND PROBLEMS IN Resources Council's use in establish- * THE STATE. IT INCLUDES AN ing national priorities on water * ANALYSIS OF THEIR SCOPE AND problems. * x THEIR SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND The Committee appointed and directed * a Study Team to prepare the Alaska + ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS Water Assessment. Members of the x AND RECOMMENDS ACTIONS FOR team were selected on the basis of * POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS. experience and expertise in planning * and water matters. The Study Team KRKKKKKEKKEKKKKEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKEKKEKK has functioned in a highly effective manner as a balanced, interdis- ciplinary group and has provided an invaluable service in gathering and analyzing heretofore unavailable information on Alaskan water problems. (Members of the Study Team are listed in Appendix B.) The Assessment was divided into four steps, or activities. These are reported on in three interim reports, three supplemental studies, and this summary report. Each step has furnished the basis for subsequent studies and reports. They are as follows: Activity One The first step in the Assessment was an identification of present and future water problems and was reported in the Technical Memorandum Problem Identification (August 1975). Problems identified in Activity One include those associated with Alaska's cold climate, its unique fish and wildlife resources, community water supplies and sewage treatment facilities, peculiarly Alaskan institutional needs, and present and anticipated growth in the Alaskan population and economy. Activity Two This activity involved compilation of information and assumptions on future levels of resource use, income, employment, population, and estimates of future water requirements. Using these data, the Study Team screened and in some cases redefined the initial problem list. Several geographic problem areas and Statewide problem issues that appeared sufficiently complex and important to warrant more detailed analysis were selected. The Technical Memorandum for Activity Two, entitled State Regional Future: Water and Related Land Problems, was distributed in June 1976. In Activity Two, water and related land problems were dealt with in terms of 16 geographic areas and in terms of Statewide problems. Some of the Statewide problems, or issues, dealt with remote village water, data needs, instream water use, institutional matters, energy, and water availability. Activity Three The Technical Memorandum for this activity provides more detailed in- formation for the problem areas and issues selected in Activity Two. It focuses on problem effects and the probable social, economic, and envi- ronmental implications of not solving the problems. It also addresses the types of planning efforts which may be merited for the problem areas and the issues. Problem Information was published in November 1976. Activity Four This Summary Report is the last step of the Alaska Water Assessment. It will be widely circulated in the Region and sent to the Water Resources Council to become part of the 1975 National Water Assessment. It sum- marizes previous steps in the Assessment and sets out the Alaska Region's views on relative importance and priorities for addressing water prob- lems together with conclusions and recommendations for solving Alaska's water and related land resource problems. Supplemental Studies Recognizing the lack of water planning in the State, three supplemental studies were made to provide data essential for establishing the plan- ning basis for the State's water resources, as well as information needed to complete this Assessment. State Regional Futures (January 1976) was the first supplemental study. It was prepared by a State task force of State agencies under the leader- ship of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Its purpose was to characterize and define water and related land resources and the views of local residents concerning the use of these resources. One of the principle features to emerge from State Regional Futures is a concern among local residents for protecting present water uses, especially for fish and wildlife and adequate public water supplies. Projected Employment and Population Changes in Selected Regions of Alaska through the Year 2000 was prepared by the State of Alaska, Depart- ment of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enter- prise. It presents regional estimates of the employment and population associated with two alternate development programs for Alaska--a high and a low level of development. In this study the location, timing, and scale of new activities in the petroleum, hard mineral, forest products, fish products, and tourist industries are specified. From these assump- tions, estimates are projected for baseline employment in these industries, for secondary employment, and for total population. Both the high and low development projections predict substantial growth. 9 Water Availability, Quality, and Use in Alaska by G. O. Balding of the U.S. Geological Survey presents the general hydrologic conditions found in the State. Dividing the State into 18 hydrologic subareas, this report provides data on estimated mean annual runoff per square mile, suspended-sediment concentrations during "normal" summer runoff, and, where information is available, flood magnitudes and frequencies. This report also provides estimates of groundwater yields in each subarea. Problems identified in the course of KKK KKK KKK KKK KK KKK KKK RE KK EKER KEKE the Assessment fall into several * -MANY OF ALASKA'S WATER * general categories. Some problems * are related to inadequate water «PROBLEMS: ARE POTENT Th * supplies, some to Alaska's climate * PROBLEMS. ALASKANS HAVE * and the inadequacy of existing * * technology to deal with it. Other » THE OPPORTUNITY TO BEGIN , problems are related to Alaska's * THE PLANNING AND ACTIONS * relatively undeveloped state, its * NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT * rich and diverse resources, and = * increasing pressures for develop- * MANY OF THESE PROBLEMS * * NEVER MATERIALIZE. * * ment. KRKKKKEKKKEKEKKEKEKK KEKE KKEKKEKEE The Alaska Water Assessment serves as a part of the ongoing Water Resources Council's National Assessment of Water and Related Lands while at the same time providing a first step in Alaska water planning. It isa first attempt to identify a wide and varied range of water related issues. The Committee believes that this work will be of great assistance to government agencies and other groups in understanding and resolving existing and potential water and related land problems. 10 II. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter contains the conclusions developed in the course of the study, on the severity and magnitude of the water and related land problems with recommendations for the resolution of these problems. The recommendations are expressed in terms of the need for planning, research and data collection, changes in institutional or legal arrangements, and the degree and nature of Federal, State, and local roles in solving these problems. 12 OVERVIEW The interrelationship of Alaska's water and land include the realities OF: o Increasing demands by Alaska residents for both natural resource development and problem solving. © Broad national demands for energy, minerals, agricultural products, wilderness, and recreation resources in Alaska, all of which involve increasing pressures on the water resources. o An extremely complex set of actions now underway which will radi- cally change the ownership and management of the State's land and resources. o Accelerated interest in cold climate water resource technology. The assessment will show a lack of information concerning Alaska's water and related land resources. Development of such information is necessary for management proposals and adequate planning. Primary water data are vital to resource evaluation and planning. Alaska needs to provide wise use, management, and protection of its water resources. It is hoped that this assessment can contribute to these goals and that the findings will be of use to all involved in management of these vital resources. STATEWIDE (REGIONAL) CONCLUSIONS, & RECOMMENDATIONS This section presents a statement of general findings from the assess- ment, and statements of conclusions and recommendations on six water "issues" which appear to have major Statewide significance. The six "issues" are titled Remote Village Water, Instream Water, Energy, Water Availability, Flooding, and Navigation, Navigability and Ports. Each of the issues encompasses a set of water and water related problems that are common to all parts of the State. 14 General CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS Ls Planning efforts should address the priorities in an effective Manner. It is important that a program like the Water Resources Council's Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Planning (CCJP) be estab- lished for Alaska. It is similarly important to give early atten- tion to appropriate conclusions for carrying out such a program. The program should include: a. State assisted water and related land planning in remote communities and areas in unorganized boroughs. b. Community planning in all areas that addresses the need for water and waste disposal systems. c. Planning that provides a sound financial basis for opera- tion and maintenance of village water and waste disposal systems. The development of a State water plan should be given high priority. Water use is increasing and there is potential for sizable increase in demand. Given Alaska's vast area and climatic differences, water plans should be developed on a subregion-by-subregion basis. With respect to the data base, it is important to proceed from the present situation of limited "spot" data through definition of the resources involved to a regional data system that can be used for management of the water and interpretation of impacts. In terms of near future priorities for planning and data purposes, significant controversy should be anticipated on water and related land aspects of mineral and energy development, the various pro- posals for new conservation areas, i.e., national parks and forests, wildlife refuges and sanctuaries, wild and scenic rivers, etc., and on the issues of riparian water rights. This is particularly relevant in the case of the significant energy development proposals and question of public use of waters flowing through private lands. Attention will also need to be given to appropriate mechanisms for water planning and management in the various subregions of the State, taking full advantage of local government studies but con- sidering also the needs for regions of the State which do not yet have local government structures. Needs for water development have been identified in the areas of municipal and industrial water supplies, port development, hydro- electric power, and protection of natural flow conditions for 15 instream uses. It makes sense to attach priority to the data and planning program that will provide the basis for decisions on these matters. 6. The Southcentral Alaska Level B Study process should be evaluated as a basis for future recommendations on best methods for interdis- ciplinary regional water and related land resources planning efforts. 7. The practice in many areas of Alaska of running an open faucet during cold weather periods for freeze-up prevention must be recog- nized as both practical and wasteful. Such practice increases per capita use to significant and even critical volumes at times. The WRC Principles and Standards require consideration of OBERS esti- mates of population and employment in plan formulation. There are indications that some Federal grant and loan programs may be administered on the basis of OBERS projections. This is of concern in Alaska because OBERS consistently underestimates changes in the Alaska economy. For example, the latest OBERS estimates for the year 2000 are just about on the mark for the year 1976. We recommend that the OBERS Alaskan data not be used in water project plan formulation or in program administration. 16 Remote Village Water Conclusions Good quality water is extremely important to health. Seventy percent of Alaska's Natives live in small, remote villages where safe water is seldom obtainable and adequate waste disposal is often impossible. Typical sources of drinking water are streams and ponds, many of which are stagnant and contaminated. Wells are frequently unproductive in areas underlain by permafrost. Rainwater is also a source of water supply. During the winter, villagers cut ice and melt it in discarded fuel drums. Per capita use ranges from five to seventy gallons per day. Inadequate water supplies and waste disposal systems in many villages cause health problems and inconvenience, making life unnecessarily uncomfortable. Some portion of village disease and death rates can certainly be attributed to substandard water supply and waste disposal methods. Village residents must devote a significant portion of their time to satisfying basic sanitation needs. As a consequence, less time and energy are available for more productive enterprise. Water supply and waste disposal problems can be solved in most Alaskan villages given enough money and commitment by government. The tech- nology exists to make adequate water supply and waste disposal services available in virtually all villages, but the technology can be applied only if money is available for capital construction. Such construction is merely a beginning; successful operation, maintenance, and management of village sanitation facilities are far more difficult to contend with than construction. Unless the problem of operation, maintenance, and management is solved, much capital construction effort is wasted. New, innovative solutions may be needed to successfully cope with village water and waste disposal problems. RECOMMENDATIONS Planning 1. Planners, engineers, and government officials must recognize that no single solution exists for remote village water supply and waste disposal because each community represents a unique physical and social environment and has different levels of financial means. 2. Current and future village water needs must be documented; i.e., where to obtain water, type of treatment it will require, and how to dispose of both liquid and solid sewage. 17 Most communities are using their best water source but secondary sources must be identified if additional water demand arises. Understanding the suitability of various systems for particular application is a prerequisite to developing water supply or waste disposal facilities. Potable water could be disinfected or filtered to eliminate bacteriological contamination. Physical treatment including aeration, sedimentation, flota- tion, and filtration are suitable for use in the Arctic. Advanced processes should be used to treat brackish and saline waters. Freezing can also reduce salt concentrations. Sophistication of water and waste systems should match the communities' ability to operate and maintain the system. Information on cost of a facility, including initial capital, maintenance, and operation should be made available to allow villagers to better understand long-range cost differences. For example, piped water distribution and sewage collection systems cost more to construct but are more convenient and less expensive to operate than haul-type operations. Some methods and technologies which may be valuable in development and maintenance of remote village water supplies include: 1. 2. Track vehicle ice hauling. Insulated water storage tanks that could be filled in the summer using temporary pipe laid from the water source to the tank. Windmills to pump water in the summer. (Some villages have windmills already.) Covering and heating wells to keep them open more in the winter to shorten the time that ice must be hauled. Use of humus toilet or other equally appropriate technology. Snow fences in winter to increase the amount of snow buildup for melt water in water collection areas. Recovering waste heat from diesel generators for appropriate application in ice melting or warming wells. Research and Data Needs 1. Appropriate agencies should establish regular monitoring of water quality in remote villages. The water should meet current applicable State water quality standards. 18 More information on pathogen movement and decay in permafrost soils and cold waters. 3. Field studies to locate suitable groundwater supplies or sites for reservoir storage. Institutional l. Coordinated, well-directed financial and service installation aids that fit villages ability to continue the programs are catalysts for success in solving remote village water problems. 2. Education in sanitary and personal hygiene and improved medical care to contribute to better public health. Federal-State-Local Role 1. The Federal government through the Environmental Protection Agency and other appropriate entities provide additional assistance to develop water supply system technologies and techniques for remote villages. State government provide planning and technical assistance, and financing programs to the communities for water supply and waste disposal. The regional and village Native corporations take a more active role in providing support for water supply and waste disposal techniques whenever possible and encourage the train- ing of personnel to operate and maintain any necessary facilities. 19 Instream Water Conclusions Although the Constitution of the State of Alaska recognizes general water reservations for fish and wildlife, there is a need for legisla- tion to clarify the State's abilities and procedures to administer instream reservations. This is becoming increasingly urgent in view of expanded water resource demands created by urbanization and industrial activity. The problem is minimal now but is anticipated to grow. Fish, wildlife, recreation, hydroelectric power, and navigation form the nucleus of instream water demands. Competing out-of-stream demands frequently do not consider, or downplay, instream needs. Lack of a method to define values is largely responsible for this inequity in competitive position. The actual allocation of instream flows repre- sents only the first step. There is urgent need for a coordinated Statewide basic hydrologic data gathering network as well as a methodology to evaluate instream flow needs. In addition, there is significant need for basic knowledge of the effect of out-of-stream use of water on the instream environment. Water quantity and quality considerations are also important. Excessive water withdrawals will create a water quality problem by reducing the streams ability to handle pollution and cleanse itself. Excessive with- drawal degrades water quality by decreasing the volume of water--thereby increasing the pollutant load per unit. For example, sedimentation may degrade fish habitat, aesthetics, hydroelectric use and navigation, as well as require artificial treatment and filtration for out-of-stream uses. Specific concerns regarding instream reservations include: o Fish and wildlife--providing sufficient flows of adequate quality for spawning, incubation, rearing, migration and over-wintering. Sufficient flows and fluctuation in flows to maintain the health of the stream habitat are necessary. o Recreation--provide adequate flows of quality water for protection of the recreational, wild, scenic and aesthetic nature of streams. o Navigation--provide adequate instream flow to permit navigation. o Hydroelectric--provide adequate annual streamflows to permit hydro- electric development and operation. o Water quality--provide adequate flows to maintain water quality. Avoid over allocation which will concentrate pollutant loads to undesirable levels. 20 o The ecology of estuaries at mouths of streams and rivers is depend- ent on freshwater inflow. RECOMMENDATIONS Planning 1. Coordination be established with the Western Energy and Land Use Planning Team, Instream Flow Work Group, based in Fort Collins, Colorado. The group's expertise and training pro- grams be used to develop an Alaskan minimum streamflow clas- sification and planning system. Identification, evaluation, and implementation of appropriate State-Federal-local action to alleviate instream conflicts in existing or potentia!. problem areas. Research and Data Needs 1. Development of a methodology to evaluate instream flow needs for aquatic life and other uses. This research must consider all minimum flow characteristics necessary to maintain existing and future instream uses. The methodology must be sufficiently easy to use to incorporate it into agency administrative and permitting activities. A coordinated Statewide data gathering network be established and operated which can provide basic hydrologic data for instream flow evaluation as well as other water resource concerns. Institutional l. State legislation to clarify the ability to reserve waters for instream use under the Water Use Act, AS 46.15. Provision and enforcement of instream use protection, permitting and regulatory programs at all governmental levels must be integrated with the planning and analysis activities. Federal-State-Local Role 1. The State develop a minimum streamflow rationale using Federal expertise and guidance from the Instream Flow Work Group at Fort Collins, Colorado. Federal funding to the State for assistance in development of an evaluation system which is compatible with water regulation processes for putting an adequate instream use protection system into practice. The State take the lead in the identification and coordination of joint Federal, State, and local hydrologic data gathering in priority areas. 21 Energy Conclusions Alaska probably has a wider variety of energy alternatives than any other region of the nation. Oil, gas, coal, uranium, geothermal and hydro resources occur in this region. Currently, oil, gas, coal, and hydro are being utilized for power generation with great potential for future development. To a lesser extent, uranium, geothermal, wind, and forest resources also offer a potential for future development. While the geothermal, hydro, and wind resources must be used in Alaska, the other energy resources can be utilized within the State or exported. In fact, intense pressure is occurring in the State for the development of its oil and gas, and potentially for its coal resources, for export to outside markets. Oil and gas are presently being produced on the Kenai Peninsula and in Cook Inlet at daily rates of approximately 200,000 barrels and 395 billion cubic feet, respectively. Production from North Slope fields has begun with 1.2 million barrels per day. Gas production of 4.5 million cubic feet per day is expected by the early 1980's. Besides these two areas, many other basins in the State exhibit good potential for future discoveries. . Coal is currently produced at an annual rate of 700,000 tons in the Nenana field south of Fairbanks. The possibility exists for the expan- sion of coal production from that field as well as the initiation of coal production in the Beluga field west of Anchorage. At this time the marketability of the large Alaskan coal resources is unclear. Hydroelectric power is produced in relatively small amounts near several Southeastern communities and near Anchorage. A potential exists for production of 170 billion kwh of electricity from 76 sites. Studies are underway presently to evaluate the feasibility at several different sites; the largest proposed development would be the Susitna Project which includes the Devil Canyon and Watana dams having a combined annual capacity of 6.8 billion kwh. : Changing land status in Alaska will have an impact on energy development in the future. Much of the land chosen by the State under the Statehood Act and by the Natives under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act may be available for development. Much of the remaining Federal land may be designated as single purpose uses such as parks and refuges, thus preclud- ing energy development except those compatible with the use of the area and permitted by the Secretary of the Interior. The potential degradation and disruption from offshore oil and gas exploration and development, major hydroelectric development, surface mining of coal, and energy transport facilities is of vital concern to those State and Federal agencies entrusted with the protection of the environment. Oil spills pose a particular threat as oil can alter the food chains upon which fish and wildlife depend. Although adequate laws 22 and regulations exist to regulate the industry, adequate enforcement of these regulations is a problem. Of particular concern to fish and wild- life resources, their habitats and the commercial fishing industry that depends on these resources is the production and transportation of oil in the outer continental shelf areas. Major impacts on land and water in recent years can be attributed to energy development. Not only are there water supply and quality concerns associated with energy development itself, but population increases due to energy-related jobs around Fairbanks and Anchorage has caused some public water supply concern in those areas as well. In early 1976 and 1977 some water users in the Prudhoe Bay area were temporarily ordered to cease withdrawals from the Sagavanirktok River on the North Slope when overwintering water pools were depleted below levels necessary for fish survival. On the Kenai Peninsula large groundwater withdrawals by petrochemical facilities, in combination with low rainfall, may be affecting local water table levels to the consternation of residential property owners. In general, large quantities of liquid water do not exist on the North Slope during the winter months. The lack of water during cold months and poor quality of water supplies will limit the number of workers who can be brought into the area. Secondary recovery at the Prudhoe Bay oil field will require large volumes of water, up to three million barrels per day, and given the arid nature of the area, sea water is the likely supply for this activity. If fields are discovered further inland, lack of liquid water and the logistics of sea water transport could inhibit secondary recovery opera- tions. RECOMMENDATIONS Planning 1. Planning that recognizes the State and National needs for energy, particularly oil, gas, and coal, and the need for safeguarding the environment must be done by the State and Federal governments. 2. To better manage regional waters and lands, planning must take into account the aggregate effects of several energy activities occurring in overlapping time frames, rather than considering projects on only an individual basis. 3. Planning for energy-related water needs and impacts must take into account national and international economics. Projec- tions must be developed to deal with the variety of scenarios possible under different market conditions for oil, gas, coal, hydro, and other energy sources. There is a need to protect anadromous fish stocks from the possible effects of hydro- electric development. 23 Siting coordination to use waste process heat in aquaculture and greenhouses should be practiced by appropriate private and public parties. Research and Data Needs 1. The baseline hydrologic data needed to make satisfactory development decisions on nearly all Alaskan energy resources, with the exception of some hydroelectric sites, is severely lacking and should be developed and coordinated with a State- wide hydrologic data gathering network. The interreiationships between any aquifers and surface waters in areas of potential strip mining is unknown. It should be determined if coal seams act as aquifers in Alaskan coal fields as they do in some Montana and Wyoming coal regions. Water needs for surface reclamation of mined areas in Alaska's several climatic regions are not known. Satisfactory species of plants for reclamation may need to be identified before this can be determined. Further field studies to identify alternative water supplies and storage possibilities which can supply year-round water, particularly on the North Slope. Research to develop cheaper methods of developing geothermal and wind energy for use in remote villages. Research to develop practical applications of recycling of water and waste heat (from generating facilities or industrial processes) to such uses as warming supplies of water from cold surface and groundwaters and to support aquaculture and green- house operations. Institutional 1. Tougher enforcement of existing laws and regulations to safeguard the environment during exploration, production, and transportation of energy to market. Planning activities for development of energy resources on Federal, State, and private lands be integrated with the permitting processes and authorities of the respective agencies. Federal-State-Local Role There are strong regional feelings that Federal programs impacting on the State in terms of growth, environmental problems, and so forth should carry with them a Federal commitment to carry the 24 public costs of these impacts. Examples of immediate concern include Federal proposals for offshore oil leasing. This promises to continue as a controversial item since in addition to impacts and costs, there are economic benefits to the region from the programs. There are strong feelings at the State level to continue support of the Coastal Zone Management Program as one method of coping with future growth and facilities siting in the coastal zone. 1. The State should develop a policy for energy development on those lands selected under the Statehood Act and Submerged Lands Act. Water related impacts could then be anticipated and guided. Such a policy would accompany a Federal Energy Policy to provide comprehensive guidance. (The results of the Alaska Public Forum are providing some guidance for State policy in this area.) 2. Localities which actively seek energy facilities and their related jobs and growth must anticipate the effects the growth will have on regional water supplies and water quality and be prepared to bear a fair share of the public service costs associated with their actions. 25 ILLUSTRATION 4 POSSIBLE GROUNDWATER LOCATION IN PERMAFROST. (Reproduced courtesy of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. ) Seasonally frozen ground (Active layer) Unfrozen ground Permafrost Mg Water Frost table Permafrost table Lower limit of permafrost SUBPERMAFROST Water INTRAPERMAFROST Water 26 Water Availability The waters of the State are not totally appropriated, thus, the poten- tial of water use and development can still be (1977) planned. In the mountainous and coastal regions of Alaska, water supplies are usually abundant. In the remainder of the State where semiarid conditions or extended cold periods exist, water shortages frequently occur. These large areas with low precipitation, predominantly frozen ground, ex- tended seasonal freezing, and watersheds with relatively low water- retention are characterized by drought or flood conditions with dramatic water fluctuations. In mountainous coastal regions, where precipitation may exceed 200 inches annually and water appears to be in perpetual abundance, twenty or thirty days of cold weather produce water shortages. Conclusions Water availability at specific sites depends on a broader spectrum of conditions than normally necessary for prediction of availability in temperate climates. Hydrologic basin, region, subregion, subarea, site climate, and geology influence availability. Natural and man-made alterations at a specific site also appear to exert intensified effects upon availability. Large rivers may flow throughout the year although low flow conditions occur in winter rather than in summer. Lesser streams, however, may flow in summer only. Myriads of lakes in the Arctic and interior valleys, deltas, and plains are generally shallow and remain frozen to the bottom much of the year. Tremendous amounts of water are accumulated in snowfields, glaciers and permanently frozen ground. The cycle of availability of these sources, however, may be more closely related to hydrologic centuries rather than hydrologic years. Man-made and natural thermal influences have a great effect on the availability of these water supplies. The storage or flow of these waters is dependent upon these potential actions which determine water liberation. Water availability is also dependent upon the quality of waters in each area. Many of the waters of the State are unavailable or unsuitable for use due to both natural and man-made pollution. Waters heavy in iron or organics are not suitable for use without treatment. RECOMMENDATIONS Planning 1. The State of Alaska must continue the lead in the development of a comprehensive State water plan designed to examine the water availability and its potential uses. 2 Development and planning must take into consideration the availability of water prior to the development and initiation of large scale water demand plans. 27 Cooperative assistance of the Alaska Department of Environ- mental Conservation may be warranted in relocation and/or management of refuse disposal areas to reduce water quality and other related problems. Research and Data Needs 1. Studies to define predictable qualitative and quantitative relationships among the runoff, climate, and cold region geology aspects of water availability, especially in perma- frost areas is necessary. Definition of positive and negative values of cold region water resources in terms of the significance of low tempera- ture water in meeting availability criteria is recommended. Inventory of the regional, subregional, and area hydrology to give meaning to site data in permafrost regions is needed. A determination should be made on the demands of aquatic life, criteria for maintenance of environmental quality and other instream requirements, including a study of estuarine areas. The State's quantitative and qualitative inventory and analy- sis of well logs and data to evaluate groundwater hydrology should be expanded. In some areas of the State, population demand, i.e., the Anchorage bowl and Kenai Peninsula, is such that this information assumes a high priority. Coordinated studies by Institute of Water Resources and/or U.S. Geologic Survey to adequately define limits of ground- water quality hazards, and to improve knowledge required for a groundwater management plan. More hydrologic and related land data to form an adequate data base to develop and manage the surface water, groundwater, and related land resources is needed. Studies of groundwater availability, flood hazard areas, and vegetation analysis in relation to range management, are critical for proper game management. Institutional is Zs Water conservation must be encouraged for all water users. State or Federal regulation of water use must be considered a method of preventing or ameliorating water shortages. 28 Tighter agency regulation of water and air discharges, and sand-gravel removal operations to maintain the amount of water available. Realistic arrangements for financially supporting village water supplies and waste disposal facilities be made prior to their installation. Adequate coordinated land management practices in conjunction with enforcement of current regulations to protect or minimize the potential degradation of the waters and adjacent lands and wetlands from development of transportation corridors and development of mineral and petroleum resources. Federal-State-Local Role 1. Greater State-community leadership in reguiating withdrawal and use of surface or groundwaters to avoid depressed ground- water levels or undesirable levels of withdrawal from surface waters. The State maintain the lead in the development of a Statewide water plan. The State ascertain and enforce, where appropriate, applicable water quality standards for maintenance of maximum water availability. 29 Flooding Many areas in Alaska experience floods and property damage every year. It is a seasonal, natural phenomena that complicates man's permanent settlement and development of flood-prone areas. Conclusions Most of the floods are caused by: o Stream overflow from snowmelt or rainstorms, or from the outburst floods from glacier-dammed lakes. o Water backed up from ice jams on rivers. o Storm-driven waves causing coastal flooding. o Aufeis (glaciation) plugging stream channels and causing overflow. o Waves generated locally by phenomenon such as massive rock or earth slide (either above or below water), ice falls and seismic induced seiche. o Teleseismic tsunamis generated from earthquakes which come from the open sea as a series of waves. Flooding is often complicated by cold temperatures which tend to com- pound the associated problems. There is a need to identify flood-prone lands. With good identification, future developments can be either guided to safe areas or, if impossible to do so, can be flood proofed adequately to protect life and property. Although a significant number of flood studies have been made, additional studies are needed. A comprehensive program of "planning with nature" is needed wherein future development--or redevelopment--will have the benefit of the identification of flood hazard in the planning stage. RECOMMENDATIONS Planning 1. Identification of flood-prone lands. 2. Improve the planning process. Obtain more facts by having more people aid and participate in planning. Streamline the planning process whenever possible. 30 Emphasize more alternatives in flood plain management. Plan for appropriate combinations of structural and nonstructural measures that: a. Modify the susceptibility to flooding--such as land use regulation, open space acquisition, building codes, zoning, developmental policies; flood proofing existing buildings in the flood plain, obtain real time data for flood forecasting or flood warning. b. Modify the consequences of flooding--through use of flood hazard information efforts, flood insurance, tax adjust- ments, emergency assistance, or flood relief insurance. c. While modification of charateristics of flooding such as construction of reservoirs, dikes, channel alterations and diversion might help in some cases, many think that to seek solutions through structural measures is not necessary during this study period. Other alternatives are available in most cases. Research and Data Needs Coastal communities subject to flooding, and river flood plains affecting communities be examined to determine the need for flood control structures versus moving the community to prevent any further erosion or property damage. Prior to implementation, the effects of any proposed flood control measures on natural stream courses, flows and sedimen- tation, stream and estuarine ecology, fish and wildlife habitats, public health vectors, etc., must be determined. A basic judgmental determination of flood-prone areas from a study of available information. These studies would delineate the extent of the flood of record or a flood such as the 100 year event. Institutional Federal-State-Local Role l. Federal, State and/or local agencies should identify areas of flood hazard and institute flood plain management including controlled development in susceptible areas, emergency aid to alleviate damages and initiation of measures to restrict travel in danger areas during periods of flood threat. 31 Estimate funds needed to move flood-prone villages to adjacent higher elevations to avoid continuing damage to life and property. The State should define its role regarding flood plain manage- ment and planning. 32 Navigation, Navigability and Ports Alaska's waters not only provide a means of communication and commerce, but historically have sustained the lives of many of its peoples. Almost all of the communities have been built within easy access to either salt or fresh water. Conclusions Navigability determinations are important considerations with respect to land ownership issues and land settlements under ANSCA. If a water- course or body of water is determined to be navigable in fact or suscep- tible of being used for commercial navigation at the time of statehood, then it meets the Federal test of navigability for title and the owner- ship of the submerged land rests with the State. In the case of private land that is adjacent to a stream or lake, the submerged land would be owned by the State if it is navigable, or by the private owner if not. In terms of Native Land Selections, it is important to know if submerged lands will be owned by the State or the riparian land owner. Because of the wide variety of climate many of Alaska's rivers and ports are available on a limited basis but when they are open they are a frenzy of commercial activity. Conversely the harbors of the Gulf of Alaska and Southeast enjoy year round, ice-free operation. A shallow frozen stream will often enhance traffic to a remote community with the new snow type vehicles that are available. The waters of Alaska support a rich and growing fishing industry, requir- ing an ever increasing number of various size vessels for harvesting and processing. These vessels in turn require ports, harbors, maintenance facilities and well marked and lighted passages to and from the fishing grounds. Southeast Alaska with its high mountains and deep fiords must rely upon the Marine Highway (a ferry system) for much of its commerce. Recreational boating provides access to many roadless areas and opens these areas for land-based recreational activities. Again, these activ- ities require harbors, maintenance facilities, and well marked channels to assure safe passage. As population increases and development occurs, additional demands will be placed on all waterways for both commercial and recreational usage. Several areas now accessible to the major communities are overcrowded and recreation opportunities are seriously limited. RECOMMENDATIONS Planning 1. A plan for the phased development of adequate port facilities and anchorages. 26 Plans of studies be developed for navigability of streams. 33 Research and Data Needs 1. Studies on the effects of navigation improvements and port and harbor developments on freshwater and marine habitats, eco- systems, and organisms of commercial, recreational, and sub- sistence importance should be conducted in each coastal and river area before, during, and after completion of each project. Institutional ag Cooperative Federal and State studies should be made to document historical evidence of navigability for title determination of submerged land. Federal-State-Local Role ae Corps of Engineers identification of river navigation hazards and a possible program for improvement. Further studies to identify possible improvements in coastal and river navigation. 34 SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Later on in this report, summaries are presented for each of the geographic problem areas--state- ments of the types of problems anticipated in each of the areas. The Statewide conclusions and recommendations presented in the previous sections are pertinent to many of the problems identified for these areas. This section includes additional recommendations for specific geographic areas, that is, recommenda- tions not already covered in the Statewide conclu- sions and recommendations. 35 UPPER YUKON Sparse population widely scattered over a large, remote area, focuses attention on the need for comprehensive planning for power development, navigation corridors, water delivery and waste disposal systems, and flood control. Recommendations Long term data collection pertinent to power develop- ment, navigation corridors, and water delivery/waste S disposal installation programs. oo Planning studies related to hydroelectric potential and to flood hazard. 36 LOWER YUKON Subsistence lifestyle, as is found in the Lower Yukon subregion, requires maintenance of the natural resources. With some economic growth antici- pated for the area, it is important that human, fish and wildlife habitats be protected from flooding and other destruction. Recommendations Funding needs be determined to protect against spring flooding, or to move villages of Alakanuk, Emmonak, Holy Cross, Scammon Bay, Hooper Bay, Pitkas Point, and Pilot Station. Identification of special protection that may be necessary to preserve fish and wildlife habitats of the Yukon delta. 37 BRISTOL BAY Bristol Bay, in southwest Alaska, is a prime salmon fishery, important to both those living directly from the resource and others depending on economic activity. Preservation versus development conflicts catch local residents in difficult situations while struggles with the low income and tax base and high water development costs leave them with inadequate electric sources, navigational aids, and poor quality data on groundwater sources for domestic or commercial water supplies for local communities. Recommendations A study of hydro- electric or alternative electrical power sources for Bristol Bay. Coast Guard review of the need for additional navigational aids in ee oe Eastern Bristol Bay, particularly the waters oo between Dillingham and Togiak. A U.S. Geological Survey study of potential surface and groundwater sources for domestic or commercial water supplies in the vicinity of Bristol Bay communities. A study of vegetation and soils to determine possible range grazing and cropping systems compatible to the area. 38 ALEUTIAN The Aleutian area is another relatively isolated area in Alaska where water supports a great wealth of fisheries. Sea life, a vital mainstay, must be protected from degradation by oil, grazing, or other developments. At the same time, residents hope to upgrade their living standard, through development of adequate domestic water supply and waste disposal systems. Recommendations Ss A U.S. Geologic Survey study of possible water sources near Aleutian communities. Research to define the regulations and enforcement needed to protect fresh and coastal waters of the Aleutians from degradation by oil (or mineral) development, extraction, or transport. Livestock stocking rates be balanced with annual forage production. Grazing systems be followed which provide adequate protection to the resource base, and which accommodate other wildlife, land, and water use require- ments. 393 KODIAK-SHELIKOF Fish and shellfish are important parts of the Kodiak economy. This economy depends on a good quality water resource. Expected petrochemical activity in the area may create land and water resource conflicts and could adversely affect the economy. With wise water resource management and YS use, the residents may be able to enjoy economic development in harmony with S enhancement of the natural resources and lo at the same time enjoy upgraded water and electric services. Recommendations Livestock stocking rates be balanced with annual forage production. Grazing systems be followed which provide adequate protection to the resource base, and which accommodate other wildlife, land, and water use requirements. The communities of Kodiak, Kaguyak, Karluk, Larsen Bay, and Old Harbor plan for an adequate supply and distribution system to meet current and projected potable water needs or find and commit funds to implement existing plans. Land and water resource use conflicts (present and potential) be studied to identify alternative solutions. The impacts of offshore petroleum explora- tion/development or of logging on Afognak Island are two examples. 40 COOK INLET Fifty-two percent of Alaska's population live in the Cook Inlet sub- region. Anchorage, the largest city, is the State's center of commercial and economic activity. Boom and bust growth, and accompanying urban sprawl and economic activity place great demands on the local water resources. Recommendations Additional field study by U.S. Geological Survey of water availability and quality near Kenai Peninsula communities. Further joint planning and zoning by Federal- State-local entities to direct urban encroach- ment on lands and waters--primarily in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley and the Anchorage area. Review by State of harbor possibilities on Kenai and/or reexamination of future land transportation alternatives between Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet population centers. III. SUMMARY OF THE STATE-REGIONAL FUTURE SUMMARY OF THE STATE-REGIONAL FUTURE The State Regional Future, prepared as part of the second activity of the Assessment, is a profile of the future which reflects a variety of views. It includes policy, resources, and economic assumptions and estimates of future levels of income, employment, population, and water requirements. It includes assumptions on future levels of development in key industries and reflects the basic changes in land ownership and use. This chapter contains a brief description of the State in terms of population, resources, industry, and the economy and expectations for growth in these areas. It is evident that there is nct yet any clear consensus as to the desir- able levels of future economy and populations for the State. However, there is general consensus in several areas: desire to protect and preserve life style and environment; desire for a strong regional and subregional economy and for good employment opportunities; desire to protect and benefit from renewable resources; recognition that the State will be called upon to provide significant contributions to national needs for environmental preservation and energy production as well as food and forest products; and desire that individual resource develop- ments pay their own way as being environmentally acceptable. Expansion in the energy industry has caused an accelerated population growth and changed Alaska from a "frontier economy" to a more diverse and sophisticated base financially. Added to that is the change in ownership and management of vast areas of land, a result of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. The resource values and strength of the Alaska economy suggest sub- stantial future increases in population with significant growth in energy and tourism. Growth in the fish and forest industries is ex- pected to continue at a steady rate. Population and Employment--Alaska's population of 408,579 is relatively young and is primarily urban. The 1970 census shows a median age of 22.9 years with 39.9 percent of the population being less than 18 years. Over half of the State's population lives in the Railbelt Area, which includes the State's two largest cities of Anchorage and Fairbanks. Twelve percent of the population resides in the cities of Southeast Alaska. Most of the rest live in remote towns and villages scattered across the State. The male/female ratio, traditionally weighted toward males in frontier settings, is leveling off. There are now only 119.1 males for every 100 females. Since the 1970 census, Alaska's population has increased about 30 percent, primarily because of growth induced by pipeline construction. The Assessment presents regional estimates of the employment and popula- tion associated with two alternative development programs for the State. Each program, high and low, specifies the location, the timing, and the scale of new activities in the petroleum, hard mineral, forest products, fish products, and tourism industries. These new development programs represent the personal opinions and expectations of a number of technical 45 experts in government and in the private sector. They were asked to review and evaluate information on the rate of development of the State's natural resources, national and world market conditions, environmental problems, and political strategies, and to suggest new activities which could develop between 1976 and the year 2000. The development programs which were used to estimate employment and population changes represent a composite of their suggestions. A collection of employment schedules, one for each activity, was used to compute the primary employment associated with the development programs. The secondary employment was computed from the primary-~employment assuming a fixed inter-regional relationship between secondary and total employment. The net addition to population was computed assuming a fixed number of dependents for each worker added to the work force. The specific assump- tions concerning primary employment, secondary employment, and dependents can be found in the supplemental study, Projected Employment and Population Changes in Selected Regions of Alaska Through the Year 2000. Anticipated employment and population for the year 1985 and 2000 are included in the Socio-Economic Characteristics tables found later in this chapter and reflect growth in both high and low development pro- grams. Energy--Alaska's energy resources are receiving more attention now than at any time in the past. Construction is complete on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and proposals are well along toward pipelines to bring the North Slope natural gas reserves to market. Both the State and Federal governments have offshore leasing programs, with several areas targeted for early lease sales. Several of the Native corporations have explora- tion programs. Several other major energy development proposals are under active consideration, including coal and hydroelectric development. Major new coal mining seems probable during the period of this study, with current interests focusing on strip mining proposals in the Cook Inlet. Current hydroelectric proposals include a major development of the Upper Susitna River and several smaller projects that would serve isolated coastal cities. The rapid pursuit for oil development involves a full measure of con- troversy, concerns for pollution, growth induced by the development, impact on lifestyle, critical estuarine areas and so forth. Water implications include need for assuring adequate pollution control meas- ures and protecting critical environmental resources, as well as water supplies for energy development. The relative unavailability of water for large parts of the State may impose limits and in some cases determine the types of energy develop- ment that may occur. Coal mines, refineries, and petrochemical plants involve significant water requirements. 46 Tourism--has been a rapidly growing sector of the Alaska economy and substantial additional growth is anticipated. Alaska offers unique and “varied experiences to the tourist. Scenery of unsurpassed beauty is available from the snow-capped mountains of Southeast Alaska to the flower-carpeted tundra of the Arctic in summer. The fish, fowl, and wildlife of the Alaskan wilderness attract thousands of sports fisher- men, hunters, and photographers each year. The water resources of the State provide a great deal of the scenery, and the lakes and rivers are frequently the means of transportation to or within the wilderness or backcountry. The need to wisely manage the water resources to provide for the tourist and recreationist is apparent. Commercial Fisheries--has long been an important sector of the economy and a major employment factor. From the viewpoint of the Water Assess- ment, Salmon are especially important. There is an obvious desire to preserve freshwater or estuarine habitat which is of value to salmon and to other species of fish invertabrates, marine mammals and waterfowl. At this time, estimates indicate an increase in salmon production through aquaculture. The State Regional Futures assumes some expansion in the fisheries industry, including the bottomfish fishery. Forest Products--is an important resource which is based mostly on the coastal forests in Southeast Alaska and along the eastern Gulf of Alaska. The Interior forests are generally much less productive, but offer some commercial opportunities. Modest expansion of the forest products industry is assumed in the State Regional Future. There are potentially serious water use conflicts between the forest and fishery interests. Agriculture--remains a small component of the Alaska economy. Many believe that at the present time, economic factors do not generally favor rapid expansion of this industry, while on the other hand, others believe that the lack of available land is the problem. The State's agricultural professionals consider farming and livestock range pro- duction to be a regional potential, and they anticipate expansion of agriculture in the period of the assessment. Other Mineral Resources--Other than the fuels, production of construc- tion materials and some fairly intensive exploration programs, the mineral industry is at present a fairly small sector of the Alaska economy. Known resources include iron, molybdenum, copper, and nickel deposits of major significance. There is likelihood that mineral pro- duction, including metals, will increase during the period of the assess-— ment. Land Status The accompanying illustration shows the magnitude of changes in owner- ship and management of Alaskan lands. The Alaska Statehood Act and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) provide for State selection of about 104 million acres and the transfer of 40 million acres to Alaska Natives. ANCSA also provides for inclusion of up to 80 million acres in the nation's parks, forests, refuges, and wild and scenic river systems. 47 ILLUSTRATION 5 Alaska's Land Status ] State 70% = —- U Private 0.3% . Mm . NG =< = Waters & Glaciers 3.0% pt 1971 cS Before Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Private 11.3% 1984 After completion of transfers under Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and Statehood Act Changes in land ownership and land management which will result from ANCSA have significant long-range impact on water and related land development in Alaska. These changes will include encouraging water and related land developments in some areas, and discouraging or prohibiting such developments in others. The land to be returned to Native ownership represents about 11 percent of the State. It has been estimated that this land includes 30 to 40 percent of the natural resources and a significant portion of the lands adjacent to the major water courses. The Alaskan Environment There is now considerable evidence of competition for water related lands. Of particular concern to many people is that wetlands in the vicinity of the urban areas have been altered significantly. Also, much of the best potential agricultural land is being lost because of its high value for alternative uses. Competition for the water related lands is bound to increase. For the most part, developed uses of water are local although some uses are fairly intensive. For example, fish and forest products processing involves large amounts of water. Human water uses are growing rapidly and demands will increase sub- stantially under population growth estimates. The region should be prepared for large new water uses for energy projects and certain non- energy mineral development. Existing use of water in its natural state is extremely important, including natural use for fish and wildlife and use by man for trans- portation, subsistence, and recreation. Human use tends to be fairly intensive for those areas readily accessible to the major cities. The transportation aspects, including waterways, ports and harbors, is very important for Alaska. The State is dependent on water borne commerce for much of its production and for importation of commodities used in the State. Further, many communities are accessible only by air or water. It is to be anticipated that fairly intensive water uses will continue to develop in the vicinity of Alaska's cities as well as in the immediate vicinity of major resource development. As with employment and population projections, water use is anticipated to grow in both the high and low development programs considered. Volumetric Requirement figures shown are estimates which, in some cases, are based on water requirement studies (irrigation, livestock, coal, sand and gravel) conducted in the conterminous United States that may not be entirely applicable to Alaska. Other figures (seafood processing) were estimated using production and water use figures for one Alaskan 49 Processor, arriving at a water use factor which was applied to all sub- regional seafood catch figures. Still other estimates (oil and gas, steam electric, fish hatcheries) were arrived at through discussion and correspondence with knowledgeable people in the industries or regulating agencies. Finally, some volumetric figures (domestic, pulp, hydro- electric) are partially or totally quantified. Specific information relative to these estimates can be found in the technical memorandum for Activity 2 of the Assessment. Socio-Economic Characteristics and Volumetric Water Requirements The following regional statistical tables include information on popula- tion, employment, and earnings and water requirements in terms anticipated for the years 1985 and 2000. The tables were taken from the State- Regional Future portion of the Assessment and were based principally on the three supplemental studies to the Assessment. Blank spaces in tables indicate insufficient information available to make an entry. Subregion tables can be found under appendices E and F. 50 Ts 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future: SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS REGION: ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: Ol | AREA (in Acres) 375 MILLION | set STATE: ALASKA STATEWIDE TOTALS ay + CHARACTERISTIC UNIT SRF SRF RATIO SRF RATZO 1975 1985 1985/75 2000 2000/75 fe —t Population: 1/ Number High ad 408,579 606, 240 1.48 991,883 2.43 Low 454,465 1.11 562,945 Loe = Total Employment: / High 185,520 266,514 1.44 425,863 2.30 Low 206,698 1.11 254, 392 ine | hetiiave: High 1967 § 2,020 3,819 1.89 9,225 4.57 Low (million) 2,863 1.42 5,235 25S Per Capita Income 2/ 1967 $ 4,944 tt 1.27 9,300 1.88 Electric Energy Production 3 GWH | 3,300 6,100 1.85 36,500 11.06 Land Use: Total Land Area Acres 375.0 375.0 375.0 Agricultural 4/ (million) 140.2 140.3 140.4 Urban 13 13 1% Other 234.8 234.7 234.6 | | Population figures from Projected Employment and Population Changes in Selected Regions of Alaska through the Year 2900, State of Alaska, Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise, 1976. Per Capita Income from 1972 OBERS Projections, Regional Economic Activity in the U. S., Series E Population, Volume 4, States, page 1l. Electric Energy for 1975 from Alaska Power Administration, Juneau, Alaska, 1977; estimates for 1985 and 2000 from Economic Analysis and Load Projections 1974 Alaska Power Survey, Table #20, Alaska Power Survey Technical Advisory Committee. Both 1985 & 2000 are mid-range figures. Agricultural totals include 140.2 million acres of forest land. 8/24/77 9 NOILVWYLSNTII es 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future VOLUMETRIC REQUIREMENTS (withdrawals) (Million gallons per day) REGION: ALASKA - 19 ASA .NO.: O1 AREA: (in acres) 375 MILLION | souRCE: Pareshaeg(engueay STATE: ALASKA STATEWIDE TOTALS Saline [_) =T FUNCTIONAL USE SRF SRF RATIO SRF RATIO 1975 1985 1985/75 2000 2000/75 Domestic, Commercial and Institutional, Total 72 107-80 1.50-1.12 177-101 2.47-1.41 Manufacturing, Total 88 125-108 1.42-1.23 149-125 1.69-1.42 Sea Food 5.1 9.6-8.7 1.88-1.71 26-18 5.10-3.53 Petrochemical 2.6 35-19 13.46-7.30 43-27 16.54-10.38 Wood pulp 80 80 1.00 80 1.00 Minerals, Total él 230-225 3.77-3.69 361-289 5.92-4.74 Metals 49 155 3.16 258 5.27 Non-Metals (Sand and Gravel) ll 17 1.55 25 2227 Fuels (Oil and Gas) -40 58-53 145.00 78-5 195.00-12.50 (Coal) 27 27 1.00 27 1.00 Irrigation, Total 5.2 75 14.42 300 57.69 Crops 5.2 75, 300 Other Livestock -28 1.2 4.29 4 14.29 Steam Electric 34 41 1.21 81 2.38 Public Lands 1/ Other Lands: Fish Hatcheries 85 132 1.55 171 2.01 Total 345 711-662 2.06-1.92 1,243-1,071 3.60-3.10 1/ Withdrawal for public lands minimal and unquantified. B/IST7. L NOILWALSATII €s 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future VOLUMETRIC REQUIREMENTS (withdrawals) (Million gallons per day) REGION: ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: O1 AREA: (in acres) 375 Million | SOURCE: Fresh) >: Gace) STATE: ALASKA STATEWIDE TOTALS Saline [[X_J T T — FUNCTIONAL USE SRF SRF RATIO SRF RATIO 1975 1985 1985/75 Domestic, Commercial and Institutional, Total [ 2000 & Manufacturing, Total Sea Food Petrochemical Wood pulp ev — Minerals, Total Metals Non-Metals (Sand and Gravel) Fuels (Oil and Gas) (Coal) \ pr Irrigation, Total Crops Other > a Livestock Steam Electric Public Lands Qo Other Lands: Fish Hatcheries a0 Total 8 NOILWALSNTII BS VOLUMETRIC REQUIREMENTS 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future (consumptive use) (Million gallons per day - Rounded to two significant figures) REGION: ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: o1 AREA: (in acres) 375 MILLION |sourcE: Fresh bw STATE: ALASKA STATEWIDE TOTALS Saline Sex [eee FUNCTIONAL USE SRF 1975 SRF 1985 RATIO 1985/75 SRF 2000 RATIO 2000/75 Domestic, Commercial and Institutional, Total 1/ Manufacturing, Total 1/ Sea Food Petrochemical Wood pulp Minerals, Total 1/ Metals Non-Metals (Sand and Gravel) Fuels (Oil and Gas) (Coal) Irrigation, Total Crops Other NN sn 39 39 14.44 160 160 59.26 Livestock Steam Electric 1/ Public Lands 1/ -21 1.0 4.76 3.9 28-57 Other Lands: Fish Hatcheries 1/ Total | 2.9 ah 40 13.79 164 36.59 =r 1/ Information currently insufficient to provide a basis for entry. 8/24/77 6 NOILVYLSNTII 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future VOLUMETRIC REQUIREMENTS (consumptive use) (Million gallons per day - Rounded to two significant figures) REGION: ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: O1 AREA: (in acres) 375 Million |sourcE: Fresh ee} STATE: ALASKA STATEWIDE TOTALS Saline FUNCTIONAL USE SRF SRF RATIO SRF RATIO 1975 1985 1985/75 2000 0/75 Domestic, Commercial and Institutional, Total v Manufacturing, Total Sea Food Petrochemical Wood pulp 2 iP Minerals, Total Metals Non-Metals (Sand and Gravel) Fuels (Oil and Gas) (Coal) > yh Irrigation, Total Crops Other Livestock Steam Electric Public Lands Other Lands: Fish Hatcheries Total OT NOILVWALSATII 9S REGION: ALASKA - 19 STATE: ALASKA —_——<—$—<<—— 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future WATER SUPPLIES (Million gallons per day) ASA NO.: O1 DURATION: ANNUAL: XX HONTH : (Spectf month) PROBABILITY: MEANXE TT Oe cel Y 95% O OTHER: (SpecI fy) SRF=1975 SRF-1985 SRF-2000 Present Modiffed Flow 816,000 WWW WS NK WN Imports -0- -0- -0- Exports -0- -0- Groundwater Withdrawals ait Evaporation Depletions Upstream ASA's Intra ASA Natural Modified Flow Future Modified Flow i/ 2/ Minimal. 816,000 Information currently insufficient to provide a basis for entry. 816,000 8/24/77 TI NOILVWYLSNTII Ls REGION: ALASKA - 19 STATE: ALASKA CATEGORY Benefictal Uses Fish Hydroelectric Power Navigation Recreatlon Water Quality Wilditfe Other Uses (Including environ- pdb Institutional Requirements Downstream Water Rights Interstate Agreements International Agreements Other 1/ Information currently insufficient to provide a basis for entry. 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future INSTREAM FLOW NEEDS (Mtl lion gallons per day) AREA (in acres): 375 Million 2/ 1871 treaty with Canada guarantees access to the sea via Yukon River. 3/ Conventions of 1916 and 1937 with Great Britain and Mexico to protect migratory birds and game mammals. 8/24/77 @T NOILVWYLSNTTI IV. WATER AND RELATED LAND PROBLEMS uy ALASKA REGION WATER AND RELATED LAND PROBLEM AREAS poy SEVEN AREAS OF MAJOR 3 SIGNIFICANCE €T NOLLWAISATTII WATER AND RELATED LAND PROBLEMS During the initial stage of the Assessment, sixteen "Water and Related Land Problem Areas" were identified. The following pages include brief descriptions, a map, and summary of those problem areas. The Alaska Water Study Committee attached additional significance to seven of the sixteen problem areas: Tanana, Bristol Bay, Arctic, Southeast, Cook Inlet, Kodiak-Shelikof, and Gulf of Alaska. Additional information was developed on these seven problem areas during the latter stages of the Assessment (Activity Three). Criteria used to identify the significant problem areas included consideration of the -following: Lack of domestic water Competition for water Land use conflicts Property loss Safety Health Livelihood Erosion and sedimentation Resource use conflicts Disturbance of eco-systems and hydrologic subregions Recommendations for solving the problems are included in Chapter II of this report. 61 ARCTIC AREA oO oP Area: 81,000 square miles Estimated Population: 6,500 Climate: Arctic. Average July temperature: Low 30's to low 50's. Average January temperature: -20's to -5. Annual Precipitation: 5 to 19 inches. Principle Resources: Oil and gas, coal, sea mammals, wildlife. Major Sectors of the Economy: Oil and gas, construction, government, services, subsistence living. The southern border of the Arctic area is located in the northern terminus of the Pacific Rocky Mountain system--the Brooks Range. To the north, the land becomes gently rolling foothills, which flatten into the broad, treeless, tundra-covered coastal plains. The entire area is underlain by permafrost, and plant life consists of high brush at higher elevations and various types of tundra. The area supports large caribou herds and over 150 species of birds. Coastal areas support populations of seal, walrus, whale, and polar bear. Fish populations are unusually small for their age. The economy of this sparsely populated area is a combination of monetary, barter, and subsistence factors. The harvesting of fish and wildlife remains extremely important to most of the inhabitants. Government is a major element in the economy, and with the North Slope oil discovery and construction of the trans-Alaskan pipeline, the oil industry has become the largest industry in the private sector. It is expected that growth in the area's economy will be based on continued exploration for and production of oil and gas. 62 Aleutian Conclusions Major problems identified here include: 1. Water availability. Water for domestic use is often limited by small basins that are costly to develop. Few communities have a complete and adequate water system. Water-carried waste disposal is therefore often inadequate, creating many unsanitary and unhealthy conditions. Problems cited in regard to domestic water plague development of the fisheries processing plants. A study is underway examining potential of Aleutian geothermal spring waters for aquaculture. Water quality. Development of oil in the area may risk pollution of very valuable fin, shellfish, sea mammal, and waterfowl resources found here in abundance. Sea life is a vital mainstay, and losses in key subsis- tence or commercial species would seriously endanger community well-being or even survival. Stabilization of an important harvest species like salmon could greatly enhance community well-being. Over grazing of sheep and cattle on some of the island has damaged streams through sedimentation. Navigation. Inter-island water transportation (the most economically sound means available) is impaired by insufficient hydrographic data, inadequate port facilities, and poorly protected anchorages. This leads to increased freight costs (both in and out), and limited schedules and routes. Energy. An economic way to generate small volumes of electric power from geothermal water resources could greatly improve the quality of life in some Aleut villages. 85 KODIAK— SHELIKOF AREA Area: 11,000 square miles Estimated Population: 9,300 Climate: Maritime. Average July temperature: Low 40's to low 60's. Average January temperature: Low 20's to mid 40's. Annual Precipitation: 20 to 60 inches. Principle Resources: Fish and wildlife, including shellfish and sea mammals, timber, potential for minerals. Major Sectors of the Economy: Fishing and seafood processing, govern- ment, tourism, trade and service indus- tries. Located in Southcentral Alaska, the Kodiak-Shelikof area covers 11,000 square miles of steep, rugged terrain, is extensively glaciated and includes the mountainous southern coast of the Alaska Peninsula and the Kodiak Island group. Volcanic activity and frequent earthquakes are characteristic of the area. The coastline of the Kodiak Island group is very irregular with many deep fiords and islands. Historically, fishing and seafood processing have been the economic mainstay of this area and accounted for more than 30 percent of total employment in 1972. Major species include salmon, halibut, shrimp, and king, tanner, and Dungeness crab. With a population of less than 4,000, the city of Kodiak is the commercial center for the problem area. Growth is anticipated for all major segments of the economy. There is also a potential for oil and gas development. 86 Kodiak-Shelikof Conclusions The State expects growth in the economy, population, and water uses of the Kodiak-Shelikof region. The Native Village and Corporation's acquisi- tion of land may stimulate developments. Expected petrochemical activities associated with the Lower Cook Inlet and Kodiak Outer Continental Shelf oil leasing will require increased support from the Kodiak community. Increased activities by both the fishing industry and the Coast Guard may result from implementation of the 200-mile fisheries limitations. Problems identified in the area include: l. Water use. Water use conflicts have developed between placer mining interests and fisheries, between wildlife and domestic red meat production, and between recreation users and commercial fishermen. 2 Ports. Adequate marine facilities are needed including scheduled service, boat moorage, port and harbor facilities. 3. Water availability. Adequate water supplies are needed for the communities of Kodiak, Karluk, Larson Bay and Old Harbor. Water withdrawals are, in some instances, reducing quantity and quality of instream water for fish, waterfowl and wildlife habitat. Data is needed on water availability, especially data on groundwater aquifers. 4. Water quality. Adequate sanitary and garbage facilities at public use areas should be provided and maintained. There is a great potential for degradation of fresh and saltwater fisheries near and accessible to population centers and concentrated land uses. Secondary water treatment discharges to the Sea may be harmful. Erosion and sediment production may be caused by livestock overuse of the range. oe Instream use. Instream flow needs for fish and wildlife need to be provided for. 6. Flooding. Flood hazard areas--coastal flooding and erosion threats at Chignik, Karluk, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouizinkie, Perryville, Port Lions-- need to be minimized. 87 COOK INLET AREA Area: 38,000 square miles Estimated Population: 211,000 Climate: Maritime and transition. Average July temperature: Mid 30's to upper 60's. Average January temperature: -10 to 40's. Annual Precipitation: 20 inches. Principle Resources: Fish and wildlife, timber, oil and gas, coal, scenery. Major Sectors of the Economy: Government, military, service industries, oil and gas, fish, tourism, transportation. The Cook Inlet problem area lies in the Southcentral subregion of Alaska. Extending from the crest of the Alaska Peninsula on the west and the Alaska Range on the north, the Cook Inlet area covers an area of 38,000 square miles. The land here is characterized by extensive glacier systems, considerable tectonic and volcanic activity, an extensive coastline with prolific sea life, and fairly extensive wilderness areas which support abundant wildlife. Approximately 52 percent of the State's population reside in the Cook Inlet subregion. Since World War II the city of Anchorage has become the State's center of commerce and economic activity. Anchorage has become the headquarters for the oil and gas industry, and, largely because of pipeline activity, has experienced rapid growth. Continued growth is expected at least for the balance of the 70's. Fishing and logging are also significant elements in the economy. 88 Cook Inlet Conclusions Problems identified include: l. Water availability/quality. Need for expanding water supply and waste disposal facilities and for providing new facilities. Communities on the Kenai Peninsula are in particular need of more adequate water supplies. Urban encroachment on wetlands, farm lands, flood plains, and municipal watershed lands. Those areas in the Lower Susitna- Matanuska Valleys are particularly susceptible. Riverbanks and stream side quality have been seriously damaged on the Kenai River. Heavy pressures on and overcrowding of water-based recreational facilities and increased competition in recreational harvest of fish and wildlife resources is particularly true for waters acces- sible by road. Heavy water uses associated with urbanization and in some cases with agriculture are encroaching on instream needs. Relocating the capital to Willow will make this particularly true in the Matanuska- Susitna Valley. Energy. Water resource concerns are with potential energy development associated with proposals for major new oil and gas,'coal, and hydro developments. Oil and gas development in Lower Cook Inlet is located in or near important fishing grounds. Beluga coal may be developed for export and affect freshwater habitats for fish and water fowl. If the Susitna hydroelectric project becomes a reality, ecosystems will be altered. Institutional. Significant changes in land use, ownership, and management will result from the Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act. Ownership of rivers, riverbanks, lake beds, and certain areas of the coastal zone will be increasingly disputed, along with allocation of water rights. Ports. Existing Kenai Peninsula port and harbor facilities within Cook Inlet will require expansion to support projected growth. Water use. Growth in agricultural activity or municipal or industrial water uses will undoubtedly affect water and water related planning. Problems are already occuring, especially on the Kenai Peninsula. Planning should focus on irrigation control, use of chemicals, and sedimentation. 89 GULF OF ALASKA AREA Area: 34,000 square miles Estimated Population: 11,600 Climate: Maritime and transition. Average July temperature: Low 40's to low 70's. Average January temperature: Low 20's to mid 40's. Annual Precipitation: 10 to 180 inches. Principle Resources: Fish and wildlife, including shellfish and sea mammals, timber, minerals, oil and gas. Major Sectors of the Economy: Oil, fishing, seafood processing, govern- ment, trades. This area is found in Southcentral Alaska and lies east of the Cook Inlet area. Principle physiographic areas include parts of the Alaska Range draining into the Gulf of Alaska, an intermontaine basin formed by the Gulkana upland and the Copper River lowland, the Wrangell Mountains, Kenai-Chugach Mountains, Prince William Sound, and the Gulf of Alaska coastal section. Construction of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline has had a significant effect on this problem area. The pipeline terminal is located at Valdez, and for about a two year period a large number of new jobs were added to the economy with a concomitant increase in the area's popula- tion. Continued growth in population and all major segments of the economy is anticipated for this area. 90 Arctic Conclusions The primary problems encountered in this area include: ts Flooding. Flooding is an annual hazard along stream channels in the low coastal plain and along Arctic and Chukchi seacoasts. The prin- cipal flood-prone rivers are the Sagavanirktok, Colville, and Mead. Extensive flood damage has been reported in Deadhorse and Anaktuvuk Pass. Wetlands and lagoons are vulnerable to pollution by sediment from construction and to flooding by impeded drainages caused by roads and oil rig site construction. The formation of aufeis on rivers and in other drainage routes will affect transportation and is a potential source of damage to public lands. Coastal flooding is a threat to the security of shipping facilities. Areas affected are Wainwright, Barrow, Cape Lisbourne, Barter Island, and Point Lay. The periodically severe flood threat can hamper resource development. Limited fresh water supply. In the Arctic regions there are no substantial usable groundwater resources due to permafrost. In the winter, surface water sources freeze to the bottom making water removal impossible. Limited supplies may restrict oil and gas exploration and production in Prudhoe Bay, Beaufort Sea and PET 4 areas. The increased use of surface water for petroleum production support will reduce supplies for freshwater fish production, resulting in habitat decline and reduced supply for subsistence. Surface water quality will decline near population centers as water demands increase. Difficulties in treating arctic waste waters may lead to pollution of streams and ponds. Fish populations near population centers will be affected by declining water levels and toxic substances in their habitat. Soil erosion. Potential surface soil erosion following natural or man-made dis- turbance is high. Permafrost melting is followed by sinkhole development and soil loss to running water with subsequent deposits in streams. . Coastal erosion is severe at certain exposed sites along the Arctic Ocean and Chukchi Sea. Point Hope village is presently in danger. Roads, pipelines, and industrial community development on the Arctic Slope and coast must be regulated by stipulations such as those governing pipeline construction. These activities, with possible degradation of lagoons and wetlands, are hazards to large and important migrating populations of shorebirds and waterfowl. — 63 KOTZEBUE SOUND AREA of Area: 41,000 square miles Estimated Population: 4,600 Climate: Arctic. Average July temperature: Mid 30's to 60's. Average January temperature: -20's to 4. Annual Precipitation: Less than 20 inches. Principle Resources: Fish and wildlife, sea mammals, reindeer, minerals. Major Sectors of the Economy: Commercial fishing, reindeer herding, subsistence economy, government spending. The Kotzebue Sound area lies on Alaska's northwestern coast. Bordered to the north and south by mountains, this area includes the lands which drain into Kotzebue Sound. The climate is severe, and permafrost is found throughout the area. The population of the area is small, and most communities are on the coast. The communities have traditionally depended on sea mammals for sustenance--blubber for oil, skins for clothing and boats, ivory for implements. Although elements of the cash economy have been added, much of the subsistence life style remains. Slight but steady increases in population, transportation, reindeer ranching, forestry, commercial fishing, and tourism are anticipated in the future. Oil and gas development and increased mining is expected. 64 Norton Sound Conclusions The major problems identified in this area include: 1. Water quality. Saline intrusion affects groundwater quality in coastal communities. Adequate water supply and sewage disposal systems are lacking in a majority of communities. Potential health problems are created and community and economic development is restricted. Drilling rigs, oil production facilities, and mineral processing plants have potential for degrading water quality. Aquatic habitat would be adversely affected. Lack of deep water ports will restrict industrial and economic development. Water use. Inadequate funds for operation and maintenance of water and sewage systems could have adverse health effects and restrict community and economic growth. Potential conflicts between mineral and energy developers and subsistence and recreation users of water and adjacent lands could inhibit economic growth. Flooding. Coastal storms cause flooding with resultant beach erosion and property damage. 67 UPPER YUKON— CANADA AREA Area: 9,000 square miles Estimated Population: 150 Climate: Continental. Average July temperature: Mid 40's to low 70's. Average January temperature: -20's to -4. Annual Precipitation: 20 inches. Principle Resources: Fish and wildlife, minerals. Major Sectors of the Economy: Mining, subsistence. This interior area is adjacent to the Yukon border and consists of two separate areas draining into the Canadian portion of the Yukon River. Population is sparse in this largely inaccessible, mountainous region, and there are no communities of 25 or more people. The northern area is crossed by a well-traveled road from the Alaskan Highway to the town of Eagle and to Dawson, Yukon Territory. The southern area is extremely remote. Information on the area is scarce. Some placer mining takes place and most inhabitants lead a subsistence type existence. Slight increases in mining and transportation are expected. 68 Kotzebue Sound Conclusions The problems encountered here include: 1. Water quality. Water quality is affected by saline intrusion of groundwater and suspended organic material in surface water throughout the area. There is a lack of adequate water storage, distribution systems, and integral sewage disposal systems in half of the communities. This affects health and restricts economic growth. Inadequate water quantity also restricts industrial growth in coastal com- munities. Shallow water inhibits deep water port facilities. Restricted water transportation inhibits industrial and economic development. Potential water quality degradation from oil and gas or mining operations could adversely affect aquatic habitat. Water use. Competitive water and land use by mineral and energy developers and by subsistence and recreation users could restrict economic growth. Lack of funds for operation and maintenance of community water and sewage disposal systems could adversely affect health and future community and economic development. Flooding. Periodic storms cause coastal flooding which inflict property damage and beach erosion. 65 NORTON SOUND AREA Oo? Area: 26,000 square miles Estimated Population: 6,700 Climate: Maritime, transitional, and continental. Average July temperature: 30 to 50. Average January temperature: 5 to 10. Annual Precipitation: 15 to 20 inches. Principle Resources: Fish and wildlife including sea mammals, minerals, and reindeer. Major Sectors of the Economy: Commercial fishing and fur trapping, subsistence, government, tourism, and Native handicrafts. The Norton Sound problem area encompasses the lands bordering Norton Sound which merges with the Bering Sea. The area is characterized by the intermingling of mountains and valleys and has an extensive coast- line. From Cape Prince of Wales to St. Michael, the coastline consists of narrow beaches with the land rising steeply behind these beaches. Permafrost is extensive. The economy of the Norton Sound area is still primarily subsistence. Except for Nome and a few mining camps, communities are located to take advantage of available game, fish, and fuel. Economic activity is low in the area and is reflected in high unemployment rates and low per capita income. Government employment provides the primary source of cash in the area. Economic growth is expected from increases in mining and reindeer ranching, possible development in oil production, and increased tourism and recreation. 66 Upper Yukon - Canada Conclusions Problems found in this area include: 1. Water availability. Discontinuous permafrost limits groundwater availability for village residents. Surface waters of this area include the White River system and a smaller stream, Snag Creek, in the southern portion of this region. In the north, the Fortymile River and its tributaries, the North, Middle, Mosquito, and West Forks, are located. Water supplies are often hauled in the summer. Ice is cut for winter melting for domestic use in the subsistence economy. Population is very low, perhaps 150. Water use. No industrial or agricultural activities are present. However, there are placer gold operations placing unknown demands on the water resources. 69 UPPER YUKON AREA of Area: 60,000 square miles Estimated Population: 5,750 Climate: Continental. Average July temperature: Low 40's to mid 60's. Average January temperature: -20's to -4. Annual Precipitation: 8 to 12 inches. Principle Resources: Timber, fish and wildlife, minerals, Yukon Flats waterfowl nesting area. Major Sectors of the Economy: Government, subsistence, tourism and recreation, This area lies in the eastern interior portion of Alaska. It contains several mountain ranges. The Yukon River, North America's fifth largest in length and basin size, enters Alaska at the town of Eagle. Sweeping north around the White Mountains, the Yukon bends to the west and trav- erses the Yukon Flats which forms the floor of a large basin. The Yukon Flats support abundant wildlife and is particularly important as a waterfowl nesting area. The Flats support 10,000 nesting sandhill cranes, 10,000 geese, and is a nursery for one million young ducks a year. This area is sparsely populated. Eagle (population 132) and Fort Yukon (population 637) are the principle communities in the area. Government and subsistence hunting and fishing are the main components of the economy. Some mining takes place, and areas accessible by road are receiving heavy pressures from recreational hunters and fishermen. The Yukon River provides a major transportation corridor in the area and attracts many tourists annually. Increases in mining, agriculture, forestry, recreation and tourism are expected. 70 Upper Yukon Conclusions The problems of this area include: 1. Water availability. The principal surface water source in this area is the Yukon River and its two major tributaries, the Chandalar and the Porcupine Rivers. During the winter these rivers freeze extensively, creat- ing low flows in late winter and early spring. Water quality. Groundwater occurs throughout the Southern part of the subarea near and beneath larger streams where permafrost is absent. North of the Yukon River no groundwater has been found adjacent to streams. Groundwaters have rather high concentrations of dissolved solids. Water use. The local subsistence economy places no great demands on the water resources. Water needs are primarily domestic. Flooding. The town of Fort Yukon and developments along the Yukon River are subject to ice-jam flooding annually. 44. CENTRAL YUKON AREA Area: 19,000 square miles Estimated Population: 6,750 Climate: Continental. Average July temperature: Mid 40's to mid 60's. Average January temperature: -16 to -4. Annual Precipitation: 6 to 10 inches. Principle Resources: Timber, fish and wildlife, waterfowl habitat, oil and gas, coal, potential for other minerals. Major Sectors of the Economy: Government, subsistence, limited mining, timber, and fishing. The Central Yukon area is bordered on the south by the Kuskokwim Mountains and in the north by the Kokrine Hills and Ray Mountains. It consists of central lowlands which contain low forested hills surrounded by relatively low uplands having gentle ridges and slopes. The area contains six villages, all located along the Yukon River. The villages are largely subsistence oriented. The large airport at Galena serves as a transportation center. Galena has the largest population with 631 people followed by Tanana with 447, and Nulato with 330. The economy of the area is based mainly on government employment, sub- sistence, some mining and timber, harvest, and extremely limited fish- ing. Areas suitable for intensive use are limited and no major expan- sion of the economy is predicted. 72 Central Yukon Conclusions This area's problems include: ube Water availability. Permafrost restricts available groundwater. The higher lands away from the river system are all apparently underlain by permafrost. Thus, in locations removed from major rivers, the water available for domestic purposes and for summer mining activities is limited. Winter water often comes from ice melted at home for domestic use. This rigorous method reduces water consumption for domestic and related uses. In the summer the people haul water from both streams and ponds, sources often badly polluted from misdirected waste. This poses a hazard to personal health. Water quality. The chemical quality of the groundwater varies with depth and with proximity to river systems. Generally, the waters are calcium bicarbonate type and are chemically acceptable for domestic use; however, deep wells contain highly corrosive water because of their low PH values. Shallower wells may have objectionable amounts of iron and dissolved solids. Flooding. Spring flooding is a hazard to life, property, and water quality. Floods contaminate local surface waters by washing over the ground on which human or other wastes have been deposited. 13, TANANA AREA Area: 45,000 square miles Estimated Population: 62,400 Climate: Continental. Average July temperature: Mid 40's to upper 70's. Average January temperature: -10 to upper 20's. Annual Precipitation: Moderate to low. Principle Resources: Fish and wildlife, timber, coal, minerals. Major Sectors of the Economy: Government, military, University of Alaska. The Tanana area is bounded on the south by the northern flanks of the Alaska Range and includes the lands drained by the Tanana River. This area also includes Mount McKinley National Park. The interior is primarily a broad plateau of rolling hills, periodically intersected by mountains. Forests of birch and spruce cover much of the lands along river valleys, and the land supports abundant wildlife. Discontinuous permafrost is present throughout the area. The city of Fairbanks is the largest city in the area, and there are numerous small villages scattered throughout. Many of the people, both Native and non-Native, are dependent on a subsistence economy. Government is a major component of the economy. The main campus of the University of Alaska was established at College near Fairbanks and has made significant contributions to the economy. Fairbanks and the surrounding areas experienced rapid growth during construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Continued growth is expected for the balance of the century with expansion of industry, forestry and agriculture. 7A Tanana Conclusions The problems of this area were found to be: 1. Water quality and quantity. Water supplies for communities, industries, or agriculture need enlargement, improvement in quality, and, in some cases, protection from contamination or restrictions for instream flows. With recent growth, Fairbanks needs enlargement of water supply, treatment and distribution systems. Some groundwaters in the vicinity of Fairbanks are contaminated with arsenic (a serious health hazard), iron, or sewage effluent. The Healy reservoir and Tok groundwater supplies are subject to contamination by flooding. Withdrawal of irrigation waters at Big Delta (and potentially other sites) may impair instream flows. Sewage and solid waste disposal systems in the area need particular attention. Sewage contamination from individual homes is a poten- tial or existing problem in Nenana, Fairbanks, Healy, and Tok. Solid waste disposal methods are inadequate area-wide, and commonly contaminate surface and groundwaters. Potential for serious water pollution problems exists with regard to agricultural and oil industry chemicals or contaminants. Erosion and sedimentation of silt soils, degrading quality of waters and stream habitat, can easily result from poor road build- ing, logging, and agriculture practices. Cropped soil wind erosion also occurs near the Delta River. Haphazard urban development in and near communities leads to degraded water quality, costly water and sewer utilities, flood hazards, lowering of the water table (Tok), and other water related problems. Flooding. This area of Alaska has historically been flood-prone. Topography and climate combine to abet flood danger from the spring break-up period through early fall. The disastrous 1967 Fairbanks flood is but one example of this danger. Instream use. Protection for instream flows for fish and wildlife habitat is needed for streams of the area. This is true in the vicinity of Big Delta, and is also reported true for the Chatanika River. Ice fog. Ice fog develops from power, heating, and transportation systems in the Fairbanks-North Pole communities. 75 KOYUKUK AREA Area: 33,000 square miles Estimated Population: 2,000 Climate: Continental. Average July temperature: Mid 40's to mid 60's. Average January temperature: -16 to -4. Annual Precipitation: 14 inches. Principle Resources: Timber, fish and wildlife, minerals. Major Sectors of the Economy: Subsistence, limited government and service employment, small village timber mills. The Koyukuk area lies in the west central part of the State and includes the Koyukuk River drainage and its tributaries. The area consists of a central lowland and surrounding uplands. Five villages are located along the Koyukuk River and its tributaries. The area is sparsely settled and Bettles serves as a transportation and distribution center. The economy of the area is mainly subsistence. Service and government employee contribution to the economy is limited. Economic growth in this area is expected to depend on expansion of transportation, increases in mining and recreation, and initiation of commercial agriculture and forestry. 76 Koyukuk Conclusions The problems here include: os Water availability. Inadequate water supplies exist in some villages. Groundwater is limited by permafrost and is generally high in iron and dissolved solids. In many villages water distribution and sewage collection and treatment facilities are either inadequate or nonexistent; Allakaket and Evansville are examples. Villages generally lack the necessary funds or experience to operate and maintain required water supply and sewage disposal systems. Development may be constrained in some areas because of limited groundwater supplies for domestic and industrial purposes. Water quality. Potential environmental hazards to the area's fish and wildlife could include placer operations and oil pipelines. Sediment from mining runoff can cover and smother stream bed habitat and depress dissolved oxygen in receiving waters. Flooding. Flooding, with the attendent erosion and sedimentation, is a prob- lem in the area, particularly at Huslia. Possible agricultural development could increase erosion and sedimentation. Erosion from gravel roads and gravel mining are also local problems. 77 LOWER YUKON AREA Area: 38,000 square miles Estimated Population: 5,500 Climate: Transitional and continental. Average July temperature: Upper 40's to low 70's. Average January temperature: -4 to 12. Annual Precipitation: 19 inches. Principle Resources: Fish and wildlife, minerals, timber. Major Sectors of the Economy: Subsistence, government employment, and limited services. The Lower Yukon area ranges from sea level to an elevation of about 300 feet. The Yukon Delta provides one of the most important waterfowl habitat areas in the State. Inland from the Yukon Delta, valley low- lands are surrounded by rolling mountains. The lower 450 miles of the Yukon River is located within the area. Most of the area's population live in 17 communities, located along the Yukon River. None of the communities exceed 500 people. The economy of the area is primarily of a subsistence type, augmented by government employment and limited services. Only slight economic growth is antici- pated for this area. 78 Lower Yukon Conclusions - The problems of this area include: as Water availability. The biggest problem is the lack of suitable water supplies. Water quality. The villages of Alakanuk, Kotlik, Emmonak, and Sheldon Point must deal with saline groundwater. Other village water supplies are high in nitrate, sodium bicarbonate, or other chemical constituents. Quality of water available for coastal fish processing plants is not good. Some communities lack or have inadequate water distribu- tion and sewage collection and treatment facilities. Land use conflicts are likely to occur between mineral and energy development interests and other users of the land. Wastes from drilling rigs and placer mines could degrade surface water quality and fishery habitat. Placer miners in the Marshall, Innoko, Moore and Flat Creek areas compete for water with salmon in late summer. Organic materials in the effluent from placer mines can depress dissolved oxygen in receiving streams. Increased siltation and sedimentation may occur with forest indus- tries development and possibly with agriculture, placer and gravel mining. Development of a road, utility, or oil pipeline networks may degrade the water quality of the streams, lakes, or wetlands crossed by or adjacent to the various transportation units. This may be particu- larly severe with regard to the great waterfowl habitats of the lower Yukon delta. Flooding. Alakanuk, Emmonak, Holy Cross, Scammon Bay, Hooper Bay, Pitkas Point, and Pilot Station are especially subject to flooding. Ports. The development of the minerals, energy, and fisheries industries is hampered by the lack of port facilities and protected anchorages along the coast and in the larger rivers. 79 KUSKOKWIM BAY AREA Area: 58,000 square miles Estimated Population: 12,500 Climate: Transitional and continental. Average July temperature: High 30's to high 60's. Average January temperature: -12 to mid 20's. Annual Precipitation: 13 to 37 inches. Principle Resources: Timber, fish, wildlife, waterfowl nesting areas, potential for minerals. Major Sectors of the Economy: Subsistence, small scale mining, limited forest industry, government spending. Located in southwestern Alaska, two dissimilar areas are tied together by the Kuskokwim River--the mountain-enclosed upper river basin and the coastal delta. From the uplands of central Alaska, the Kuskokwim flows through a wide forested valley dotted with lakes, sloughs, and oxbows. The river's myriad tributaries drain the western portion of the Alaska Range and the Kuskokwim and Taylor Mountains. Other mountains occasion- ally intrude into the delta, whose most notable features are the numerous lakes ranging in size from less than an acre to thousands of acres. The area Supports a variety of wildlife, and musk ox have been reestablished on Nunivak Island. The combined Yukon-Kuskokwim delta area is an impor- tant waterfowl nesting area. It produces a fall flight of about 2.3 million ducks and unequaled numbers of geese. The largest population center in the area is Bethel (population 2,416). Villages of the area are scattered along the Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers, and near the coast. The economy of the area is primarily subsistence, augmented by government spending, some small scale mining, and a limited forest industry. Economic growth is expected to come from exploration for and development of oil and gas, beginning cultivation and increased reindeer ranching, increased commercial fishing, and recreation. RO Kuskokwim Bay Conclusions This area's problems are as follows: 1. Water quality. Numerous villages have groundwater of poor quality in the Kuskokwim Bay area. Coastal villages (Chefornak, Eek, Kipnuk, Kongiganak, Mekoryuk, Newtok, Quinhagak) are troubled by saltwater intrusion into their groundwater systems. Others are bothered by groundwater containing high concentrations of nitrate (Mekoryuk). This lack of water of good quality impairs the economic growth of the area. The absence of suitable water for domestic use and for fish processing prevents the full development of the fisheries resource and hinders the economic development and life style of the communities in the area. Surface water, wetland, estuarine, and possibly groundwater quality may be degraded due to the development of the potential mineral and petroleum resources in the area. Increased sedimentation and the potential pollution from accidental spills from road building and exploratory drilling could effect domestic as well as fish and wildlife water supplies and habitats. Flooding. Spring flooding is a problem along the Kuskokwim River (McGrath, Bethel, Crooked Creek, Sleetmute, Aniak, Akiak, Akulurak). The lack of identification of flood-prone lands hinders the proper management of the flooding. Indiscriminant development on those lands results in property damage or losses which place a burden on the owners, and in the case of government housing on the taxpayers. Institutional. There is a continual lack of funds for the operation and main- tenance of several village water supply and sewage treatment facil- ities due to the lack of a sufficient economic base. When these facilities close down, inadequate treatment poses a health hazard to the users. Untreated sewage can pollute the related land and surface and groundwater resources in and around the communities. 81 BRISTOL BAY AREA Area: 40,000 square miles Estimated Population: 5,950 Climate: Maritime and transitional. Average July temperature: Upper 30's to upper 60's. Average January temperature: 0 to upper 20's. Annual Precipitation: 15 to 36 inches. Principle Resources: Fish and wildlife including sea mammals, and minerals. Major Sectors of the Economy: Commercial fishing and processing, govern- ment, recreation. This area is bounded on the south by the Aleutian Range and encompasses the lands draining into Bristol Bay. Hills rise from a few hundred feet to over 2000 feet above the marshy, lake dotted coastal plain. The Bristol Bay estuary with its tributary waters is the world's most productive red salmon fishery. The area also produces large quantities of bottom fish and shellfish. Bristol Bay provides habitat for almost the entire population of Pacific black brant, most of the world's emperor geese, hundreds of thousands of ducks, geese, swans, and millions of shorebirds. In addition Bristol Bay receives income from tourism and trophy fisher- men and hunters. Some of the larger trophy moose and bear are found in the area. Recent explorations indicate potential for oil deposits in Bristol Bay, and the Bristol Bay Native Association has leased land for oil explora- tion. To protect the fishery, the Alaska Legislature identified areas of the eastern waters of the bay from which oil activity is excluded. Economic growth is anticipated for all major sectors of the economy. 82 Bristol Bay Conclusions The problems of Bristol Bay were found to be: 1. Water quality. Community water and sewer facilities are lacking for the majority of Bristol Bay residences. Fish processors are also short of water of adequate quality during some seasons. Oil exploration and development in or near Bristol Bay will place demands on the area's water resources, while imposing threats to fresh and saltwater habitats and to valuable wetlands. Development by the oil industry of water resources could assist communities in their efforts to improve water facilities. Bristol Bay lacks year-round transportation systems to support local and export commerce. Introduction of more roads, improved and increased sea transportation, and oil pipelines from or through the area will alter the uses and values of fresh and estuarine waters and present a continuing hazard to the habitats of many species of fish and wildlife. Large scale metals mining (iron at Kemuk Mountain near Dillingham, copper and related metals in the vicinity of Lakes Clark-Iliamna) are feasible in the future and carry potential for water degradation. This area hosts more than 95 percent of all sockeye salmon and includes the Alaska Trophy Trout Management Area. Water degradation poses a serious threat to these species. Energy. Hydroelectric power--Communities need better electrical alterna- tives than diesel power. Alternatives to diesel power have not been evaluated for this area. Hydro power reserves have been identified for about 10 watersheds but several of these--examples, Lake Iliamna, Naknek Lake--are highly unlikely for any power development. Water use. Access and easements to water margins and saltwater shores of Native Corporation owned lands may be a problem for many years, particularly with regard to public access. Navigation. Improvements in harbor and navigational facilities are needed. A public dock is needed at Naknek. Dillingham's small boat harbor is inadequate. Aids to navigation, particularly between Dillingham and Togiak, need improvement. 83 ALEUTIAN AREA of Area: 11,000 square miles Estimated Population: 7,100 Climate: Marine. Average July temperature: Upper 30's to mid 50's. Average January temperature: Low 20's to low 40's. Annual Precipitation: 21 to 82 inches. Principle Resources: Fish and wildlife, grazing land, minerals. Major Sectors of the Economy: Government, sheep and cattle ranching, fishing, subsistence. This area includes the Aleutian Islands, a small part of the Alaska Peninsula, and the Shumagin and Pribilof Islands. To the west of the Alaska Peninsula the Aleutian Mountain Range becomes gradually submerged, forming the 200 rocky islands of the 1100 mile Aleutian chain. This is a wild and primitive land, shaken by earthquakes and constantly swept by violent storms. Barren rocky areas and low growing plants cover the islands. The wildlife of the islands include substantial sea bird colonies, bald eagles, foxes, sea otters, and sea mammals. This isolated, windswept area is sparsely settled. The Aleut villagers of the islands pursue a subsistence life style for the most part. Since World War II military installations and other Federal and State govern- ment spending has injected cash into the economy. Federal activity in the area is fairly extensive. The islands support some sheep and cattle ranching. Economic growth in the Aleutians is expected from increases in fishing and agriculture and possible oil and gas development. 84 Gulf of Alaska Conclusions The population of this region grew rapidly with construction of the Alaska oil pipeline, pump station and terminal facilities. The State expects continued growth as a result of petroleum transport activity, supplemented by exploration for oil and gas in the Gulf of Alaska. Additional elements of growth will come from expected development activities on Native village and corporation lands. Problems identified here include: Ee Water availability. Water shortages for municipalities (Valdez), for fish processing (Cordova), for placer mining, for livestock (Kenney Lake), and for maintaining minimum flows (Chistochina and Nizina areas) . Lack of data on location and quantity of potable groundwater aquifers and of water supply (including snow pack). Areas of flood hazard, erosion, and sedimentation hazard. Water quality. Surface water with heavy sediment loads, flood hazards (the Bering River, Valdez River, and tributaries of the Copper River), saline groundwater (interior area), and potential pollution from marine traffic and offshore oil production. Urban encroachment in wetlands, farm lands, flood plains, sensitive geologic and biological areas, and municipal watershed lands: Inadequate solid and liquid waste disposal systems. Overuse of public areas (Gulkana River) and lack ‘of public facilities. Potential degradation of water from placer mining, sand and gravel extraction, forestry, agricultural land use, and from drilling rigs and mine processing plants. Water use. Resource use conflicts between fisheries and oil development and production, between recreation fishing and commercial fishing, between logging and fisheries-hunting-recreation values. 91 SOUTHEAST AREA Area: 42,000 square miles Estimated Population: 50,900 Climate: Maritime. Average July temperature: Low 40's to high 60's. Average January temperature: Low 20's to low 40's. Annual Precipitation: 80 to 200 inches. Principle Resources: Fish and wildlife, including shellfish and sea mammals, timber, minerals. Major Sectors of the Economy: Government, forest products, fishing, tourism, The Southeast area stretches nearly 600 miles along the border of British Columbia from Cape Dixon in the south to Cape Fairweather in the north. The Coastal Mountains, rising sharply from the water's edge, form the mainland and the 1100 islands of the Alexander Archipelago. This is a scenic area of fiords and steep-walled valleys, of slow moving glaciers and barren icefields, of high mountain lakes, streams, and waterfalls. Abundant fish and wildlife are found here. This area contains about 14 percent of the State's population and has several of the State's centers of population, as well as many small villages. Community development is often limited by steep terrain. Roads are few, and the Alaska Marine Highway System and air transporta- tion provide access to and within the area. Government--Federal, State, and local--is the major employer in South- east. Next to government, timber-based industry is the principle economic mainstay of the area. Fishing is next in economic importance although catches have declined in recent years. Tourism and recreation are also major components of the economy. Many inhabitants of small towns and villages enjoy a subsistence livelihood. Moderate economic growth is anticipated for this area. 92 Southeast Conclusions The major problems found in this area include: 1. Water availability. Both domestic and industrial water users are increasing, placing a strain on the poor distribution systems and inadequate volume of water storage facilities. Very little cheap water storage is available due to the terrain. The need to solve winter freeze-ups and summer drought water supply problems will become more severe in most communities. Water quality. Water quality degradation has been and remains a problem. The forest products industry has resulted in cases of sediment, chemical (pulp mill effluent), and water temperature pollution. Sediment, chemical, and thermal pollution from point-sources could occur from future mining in Southeast Alaska. Sea food processors and communities have, in the past, dumped their wastes into saltwaters. This is less true today, but effective alternatives have not always been worked out. Energy. Southeast Alaska currently uses a great percent of the hydro power produced in the State. Very little of the potential has been developed. Most potential projects are seen as costly to develop, small in size, and located at some distance from the users with costly transmission lines. Water use. Pending State and Native land selections and resultant uses will change the use and care of the area's related water resources. This is true for lands that may be developed for timber, mineral, or tourist values. Competitive demands of timber, fishing, mining, recreation-tourism industries, and of growing communities themselves produce conflicts over management of related water resources. 93 SWH1d0ud GNVI daLwigd GNW 4aLlyM SHL ONIATIOS LON JO SNOILWOITAWI “A IMPLICATIONS OF NOT SOLVING THE WATER AND RELATED LAND PROBLEMS Water problems found in the Alaska region are complex and interrelated. Implications of not solving these problems are far-reaching both from a regional perspective and from the national viewpoint. If the problems are not solved, development of the significant energy resources, fishing industry, and wood and paper products will be critically curtailed and will pose major impacts on both the State and nation. Water resource problems in Alaska will become increasingly severe as the State's popula- tion continues to grow and as local and national pressures for the development of Alaska's resources continue to build. More energy developments are expected in the near future in Alaska; however, the inadequacy of surface water and lack of data on ground- water may inhibit energy development, hindering efforts towards national energy self-sufficiency and limiting population and economic growth in energy-rich areas. There is a great potential for environmental damage if development takes place without adequate safeguards for protection of fish and wildlife, and without adequate measure to minimize the risk of petrochemical pollution. . If provisions are not made for the protection of instream flow needs and riparian habitat for fish and wildlife, public water supplies, navigation, and recreation needs, the increased competition for water, especially in areas where shortages already exist, irreparable damage may be done. Data on instream flow needs and inventory of riparian habitat for fish and wildlife is urgently needed. If studies are not done soon and if measures are not taken to protect fish and wildlife needs, permanent loss of habitat may be the result with consequent loss to the fishing industry, to subsistence hunters and fishermen, to recreation values, and to national conservation concerns as a whole. Institutional issues involving water resources include overlapping and duplication of work among government agencies as well as actual conflicts among various agencies. Better coordination among State and Federal agencies would allow better management of these resources while perhaps reducing the costs of management. Another problem involves the absence of institutions designed to deal with issues peculiar to Alaska. Large parts of Alaska are in the unorganized borough status. In effect there is no local government for these areas, and the State Legislature con- stitutes the only government. Thus there is no structure to enforce flood plain controls, human waste disposal, or to provide services such as central water supply and waste treatment. Data on Alaska's hydrology is very sketchy except in the more populated areas. In order to insure that the nation receives the benefits of resource development in Alaska while preserving the State's uniquely rich environmental resources, detailed studies of the water and related lands will be necessary. If such research is not done before develop- ment proceeds, irreparable harm to the environment as well as delays and oF: increased costs for industry may be the result. The location of develop- ments which use large quantities of water where such supplies are avail- able can only be accomplished if sufficient data is at hand. The implications of not having adequate information prior to development are alarming. The potential for mismanagement is immense both in terms of economic and environmental costs. The results of such actions could result in lengthy delays in supplying much needed resources such as oil and coal. A uniquely Alaskan water problem involves water supplies and sewage treatment facilities in Alaska's remote villages. The public water supply in many villages consists of periodic ice collections in the winter. In permafrost areas groundwater may be absent or very hard to obtain. Nearly half of remote village populations need immediate improvements in their water supply. Sewage disposal is a severe problem in most villages. The technology for solving these problems is avail- able. However, costs are high. Not only do facilities need to be constructed, but often villages are unable to pay for operation and maintenance of the facilities. In addition, most villages are unable to provide trained personnel to run the facilities. If this problem remains unsolved, the standard of life will remain at a low level, associated health problems will be intensified, while opportunities for growth and development will be limited. 98 REGIONAL VIEWS OF PRESENT AND EMERGING NATIONAL ISSUES vi. REGIONAL VIEWS OF PRESENT AND EMERGING NATIONAL ISSUES This chapter consists of a series of statements reflecting the region's views of seven present and emerging national issues relating to water and related land resources. 100 REGIONAL VIEWS OF PRESENT AND EMERGING NATIONAL ISSUES AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL Nationally there has been a substantial shift in recent years from a situation dominated by surplus to one requiring substantial, long-term increases in agricultural production. There are accompanying concerns of increased competition for agricultural land and water supplies; there are also important national concerns (conflicts) over use of forest lands--timber production vs. recreation and wilderness as an example. Alaska views cover quite a range. The forest products industry is one of the State's largest producers of income and employment. Water quality problems concerning non-point source pollution are often controversial, and there are conflicting desires for timber production and wilderness designation for many forest areas. Farming and livestock production are seen by many as potential major industries in the future. There is real concern that some of the best agricultural lands are being lost to competing uses particularly urban, suburban, and recreational developments. Alaska's agriculture has not yet had many problems with competing use for available water. However, water competition, including instream values for fish and wildlife and recreation, will be an important consideration in future agriculture development. Regional views favor an increasing role for renewable resources including agriculture and timber products where justified on both environmental and economic grounds. OUTDOOR RECREATION INCLUDING WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS National concerns center on the continuing loss of outdoor recreation values to a variety of other uses. The Alaska regional situation is quite complex. The factors tending to increase demands include those associated with a growing Alaska population that is relatively affluent and rapidly increasing recreation demands by visitors to the State. Existing resource developments have probably not had much affect in limiting recreation opportunities. Expanding urban and suburban areas have, and further limits will be imposed as large areas of the State pass into private (Native) ownership. The expected actions to establish new units of the National Park, Wildlife Refuge, Wild and Scenic River, Forest and Wilderness systems will further alter demands and patterns of recreational use--further considerations and competition being a likely result. Regionally, very high importance is placed on preserving the quality of recreation experience. There is substantial disagreement as to amounts of land and water that should be placed in preservation status, and there is strong interest in building tourism, especially in parts of the State that depend on this as a major industry. The State and several 101 communities have major parks and recreation programs. The State is devoting a significant portion of its land entitlement to park and refuge designations. Accessibility to many recreation areas in the State is limited by distance or terrain type. New areas created May not realize their potential for visitation for some time to come. ENERGY The energy issue, nationally, is a fairly complex set of problems of water resources allocation and water and related lands impacts associated with energy development. If the nation is to proceed towards goals of energy independence through a combination of increased production from domestic energy resources and development of alternative energy sources, future demands placed by energy development on water resources will be substantially greater than in the past. Examples of items of very broad national concern include the water resource aspect of coal development, water demands and waste heat implications of thermal electric power stations, implications of offshore oil and gas development, and more generally the huge commitments of financial and natural resources that appear to be associated with future energy development needs in the nation. An Alaska regional viewpoint on these national issues is probably quite similar to expressions found in parts of the energy-rich Western States. Alaska energy resources are varied and large including nationally signifi- cant resources of oil and gas, coal and hydroelectric energy, as well as potentially significant geothermal, wind, and nuclear fuels resources. The national pressures for increased energy production are reflected in a set of very strong incentives for rapid development of many of these resources. There is of course a wide range of views within the region as to the desired extent, timing, and location of Alaska energy resources develop- ment. However, there is probably fairly good concensus on the objec- tives that the energy developments must be environmentally sound and must be consistent with regional economic objectives. Particularly as evidenced in regional reactions to proposals for off- shore oil and gas development, the regional view would tend to prefer a much slower pace of energy development than would be formulated from the national objective of reaching energy independence at an early date. The water resources implications most evident in the regional viewpoint are apparent conflicts between energy development and environmental resources-- wilderness values, fish and wildlife water uses, and concern for possible pollution. WATER QUALITY Runoff in Alaska represents one-third of the national annual total. Although this appears as an abundance of water, it is not always avail- able or usable many months of the year. The water is unpolluted in many of the unpopulated areas. However, the State shares, with the nation, 102 problems of water quality, particularly regarding degradation of waters. These problems are of serious concern and most often appear in areas of population concentrations, fisheries activity, oil development, outer continental shelf development, timber development, and tourism. When the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 were passed, they were hailed as a major weapon to clean the nation's waters. This law provided for the establishment of the National Pollutant Dis- charge Elimination System. Waste discharge permits are required for all point sources and the law stipulates that all municipal sewage treatment plants will achieve a level of secondary treatment by June 30, 1977. Generally the attainment of secondary treatment by some of the larger Alaskan communities poses few problems but most smaller communities, chiefly Native villages, will not be able to meet the June 30, 1977, deadline. Problems are also anticipated in meeting the higher costs of operating and maintaining water and sewage treatment systems when there is a lack of a tax base. Provision of secondary treatment in many parts of the State would repre- sent massive investment and in several cases is being seriously ques- tioned on the basis that the present level of primary treatment is considered to be more than adequate to protect the quality of the receiv- ing water. Non-point source pollution of Alaska's waters may be a future problem. Sound land management policies concerning agriculture, silviculture, and urban expansion can help alleviate this possibility. FISH AND WILDLIFE Nationally, there is strong and growing interest in protection and management of the fish and wildlife resources. This includes not only the traditional game species, but all species. The issue involves problems of water quality and supply and the loss of habitats resulting from developments. An Alaska regional viewpoint of this issue is probably one of more concern for the fish and wildlife resources than most of the other states and specifically relates to the Alaska part of those resources which is considerable. Management of Alaska's fish and wildlife re- sources and their habitat is a national and, at times, an international issue. Alaska is widely recognized as the last stronghold of naturally occur- ring wilderness fish and game species in the United States. It supports populations of several uniquely Arctic species, such as the musk ox, caribou, polar bear and walrus, and many other species, such as the wolf, moose and grizzly bear, which have been depleted in the conter- minous United States. Alaska's five species of Pacific salmon, several species of crab, and halibut support a commercial fishery which is a major source of income in the State. Recreational fishing and hunting, by residents and visitors alike, provide the base for a growing industry centered around guiding, lodges, and air taxi operations. Commercial trapping is another small but important industry based upon these resources. 103 Alaska has historically managed its fish and wildlife resources, but with the increasing concern over Alaska at the national level there is increasing pressure for Federal management of these resources. An example of this pressure was the 1972 takeover of marine mammal manage- ment by the Federal government. It is the regional position that the protection and management of these resources are of State, national and international concern and that a concerted effort at all levels of government will be required to prevent irreparable loss or abuse of Alaska's fish and game resources. WETLANDS AND WATERBIRDS There is national concern over the rapid loss of wetlands, estimated to be 300,000 acres per year, and the resulting impacts on waterbirds. The issue includes problems of water quality and supply, land drainage, land fill, and other changes caused by developments. Alaska, with over half of the nation's coastline and with uncounted lakes and marshes dotting its vast land area, views this issue as one of real regional concern. The important ecological function of coastal and inland wetlands is recognized by the region. Most Alaskans believe that the role of wet- lands must be recognized in the State's management of its water and related land resources. The importance of Alaska's wetlands to this nation's waterfowl and other waterbirds is inestimable. These marshes and wetlands provide nesting and broad rearing areas for many Arctic nesting species of ducks and geese, and at times of drought in the Prairie Provinces of Canada, many birds which traditionally breed further south seek refuge in Alaskan marshes. Coastal wetlands, in addition to producing many ducks and geese and serving as migrational resting areas for these and other birds, contribute greatly to the productivity of Alaskan estuarine areas; thus benefiting her fisheries. Some birds reared on Alaskan wetlands migrate as far southward as Central and South America. Others overwinter in Alaska coastal waters or migrate to Asian wintering areas. All of these species are subject to international treaties and to overall management authority by our Federal government. It is now widely recognized that northern wetlands are particularly sensitive ecological systems that require intensive management and protection if they are to remain as functional components of our bio- sphere. State and Federal governments must work closely together to develop and initiate plans designed to prevent losses of Alaska's exten- sive wetlands. 104 ~ FEDERAL - NON-FEDERAL COST SHARING National issue includes the debate on how much and what type of Federal assistance is merited in the various water programs. There are strong national pressures to increase the level of financial participation of State, local and private interests and to reduce the Federal share. Alaskan regional views are mixed. Water programs in the State, even though modest, have been traditionally heavily dependent on Federal assistance, and many could not proceed if Federal funds were reduced. However, the State has made several moves to assume a larger share of the responsibility for financing water programs, including upgrading its water planning activities and participating in financing of water and sewer, recreation, flood control, and power developments. Even with increased State involvement, many people believe that continued Federal investment in State water programs is important. "Cost sharing" as currently applied does not lend itself to a "preventive approach." Current cost sharing techniques are designed with the thought that one has erred during development and that those mistakes must be corrected. Proffered support is based on the expenditure of funds to "fix up" a problem area rather than the prevention of problems through wise planning. Alaska needs a change in these Federal policies if it is to successfully benefit from cost sharing. Cost sharing must allow planning of a preventive nature. It should be modified to allow both structural and nonstructural aspects. Additionally, environmental quality elements of problems and needs should be cost shared on the same basis as structural measures. 105 VII. SUMMARY, SPECIFIC PROBLEM ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES SUMMARY, SPECIFIC PROBLEM ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES This chapter describes the procedures used and work performed in carrying out Activities 1, 2, 3, and 4 by the Alaska Water Study Committee and the Study Team. 108 SUMMARY, SPECIFIC PROBLEM ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES In the Introduction to this report, the Alaska Water Assessment was divided into four activities. Each activity was pursued by the Study Team, reported to the Alaska Water Study Committee for review and comment, and finalized by a Technical Memorandum in the case of the first three activities and this Summary Report for Activity 4. In the first activity the Study Team contacted members of AWSC, a majority of the cities and boroughs of the State and several private interest groups and invited them by letter to assist in the identification of Alaska's water problems. This initial call for assistance was supple- mented by a number of individual contacts and a press release inviting public input. While awaiting response, existing studies and reports were researched. The initial problem identification focused on two time frames: 1975- 1985 which represented existing and anticipated near-future problems; and 1985-2000 which covered longer range problems. The Study Team adopted some general assumptions on future economic activities in the various parts of the State in these two time frames as a basis for problem identification. These future assumptions were intended only as an indication of likely activities, and they were modified significantly in later stages of the study. Following receipt of comments, the Study Team compiled the Technical Memorandum for Activity One and sent it out to WRC and AWSC members as a report on their problem identification effort. Activity Two, known as the State-Regional Future, was basically a pro- file of Alaska for the purpose of assessing present and future water problems. It consisted of several different parts and called for the participation of more people and agencies than the previous activity. Actually three additional study efforts were initiated, all terminating in the publication of special reports. These are discussed in the Introduction of this report. Beyond these special actions, the Study Team reviewed the problem list identified in the first activity and on the basis of the information in the supplemental studies further identified situations that they ccn- sidered to be Alaska's present and future water and related land problems. Additional contacts were made with groups such as the Alaska Water Resources Board and the Inter-Agency Technical Committee for Alaska. A thorough screening of the problem list followed and the problems were organized into two groups. The Team recognized the fact that the future could change these lists drastically. These lists were then reviewed by the Steering Committee and their comments were included in the Technical Memorandum published on Activity Two. 109 It should be noted that State interest and participation increased markedly during this period as some 11 State agencies became involved in compiling the State-Regional Futures and the State Co-Study Director came aboard. The State's desire for broader representation on both the AWSC and the Steering Committee was made known. Internally the State launched a move to create a Water Policy Committee and a Working Group to study Alaska's water issues and policies. Activity Three was accomplished through the use of several special task forces composed of experts in specific fields. Inasmuch as some of the problems had geographic boundaries, most areas were visited by Study Team members and the local people contacted and interviewed on a one-to- one basis. When Study Team members were not available, agencies were sometimes requested to furnish a person well-versed in the area's water problems--to study the area and report on new problem information. Issue-type problems were turned over to experts in the problem field, and they in turn reported to the Study Director or the Team. The main purpose of Activity Three was to develop additional information on the selected problem areas and issues, that were determined to be of major concern, to take a measure of the problem effects, and to note the likely implications if the problems are not solved. All of which, would in a way, assist in determining what type of planning efforts might be assigned to each of the problems. WRC desired a clear statement here as to whether level B studies or some other type of planning study might not be useful. While the Technical Memorandum for Activity Three received the regular AWSC distribution it did not go much beyond that as it was more of an in-house interim report by the Team and was not intended as a comprehen- sive or final document. In this instance it was decided to submit the memorandum in draft and to append additional comments as furnished by study participants. This, the Summary Report, culminates the Alaska Water Assessment. It is also a report on Activity Four but because of its treatment of the problems--citing conclusions and making recommendations--it is a compre- hensive document in and by itself. This part of the Study has received far more review and consideration than the preceeding activities. It has been through two major draft stages and one Technical rewrite. More time has also been used in its preparation simply because major portions of the document will appear in WRC's National Report, and it is the base for compiling the Regional Chapter which will also appear in WRC's Final Report for the 1975 National Assessment of Water and Related Land Problems. As part of WRC completion of the National Assessment the AWSC will be asked to review the National Report and provide comments. 110 VIII. APPENDICES Appendix A State of Alaska Office of the Department Department Department Department Department University of of of of of of ALASKA WATER STUDY COMMITTEE Governor, Division of Policy Development and Planning Commerce and Economic Development Community and Regional Affairs Environmental Conservation (Co-Chairman) Fish and Game Natural Resources Alaska Institute of Water Resources Department of Land Resources and Agriculture Science Sea Grant Program Federal Agencies Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service Soil Conservation Service Department of Commerce Bureau of Domestic Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service National Marine Fisheries Service Department of Defense U. S. Army - Corps of Engineers Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Public Health Service - Alaska Area Native Health Service Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Alaska Power Administration (Co-Chairman) Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Mines Bureau Outdoor Recreation Fish and Wildlife Service Geological Survey National Park Service Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Coast Guard Federal Aviation Administration Alaska Railroad Environmental Protection Agency Alaska Operations Office Arctic Environmental Research Laboratory Federal Energy Administration Federal Power Commission Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission Alaska Federation of Natives Alaska Municipal League 112 Appendix B Jim Cheatham - Study Director Alaska Power Administration P. O. Box 50 Juneau, AK 99802 Richard Griffith Corps of Engineers P. O. Box 7002 Anchorage, AK 99510 Gary Balding U. S. Geological Survey P. O. Box 1568 Juneau, AK 99802 Dan Bishop Consultant: Fish & Wildlife RR 4 - Box 4993 Juneau, AK 99803 Neil Michaelson Bureau of Land Management 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, AK 99501 David Gray Alaska Federation of Natives 836 Calhoun Avenue Juneau, AK 99801 Major Joseph L. Perkins Corps of Engineers P. O. Box 809 Juneau, AK 99802 113 STUDY TEAM Larry Parker - Study Co-Director State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Pouch O Juneau, AK 99811 Ralph M. Bell Soil Conservation Service 204 East Fifth Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Ron Hyra Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 915 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98174 Bob Bottge Bureau of Mines P. O. Box 550 Juneau, AK 99802 Ed Nygard Bureau of Indian Affairs P. O. Box 3-8000 Juneau, AK 99802 Enid Holsopple Alaska Federation of Natives 550 West Eighth Anchorage, AK 99501 John Vacek Alaska Federation of Natives 550 West Eighth Anchorage, AK 99501 Appendix C PUBLIC REVIEW A wide distribution of first drafts and revised versions of Assessment activity reports was made to various agencies and certain individuals for review and comment. The following tables show those agencies and individuals. State and Federal contacts (C) are shown at the agency level while the specific individuals or offices responding are shown as respondents (R). Comments received were used as a basis for final- izing the Assessment activity reports. 114 PUBLIC REVIEW Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) ; oe se Summary Report ea = ea pecan Tnitial Draft Draft (Cc) (R) (c) (R) (Cc) (R) (Cc) (R) Organization/individual Unified Municipalities: Mayor x x x Municipality of Anchorage Pouch 6-650 Anchorage, AK 99502 Mayor xX x x City & Borough of Juneau 155 South Seward Juneau, AK 99801 Mayor x x x City & Borough of Sitka P. O. Box 79 Sitka, AK 99835 Cities: Mayor xX x City of Barrow P. O. Box 507 Barrow, AK 99723 Mayor x x City of Bethel P. O. Box 388 Bethel, AK 99559 Mayor x x City of Cordova P. O. Box 1210 Cordova, AK 99574 Mayor x x x City of Dillingham P. O. Box 191 . Dillingham, AK 99576 Mayor x x City of Fairbanks 410 Cushman Street Fairbanks, AK 99701 Mayor xX x x City of Haines P...0.. Box. 239 Haines, AK 99827 2S, Organization/Individual PUBLIC REVIEW Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) Activity 1 Summary Report Activity 2 Initial Draft Draft Mayor City of Homer P. O. Box 335 Homer, AK 99603 Mayor City of Kenai P. O. Box 580 Kenai, AK 99611 Mayor City of Ketchikan P. O. Box 1110 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mayor City of Kodiak P. O. Box 1397 Kodiak, AK 99615 Mayor City of Kotzebue P. O. Box 46 Kotzebue, AK 99752 Mayor City of Nenana e. 2O-. Box. 177 Nenana, AK 99760 Mayor City of Nome P. O. Box 281 Nome, AK 99762 Mayor City of North Pole: P. O. Box 5109 North Pole, AK 99705 Mayor City of Palmer P. O. Box 1368 Palmer, AK 99645 Mayor City of Petersburg =. 0. Box 329 Petersburg, AK 99833 (C) (R) (Cc) (R) (Cc) (R) (Cc) (R) x 116 x PUBLIC REVIEW Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) Organization/Individual Activity 1 Activity 2 Summary Report Tnitial Draft Draft. (C) (R) (c) (R) Le | ® (Cc) “() Mayor x City of Seldovia P. O. Drawer B Seldovia, AK 99663 Mayor xX City of Seward P. O. Box 337 Seward, AK 99664 Mayor x City of Skagway P. O. Box 415 Skagway, AK 99840 Mayor xX Sity of Soldotna P. O. Box 409 Soldotna, AK 99669 Mayor x City of Valdez P. O. Box 307 Valdez, AK 99686 Mayor xX City of Wrangell P. O. Box 531 Wrangell, AK 99929 Mayor x City of Yakutat P. O. Box 6 Yakutat, AK 99689 Boroughs: Mayor xX Bristol Bay Borough P. O. Box 189 Naknek, AK 99633 Mayor xX Fairbanks North Star Borough P.-0.. Box 1267 Fairbanks, AK 99707 117 x Organization/Individual PUBLIC REVIEW Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) Activity 1 Activity 2 Summary Report Initial Draft Draft Mayor Haines Borough P. O. Box H Haines, AK 99827 Mayor Kenai Peninsula Borough P. O. Box 850 Soldotna, AK 99669 Mr. Ike Waits Planning Department Kenai Peninsula Borough Soldotna, AK 99669 Mayor Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 City Manager Kodiak Island Borough P. O. Box 1246 Kodiak, AK 99615 Mayor Matanuska-Susitna Borough P. 0. Box B Palmer, AK 99645 Mayor North Slope Borough P. O. Box 69 Barrow, AK 99723 Division of Policy Develop- ment and Planning, Office of the Governor Director, Division of Policy Development and Planning Mr. John Clark, Division of Policy Development & Planning Office of the Governor Pouch AD Juneau, AK 99811 f5te) (R) (Cc) (R) (C) (R) (C) (R) 118 x Organization/Individual Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) PUBLIC REVIEW Activity 1 Activity 2 Summary Report Tnitial Draft Draft Department of Commerce and Economic Development Mr. Richard H. Eakins Director Division of Economic Enterprises Department of Commerce & Economic Development Pouch EE Juneau, AK 99811 Mr. E. O. Bracken Division of Economic Enterprises Department of Commerce & Economic Development Pouch EE Juneau, AK 99811 Mr. Jim Wiedeman Division of Economic Enterprises Department of Commerce & Economic Development Pouch EE Juneau, AK 99811 Division of Tourism Department of Commerce & Economic Development Pouch EE Juneau, AK 99811 Department of Community & Regional Affairs Mr. Mark Stephens Division of Community Planning Department of Community & Regional Affairs Pouch B Juneau, AK 99811 Department of Environmental Conservation (C) (R) (Cc) (R) (Cc) (R) (c) (R) x xX 219 x x Organization/Individual PUBLIC REVIEW Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) Activity 1 Activity 2 Summary Report Initial Draft Draft Mr. Ernst Mueller, Com- missioner Department of Environmen- tal Conservation Pouch O Juneau, AK 99811 Mr. Dale Wallington, Dir. Terrestial Programs Department of Environmen- tal Conservation Pouch 0 Juneau, AK 99811 Mrs. Kae Allred, Director Program Coordination Department of Environmen- tal Conservation Pouch O Juneau, AK 99811 Mr. Larry Parker Department of Environmen- tal Conservation Pouch O Juneau, AK 99811 Mr. Ron Hansen Water Programs Department of. Environmen- tal Conservation Pouch O Juneau, AK 99811 Mr. Jerry Sargent Water Programs Department of Environmen- tal Conservation Pouch O Juneau, AK 99811 Mr. Greg Capito Water Programs Department of Environmen- tal Conservation Pouch O Juneau, AK 99811 Department of Fish & Game (Cc) (R) (c) T ®) (Cc) (R) (C) (R) x 120 xX PUBLIC REVIEW Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) Summary Report Activity 1 | Activity 2 Organization/Individual Initial Draft Draft (Cc) (R) (Cc) (R) (C) (R) (Cc) (R) + Mr. Dick Logan xX x Habitat Protection Servicd Dept. of Fish & Game Department of Highways xX xX (DOT) Department of Natural x x x x Resources Mr. Dean Nation xX Division of Lands Department of Natural Resources 323 E. 4th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Theodore G. Smith x xX Director Division of Land & Water Management Department of Natural Resources 323 E. 4th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Allen Curtes xX xX Planning & Research Section Department of Natural Resources 323 E. 4th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Brent Petrie xX xX Planning & Research Section Department of Natural Resources 323 E. 4th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Dave DeRuwe x Planning & Research Section Department of Natural Resources 323 E. 4th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 121 Organization/Individual Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) PUBLIC REVIEW Activity 1 Activity 2 Summary Report _ Initial Draft Draft University of Alaska: Institute of Wildlife Management University of Alaska College, AK 99701 Institute of Water Resources University of Alaska College, AK 99701 Arctic Environmental Infor- mation & Data Center University of Alaska 707 "A" Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Department of Land Resources and Agricultural Services University of Alaska College, AK 99701 Alaska State Legislature: Speaker, Alaska House of Representatives President Alaska State Senate Alaska Delegation in Congress: Honorable Ted Stevens U. S. Senate 260 Russell Building Washington, D. C. 20510 Honorable Mike Gravel U. S. Senate 3317 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. 20510 Honorable Donald E. Young House of Representatives 1210 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515 (Cc) (R) (C) + (R) (C) (R) (Cc) (R) 122 PUBLIC REVIEW Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) Summary Report Activity 1 Activity 2 Organization/Individual Initial Draft Draft (c) (R) (Cc) (R) (C) (R) (C) (R) —— Federal Agencies: Department of the Army Corps of Engineers x xX xX x Col. George R. Robertson xX x x District Engineer Alaska District Corps of Engineers P. O. Box 7002 Anchorage, AK 99510 Ltc. Joseph L. Perkins x x Corps of Engineers P. O. Box 809 Juneau, AK 99802 Mr. Richard L. Griffith x Alaska District Corps of Engineers Engineering Division, Room 215A P. O. Box 7002 Anchorage, AK 99510 Department of Agriculture Secretary's Program xX x x x Representative - Alaska Forest Service xX xX xX xX Regional Forester xX x U. S. Forest Service P. O. Box 1628 Juneau, AK 99802 Mr. Joe Zylinski x xX U. S. Forest Service P. O. Box 1628 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Institute of Northern x xX xX x Forestry Economic Research Service xX x xX x 123 Organization/Individual Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) PUBLIC REVIEW Activity 1 Activity 2 Summary Report Initial Draft Draft Mr. Clyde Stewart Economic Research Service P. O. Box 1290 Logan, Utah 84322 Soil Conservation Service Mr. Weymeth Long State Conservationist Soil Conservation Service 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 230 Anchorage, AK 99504 Mr. Ralph M. Bell Soil Conservation Service 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 230 Anchorage, AK 99504 Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Service 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99504 Food & Nutrition Service Farmers Home Administration P. O. Box 969 Juneau, AK 99802 (C) (R) (C) (R) (C) (R) (C) (R) Agricultural Research Service xX P. O. Box AE Palmer, AK 99645 Cooperative Extensién Service xX Dr. James Mathews Executive Director Cooperative Extension Service University of Alaska Box 95151 College, AK 99701 xX — xX 124 PUBLIC REVIEW Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) Summary Report Activity 1 Activity 2 Organization/Individual Tnitial Draft Draft (c) | (2) (C)#2] 08) | AC) (R) (c) (R) Department of Commerce Economic Development xX x 4 x Administration National Marine Fisheries x x x xX Service Mr. Harry L. Rietze xX xX x xX Regional Director National Marine Fisheries Service P. O. Box 1668 Juneau, AK 99802 Mr. Ronald J. Morris xX National Marine Fisheries Service 632 Sixth Ave., Suite 408 Anchorage, AK 99501 National Weather Service xX xX x x Mr. Stuart G. Bigler xX xX National Weather Service Alaska Region 632 Sixth Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Tom Bowers x x x x National Weather Service 632 Sixth Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Department of Health, Education and Welfare Region X x xX xX x Public Health Service xX xX x x Mr. Fred Reiff x x xX x Chief, Office of Environ- mental Health Alaska Area Native Health Service Public Health Service P. O. Box 7-741 Anchorage, AK 99510 125 Organization/Individual Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) PUBLIC REVIEW Activity 1 Activity 2 Summar Report Initial Draft Draft Department of Housing & Urban Development Conservation Division Anchorage Area Office Mr. E. Allen Robinson Anchorage Area Office 334 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Department of the Interior Special Assistant to the Secretary - Alaska Office of Assistant Secre- tary, Energy and Minerals Coordinator for 1975 National Assessment Alaska Power Administration Mr. Robert J. Cross Administrator Alaska Power Administration P. O. Box 50 Juneau, AK 99802 Mr. Don Shira Alaska Power Administration P. O. Box 50 Juneau, AK 99802 Mr. James L. Cheatham Alaska Power Administration P. O. Box 50 Juneau, AK 99802 Fish and Wildlife Service Mr. Gordon W. Watson Area Director Fish & Wildlife Service 813 D Street Anchorage, AK 99501 (c) (R) (C) (R) (Cc) (R) (Cc) (R) 126 Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) PUBLIC REVIEW Organization/Individual Activity 1 Thespian 2 Summary Report Tnitial Draft] Draft (C) (R) (C) (R) (c) (R) (Cc) (R) Mr. Gary L. Hickman Fish & Wildlife Service 813 D Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Mel Monson Fish & Wildlife Service 813 D Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Greg Konkle Fish & Wildlife Service 813 D Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Ron Hyra Instream Study Group Fish & Wildlife Service Federal Building Ft. Collins, CO 80521 (recently with BOR, Seattle, WA) Geological Survey Mr. Harry Hulsing District Chief Water Resources Division U. S. Geological Survey 218 E Street, Skyline Bldg Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Vernon Berwick U. S. Geological Survey P. O. Box 1568 Juneau, AK 99802, Mr. Gary Balding U. S. Geological Survey P70. Box -1568. Juneau, AK 99802 | 127 xX Organization/Individual PUBLIC REVIEW Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) Activity 1 Activity 2 Summar’ Report Initial Draft Draft Bureau of Indian Affairs Mr. Clarence Antioquia Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs P. O. Box 3-8000 Juneau, AK 99802 Mr. Ed Nygard Bureau of Indian Affairs P. O. Box 3-8000 Juneau, AK 99802 Bureau of Land Management Mr. Curtis McVee State Director Bureau of Land Management 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Sal DeLeonardis Alaska State Office Bureau of Land Management 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Neil Michaelson Alaska State Office Bureau of Land Management 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Anchorage District Office Bureau of Land Management 4700 East 72nd Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Fairbanks District Office Bureau of Land Management Fairbanks, AK 99701 Bureau of Mines Mr. John Mulligan Alaska Field Operation Center Bureau of Mines =. ©. Box 550 Juneau, AK 99802 (C) (R) (c) (R) (Cc) (R) (C) (R) x 128 x xX Xx Organization/Individual PUBLIC REVIEW Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) Activity 1 Activity 2 Summa. Report Initial Draft Draft Mr. Bob Bottge Bureau of Mines P. O. Box 550 Juneau, AK 99802 National Park Service Mr. G. Bryan Harry General Superintendent Alaska Group National Park Service 540 W. 5th Ave., Room 202 Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Ed Stondall National Park Service 334 W. Anchorage, AK 99501 Bureau of Outdoor Recreation] Mr. Maurice H. Lundy Regional Director Northwest Region Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 915 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98174 Mr. Keith Schoen Northwest Region Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 915 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98174 Mr. Bill Thomas Area Director Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 540 W. 5th Ave., Room 201 Anchorage, AK 99501 (C) (R) (Cc) (R) (C) (R) (C) (R) 5th Ave., Suite 250) x x 129 xX x PUBLIC REVIEW Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) Summary Report Activity 1 | Activity 2 Organization/Individual Initial Draft Draft (C) (R) (C) (R) (C) (R) (Cc) (R) Department of Transportation U. S. Coast Guard x xX x xX Mr. Bud Morris x xX U. S. Coast Guard P. O. Box 3-5000 Juneau, AK 99803 Lt. Ernie Smith xX District Planning 17th Coast Guard District P. O. Box 3-5000 Juneau, AK 99803 The Alaska Railroad xX xX xX xX Mr. T. C. Fuglestad xX Chief Engineer Alaska Railroad P. O. Box 7-2111 Anchorage, AK 99510 Federal Aviation Adminis- xX xX xX xX tration Mr. R. Klokkevold xX Federal Aviation Administration 632 Sixth Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Federal Highway Administra- xX xX x x tion Mr. Gene A. Hanna, x Division Administrator Federal Highway Admin. P. O. Box 1648 Juneau, AK 99802 130 PUBLIC REVIEW Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) | Summary Report Activity 1 Activity 2 Organization/Individual Tnitial Draft| Draft (C) (R) (C) (R) (Cc) (R) (Cc) (R) Environmental Protection xX xX x x Agency Mr. Stanley Brust xX Xx xX Federal Activities Coordinator Alaska Operations Offfice Environmental Protection Agency 605 4th Ave., Room G-6A Anchorage, AK 99510 Federal Energy Administra- x x x x tion Federal Power Commission x xX xX xX Maritime Administration xX xX x xX Mr. Jack Knecht x Port Development Rep. U. S. Dept. of Commerce Maritime Administration Western Region Box 36073 San Francisco, CA 94102 U. S. Water Resources x x xX x Council i Mr. Joel Frisch x x x x National Assessment Specialist Water Resources Council 2120 L Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20037 Other Organizations & Individuals: Alaska Center for the x xX xX xX xX Environment 913 W. Sixth Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Alaska Federation of Natives xX x xX xX Mr. John Vacek xX Box 304 Kodiak, AK 99615 Lt Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) PUBLIC REVIEW Organization/Individual Activity 1 Activity 2 Summa: Report Initial Draft Draft (Cc) (R) (C) (R) (Cc) (R) (C) (R) Mr. David Gray 836 Calhoun Juneau, AK 99801 Ms. Enid T. Holsopple Alaska Federation of Native 550 W. Eighth Anchorage, AK 99501 Alaska League of Women Voters 911 R Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Alaska Municipal League Mr. Don Berry Executive Director Alaska Municipal League 204 Franklin Street Juneau, AK 99801 Alaska Rural Development Council c/o Soil Conservation Service 2221 East Northern Lighs Blva Suite 129 Anchorage, AK 99504 Alaska Water Resources Board P. O. Box 2705 Kodiak, AK 99615 Alaska State Chamber of Commerce 310 Second Street Juneau, AK 99801 Alaska Oil & Gas Association 308 G Street, Suite 221 Anchorage, AK 99501 Alaska Miners Association Star Rt. A, Box 78D Anchorage, AK 99502 132 x Organization/Individual Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) PUBLIC REVIEW Activity 1 Activity 2 Summary Report |Initial Draft Draft Alaska Loggers Association P. O. Box 425 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Alaska Chapter, Sierra Club P50. Box 2025 Anchorage, AK 99501 Alaska Conservation Society P. O. Box 80192 College, AK 99701 Alaska Wildlife Federation & Sportsman's Council, Inc. 1700 Glacier Avenue Juneau, AK 99801 Environaid Mr. Dan Bishop Environaid RR 4, Box 4993 Juneau, AK 99803 Fairbanks Environmental Center Mr. George Matz Executive Director Fairbanks Environmental Center 1895 Pioneer Way Fairbanks, AK 99701 Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for AK 733 W. Fourth Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. J. David Dorris 895 Cardigan Circle Anchroage, AK 99503 Inter-Agency Technical Committee for Alaska Isacc Walton League 3685 Arctic Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99501 (Cc) (R) (Cc) (R) (c) (R) (Cc) (R) 133 x PUBLIC REVIEW Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) Summary Report Activity 1 Activity 2 Organization/Individual Initial Draft Draft (Cc) (R) (C) (R) (Cc) (R) (C) (R) Tanana Valley Sportsmen's xX Association P.O. Box-669 Fairbanks, AK 99707 Trustees for Alaska x 1026 W. 4th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Soil Conservation Sub-Districts Kodiak xX xX xX x X xX x x Don Becker, Chairman Box 1033 Kodiak, AK 99615 Homer x xX xX x x x xX x Bruce Willard, Chairman Star Route A Homer, AK 99603 Kenai-Kasilof x xX xX xX xX xX xX x LaVerne Wahl, Chairman Box 88 Soldotna, AK 99669 Palmer x x x x xX x x x John Nash, Chairman Star Route L-800 Palmer, AK 99645 Wasilla ».4 xX xX x x xX x xX Pat Carney, Chairman Star Route 305 Wasilla, AK 99687 Anchorage xX xX x x xX xX xX x John Sechandelmeir, Chairman 1436 S Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Montana (AK) x x x x x x x x Gerald Robson, Chairman Star Route Willow, AK 99688 134 Organization/Individual PUBLIC REVIEW Contacts (C) and Respondents (R) Activity 1 Activity 2 Summary Report Initial Draft Draft Kenney Lake Keith Murray, Chairman Star Route Copper Center, AK 99513 Fairbanks Henry Gettinger, Chairman Star Route Box 50379 Fairbanks, AK 99701 Salcha-Big Delta Richard Roberts, Chairman Star Route 90648 Fairbanks, AK 99701 Mr. Amos J. Alter P. O. Box 304 Juneau, AK 99802 Ms. Lorraine Ferrell 3845 Baxter Road Anchorage, AK 99504 Ms. Lidia Selkregg University of Alaska Ps Os; BOX. 2217 Anchorage, AK 99504 Ms. Peg Tileston 4780 Cambridge Way Anchorage, AK 99503 (C) (R) (Cc) [ ® (C) (R) (c) (R) x xX 135 x x Appendix D COMMENTS Written comments on the Draft Summary Report are found in this section of the Appendix and were received from the following agencies and organizations: 1. Fairbanks Environmental Center 2s Alaska Department of Community & Regional Affairs oe Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 4. Alaska Department of Natural Resources (2) 5s Alaska Power Administration 6. Bureau of Mines 7. National Marine Fisheries Service 8. Soil Conservation Service 9. Federal/State Land Use Planning Commission In addition, marked up copies of the Draft Summary Report were received from U. S. Geological Survey and Mr. Dan Bishop of Environaid. These comments focus principally on clarification of Instream Water conclu- sions, grammatical errors, sentence structure, and report organization. The comments received were used as a basis for preparation of the Summary Report. 136 FAIRBANKS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER 1895 Pioneer Way Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 (907) ATO-8G654 May 23, 1977 Mr. James Cheatham Alaska Water Qu lity Study Commission P. O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Dear Mr. Cheatham: The purpose of this letter is to respond to the draft of the Alaska Water Assessment written by the Alaska Water Study Committee. The Fairbanks Environmental Center is quite concerned with a comment which appears on page 25 which is, "The waters of the state are not totally appropri- ated.'' Our concern is for two reasonSe 1. This statement could be used as justification for the interbasin transfer of water, particularly to the lower-48. We would be very opposed to such attempts. Just because some areas of the country haven't learned to live within their waterbudget is no reason to ask other regions to share their burden. The answer to resource limitations is better efficiency through greater self- sufficiency. 2. We strongly disagree with the implication that unless water is being used for residential, industrial, or agricultural purposes, it is being wasted. It must be realized that there are significant trade-offs with water which is so "appropriated". Water at the same time can not cool a coal-fired power plant and spawn salmon. We contend that Alaska's waters are well-appropriated to life support systems (fauna and flora), subsistence , and recreational useSe We urge you to rewrite this section. We are pleased with comments on flood con- trol (page 28), which indicates that non-structural solutions are to receive preferences. We thank you for this opportunity to comment. Also we do want to mention that by the time we received the draft there was only a few days until the comment deadline. Hopefully, in the future, you will allow more time. Sincerely, Georgd Matz Executive Director 137 Fairbanks Environmental Center ne ‘Gateway to the Arctic STATE OF ALASKA / om DEPT. OF COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION OF COMMUNITY PLANNING / POUCH B — JUNEAU 99811 May 11, 1977 Mr. Robert Cross, Co-chairman Alaska Water Study Committee Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Bob: Following are Department of Community and Regional Affairs comments on the Alaska Water Study Committee's Second Draft Summary Report. Our comments focus on Sections II, V, VI, VII. In view of my absence from the May 9-10 AWSC meeting in Anchorage, I want to reaffirm our interest in, and commitment to AWSC's efforts. Unanticipated travel commitments by other members of the Division of Community Planning's professional staff necessitated my remaining in the office during this time period. General Comment: Water Resources Council guidelines establish a negative tone by prescribing specification of "water and related land problems" and “implications of not solving water and related land problems." Can a more positive and affirmative tone be established in future work by stressing potentials, opportunities, and benefits, as well as problems and implications? General Comment: The assessment needs to incorporate greater specificity in identifying coordination needs for water resource management and ongoing programs. If the Alaska Water Assessment and succeeding activities are to have any lasting positive impact, they must serve as more than a vehicle for presenting and exchanging information; they must face and execute hard choices. Water Resources Council and river basin commission failures are in large measure directly attributable to the absence of enforcement mechanisms in plans formulated. AWSC is certainly limited in its ability to overcome these kinds of constraints, but can initiate steps leading to more stringent coordination standards. 138 Robert Cross -2- May 11, 1977 General Comment: We assume that the assessment draft will be carefully edited prior to publication. Numerous grammatical, spelling and typographical errors are noted in the review draft. Page 3, paragraph 5: Lake Iliamna is referred to as the largest natural lake in the U.S. outside of the Great Lakes system. Shouldn't this be amended to read the largest natural freshwater lake? Page 5, last sentence: Not only do differences exist between national and local objectives, but divergent points of view at times occur among different regions and localities, and even within localities. Page 13, paragraph 1: Can we escape the throes of WRC jargon, and replace "Comprehensive, Coordinated Joint Plan" (CCJP) with another more meaningful name? Such a pretentious, redundant title is sure to evoke negative reactions from already skeptical local governments, interest groups, and members of the general public. ' Page 13, #2: A State Water Plan represents a key need that we support. I envision at least two facets to this effort: (1) technical slanninu, which would be concerned with tasks such as data collection and analysis, and (2) management planning, which would focus on institutional arrangements. An essential element will consist of determining how State and federal planning and management will interface, and we urge that AWSC devote priority attention to this question. Page 13, #5: This statement should be revised to identify local representatives as integral participants in regional water planning and management alluded to. Merely "taking full advantage of local government studies" is insufficient. Page 13, last sentence: A rewording is called for to remove the expression, "apparently legitimate." If these needs aren't legitimate, they shouldn't be discussed; if they are legitimate, they shouldn't be characterized as questionable. Page 17, Federal-State-Local Role: One of the Department of Community and Regional Affairs' primary areas of concern involves problems encountered in remote communities. While water supply and waste disposal technological and financial considerations are appropriately within the province of other agencies, our extensive contacts, experience, and planning assistance work in these locations have afforded us particular insight into the problems and needs of remote areas. We recommend that special care be devoted to ensuring that functional planning for water supply and waste treatment be conducted in consonance with overall community development planning. Recommendation 1 on page 15 is indicative of growing sensitivity to individualized community needs. Page 20, paragraph 2: Mean daily natural gas production from North Slope fields is estimated at 4.5 million cubic feet per day. Is this figure supposed to be 4.5 billion cubic feet per day? The Prudhoe Bay area alone is expected to yield some 2.7 billion cubic feet per day. 139 Robert Cross -3- May 11, 1977 Page 20, paragraph 4: A hydroelectric power generation potential of 170 billion kwh from 76 favorable sites is referenced. This potential is enormous, when one considers that it exceeds 6.8 billion kwh estimates for the massive Devil Canyon project Proposed by 25 times. What criteria were applied for designating "favorable" sites, and is the 170 billion kwh figure realistic? Page 22, Institutional #1: Tougher enforcement of laws and regulations is called for. This is an example of lack of specificity. Let's identify who should be exercising tougher enforcement procedures, and then urge them to do so. Page 23, #1: The State has formulated a comprehensive set of policies for guiding Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oi1 and gas development. These policies have been distributed in draft form to several agencies represented on AWSC. Any call for a State policy on "...energy development on those lands selected under the Statehood Act and lands acquired under the Submerged Lands Act..." must, at aminimum, be accompanied by a federal energy development policy -- a critical void. Page 25, Research and Data Needs #8: While studies of groundwater availability, flood hazard areas, and vegetation analysis in relation to range management may be needed, we question whether this is a priority need. Page 25, Institutional #2: We Suggest that "preventing or" be added before "...ameliorating water shortages." Page 27, Flooding: The last Paragraph on page 27 identifies a need for "...a Comprehensive program (where) future development -- or redevelopment -- will have the benefit of the identification of flood hazard in the planning stage." As the agency employing Alaska's State Coordinator for the Federal Flood Insurance Program, we strongly support satisfaction of this need as a top priority under the "Flooding" section. Recommendations presented on pages 28 and 29 call for identification and appropriate management of flood-prone areas. We recommend that the Assessment's apparent emphasis on additional study needs, for both initial identification of flood-prone areas, and more detailed study for flood insurance pruposes, be adjusted to encourage a comprehensive land use planning process that reflects constraints imposed by natural hazards. In many cases flood studies conducted thoroughout rural Alaska have not Produced valid information. Poor information has created Problems relative to community expansion and development, and what may be worse, has caused agencies providing substandard information to rural communities to lose credibility. A series of actions is necessary to guide community development away from physical hazards. These actions start at the identification or inventory . stage, and run through the planning process to implementation. Flood studies do not address elements other than flood related matters, and frequently omit consideration of land use plans or community development and expansion recommendations. Their efforts represent only one element in the process. 140 Robert Cross -4- May 11, 1977 The planning process must develop not only the data base necessary for land use planning, but also alternatives available for growth and expansion. Within the process, flood-prone areas are identified, and communities provided information necessary to make sound land use decisions. We urge that federal flood management activities, particularly in rural Alaska, be closely coordinated with Division of Community Planning staff to facilitate effective local land use planning and management. Page 29, Federal-State-Local Role: Recommendations 1, 4, 5, and 7 call for Federal and State agency, local and interagency, State-Federal, and State and local identification of flood-prone areas, respectively. These suggestions need consolidation and clarification to identify the roles actually intended. Page 31, Recommendations: These recommendations appear to be directed primarily toward "priming the Corps of Engineers pump." Page 109, paragraph 4: What are the conflicts among various agencies described in the first sentence, and what agencies are involved? Examples would furnish a sounder basis for future recommended actions. Page 112, Regional Views...: Statements in this section are too general to be very persuasive. Specific examples should be introduced to substantiate subjective issue assessments. In addition, at least two other issues merit attention in this section. These are: (1) land status and ownership patterns -- changing patterns will have a substantial bearing on the timing, location, and magnitude of future growth and development; and (2) the overall question of local, State and Federal roles in Alaska water planning and management. Page 122: Please add the Department of Community and Regional Affairs to Appendix A. Page 123: AWSC Study Team composition shows paltry State representation, and no local participants. Team membership should be adjusted in future endeavors to include representation from all major groups likely to be affected by the Assessment and subsequent activities. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We appreciate AWSC's active solicitation of review comments, and again convey our regret for not being able to attend the May 9-10 session in Anchorage. We look forward to hearing of your accomplishments there, and particularly progress being made in the Level B Study. Sincerely, Womb Mark Stephens Associate Planner MS: jw cc: The Honorable Ernst Mueller Department of Environmental Conservation Larry Parker Department of Environmental Conservation Kevin Waring, Director 141 Division of Community Planning The following material was provided by Jerry Sargent and Greg Capito, Department of Environmental Conservation, as their suggestion for re- writing the Remote Village Water section. Remote Village Sanitation Seventy percent of Alaska's Natives live in small, remote villages. Typical sources of drinking water are streams, ponds, or rain during the summer, many of which are stagnant and contaminated. During the winter, many villagers cut ice and melt it in discarded fuel drums, using from five to seventy gal/day per capita. Inadequate water supply and waste disposal systems in villages cause health problems and make life unnecessarily uncomfortable and incon- venient. Some portion of village disease and death rates can certainly be attributed to substandard water supply and waste disposal methods. When village residents must devote a significant portion of their in- dividual energies to satisfying basic sanitation needs, (the same needs satisfied as an assumed matter of course for most Alaskans), less time, energy and other resources are available for more productive enterprise. Water supply and waste disposal problems in Alaska villages can be solved given enough money and commitment by government. The technology exists to make adequate water supply and waste disposal services avail- able in virtually all villages. But the technology can be applied only if money is available for capital construction. And capital construc- tion is only a beginning. Successful operation, maintenance and manage- ment of village sanitation facilities are far more difficult to contend with than construction. Unless operation, maintenance and management problems are solved, much capital construction effort is wasted. Satisfactory service from even the simplest water supply and waste disposal facility is doubtful unless technical, management and, fre- quently, financial assistance is made available to villages from outside sources. The need for assistance increases as the complexity of sanita- tion facilities increases. The relatively recent standards of perform- ance imposed by government for water supply and waste disposal systems have made and will make mandatory ever more complex systems. Program funds made available to villages for solving sanitation problems could eventually be administered through the 12 native regional health corporations. Although not currently in a position to take on complete responsibility for multi-million dollar sanitation facility programs, these regional organizations are much closer to the village people and their environment than most government agencies. Hence, if the regional organizations are willing, every effort should be made to build their ability to administer programs providing village sanitation services. 142 02-001B (Rev. 10/76) oF ALASKA MEMORANDU IA TO: DATE 4 Oa Cheatham ae he Larry Parker FILE NO Co-directors, Alaska Water Assessment TELEPHONE NO: rromDave DeRuwe 42<7 * /. i sussect. ALASKA WATER ASSESSMENT Al Curtes SECOND DRAFT SUMMARY REPORT Brent Petrie | At Water Resources Planners This memo is in response to the Alaska Water Study Committee's request for comments on the Alaska Water Assessment 2nd Draft Summary Report. The Department of Natural Resources’ staff has reviewed the proposed document and have several comments to make. General Comments 1. The report is very general in its perspective. It is our understanding that this report will eventually be used by decision makers in Washington, D.C. as a directive for future funding determinations. The report is, however, too general for effective decision making. There is call throughout the report for increased planning efforts and research. There are, however, very few places in the report where mention is made of any particular projects that need to be researched. Likewise, there is little directive in the report as to who should do this work. Planning and research efforts are commendable but must be aimed at accomplishing a desired objective or solving a problem. An example of where more specificity is needed is in the regional profile sections. In each section problems are listed, but at a high level of gener- ality. Flooding will be said to be a problem in an area, but then no mention of specifically where it is a problem is made. This level of generalization is too great for decision makers to use when dealing with areas up to 81,000 square miles in size. 2. Throughout the Conclusions and Recommendations section (pgs 13-31) of the report, sentences are used which do not have verbs. This is not only cumbersome to the reader, but many statements lose their meaning without the verb. The verbs should be placed back into the document so that it is less cumbersome to read. Also, by omitting the verbs, the authors have taken much strength out of their recommendations. For example, the words "should be done" imply a different connotation than "must be done." By leaving the reader to deter- mine which words he feels should be there, the authors lose control over the message that is communicated. 3. The graphics used throughout the report are generally very good. Where maps are used they are well laid out and draw the reader's attention to the page. Particularly good are the maps from pages 33 to 38. 143 Jim Cheatham -2- May 16, 1977 4. In some cases we have found the material presented to be inaccurate. If the decision maker who attempts to use this document finds some information faulty he will begin to question the value of the entire document. Specific examples of faulty information are cited later in this memo. 5. In many cases data and information are cited but no reference is made as to who collected the data or whose information (or opinion) it is. The reader needs to know who supplied the information so that he can judge for himself how credible the source and resultant information are. 6. The document could be improved greatly with a professional editing job. Many of the comments made here would be corrected by an expert proofreader. This editing job should be done before the document reaches final form. Specific Comments 1. (Page 11) The first sentence of the Overview Section is awkward, talking about action on water problems before the water problems have been introduced. A sentence preceding the first one should be added saying something to this effect: The State of Alaska has many water resources - related problems which need to be resolved. In this way the situation is introduced to the reader. In paragraph 2 on the page, reference is made to a parallel field of interest. The question to the reader is parallel to what? 2. (Page 13) In the first sentence of #1, reference is made to "the real priorities." The real priorities are then left undefined. Deletion of the whole first sentence would improve the clarity of the paragraph. Recommendation #2 is very wordy and cumbersome. It might be better written: Development of a state water plan should be given high priority. Recommendation #4 makes reference to "conservation set asides." This terms is not generally accepted and should not be used in the document. The wording could read '"... proposals for new national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and wild and scenic rivers, and on..." (Final paragraph Page 13) Delete "Apparently legitimate" and start sentence with "Need for water ..." 3. (Page 15) The first sentence in the second paragraph would make sense if a period was placed after the word "contaminated" and the word "as" removed. 4. (Page 18) Rewrite second sentence, paragraph 1 - Athough the con- stitution recognizes general water reservations for fish and wildlife, there is a need for legislation to clarify the state's ability and procedures to 144 Jim Cheatham -3- May 16, 1977 administer in-stream reservations. This is becoming increasingly urgent in view of expanded water resource demands created by urbanization and indus- trialization. The problems are anticipated to grow in the future. Paragraphs #4 and #5 should be combined to make one paragraph as they represent a single thought. 5. (Page 21) Paragraph 3, change to "... up to three million barrels per day. Sea water is the likely supply for this activity. If fields are discovered further inland, lack of liquid water and difficult logistics of sea water transport in the dry and cold Arctic could inhibit secondary recovery operations. 6. (Page 25) Research and Data Needs #2 is an example of a sentence rendered meaningless without the verb. To make any sense of it the reader must read through it more than once, placing in the verbs he feels are needed. Under Institutional #1 the word "consumptive" should be deleted as encourage- ment of water conservation is important for all uses. 7. (page 27) The author speaks of an “Alaska need" but never defines what an "Alaska need" is. A definition needs to be made so that the reader understands what the author is writing about. 8. (Page 28) Under section 4c it mentions that it is the consensus to do something but never says the consensus of who. The reader needs to know whose consensus it was for the statement to be credible. For example, the reader might take different notice of a consensus of water officials than of a consensus of land managers. 9. (page 29) An example of a sentence that loses its meaning without a verb is #5. The sentence reads: State-Federal identification of, and planning on, flood-prone lands. The sentence might be reworded with a verb to say: Identification of flood prone lands should be made by Federal and State agencies so that proper flood plain planning procedures may be carried out. A statement concerning the state's possible role in flood plain management and planning should be included. The following statement is recommended for inclusion in the report: The State should explore and define its role regarding flood plain management and planning. 10. (Pages 30-31) The following paragraphs should be added to the section on navigability: Navigability determinations are also important considerations with respect to land ownership issues and land settlements under ANCSA. If a watercourse 145 Jim Cheatham -4- May 16, 1977 or body of water is determined to be navigable in fact or susceptible of being used for commercial navigation at the time of statehood, then it meets the federal test of navigability for title and the ownership of the submerged land rests with the state. In the case of private land that is adjacent to a stream or lake, the submerged land would be owned by the state if it is navigable or by the private owner if it is non-navigable. In terms of Native land selections, it is important to know if submerged lands will be owned by the state (navigable waters) or if these lands will be owned by the riparian land owner (non-navigable waters). Under Research and Data Needs the following statement should be made: Cooperative federal and state studies should be conducted to document historical evidence of navigability for purposes of determing title to submerged lands. 11. (page 33) The recommendations on this page and the following five pages are supposed to be more specific as they are in the Specific Recom- mendations section. They are, however, far too general. For example, this recommendation is made for the Upper Yukon area: Planning studies related to hydroelectric potential and to flood hazard. Besides not having a verb, this statement does not specifically say where in the 60,000 square mile area these studies need to be made. Are they needed on the Yukon River? the Charley River? tributary streams? Also no mention is made as to how or who should conduct these studies. 12. (Page 43) Using an irregular shape such as Alaska for this type of graphic expression is deceiving to the reader. The casual reader will glance at it and find his conceptions of the amounts different than the actual amounts. This is because different people have different perceptions of the state of Alaska. Those that perceive southeast Alaska to be bigger than it is will give this portion of the graph more importance because of their geographical misconception. 13. (Page 44) In the third paragraph under Land Status the following statement appears: It has been estimated that this includes 30 to 40 percent of the natural resources and 80 to 90 percent of the lands adjacent to the major water courses. Two questions need to be asked about this statement. Whose estimate is this?; and what constitues a major water course? 14. (Page 84) The statement is made here that the Central Yukon Area receives 60 to 100 inches of precipitation a year. This could be a typo- graphical error as the correct figure is probably closer to 6 to 10 inches of precipitation. 15. (Page 87) The discussion of flooding in the Tanana Area is much too short. Fairbanks as well as many other communities in the Tanana Area have suffered tremendously from floods in the last few years. Note should be made of this in this section. 146 Jim Cheatham -5- May 16, 1977 16. (Page 100) The statement is made that approximately 41 percent of the state's population reside in the Cook Inlet area. This figure is too low for the region containing Anchorage, Kenai-Soldotna, Homer, and most of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. According to the report the state population is 408,500 and the Cook Inlet population is 211,000 (page 100). This computes out to 51.7 percent. 17. (Page 101) Under Conclusion #5 there is mention of possible future water shortage and quality problems due to agriculture. Mention here also should be made about problems caused by municipal and industrial users in the Cook Inlet area. Both the Kenai and Anchorage areas have active water problems caused by industrial and municipal water uses. In the North Kenai area, in particular, large industrial groundwater withdrawals may be affecting surface waters. 18. (Page 102) Paragraph #2 in this section regarding the Gulf of Alaska area is very misleading as it makes the area appear to be in very poor shape economically. This, of course, is far from the truth in an area where many resources exist and much growth has occured in recent years. This paragraph should probably be rewritten or stricken entirely as it doesn't reflect the current situation in the Gulf of Alaska. 19. (Page 109) The essay on pages 109 and 110 Implications of Not Solving the Water and Related Land Problems is basically a good general statement of some of Alaska's water resources problems. It does not, however, delve into the implications of inaction very deeply. If left in this section with the same title, it should be expanded and made more specific. Information that is needed include: 1) the impacts of inaction on the environment, economic, political, and social structures of the state, 2) target dates by which time certain problems are expected to develop, and 3) the implications these problems will have on future life in the state of Alaska. 20. (Page 112) It should be made clear that the views expressed in the Regional Views section are those of the Alaska Water Study Committee and not necessarily the official views of the state of Alaska. 21. (Page 113) Under Energy the author talks about the “Emerging National Issues." The meaning of this term is not readily known to the reader and needs to be defined. 147 TO: of ALASKA MUENMORANM OU DATE: Cam Cheatam, Larry Parker May 23, 1977 Co-directors Alaska Water FILE NO: Assessment Project TELEPHONE NO. rrom:Dave DeRuwe ‘ segpl foe SUBJECT: SECOND DRAFT SUMMARY REPORT Water Resources Planner In further reviewing the AWSC 2nd Draft Summary Report we have found a wording discrepancy that we feel should be ammended before the final draft of the report is completed. The statement is made on page 27 of the report that every Alaskan community with Over 100 population has had a floodplain study completed which delineates the 100 year floodplain by the Corps of Engineers for the Federal Insurance Admin- istration. In recent discussions with Mason Wade of the Corps it was revealed to me that the reports have been made on these communities, but that they are not very detailed and are possibly outdated due to the use of outdated mapping methods. While the statement on page 27 is true, it may be misleading to a decision- maker when he attempts to determine if money should be allocated to Alaska for flood studies. When he sees the report, it becomes apparent to him that studies have already been completed and that new work is not needed. It is important that the decision maker not get the wrong impression as Federal money for floodplain planning and Management may be important to Alaska. We would recommend that the reference to the Corps studies be deleted from this section of the report. If reference to these studies remains in the report, an additional statement stating the rudimentary nature of some of these studies should also be included. 148 United States Department of the Interior ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION P Oo. BOX 50 JUNEAU. ALASKA 99802 May 20, 1977 100 Mr. James L. Cheatham Study Director Alaska Water Assessment P. O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. Cheatham: This letter provides comments on the April 1977 draft summary report for the Alaska Water Assessment. We did not find serious problems with the report. The comments below reflect areas in which we believe strengthening the report is in order. Part III Summary of the State-Regional Future (1) Suggest adding a discussion of the regional objectives which have been identified in the assessment. Examples might include: (a) Strong desire to control the pace and type of growth and to have individual developments meet all the applicable tests of environ- mental and economic soundness. (b) Desire to protect life style. (c) Evidence that the majority favor multiple-use concepts for most lands and resources. (a) Strong emphasis on both protection and use of renewable resources. (e) Desire for employment opportunities and social and economic well-being. (2) Suggest adding narrative to explain the SRF economic data and water use estimates. Show the key assumptions, and explain reason for range in future estimates. Discuss relationships between demands for * water and related land resources and available supplies. Show the basis for the 1975 water use estimates, and explain how the future use values were estimated. 149 (3) On page 41, suggest deleting the term “leaps and bounds." Population change would be indicated by a statement of recent growth rates. Part VI Regional Views of Present and Emerging National Issues (1) Each segment should include a brief statement of what is perceived as the emerging national issue as well as regional views on that issue. (2) Statement on outdoor recreation. Add statement describing what the emerging national issue is. Alaska regional situation is much more complex than stated in the draft. The factors tending to increase demands include those associated with a growing Alaska population that is relatively affluent and rapidly increasing recreation demands by visitors to the State. Existing resource developments have probably not had much affect in limiting recreation opportunities. Expanding urban and suburban areas have, and further limits will be imposed as large areas of the State pass into private (Native) ownership. The expected actions to establish new units of the National Park, Refuge, Wild and Scenic River, and Wilderness systems will further alter demands and patterns of recreational use--further considerations and competition being a likely result. Regional views: very high importance placed on preserving quality of recreation experience; substantial disagreement as to amounts of land and water that should be placed in preservation status; strong interest in building tourism, especially in parts of State that depend on this as a major industry. State and several communities have major parks and recreation programs. The State is devoting a very significant portion of its land entitlement to park and refuge designations. (3) Federal - Non-Federal Cost Sharing. National issue includes the debate on how much and what type of Federal assistance is merited in the various water programs. There are strong pressures to increase the level of financial participation of State, local, and private interests and to reduce the Federal share. Alaskan regional views are again mixed. Water management programs in the State are heavily dependent on Federal assistance, and many could not proceed if the Federal funds were reduced. However, the State has made several moves to assume a larger share of the responsibility for financing water programs, including upgrading its water planning activities and participating in financing of water and sewer, recreation, flood control, and power development programs. 150 Additional comments to work into draft letter: P. 73 Note WRC and FSLUPC are using the same subregions. Problem Statements - Arctic, NW, Yukon. Add in more on how available water and temperature pose critical habitat limits for fish and wildlife. Part II Add section on potential Level B and Special Studies. Sincerely, Kibet bere. Robert J. Cross Administrator 151 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF MINES P.O. Box 550 Juneau, Alaska 99802 May 4, 1977 MEMORANDUM To: Jim Cheatham, Study Director, Alaska Water Assessment Team From: Mining Engineer, Alaska Field Operation Center Subject: Review of the Summary Report for the Water Assessment I have read the subject draft and I find it to be quite good. The report is acceptable as it is, but I did have some comments for your consideration. Page 26, paragraph 3. ‘Tighter agency regulation...of sand and gravel removal operations to maintain the amount of water available." According to Bureau of Mines IC 8285, "Water Use in the Mineral Industry," the average water consumption per ton of crude sand and gravel handled is 17 gallons. Seventeen gallons out of 325 gallons of new water does not seem like much to me and I wonder if it's worth highlighting. Page 42, line 3. Perhaps this should read, "Coal washing plants, where needed, refineries, etc." Coal mines do not require much, if any, water and washing may not be required. Page 42, "Other Mineral Resources." Perhaps the second sentence could be changed around to read, "Mineral resources of major importance which may be developed during the period of the assessment include copper, nickel, molybdenum, iron, lead, zinc, tin, fluorite, and barite." Page 74. Mining is not a major sector of the economy currently and may not be during the assessment period. Page 76. A major sector of the economy should include mineral exploration as this area includes the Kobuk region. Page 86. Under the heading of "Principle Resources," the word "other" should be stricken. Page 88. If placer mining is to be noted as a villian on page 152 89, perhaps we should add it to the list in economic sectors. Page 89. Under "Water Quality," can we replace "Important" with the word "Potential"? Pages 90 and 91. If we mention placer mining on page 91, perhaps we should add it to the list of economic sectors on page 90. Page 93, second paragraph. I'm not sure I know what an accidental spill from road building is--do we mean increased sedimentation from road building and accidental spills for exploratory drilling? Page 99, "Water Use." While I see mention of a conflict between placer miners and fisheries in Activity I as well as here, I surely cannot figure out where that conflict is. I cannot figure out where there is a placer operation in this area, but I suppose there could be one. We don't mention this conflict in some of the areas having many placer operators but we do mention it here where placer mining is minor, if even present. We are not being consis- tent. Page 100. I would put minerals under "Principle Resources" and mineral exploration under "Economic Sectors" because several large mining exploration companies have offices in Anchorage. Page 102. I would add mineral exploration to the "Economic Sector." Page 104. I would add mineral exploration to the "Economic Sector." I hope these comments will be of some help to you. 4 Je Robert G. Bottge 153 ate ‘\Harxy L. Rietze U.S. DEPARTMENT GF COMMERCE Rational Ocasanic and Atmospharic Administration Naticnal Marine F P. 0. Box i868, Jur 2pt2s Service scau, Alaska 99862 May 6, 1977 Raply to Attn. of: FAK2BH Robert J. Cross, Administrator, Alaska Power Administration; and ee Alaska Che Committee ; GLO SA = Cf eu, Dirextor, Alaska Region / National Marine Fisheries Service Comments on the Alaska Water Assessment, 2nd Draft Summary Report (April 1977) We have reviewed the subject report and offer the following comments: II. CONCLUSTONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Pages 13-14. What is the relationship of the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) to a program such as CCJP? (Also see comments below for p. 29 and 115.) INSTREAM WATER Specific Concerns Page 18. Fish and wildlife require sufficient flows, as well as sufficient fluctuation in flows. The fact that the ecology of estuaries at mouths of streams and rivers is dependent on freshwater inflow should also be acknowledged. (Also see comment below for p. 42, paragraph 2) Institutional Page 19. "Provision of instream use protection and permitting and regulatory programs at all govern- mental levels must be integrated with the planning and analysis activities." This should be revised to include enforcement programs. Poorly enforced regu- lations are of little value in protecting instream water use. How will (1) dredging in non-navigable waters and (2) timber harvesting, road building, mining, and other activities conducted on private lands be regu- lated? 154 ENERGY Conclusions Page 20, last paragraph. "Oil spills pose a partic- ular threat as 011 can destroy the food chains .t.3" We suggest substituting "alter" or "adversely affect" for "destroy." "Although adequate laws and regulations exist, to regulate the industry, the enforcement of the regu- lating concerns some people. Of particular concern to environmentalists is the production and transpor- tation of oil in the outer continental shelf areas." We suggest revising to read"... industry, ade- quate enforcement of these regulations is a signifi- cant problem. Of particular concern to fish an wildlife resources, their habitats, and the commer- cial fishing industry that depends on these re- Sources .... Recommendations Planning Page 21. "Planning that recognizes the State and National needs for energy, particularly oil, gas, and coal, and the need for safeguarding the environ- ment... . " What about hydroelectric develop- ments and the need to protect anadromous fish streams from the potential adverse effects that may be associated with development of the 76 favorable sites mentioned on p. 20? Research and Data Needs Page 22. We suggest adding "7. Research on water quality required by Alaskan aquatic organisms in relation to energy developments." For example, research is needed on the effects of intertidal dredging and gravel removal on resident marine biota, including studies on the time required for restabilization of local aquatic communities. WATER.-AVAILABILITY Research and Data Needs Page 25, #4. Do "|. criteria for maintenance of environmental quality . . . " include estuarine areas as well as freshwater areas? 155 III. FLOODING Conclusions Page 28, #4c. We are pleased to note that environ- mental quality will tend to be protected because "Other alternatives (to structural Measures) are available in most cases." Recommendations Research and Data Needs Page 28. We suggest adding "2. Effects of any Proposed structural flood control measures on natural stream courses, flows, and sedimentation; stream and estuarine ecology; fish and wildlife habitats; public health vectors; etc.; be investigated and de- termined prior to implementation." Federal-State-Local Role Page 29. Where does the ACMP fit in with regard to identifying and managing flood-prone land develop- ment? NAVIGATION, NAVIGABILITY & PORTS Research and Data Needs Page 31. We suggest adding "1. Studies on the effects of navigation improvements and port and harbor developments on freshwater and marine habitats, eco- systems, and organisms of commercial, recreational, and subsistence importance should be conducted in each coastal and river area before, during, and after com- pletion of each project." SUMMARY OF THE SRF Commercial fisheries Page 42, paragraph 2. The emphasis of the AWA on anadromous fish species, especially salmon, is under- standable. However, many other species of fish, invertebrates (e.g., herring, crabs, shrimp, clams), marine mammals, and waterfowl spend:all or part of their lives in shallow coastal areas affected by freshwater quality, quantity, and availability. Thus, coastal estuarine and marine habitats must also be protected to ensure protection of these resources 156 as a source of food, livelihood, and enjoyment of this and succeeding generations. (Also see the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Sec. 302 and 303.) "Some estimates indicate a possible three to four- fold increase in salmon production through aqua- culture." We seriously question the ability of Alaska to achieve this level of production through aquaculture alone. This goal may well defy the biological laws of population dynamics and maximum sustained yield, and may be physically and econo- mically impossible. "The State Regional Future assumes some expansion in the fisheries industry." Because the salmon fishing industry is the only one mentioned here, it is unclear whether other fisheries and their associated require- ments and impacts are considered. The Fishery Con- servation and Management Act of 1976 has enhanced the opportunities for Alaska to develop the bottomfish fishery and other latent fisheries to their full potential. Future expansion of the seafood proces- sing industry in Alaska will require adequate water supplies. Forest Products Agriculture Other Mineral Resources eee ourism Page 42, paragraphs 3-6. All these activities also Create water use conflicts affecting fish and wildlife and their habitats. The Alaskan Environment Page 45. "The aggregate of the present dams and those under construction or under active considera- tion would represent physical control over approxi- mately 10,000 square miles of Alaska's 586,000 square miles (less than 2 percent). Clearly, the SRF does not imply extensive construction for water control." We strongly suggest deleting this argument and its conclusion rather than attempting to minimize the importance of the area under structural water control. How important are these 10,000 square miles with regard to the six "issues"? How important are they as fish and wildlife habitats? 157 IV. To put 10,000 square miles in perspective, such an area exceeds the total land and water area of each of 8 other states (Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont) and two of the Great Lakes (Ontario and Erie). Lake Iliamna, the largest lake in Alaska, has an area of 1,010 square miles. Alaska has a total water area of 19,980 square miles. Planners, developers, engineers, and even some biologists in other areas have assumed that environmental alterations that cause piecemeal destruction of fish and wildlife habitats are not matters of serious concern. Passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, and various state environmental protection laws should have refuted this argument long ago. WATER AND RELATED LAND PROBLEMS Bristol Bay Page 95. Instream flow needs for fish and wildlife must certainly receive top priority consideration in this area. Of the hydropower reserves identified for 10 water- sheds, which ones are likely for power development? (Only 2 are mentioned as being "highly unlikely for any power development.") Kodiak-Shelikof Cook Inlet Gulf of Alaska Pages 98-104. Our comments on problems related to fish and wildlife that should be addressed in these areas during the Southcentral Level B Study will be submitted separately. Southeast Pages 104-105. What impact is the pending capitol Getscation to Willow expected to have on water use in the affected areas? 158 NG. REGIONAL VIEWS OF PRESENT AND EMERGING NATIONAL ISSUES Fish and Wildlife Page 114. This one brief paragraph should be revised to acknowledge the international, as well as national and state, importance of these resources and their supportive habitats, including wetlands, which are discussed only in the section on "Wetlands and Water- Divds.., ; Federal - Non-Federal Cost Sharing Page 115. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, its 1976 amendments (Coastal Energy Impact Program, etc.), and the Alaska Coastal Management Program appear to address several of the issues raised in this section. Again (see comments for p. 13-14 and 29 above), we wonder what relationship exists between the efforts of the ACMP and the AWSC to manage land and water uses in the coastal zone. To UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 2221 East Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 129, Anchorage, Alaska 99504 April 28, 1977 Mr. Robert C. Cross Chairman, Alaska Water Study Committee Post Office Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. Cross: As requested, the Soil Conservation Service has reviewed the draft "Summary Report for the Water Assessment", and we hope that our comments will be considered in the final edition. Our comments follow: Page 4, fourth paragraph, 5th line - Delete "and drainage", for the knowledgeable people of agriculture in Alaska suggest that the potential agricultural soils identified by detailed and exploratory soil survey would not require drainage. Page 6, caption - Change to read "The Alaska Water Assessment is a First Look at Present and Potential Water and Related Land Problems in the State. It indicates their severity and their social, economic and environmental implications, and recommends actions for Possible solutions". (additions or changes underscored) Page 13, item 1. after item "c", add the following: "d The identification of natural hazards to be avoided in development (flooding, soil slippage, important geologic features such as fault zones, avalanche zones etc)." "e Determination of the suitability of resources for use, and the limits to be set for alternative uses". "f Identification of fragile or sensitive ecological systems to be protected". Page 18 - Add to concerns: o The relationships of ground water withdrawals on stream flows". 160 O WZ Robert C. Cross Page 2. April 28, 1977 Page 19, under Federal-State-Local Roles, item 1, first line - spelling "rationale"? Page 20 - The discussion of energy omits an important source -- wood and peat, which sould be at least mentioned. The number of fireplaces in urban and rural areas attest to the value of this energy source. Page 29, item 6, first line - Delete "other appropriate agencies" and replace by "Soil Conservation Service or other agencies", as the "Corps" and "SCS" are the primary agencies designated to conduct this type of work. Page 35 - Add recommendations "A study of vegetation and soils to determine possible range grazing and cropping systems compatible to the area." Page 97, item 2 - Last paragraph should be rewritten as: "Past over-grazing of island range lands resulted in some damage to some streams through sedimentation." Page 113 - Alaska's Agricultural Potential, 3rd paragraph - At end of sentence add "and forestry". If elaboration of this section is in order, we prefer our 2nd rewrite on agriculture. This write up represents a consensus view from Agriculture. Sincerely, Sita Weymeth E. Long State Conservationist 161 “a Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission For Alaska June 2, 1977 Mr. Robert Cross Co-Chairman Alaska Water Study Committee P.O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. Cross: Staff of the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission has reviewed the report Alaska Region, Specific Problem Analysis Summary Report. We congratulate you for developing a government study which is extremely readable, relatively easy to follow, and which concentrates on problems rather than inventory and description. The Summary Report appears to pick up most major points. We are listing below others you may want to include. I. II. IIl. A major problem is the identification of navigable waters within the State. On such a determination hinges the ownership of the stream bottom including underlying resources, and the acreage accounting for Native corporations under ANCSA. Another major consideration is the emerging State-Federal relationship when the Federal government controls the lands adjacent to and/or encompassing a navigable water body, but the State owns, and may have different goals for, the submerged lands. Large areas are being considered for d-2 (ANCSA) designation and many rivers for wild or scenic designation. This situation will involve the possible interruption of summer (water) and winter (ice) transportation; the appropriation of water to maintain the flora and fauna on the d-2 reserve, thus limiting upstream withdrawals; and may affect waste discharges which may be added to upstream waters. A current State report, usually referred to as the Trelease Report, points out institutional problems dealing with appropriations and permits. This would appear to be a significant problem within the State. We also wish to note the following. - The Alaska tidal coastline (page 3) is 46,300 miles according to a University of Alaska NOAA study. 162 733 W. FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 On page 15 the reference to "aid" might be expanded to indicate that nearly 100 percent of the total cost of installation and possibly maintenance of water and waste disposal facilities must come from the Federal or State government for most remote villages. "For example, piped water distribution and sewage collection systems cost more to construct but are more convenient and less expensive to operate than haul-type operations." This item on page 16 may be an accurate statement. On the other hand, this may be an item that needs to be researched in light of small populations, Arctic and subarctic conditions, long term maintenance, and the need for local employment. “Uranium and geothermal" resources (page 20) development may be outside this planning period. It is with concern that we note the following comment on page 20. "Much of the remaining Federal land may be designated as (for) single purpose uses such as parks and refuges, thus precluding energy development." This is a rather common error made by the man on the street and perpetuated by those who wish to convert public assets to personal financial gain. Parks provide wildlife and habitat; developed recreation; fishing; business opportunities for hotels, guiding, etc.; wilderness; and opportunites for air and water to be cleansed by natural processes, to name but a few uses. On the other hand, there is nothing more single purpose than a service station or a strip mine. While it is correct that park (multipurpose) use would prohibit energy development, designation as a wildlife refuge does not necessarily preclude energy or other types of development. Actions compatible with the purpose of the reserve may be permitted by the Secretary of Interior. On page 22 is a reference to research and data needs. We would suggest that given the meager supplies of Arctic water and disposal problems that research into recycling water for human use could be valuable. Pages 41-44, State-Regional Future, have several rather exuberant statements. Page 41 states that the population is growing by leaps and bounds and that energy and mineral industries have made the principal contribution. Energy has certainly made significant contributions but the mineral industry cannot be placed in this category. The mineral industry in Alaska is as yet quite marginal. Other statements on page 42, Other Mineral Resources, and in the last paragraph suggest the State will be a major producer of metals during this planning period. This is a higly speculative and controversial point and it should be so stated. In a similar vein is the statement on agriculture which states “significant expansion of agriculture in the period of the assessment." A significant percent increase in Alaska could be very few acres. 163 While there are lands which could potentially produce grain or provide forage for reindeer there are considerable problems, natural and institutional, which must be overcome. A real, rather than a percentage, significant increase during the assessment period is an opinion rather than a fact or even a trend. The final comment on page 42 is the statement under tourism regarding the “abundant fish, foul, and wildlife of the Alaskan wilderness." Alaska has a wide diversity of wildlife, and at times there are concentrations at specific points, i.e. bears on a salmon stream, or caribou migrations. On the other hand, per unit productivity may be low, waterfowl seasonal, and once depleted wildlife recovery may be slow. While possibly a minor point, it is appropriate that we not perpetuate the myth of an unending supply of wildlife in Alaska. Page 44 Land Status states that "30 to 40 percent of natural resources and 80 to 90 percent of the lands adjacent to the major water courses are in Native ownership." Since many of Alaska's natural resources are as yet undiscovered and known resources may not have been aggregated, this figure requires some explanation. A brief map inspection does not appear to support the 80 to 90 percent figure. Section 10 of the Summary Report presents regional information. Juxtaposing these sections raises some questions. For example, scenery is listed as a resource in the Gulf of Alaska and not in the Arctic which has some 600 miles of the Brooks Range. In none of the regions is wilderness ever mentioned as a resource. Tourism is listed as a major sector of the economy for Nome (Norton Sound) but not for Kotzebue (Kotzebue Sound). Some of the areas distinguished between existing and potential resources while others do not. Oil and gas and hydroelectric potential are not mentioned as resources in the Upper Yukon area. Kodiak (population 9,300) lists trade and service industries as a major economic sector, but this is not included in the Tanana area (population 62,400). First presented in the Kotzebue Sound area but repeated in other regions is the statement: "Competitive water and land use by mineral and energy developers and by subsistence and recreation users could restrict economic growth." The intent of this sentence is not clear. Does it mean that minerals and energy should be developed without regard to subsistence or recreation? Probably not. Does it mean that there will be no economic growth without minerals and energy? If so, then it is not a correct statement, for communities larger than Kotzebue have a viable economy based on recreation. Or does the statement mean that there is a limited water supply on which there are or may be multiple and competing demands which will require careful planning and implementation in order to allocate water resources to the best mix of uses to insure a viable economy, a healthy environment, and a life-style compatible with the goals of those who live in the area? 164 These are our major comments. While some are rather lengthy, we offer them only in support of the water assessment program. The water assessment and subsequent reports have and will continue to set an example of what can be accomplished when agencies and private citizens pool their strength in a cooperative effort. Sincerely, MW ablec 8. Carter Walter B. Parker State Co-Chairman 165 99T 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS REGION: ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: Ol AREA (in Acres) 52 MILLION STATE: ALASKA SUBREGION: ARCTIC - Ol CHARACTERISTIC UNIT SRF SRF RATIO SRF RATZO 1975 1985 1985/75 2000 2000/75 Population: 1/ Number High 6,519 9,021 1.38 13,706 2.10 Low 7,131 1.09 8,278 1.27 Total Employment: J1/ High 2,800 4,007 1.43 6,269 2.24 Low 3,062 1.09 3,557 1.27 Earnings: High 1967 $ Low (million) Per Capita Income 1967 $ Electric Energy Production GWH Land Use: Total Land Area Acres 52 52 52 Agricultural (million) Urban Other L 4 4 retest | i/ Population figures from Projected Employment and Population Changes in Selected Regions of Alaska through the Year 2900, State of Alaska, Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise, 1976. S7i71) qa xTpueddy Lot 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS REGION: ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: O1 AREA (in Acres) 43 MILLION —_t STATE: ALASKA SUBREGION: NORTHWEST - 02 Le | 2 = CHARACTERISTIC UNIT SRF SRF RATIO SRF RATIO 1975 1985 1985/75 2000 2000/75 Population: 1/ Number High 11,320 13,420 1.19 35,195 Sa: Low 12,672 1.12 15,164 1.34 Total Employment: i/ High 2,347 3,028 1.29 12,233 5.21 Low 2,696 1.15 3,329 1.42 Earnings: High 1967 $ Low (million) Per Capita Income 1967 $ Electric Energy Production | GWH | t Land Use: Total Land Area Acres 43 43 Agricultural (million) Urban Other i + 4 —L 1/ Population figures from Projected Employment and Population Changes in Selected Regions of Alaska through the Year 2900, State of Alaska, Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise, 1976. B/T/17 89T 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ein, ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: O01 AREA (in Acres) 131 MILLION STATE: ALASKA SUBREGION: YUKON - 03 CHARACTERISTIC UNIT SRF SRF RATIO SRF RATIO 1975 1985 1985/75 2000 2000/75 Population: 1/ Number High 79,299 88,607 1.12 122,146 1.54 Low 89,002 1.12 104,511 1.32 Total Employment: 1/ High 36,600 40,777 1.11 55,045 1.50 Low 40,936 1.12 47,993 13H: Earnings: High 1967 $ Low (million) Per Capita Income 1967 $ Electric Energy Production GWH Land Use: Total Land Area Acres 131 131 131 Agricultural (million) Urban Other —_}___ _t {| 1/ Population figures from Projected Employment and Population Changes in Selected Regions of Alaska through the Year 2900, State of Alaska, Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise, 1976. 3/1/77 69T 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS | pecrow: ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: O1 AREA (in Acres) 70 MILLION J STATE: ALASKA SUBREGION: SOUTHWEST - 04 Pt 7 a ] + CHARACTERISTIC UNIT SRF SRF RATIO SRF RATIO 1975 1985 1985/75 2000 2000/75 Population: J1/ Number High 28,712 48,255 1.68 78,954 2 1). Low 36,681 1.28 45,421 L258 Total Employment: 1/ High 10,323 18,780 1.82 31,997 3.10 Low 13,635 132 17,090 1.66 Earnings: High 1967 $ Low (million) a Per Capita Income 1967 $ Electric Energy Production GWH L Land Use: Total Land Area Acres 70 70 70 Agricultural (million) Urban Other Pu Le ua a ay L a7 Population figures from Projected Emp through the Year 2900, State of Alaska, Economic Enterprise, 1976. loyment and Population Changes in Selected Regi ons of Alaska Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of 3/1/77 OLT State-Regional Future SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS REGION: LASKA - 19 if ASA NO.: Ol AREA (in Acres) 53 MILLION _t 1 STATE: ALASKA SUBREGION: SOUTHCENTRAL - 05 CHARACTERISTIC ia UNIT SRF SRF RATIO SRF RATIO 1975 1985 1985/75 2000 2000/75 Population: J/ Number High 231,787 374,460 1.62 616,805 2.66 Low 244,778 1.06 304,534 ot | Total Employment: l/ High 4 109,728 166,528 1.52 263,360 2.40 Low 116,655 1.06 143,260 Si | aa] Earnings: High 1967 $ Low (million) Per Capita Income 1967 $ Electric Energy Production GWH -- Land Use: Total Land Area Acres 53 53 53 Agricultural (million) Urban Other A —L l/ Population figures from Projected Emplo through the Year 2900, State of Alaska, ne te fear <400 Economic Enterprise, 1976. yment and Population Changes in Selected Regions of Alaska Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of 3/1777 ALT 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ~; REGION: ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: Ol AREA (in Acres) 27 MILLION — STATE: ALASKA SUBREGION: SOUTHEAST - 06 Tr re 7 CHARACTERISTIC UNIT SRF SRF RATIO SRF RATIO 1975 1985 1985/75 2000 2000/75 Population: 1/ Number High 50,942 72,477 1.42 125:,077 2.46 Low 64,201 L326 85,037 Le7 Total Employment: J1/ High 23,722 33,394 1.41 56,959 2.40 Low 29,714 20 39,163 1.65 Earnings: High 1967 $ Low (million) Per Capita Income 1967 $ Electric Energy Production GWH Land Use: Total Land Area Acres 27 27 27 Agricultural (million) Urban Other i Ce iid 1 | Economic Enterprise, 1976. a7 Population figures from Projected Employment a through the Year 2900, State of Alaska, Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development, nd Population Changes in Selected Regions of Alaska Division of 3fA/T1 elt State-Regional Future VOLUMETRIC REQUIREMENTS (withdrawals) (Million gallons per day) alee REGION: ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: O01 AREA: (in acres) 52 MILLION SOURCE: Brésh | jee STATE: ALASKA SUBREGION: ARCTIC - 01 Saline [_) — T — FUNCTIONAL USE SRF SRF RATIO SRF RATIO 1975 1985 1985/75 2000 2000/75 Domestic, Commercial and Institutional, Total l/ 59 -81-.64 1.37-1.08 1.2-.75 2.08-1.27 Manufacturing, Total Sea Food Petrochemical Wood pulp Minerals, Total - 40 10-5.2 25.00-13.00 29-5.2 72.50-13.00 Metals Non-Metals (Sand and Gravel) Fuels (Oil and Gas) -40 10-5.2 25.00-13.00 29-5.2 72.50-13.00 (Coal) | Irrigation, Total Crops Other Livestock Steam Electric Public Lands 2/ \ Other Lands: Fish Hatcheries Total -99 11-5.8 11.11-5.86 30-6 30.30-6.06 ia oi HI 1/ On the basis of 90 gallons/day per capita. 2/ Withdrawal for public lands minimal ana unquantified. 3/1/77 I yvtnraddAuw ELT 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future VOLUMETRIC REQUIREMENTS (withdrawals) (Million gallons per day) REGION: ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: ol AREA: (in acres) 43 MILLION —_— STATE: ALASKA SUBREGION: NORTHWEST - 02 SOURCE: Fresh Saline Exes} [ee) FUNCTIONAL USE SRF 1975 SRF 1985 RATIO 1985/75 SRF 2000 r RATIO 2000/75 Domestic, Commercial and Institutional, Total 1/ 57 -67-.63 1.18-1.11 1.8-.76 3.16-1.33 Manufacturing, Total Sea Food Petrochemical Wood pulp Minerals, Total Metals Non-Metals (Sand and Gravel) Fuels (Oil and Gas) (Coal) 17 17 26-31 26 0-4.8 1.53-1.82 1.53 - 83-54 54 29-0 4.88-3.18 3.18 Irrigation, Total Crops Other Livestock Steam Electric Public Lands 2/ -06 -10 1.67 -07 Teel? Other Lands: Fish Hatcheries Total 18 27-32 1.50-1.78 85-55 4.72-3.05 1/ On the basis of 50 gallons/day per capita. 2/ Withdrawal for public lands minimal and unquantified. ALL DLT 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future VOLUMETRIC REQUIREMENTS (withdrawals) (Million gallons per day) nei REGION: ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: O1 AREA: (in acres) 131 MILLION | source: a es — Fresh x STATE: ALASKA SUBREGION: YUKON - 03 | Saline [_J FUNCTIONAL USE SRF SRF RATIO SRF RATIO 1975 1985 1985/75 2900 2000/75 Domestic, Commercial and Institutional, Total 1/ 8.7 9.8-9.8 1.13 13-12 1.49-1.38 Manufacturing, Total Sea Food Petrochemical Wood pulp Minerals, Total 30 35 1.16 77-67 2.57-2.23 Metals 21 21 1.00 46 2.19 Non-Metals (Sand and Gravel) 9 14 1.56 21 2.33 Fuels (Oil and Gas) 9.6-0 (Coal) 27 27 1.00 27 1.00 Irrigation, Total 3 56 18.67 223 74.33 Crops 3 56 18.67 223 74.33 Other Livestock -02 -71 35.50 2.6 130.00 Steam Electric 27 27 1.00 53 1.96 Public Lands 2/ Other Lands: Fish Hatcheries E T>tal 69 129 1.87 369-358 5.35-5.19 1/ On the basis of 110 gallons/day per capita. 2/ Withdrawal for public lands minimal and unquantified. 3/1/77 SLT 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future VOLUMETRIC REQUIREMENTS (withdrawals) (Million gallons per day) =| REGION: ALASKA - 19 ASA_NO.: O01 | AREA: (in acres) 70 MILLION | source: Fresh [eat STATE: ALASKA SUBREGION: SOUTHWEST - 04 Saline [ ) —t T rE FUNCTIONAL USE SRF SRF RATIO SRF RATIO 1975 1985 1985/75 2000 2000/75 Domestic, Commercial and Institutional, Total J/ 1.1 1.8-1.4 1.64-1.27 2.9-1.7 2.64-1.55 Manufacturing, Total -51 8.8-8.3 17. 25-16.27 23-13 45.09-25.49 Sea Food 51 2.8-2.3 5.49-4.50 11-7 21.57-13.73 Petrochemical 6 12-6 Wood pulp ——_F Minerals, Total 4.8 39-43 8.13-8.96 35-30 7.29-6.25 Metals 4.6 29 6.30° 29 6.30 Non-Metals (Sand and Gravel) +23 235 1.52 153 2.30 Fuels (Oil and Gas) 10-14 5-0 (Coal) | — Irrigation, Total il 44 Crops il 44 Other - Pcpeeran .10 .18 1.80 63 6.30 Steam Electric Public Lands 2/ . aa Other Lands: Fish Hatcheries 248 20 41.67 33 68.75 Total 6.9 81-84 11.74-12.17 139-122 20.14-17.68 ee Sees he SEs iG 1/ On the basis of 37 gallons/day per capita. 2/ Withdrawal for public lands minimal and unquantified. OLT State-Regional Future VOLUMETRIC REQUIREMENTS (withdrawals) (Million gallons per day) REGION: ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: O1 [ AREA: (in acres) 55 MILLION SOURCE: Fresh. [22x95 STATE: ALASKA SUBREGION: SOUTHCENTRAL - 05 Saline [D_J FUNCTIONAL USE SRF SRF RATIO SRF RATIO 1975 1985 1985/75 2000 2000/75 Domestic, Commercial and Institutional, Total 1/ 42 67-44 1.60-1.04 111-55 2.64-1.31 Manufacturing, Total 5.9 34-17 5.76-2.88 41-28 6.95-4.75 Sea Food 3.3 4.8-4.4 1.45-1.33 10-7.4 3.03-2.24 Petrochemical 2.6 29-13 11.15-5.00 31-21 11.92-8.08 Wood pulp Minerals, Total 7.5 71-62 9.47-8.27 40-35 5.33-4.67 Metals 5.9 30 5.08 31 5.25 Non-Metals (Sand and Gravel) 1.6 2.5 1.56 3.8 2.38 Fuels (Oil and Gas) 38-29 5-0 (Coal) Irrigation, Total 2.2 8.4 3.82 33 15.00 Crops 2.2 8.4 3.82 33 15.00 Other Livestock -08 ~22 2.75 -64 8.00 Steam Electric 7 14 2.00 28 4.00 Public Lands 2/ Other Lands: Fish Hatcheries 68 81 1.19 94 1.38 | Total 133 276-227 2.08-1.71 348-274 2.62-2.06 1/ On the basis of 180 gallons/day per capita. 2/ Withdrawal for public lands minimal and unquantified. 3/1/77 LLT 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future VOLUMETRIC REQUIREMENTS (withdrawals) (Million gallons per day) [ sscrow. ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: O1 ] area: (in acres) 27 MILLION | source: Fresh Ee. S3 STATE: ALASKA SUBREGION: SOUTHEAST - 06 | Saline > ius} T ree ry ca FUNCTIONAL USE SRF SRF RATIO SRF RATIO 1975 1985 1985/75 2000 2000/75 Domestic, Commercial and Institutional, Total 1/ 19 27-24 1.42-1.26 46-31 2.42-1.63 Manufacturing, Total 81 82-82 1.01-1.01 85-84 1.05-1.04 Sea Food 13) 2-2 1.54-1.54 5-4 3.85-3.08 Petrochemical Wood pulp 80 80 1.00 80 1.00 Minerals, Total 2 49 233.33 98 466.67 Metals -17 49 288.23 98 576.47 Non-Metals (Sand and Gravel) -04 -07 1.75 -07 oe Fuels (Oil and Gas) (Coal) Irrigation, Total Crops Other IL Livestock 02 02 1.00 -07 3.50 Steam Electric Public Lands 2/ e = Other Lands: Fish Hatcheries l7 31 1.82 44 2.59 | Total 117 189-186 1.62-1.59 273-257 2.33-2.20 ae Jos. 1/ On the basis of 370 gallons/day per capita. 2/ Withdrawal for public lands minimal and unquantified. 3/1/77 8LT 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future VOLUMETRIC REQUIREMENTS (consumptive use) (Million gallons per day - Rounded to two significant figures) REGION: ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: Ol AREA: (in acres) 52 MILLION SOURCE: — Fresh STATE: ALASKA SUBREGION: ARCTIC - O1 Saline (ea FUNCTIONAL USE SRF SRF RATIO SRF RATIO 1975 1985 1985/75 2000 2000/75 Domestic, Commercial and Institutional, Total Manufacturing, Total Fuels (Oil and Gas) (Coal) Non-Metals (Sand and Gravel) Sea Food Petrochemical Wood pulp ey Minerals, Total - & Metals Ww ph {a Irrigation, Total Crops Other Livestock Steam Electric Public Lands WO oe Other Lands: Fish Hatcheries a Total 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future VOLUMETRIC REQUIREMENTS (consumptive use) (Million gallons per day - Rounded to two significant figures) REGION: ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: O1 | AREA: (in acres) 43 MILLION STATE: ALASKA SUBREGION: NORTHWEST - 02 SOURCE: Fresh Saline Teed ea FUNCTIONAL USE SRF 1975 SRF 1985 RATIO 1985/75 ——} SRF 2000 ———— RATIO 2000/75 6LT Domestic, Commercial and Institutional, Total | Manufacturing, Total Sea Food Petrochemical Wood pulp Minerals, Total Metals Non-Metals (Sand and Gravel) Fuels (Oil and Gas) (Coal) + L Irrigation, Total Crops Other slidab Livestock Steam Electric Public Lands 1/ <0 aa -08 1.60 +06 1.20 eas Other Lands: Fish Hatcheries Total 05 St 08 1.60 06 1.20 1/ Withdrawal for public lands minimal & unquantified. O8sT 27/9 WALA MoS State-Regional Future VOLUMETRIC REQUIREMENTS (consumptive use) (Million gallons per day - Rounded to two significant figures) REGION: ALASKA - 19 STATE: ALASKA | ASA NO.: Ol et AREA: (in acres) 131 MILLION SUBREGION: YUKON - 03 SOURCE: Fresh CX_] Saline = [ess] FUNCTIONAL USE SRF 1975 SRF 1985 RATIO 1985/75 SRF 2000 RATIO 2000/75 Domestic, Commercial and Institutional, Total Manufacturing, Total Sea Food Petrochemical Wood pulp Minerals, Total Metals Non-Metals (Sand and Gravel) Fuels (Oil and Gas) (Coal) Irrigation, Total Crops Other BPR uu 28 28 18.67 118 118 78.67 Livestock Steam Electric Public Lands l/ -02 200. 29.50 2. 2 11.00 Other Lands: Fish Hatcheries Total 1.5 29 19533 120 8.00 1/ Withdrawal for public lands minimal & unquantified. 3/1/77 TST 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future VOLUMETRIC REQUIREMENTS (consumptive use) (Million gallons per day - Rounded to two significant figures) REGION: ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: ol AREA: (in acres) 70 MILLION STATE: ALASKA j— SUBREGION: SOUTHWEST - 04 SOURCE: [eaga [eel Fresh Saline FUNCTIONAL USE Domestic, Commercial and Institutional, Total SRF 1975 Joe. SRF 1985 RATIO 1985/75 ho SRF 2000 RATIO 2000/75 Manufacturing, Total Sea Food Petrochemical Wood pulp Minerals, Total Metals Non-Metals (Sand and Gravel) Fuels (Oil and Gas) (Coal) Irrigation, Total Crops Other Livestock Steam Electric Public Lands 1/ Other Lands: Fish Hatcheries aaa Total -08 -08 ano ° BR 24 24 6.3 1/ Withdrawal for public lands minimal & unquantified. 1.88 soo 6.63 78.75 25 312.50 SALSA! z8T 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future VOLUMETRIC REQUIREMENTS (consumptive use) (Million gallons per day - Rounded to two significant figures) [ pecron: ALASKA - 19 ASA NO.: Ol AREA: (in acres) 53 MILLION SOURCE : STATE: ALASKA SUBREGION: SOUTHCENTRAL - 05 - FUNCTIONAL USE SRF 1985 = 1975 RATIO 1985/75 of SRF 2000 RATIO 2000/75 Domestic, Commercial and Institutional, Total Manufacturing, Total Sea Food Petrochemical Wood pulp Minerals, Total Metals Non-Metals (Sand and Gravel) Fuels (Oil and Gas) (Coal) Irrigation, Total Crops Other NN > uw 3.75 18 18 15.00 Livestock Steam Electric Public Lands 1/ -06 21 3.50 -53 8.83 Other Lands: Fish Hatcheries Total Le3 4.7 3.62 19 14.62 1/ Withdrawal for public lands minimal & unquantified. B/VZTZ. €8T 1975 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT State-Regional Future VOLUMETRIC REQUIREMENTS (consumptive use) (Million gallons per day - Rounded to two significant figures) ALASKA - 19 REGION: AREA: (in acres) STATE: ALASKA SUBREGION: SOUTHEAST - 06 27 MILLION |SOURCE: Fresh Saline [exe] RATIO 1985/75 FUNCTIONAL USE Domestic, Commercial and Institutional, Total SRF RATIO 2000/75 Manufacturing, Total Sea Food Petrochemical Wood pulp Minerals, Total Metals Non-Metals (Sand and Gravel) Fuels (Oil and Gas) (Coal) Irrigation, Total Crops Other -O1 -21 Livestock Steam Electric Public Lands l/ Other Lands: Fish Hatcheries Kt Total 1/ Withdrawal for public lands minimal & unquantified. 93. Appendix G ISSUE PAPERS This section of the Appendix contains the papers submitted to the Alaska Water Study Committee in response to the Committee's request for "Regional Views of Present and Emerging National Issues." Due to the bulk of the papers, they have been printed under separate cover. The papers, as well as other information acquired during the assessment, were used by the Committee and Study Team as a basis for developing the views presented in Chapter VI. Comments received on the papers are also included. PAPER AGENCY Flooding Corps of Engineers - Anchorage Inland Navigation Corps of Engineers - Anchorage Agricultural Potential Soil Conservation Service - Anchorage Federal - Non-Federal Cost Soil Conservation Service - Sharing Benefits Anchorage Outdoor Recreation Bureau of Outdoor Recreation - Seattle Energy Alaska Power Administration - Juneau Fish and Wildlife Fish and Wildlife Service - Anchorage Wetlands and Waterbirds Fish and Wildlife Service - Anchorage Water Quality Environmental Protection Agency - Anchorage 184