HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA199WILLOW SUB-BASIN
AREA PLAN
A Land Use Plan For Public Lands
October 1982
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
M.atanuska -Susitna Borough
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
with the assistance of
Soil Conservation Service,
United States Department of Agriculture
DEPARTMENT Ole' NATURAl~ Kt:SOURCES
DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
The Commissioner finds that the
Willow Sub-basin Land Use Plan
JAY .t HAMII0/10, &OV£111011
323 E. 4TH A VENUE
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
PHONE: (907) 279-5577
meets the requirements of AS 38.04.065 and 11 AAC 55.010-.030 for
Area Land Use Plans and does hereby adopt it as policy of the
Department of Natural Resources for state lands within the plan-
ning area.
Sept 2.8, 1982
Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
1
..,
..,
l
..,
..,
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
RESOLUTION SERIAL NO. 82-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
ADOPTING THE LAND USE PLAN FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN THE WILLOW
SUB-BASIN AND CHANGES THERETO
WHEREAS, the Land Use Plan for Public Lands in the Willow
Sub-Basin addresses important r esource management concerns of
mutual interest to the Borough and State; and
WHEREAS, this plan has been developed through interaction
of several interested State a g encies, Borough staff, private
interest groups, general public input and public review and
hearings and represents a balance of all interests involved;
and
WHEREAS, the Borough Planning Commission has reviewed and
recommended that the plan be approved; and
WHEREAS, certain changes and an amendment procedure to
the draft plan of October 198 1 have been recommended by the
Department of Natural Resources in a letter from Commissioner
Katz dated February 1, 1982 with concurrence by the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, this plan shou ld be incorporated into the
Borough's current Comprehensive Development Planning program;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Assembly of the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough adopts the Land Use Plan for Public
Lands in the Willow Sub-Basin (draft of October 1981) along
with changes and amendmen·t procedure recommended in
Commissioner of Natural Resource's letter of February 1, 1982
and subject to the provision that all Borough land with Class
II and III soils in the Susitna Corridor be designated as
agricultural land; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, i:hat the Assembly directs that
the plan be incorporated wit.h.in the Borough's Comprehensive
Planning program.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the Assembly of the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough this 24th day of February, 1982.
ATTEST: REVIEWED AND
c; ~ ~~ 2/ IEVeiYilhompson;ctk anager
(Seal)
PLANNING TEP..M
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES:
Bill Beaty (Section Chief) •........•••
Randy Cowart (Project Manager)
Division of Research & Development
Land & Resource Planning Section
(Lead Agency) Bob Loeffler, Chris Beck,
Marjorie Willits, Liz
Baron, Peggy McNees
Ron Crenshaw, Kate Troll
Jim Eason, Laurel Murphy
Division of Parks
Division of Minerals & Energy
Management
Carlos Lozano .•...................•.••.•• Division of Agriculture
Marilyn Morris ....................... " .. .. Division of Land & Water
Management
Joe Wehrman ............•••.•.•.••.•.. " .... Division of Forestry
Dimitri Bader, Jack Didrickson, .•...•. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Larry Engels
Jay Bergstrand DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Rodney Schulling .••........•.•••..•.•. MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
Sterling Powell ......................... U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Soil Conservation Service
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES:
Elaine Thomas, Pat Kerschner •..••.•..•••.• Graphics
Carol Larsen .•............••...••......•. Public Information
Alaska Department of
Natural Resources
Division of Research
and Development
Pouch 7-005
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, Alaska
99510
Alaska Department of
Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska
99502
Matanuska-Susitna
Borough
P.O. Box B
Palmer, Alaska
99645
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Department of Natural Resources and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
wish to thank the following organizations and local governments for
their participation in the Willow Sub-basin planning effort. During
1980-1981 staff from the Department of Natural Resources met at least
once with each of these groups. These meetings provided essential
information to the Willow Sub-basin Planning Team. The Matanuska-
Susitna Borough Trails Committee and other organizations are to be
especially commended for their efforts at mapping their recommendations.
Alaska Air Guides
Alaska Center for the Environment
Alaska Miners Association
Alaska Power Authority
Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory
Board (included representatives
of various outdoor groups)
Anchorage Motor Mushers
Audubon Society
City of Houston
City of Wasilla
Palmer Fish and Game Advisory Board
Iditarod Trail Committee
Independent Logge~s Association
National Audubon Society
Sierra Club
Alaska Center for the Environment
Palmer and Wasilla Agricultural
Conservation Subdistricts
Knik Kampers and Kayakers
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Trails Committee
Mat-Valley Sportsmen
Moutaineering Club of Alaska
Overall Economic Development
Program (OEDP)
Toskosha Citizens Council
Wasilla Chamber of Commerce
This land use plan is based on data and analysis produced through the
Susitna River Basin Cooperative Study -a three year effort on the part
of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, and the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game. Special acknowledgement is due Sterling Powell and the River
Basin Study Team of the USDA Soil Conservation Service, lead agency in
the study.
iii
Planning Team . .
Acknowledgements
Table of Maps . .
List of Acronyms
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER II LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ON PUBLIC LAND
CHAPTER III GOALS, POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Agriculture
Recreation . . .
Forestry ....
Fish and Wildlife
Settlement . . . .
Subsurface Resources
Transportation .
Wetlands . . . .
River and Stream Corridors
Trails ....
Public Access
CHAPTER IV LAND USE DESIGNATIONS BY MANAGEMENT UNIT
Management Units of Predominant State and Borough Ownership.
Fish Creek
Susitna Corridor
Kashwitna ..
Iron Creek
Little Willow Creek Corridor
Susitna Floodplain
Ronald Lake . . . .
Little Susitna Corridor
Pear Lake . . . . . . .
Management Units of Predominant State Ownership
Hatcher Pass
Moose Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Management Units of Predominant Private and Borough Ownership.
Houston .
Fishhook
Wasilla .
Knik
Point MacKenzie
Rogers Creek
Willow Creek Corridor
Willow
Moraine Ridge . . .
Legislatively Designated Management Units
i
iii
vii
viii
1
15
37
41
53
59
67
73
79
89
97
103
109
113
117
123
125
135
147
155
163
171
179
187
199
207
209
217
223
225
231
237
245
251
257
263
269
275
281
v
vi
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
MANAGEMENT RECmtMENDATIONS FOR LANDS
ADJACENT TO TEE GEORGE PARKS HIGHWAY
BACKGROUND RESOURCE INFORMATION . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Forestry . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fish and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Settlement . .
Subsurface . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX 3
APPENDIX 4
CLASSIFICATION OF STATE LAND IN THE WILLOW
SUB-BASIN ............... .
MODIFICATIONS OF AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE PLAN
AS IT AFFECTS STATE LANDS . . . . . . . . .
1-1
2-1
2-4
2-14
2-22
2-33
2-41
2-54
2-64
3-1
4-1
TABLE OF MAPS
Map 1 -Location of the Willow Sub-basin
Map 2 -Generalized Land Ownership .
Map 3 -Land Management Units . .
Map 4 -Designated Primary and Secondary Land Uses
Map 5 -Existing and Proposed Transportation Routes in the
Willow Sub-basin . . . . . . . . . . .
Map 6 -Management Units Index . . . . . . . . . . . .
Map 7 -Important Agricultural Lands in the Willow Sub-basin
Map 8 -State and Borough Land Designated for Agriculture
Map 9 -Important Recreation Areas in the Willow Sub-basin
Map 10 -Forestry Areas in the Willow Sub-basin . . .
Map 11 -State and Borough Land Designated for Forestry
Map 12 -Important Fish and Wildlife Areas in the Willow
Sub-basin . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Map 13 -State and Borough Land Designated for Use and
Protection of Fish and Wildlife . .
Map 14 -Residential Land Use Capability in the Willow
Sub-basin ................ .
Map 15 -State and Borough Land Designated for Settlement
Map 16 -Coal and Mineral Areas in the Willow Sub-basin
Map 17 -Oil and Gas Areas in the Willow Sub-basin
Chapter IV -Both land status (ownership) and land use
designation maps are presented in Chapter
IV for each of the 25 land management units.
These maps, which are not numbered, follow
each respective management unit description.
. 4
• 5
. 19
. 21
. 29
121
2-9
2-11
2-19
2-27
2-31
. 2-35
. 2-39
. 2-45
. 2-51
. 2-57
. 2-59
"ii
viii
ADF&G
DEC
DL&WM
DGGS
DMEM
DNR
DOT/PF
GOP
MLUP
RMP
scs
USDA
USGS
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(DNR) Division of Land and Water Management
(DNR) Division of Geological and Geophysical
Surveys
(DNR) Division of Minerals and Energy Management
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Alaska Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities
Graz i ng Operations Plan
Miscellaneous Land Use Permit
Range Management Plan
(USDA) Soil Conservation Service
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Geological Survey
J
J
l Chapter 1
l INTRODUCTION
l
l
l
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
INTRODUCTION
THE STUDY AREA
This document is a land use plan for state and certain borough lands in
the southcentral portion of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The plan
addresses these public lands in an area of about one million acres known
as the Willow Sub-basin, a hydrologic sub-basin of the Susitna River
Basin (Map 1). The northern border of the sub-basin is the Kashwitna
River drainage, the western border the Susitna River, the southern
border Cook Inlet, and the eastern border the drainage divide between
the Matanuska and Susitna Rivers.
The sub-basin generally slopes to the southwest from the rugged
Talkeetna Mountains to low, undulating country, with many lakes and
muskeg among wooded hills. Drainages in the sub-basin are the Little
Susitna River and Goose, Fish, Lucille, Wasilla, Cottonwood, Willow, and
Little Willow Creeks. Familiar landmarks are Hatcher Pass, Big Lake,
Pt. MacKenzie, the Susitna Game Flats, and the communities of Wasilla,
Houston, and Willow on the George Parks Highway. The sub-basin also
contains the proposed capital site.
The State of Alaska owns approximately 65% (619,740 acres) of the Willow
Sub-basin, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough 14% (135,830 acres), and pri-
vate landowners 20% (193,730 acres). Of the private land, 13,300 acres
are owned by native regional and village corporations. (See Map 2,
Generalized Land Ownership.) The public lands include high potential
agricultural and timber lands, mining areas in the Talkeetna Mountains,
and important recreation resources, including several anadramous fish
streams and some of the state's best hunting. This plan is intended to
insure that these public resources provide maximum benefit to the people
of the state.
THE ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT
This plan designates the uses that are to occur on much of the public
land within the Willow Sub-basin; it shows areas to be sold for private
use and areas to be retained in public ownership. (The plan does not
control uses on private land.) Since more than one use is permitted on
most public lands, the plan also establishes rules which allow various
uses to occur without serious conflicts. For example, in an area in-
tended for agricultural use, the plan explains how public access to
streams and trails is to be maintained and how important wetlands are to
be protected from pollution.
3
4
MAPl
Location of the
WILLOW
SUBBASIN
scale: 1: 1,000,000
Generalized Land Ownership
5
.MAP2
Generalized Lan Ownership
II!
D
~
State-619,740 ac. (65%)
• within legislative designated areas-232,890 ac.
• other state land-386,850 ac.
University-6,270 ac. (1 %)
Private/Federal-193, 730 ac. (20%)
(includes approximately 13,300 acres of land held by
native regional and village corporations)
Borough -135,830 ac. (14%)
Total land in the Willow Subbasin-
970,0()0 acres
(includes lakes and land in miscellaneous ownership
categories)
~
scale: 1: 332,000
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
..,
..,
...
"'\
i
..,
i
To present this information, the plan is organized into four chapters.
Chapter I is the Introduction. Besides this brief overview, the Intro-
duction explains why a land use plan i s necessary for public lands in
the Willow Sub-basin, and why this is a joint borough and state plan.
The Introduction also contains a review of the planning process that has
led to this document and a preview of how the plan will be implemented.
Chapter II presents land use designations on borough and state lands in
the Willow Sub-basin. The chapter a l so discusses the practical effect
of these land use designations and exp lains their relationship to the
Department of Natural Resources' Sta t e-wide Planning Program. Through
the State-wide Plan the Department has developed goals and land use
designations on a general scale for all state-owned lands.
Chapter III contains goals, policies, and management guidelines for each
of the major resources or land use categories for which public lands
will be managed or sold; e.g., forestry, agriculture, mining, settle-
ment, etc. (Resource summaries for each of these categories are pre-
sented in Appendix 2.) Chapter III also contains policies and manage-
ment guidelines for the followi ng environmental conditions and land
uses: wetlands, river and stream cor r idors, trails, and public access.
The policies and management guidelines presented in Chapter III will
control the day-to-day land management decisions affecting public lands
in the sub-basin.
Chapter IV applies the land use designations presented in Chapter II and
the policies and management guidelines presented in Chapter III to each
of 25 "management units" in the Willow Sub-basin. (A management unit is
an area that is generally homogeneous with respect to resources, topog-
raphy, and land ownership.) For most of the management units, the
following are presented: a statement of management intent, a list of
designated land uses, and a set of management guidelines. The desig-
nated land uses are shown at the detailed scale of 1 inch to 1 mile.
Units with very little public land are addressed by a statement of
management intent and a set of recommended land uses.
Chapter IV is followed by four appendices. Appendix 1 presents
recommendations from the report "Scenic Resources Along the Parks
Highway" (Alaska Department of Natura l Resources, 1980). These recom-
mendations are designed to protect the views seen from the highway.
Management of public lands along the highway will be consistent with the
recommendations presented in Appendix 1. Appendix 2 presents basic
information about the land and resour ces in the sub-b asin. Lands with
high value for agricultural development, settlement, recreation, mining,
and other important resources are mapped and described. The land use
designations established in this plan are based, to a great extent, on
the information presented in Appendix 2. Appendix 3 presents formal
state land classifications which implement the land uses designated in
this plan. These land classifications comprise the official record of
the primary uses for which state land will be managed. Appendix 4
presents procedures for making modifications of and exceptions to the
plan as it affects state lands .
7
8
WHY PLAN FOR THE USE OF PUBLIC LAND?
Through the management of public lands, the state and borough greatly
influence the physical development patterns and the general quality of
life in the Susitna Basin. Major development projects such as mining,
timber harvests, or agriculture influence local job opportunities. Land
retained for public hunting and fishing and land made available for
housing clearly affect the character of community life. Because the use
of public land so powerfully affects both the physical landscape and the
quality of life, it is essential that there be an open public process of
deciding how to manage that land.
Providing an open, public process for making land use decisions is a
primary objective of the Willow Sub-basin land use planning program.
The plan is a means of openly reviewing available resource information
and public concerns prior to making long-range decisions about land
management. It is also a means of considering and resolving conflicting
land use objectives and making clear to the public what decisions have
been made and why they have been made.
In addition to major land use decisions such as agricultural development
projects or mineral leases, land managers face many day-to-day decisions
about land use, such as whether to issue permits to build roads, cut
timber, or extract sand and gravel. People who make both the major
development project decisions and the day-to-day decisions need clear
and consistent guidelines. Therefore, it is essential for land managers
to have a written document which establishes long-range commitments for
the use of public land and ·which provides clear policies for the
management of those lands.
This document, or land use plan, is also valuable for private land-
owners. If the state and borough are publicly committed to a land use
pattern and land management policies, private investors can feel more
secure in making decisions about their own land. For example, if some-
one is contemplating developing a subdivision adjacent to state land, it
is important to know whether that state land is apt to become a gravel
pit or a recreation area.
THE PURPOSE OF A JOINT BOROUGH-STATE PLAN
A land use pattern which meets both local and statewide objectives is
fundamentally dependent on cooperative borough and state planning. Many
of the important resource lands in the sub-basin are in mixed
borough-state ownership. These lands can be developed most productively
through projects which entail joint land use commitments, joint planning
for roads and other infrastructure, coordinated disposals/lease sched-
ules, and the like. For example, a major agricultural development
project proposed by this plan is entirely dependent on these joint
commitments.
..,
"'I
.,
.,
.,
Many of the benefits of joint planning are as obvious as they are criti-
cal to rational land management. For example, this document proposes
parts of the Little Susitna River as a wilderness/recreation corridor.
It would make little sense for the borough fo pursue that intent by
restricting use on one side of the river if the state were selling land
for houses on the opposite bank. In another area where the state allo-
cates land for grazing, the feasible farm headquarter sites for the
grazing land are on borough land -t his plan accordingly designates the
borough land for farm use. In short, because what the state does with
its lands affects the borough and vice versa, cooperative planning is
essential.
Land disposals in particular require borough and state cooperation. If
state land disposals are based on demand, as now mandated by the state
legislature, the borough and state should agree wha t the demand is and
which public lands -borough or state -best meet that demand. Not only
the amount of land sold, but also its location r equire cooperative
planning. The pattern of land disposals dramatically affects service
costs, community character, feasib i lity of providing access, and the
ability to manage adjacent lands for other purposes, such as mining or
forestry. These are important matters that should be dealt with
coherently and consistently by major public land owners. In light of
these considerations, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, and the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game are jointly planning for the use of public lands in the Wiliow
Sub-basin.
THE PLANNING PROCESS
The diagram on the following page illustrates the planning process that
led to the Willow Sub-basin Plan. In 1977 the United States Department
of Agriculture and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources began the
Susitna River Basin Study, a cooperative data inventory effort which
produced much of the resource information used to develop this plan .
Data about soils, vegetation, hydrology, geologic hazards, recreation
potential, and other resources were compiled and analyzed. (Most of
this information is available in a report on the Willow Sub-basin pub-
lished by the Soil Conservation Service in Anchorage). In late summer
1980, an interagency planning team was formed to develop a plan for
state lands in the sub-bas i n. Team members included representatives
from the various divisions within the Department of Natural Resources,
the Department of Fish and Game, the Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and the U. S.
Department of Agriculture. Because of the necessity for cooperative
planning discussed above, the planning team studied both borough and
state lands. As indicated in the diagram, the planning team prepared
maps showing resource values, held public workshops to discuss resources
and appropriate land uses -t hen prepared a draft plan. The final plan
was prepared after intensive public and agency review of the draft.
9
10
THE PLANNING PROCESS
AN INTERAGENCY PLANNING TEAM
IS FORMED. STATE AND BOROUGH
TEAM MEMBERS REPRESENT EACH
OF THE IMPORTANT RESOURCES IN
THE AREA: E'ORESTRY, AGRICUL-
TURE, MINERALS AND ENERGY,
SETTLEMENT, RECREATION, AND
FISH AND WILDLIFE .
THE TEAM IDENTIFIES OBJEC-
TIVES AND MAPS THE LAND NEC-
ESSARY TO MEET THESE OBJEC-
TIVES FOR EACH RESOURCE.
~ ~ LlnJs ~ Land~ ~ ...
RESOURCE MAPS ARE COMPARED TO
IDENTIFY COMPATIBLE USES AND
CONFLICTS. AFTER PUBLIC MEET-
INGS THE PLANNING TEAM PRE-
PARES A DRAFT PLAN FOR PUBLIC
AND AGENCY REVIEW.
AFTER PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEC-
ESSARY MODIFICATIONS, THE COM-
MISSIONER OJ<' THE DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE BOR-
OUGH ASSEMBLY APPROVE THE FI-
NAL PLAN WHICH GUIDES PUBLIC
LAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS IN
THE WILLOW SUB-BASIN.
~
I.
I.
I.
~
I..
The public participation program received special emphasis. The Depart-
ment of Natural Resources (DNR) began a public participation program for
Willow Sub-basin Plan early in 1980. In April and May of that year DNR
held meetings in Willow and Palmer (2 meetings in each place) to present
results of the data inventory effort and to discuss appropriate uses of
state lands. The completion date and intended products of the plim were
announced at these meetings·.
In the year following the meetings, members of the planning team met
with many special interest groups to inform them of the plan's schedule
and to provide them an opportunity to review resource data. (See the
list of interest groups on page iii.) The Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Trails Committee and other organizat.ions made especially commendable
efforts at mapping their recommendations.
In early spring 1981, the planning team circulated a questionnaire
through three newspapers: the Frontiersman, the Anchorage Daily News,
and the Anchorage Times. The questionnaire requested readers to rank
the importance of various goals for the use of state land and asked them
detailed questions about how specific resources should be managed. Over
400 people responded.
In April 1981, the planning team held four publi<; workshops -two in
Anchorage and two in Wasilla. Participant.s discussed goals for the use
of state land, reviewed resource information, and mapped their recom-
mendations for land uses. As expected, the maps recommended by people
at the Anchorage workshops differed from those of the Wasilla workshop.
The people in Anchorage were most concerned with using the recreation
resources of the basin both for personal enjoyment and to stimulate the
economy. The people at the Wasilla workshop were more interested in
economic development -especially through agriculture and forestry.
After studying the questionnaire results and the maps from the public
workshops and reviewing available resource information, the planning
team prepared a draft plan which presented a set of recommended land
uses, land management policies, and guidelines. The draft plan was a
compromise among competing interests. liowever, it included much of what
each of the two public workshop groups wanted. As will be clear to
those who attended the workshops and the numerous public meetings, the
public has had a major hand in developing this plan.
CHANGES IN THE DRAFT PLAN
The draft plan was circulated for pub1ic review in October 1981. The
borough and state held public hearings in November, 1982 in Palmer and
Anchorage, and again in February 1982 in Palmer. As a result of public
and agency comment there were a number of changes in the draft plan. The
major changes are highlighted below:
11
12
1. Additional Land fo_~-Agric~_ltur~
Approximately 3,500 additional acres of borough land
between the Nancy Lakes State Recreation Area and
the Susi tna River are now designated for agricul-
tural use. This land was designated for forestry
management by the draft plan.
2. Eminent Domain
The draft plan indicated that the state may purchase
land adjacent to the Little Susitna River for public
access to the river. The final plan specifies that
the state will not use the power of eminent domain
in such cases but '\\rill only purchase small parcels
for river access from willing sellers.
3. Closure of Game Refuges to Coal Propecting and
Development
The draft states that the Susitna Game Flats, the
Palmer Hay Flats, and the Goose Bay Game Refuges
shall be closed to coal prospecting and development.
This statement is eliminated in the final plan. The
decision whether to close these areas to to coal
prospecting and development will not be made through
this planning process.
4. Proposed Closure of Portions of Little Willow Creek
Willow Creek, and the Little Susitna River to All
Mining
The draft proposes that portions of the above
streams be closed to all mining. In the final plan
only the Little Susitna Corridor Management Unit is
closed to all mineral leasing and to locatable
mineral entry. Portions of the other streams
(identified in the plan) are closed to coal pros-
pecting and development.
5. Oil and Gas Exploration and Development
The draft does not clearly state that the entire
sub-basin, except for portions of the Little Susitna
River, is open to oil and gas exploration and poten-
tial development. This point is stated clearly in
the final plan.
6. Disposal of Land in the 100-Year Floodplain
The draft states that there will be no disposal of
public land in the 100-year floodplain. The final
plan allows disposals in the regulatory flood
fringe -that portion of the 100-year floodplain
where development can occur without significant
.,
.,
.,
danger to life and p rope r t y a nd without signifi-
cantly increasing flo o d he i g hts downstream .
7. Seasonal Graz i ng Limi t ations o n State Land
The draft states tha t n o s to c k may be released on
state lands in the Willow Sub-basin before June 1.
The final plan does n ot s pec i f y ~uch a date. Sea-
sonal limitations, when nece s s a ry, will be developed
through range management p l a ns for particular loca-
tions after more deta i led study .
8. Instream Flows
The draft states that wate r a ppropriations may not
reduce surface water resourc e s below the amount re-
quired for maintenan ce of f ish and wildlife re-
sources . This policy canno t; be implemented because
necessary data are not ava i lab le . The final plan
identifies streams which the Department of Fish and
Game and the Division of P ark s recommend for in-
stream flow studies .
9. Procedures for Modifica t ions of and Exceptions to
the Plan
The final plan expla i ns p r o c edures for changing the
plan and for making mi no r e x ceptions to its pro-
visions as it affec t s state l and. Similar proce-
cedures for modifyi ng t h e plan as it affects borough
. lands will be set forth i n t h e borough's comprehen-
sive plan.
IMPLEMENTATION
After the plan is signed by the Commis sioner of the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources it is state po l icy for the management of state lands
in the Willow Sub-basin. All decis ions (land disposals, classifica-
tions, timber sales, road buildi ng , mineral leasing and all other ac-
tions on state lands ) shall c o mply with the provisions of this plan .
The plan's effect on state land ma y b e changed by amendment or by speci-
fic direction f~om the Alaska Le g islature. After the plan is approved
by the borough it controls lan d u se d eci sions on borough lands, and all
decisions (land disposals, timb er sales , r oad building, mineral leasing,
and all other actions on boroug h l and s) s hall comply with the provisions
of this plan. The plan 's ef f ect on bo rough lands may be changed by
amendment approved by the Matanus k a-Su s i t na Borough Assembly.
The land use designations made i n t his plan will be officially estab-
lished in state records throug h the state 's land classification system.
The system is a formal record of the primary uses for which each parcel
of state land will be mana g ed . (Cla ssifications are presented in
Appendix 3.) These classifications will be shown on land status plats
1 3
14
which can be viewed at various offices of the Department of Natural
Resources. These plats will indicate the primary uses designated by this
plan and will refer the reader to the plan for more detailed informa-
tion, including secondary land uses and land management guidelines.
Another important step in DNR's implementation of this plan will be more
detailed planning for specific management units in the study area.
These detailed plans are referred to as "management plans" as distin-
guished from this document which is an "area plan. 11 An area plan sets
forth permitted land uses, related policies and management guidelines
for a particular study area but does not include the detailed planning
necessary for implementation. For example, an area plan does not design
land disposals or pinpoint the location of roads or utility lines; it
does not establish the schedule for timber sales and agricultural devel-
opment projects. These design and scheduling decisions on state land
are addressed by management plans which implement the provisions of an
area plan on a site specific basis. In Chapter II there is a discussion
of specific management plans necessary for implementation of the Willow
Sub-basin Plan.
MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN
A plan can never be so far-seeing as to provide solutions to all land
use problems, nor can it be inflexible. Therefore, the land use desig-
nations, the policies, and the management guidelines of this plan may be
changed if conditions warrant. The plan will be periodically updated as
new data become available and as changing social and economic conditions
place different demands on public lands. An interagency planning team
will coordinate periodic review of this plan when the Alaska Department
of Natural Resources and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough consider it
necessary. The plan review will include meetings with all interested
groups and the general public.
In addition to periodic review, modification of the plan or exceptions
to its provisions may be proposed at any time by members of the public
or government agencies. Appendix 4 presents procedures for amendments
to and minor modifications of the plan which will be followed by the
Department of Natural Resources with regard to state-owned lan'd within
the Willow Sub-basin. Procedures for amendments to and minor modifica-
tions of the plan which will be followed by the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough with regard to borough-owned lands in the Willow Sub-basin will
be set forth in the borough's comprehensive plan. Appendix L• also
presents procedures for making special exceptions to the provisions of
the plan when modifications are not necessary or appropriate.
l
l
l Chapter 2
l LAND USE
l DESIGNATIONS ON
PUBLIC LANDS
l
;]
J
J
']
l
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J 15
..,
..,
..,
LAND USE DES I GNATIONS ON PUBLIC LANDS
I NTRODUCTION
This chapter presents land us·e designations for public lands in the
Willow Sub-basin. These designations indicate the uses for which the
lands will be managed or sold . Both primary and secondary uses may be
shown for any given management unit. (As explained in Chapter I the
sub-basin has been divided into 25 management units for the purposes of
illustrating designated land uses and developing area specific manage-
ment guidelines). A secondary use is permitted within a management unit
when its occurence will not adversely affect achieving the objectives of
primary uses. Proposed transportation routes necessary for implementa-
tion of land use designations are also presented in this chapter.
In several management units more than one primary use is designated.
This occurs principally in units whe r e the major values are complemen-
tary, especially where the dominant values are forestry, recreation,
fish and wildlife, and wate r shed. A joint primary use designation
simply means that neither use i nd i cated is a dominant value with priori-
ty over the others. Potential conflicts between joint primary uses are
dealt with through management guidelines for each unit presented in
Chapter IV .
Designated land uses shown on Map 4 in t his chapter are shown in greater
detail in Chapter IV, which contains large scale maps for each manage-
ment unit. Both primary and secondary land use des i gnations shown in
Chapter II are subject to the policies and management guidelines
contained in Chapters III and IV. The policies a n d guidelines are
intended to insure compatibilit y among t he various uses occurring within
each management unit.
The land use designations shown in this chapter are not inflexible.
Uses not shown on Map 4 may be permit:t.ed on a case-by-case basis if the
Department of Natural Resour ces and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
determine that they are consistent with the statement of management
intent for the management unit in question (see Chapter IV) and consis-
tent with the policies and guidelines a f fecting the unit.
In several management units "recommend ed land uses" are specified rather
than land use designations. These are units which contain relatively
small amounts of public land. Although the plan does not regulate
private land, the recommended uses indicate development patterns the
borough a nd the state wish to encourage . In some cases public land
within these management units is given a specific land use designation
(principally in the case of material and recreation sites). Management
of the remaining public lands will be consistent with the recommended
land uses.
17
18
MANAGEMENT UNITS AFFECTED BY THIS PLAN
Map 3 shows the 25 management units in the Willow Sub-basin. Each unit
has been given a name which appears on the map. The units fall into
three general categories. The shaded units are those for which specific
land use designations have been made on state and borough lands. In
Chapter IV of this plan, the land use designations and guidelines for
each of the shaded units on Ma p 3 are presented in detail. The unshaded
units contain isolated parcels of state and borough land. Appropriate
land uses in these areas are addressed in Chapter IV through general
recommendations · and, in some instances, specific land use designations.
Finally, those units enclosed ~ ~dashed line have been designated for
specific uses by the state legi slat ure. The plan does not address these
areas.
Map 4 presents primary and second ary land use designations on public
lands in the sub-basin. The designations are shown by management unit.
(Borough lands affected are ind icated by diagonal lines.) These
management units are divide d into subunits to illustrate land use
designations in greater detail. The table accompanying Map 4 shows both
primary and secondary designations within each subunit. (Refer to Map 2
for land ownership information .)
OVERVIEW OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS BY RESOURCE
FORESTRY
This plan designates forestry management as a primary use on approxi-
mately 60,000 acres of state land and 6,500 acres of borough land.
Secondary use designations are made on approximately 20,000 acres of
state land and 24,000 acres of borough land. All forestry primary
designations will also be managed for other important values such as
recreation and wildlife.
The important forestry areas located in the plan include the primary
designations in the Kashwitna, Susitna Floodplain, and Susitna Corridor
Management Units, and a secondary designation in Fish Creek for agricul-
tural timber salvage. In addition, there are a number of other areas
which are available for limit ed harvest. None of these other areas will
make a large contribution to either commercial or personal timber sup-
ply. However, they are impo r tant for local personal use and limited
commercial harvests.
Timber salvage from agricultural lands presents a unique opportunity for
the local forest industry. It can provide a large but short-term supply
of timber to help a developing industry. For this reason secondary
designation of Fish Creek (fo r timbe r salvage purposes) is particularly
important.
I.
..
Land Management Units
19
Capital Site
a
.MAP3
ana
nits
ent
.MANAGEMENT UNITS
The subbasin is divided into 25 management units.
Management unit boundaries encompass areas with
similar resources, ownership patterns and access
characteristics. Three general categories of management
units are described below:
Legislatively Designated Areas -Land uses within
:·· ··: these areas (the Capital Site, Nancy Lakes Recreation Area i : and three game refuges) have been previously determined
• ••• by the State legislature. Consequently, these areas are not
addressed by the plan.
Areas with Specific Land Use Designations -Man-P"l agement units shown in gray are primarily owned by the l2i...J state and borough. In these areas detailed land use
· · · designations are prepared as well as management
guidelines to control how these uses occur.
Areas with General Land Use Objectives · Manage-
D ment units shown in white (excluding legislatively
designated areas) are primarily privately owned but con-
tain some parcels of state/borough lands. The area plan
addresses appropriate land uses in these areas through
general land use objectives prepared for each manage-
ment unit; specific land use designations are made
for state lana in some cases.
scale 1:332,000
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
14N
Designated Primary and
Secondary Land Uses
21
R4W
MAP4
• r1maryan condary
DB' an ses
Legislatively designated areas
Areas with specific land use designations
Management units shown in gray are primarily owned by
the state and borough. In these areas detailed land use
designations are prepared as well as management
guidelines to control how these uses occur.
177ADiagonallines indicate where land use designations
lLLJ are made on borough lands.
D Areas with general land use objectives
Management units shown in white (excluding
legislatively designated areas) are primarily privately
owned but contain some parcels of state/borough lands.
The area plan addresses appropriate land uses in these
areas through general land use objectives prepared for
each management unit; specific land use designations are
for state land in some cases.
example mgt. unit
The map and the accompanying
chart show primary and secondary
land uses. Numbers on the map
identify management units and
management subunits; the chart
shows the designated land uses
within each of these areas.
scale 1:332,000
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
WILLOW SUB-BASIN AREA PLAN: PRIMARY & SECONDARY DESIGNATED LAND USES
Management Unit & No. Subunit
1. Kashwitna 1a
2. Iron Creek
3. Rogers Creek
4. Little Willow
Creek Corridor
5. Willow Creek
Corridor
6. Susitna Floodplain
7. Willow
8. Susitna Corridor
9. Fish Creek
10. Moraine Ridge
11. Little Susitna
Corridor
12. Pear Lake
13. Ronald Lake
14. Houston
15. Hatcher Pass
16. Fishhook
17. Moose Range
18. Wasilla
19. Knik
20. Pt. MacKenzie
Legislatively
Designated Areas:
1b
1c
2a
2b
2c
Recommended
Land Uses
4a
4b
Recommended
Land Uses
Recommended
Land Uses
8a
8b
8c
8d
9a
9b 0 Streams
0 wetlands
9c
lla
11b
12a
12b
12c
12d
13a
13b
Recommended
Land Uses
All sub-units
Recommended
Land Uses
Recommended
Land Uses
Recommended
Land Uses
Pt. MacKenzie Agri·
cultural Project.
Recommended
Land Uses
(in remainder of area)
21. Capital site
22. Nancy Lakes
Recreation Area
Primary Uses
Forestry/Fish & Wildlife
Forestry/Fish & Wildlife
Small Farms
Small Farms
Watershed/Fish & Wildlife
Small Farms
*Settlement
*Fish & Wildlife (Migration & Harvest)
*Parks Highway Scenic Areas
*Forestry
Fish & Wildlife Recreation
Small Farms
*Fish & Wildlife
*Small Farms
• Settlement
• Recreation
Forestry/Fish & Wildlife
*Community Land Needs
*Parks Highway Scenic Areas
Forestry/Fish & Wildlife
Fish & Wildlife/Watershed
Agriculture
Fish & Wildlife
Agriculture
Fish & Wildlife/Recreation
Fish & Wildlife/Watershed
Recreation (lditarod)
Settlement
Watershed/Fish & Wildlife
Recreation/Fish & Wildlife
Fish & Wildlife/Watershed
Small Farms/Settlement
Small Farms/Settlement
Fish & Wildlife/Forestry
SettlemenUSmall Farms
Fish & Wildlife/Watershed
*Community land needs
*Parks Highway Scenic Areas
Mining, Recreation, Fish & Wildlife
Grazing
*Settlement
*Watershed
• Fish & Wildlife (Moose Habitat)
Fish & Wildlife
*Settlement
*Small Farm & Commercial
Agriculture
*Recreation (fishing · local &
regional parks)
*Small Farms
*Settlement
*Recreation (lditarod & other trails)
*Development of Port, Industrial
Area, Community
23. Susitna Flats Refuge
24. Goose Bay Refuge
Recreation
Grazing
Secondary Uses
Grazing, Fish & Wildlife, Forestry
Grazing, Fish & Wildlife, Forestry
Fish & Wildlife
Forestry
Forestry, Fish & Wildlife, Recreation
Recreation
Recreation
Forestry, Fish & Wildlife, Watershed
Grazing
Forestry, Settlement,
Small Farms, Recreation
Forestry
Forestry
Forestry
Forestry, Fish & Wildlife, Recreation
Forestry
Forestry
Recreation
Fish & Wildlife, Forestry
• Recreation
*Forestry
Forestry, Grazing
*Forestry (personal use)
*Parks Highway Scenic Areas
*Fish & Wildlife (stream buffers)
*Forestry (personal use)
25. Palmer Hay Flats Refuge
Note: For details of subsurface resource management, see Chapter Ill (Subsurface resources, goals and policiesj"
,
"''
..,
..,
..,
"''
..,
"''
SUBSURFACE RESOURCES
The Effects of the Plan on Opportuniti es to Explore and Develop
Subsurface Resources on State-owned Subsurface Land-1•
The large majority of state-owned subs u rface areas in the Willow
Sub-basin are currently open to explorati on and development of sub-
surface resources and will remain open under this land use plan.
However, an important effect of this plan is that it closes certain
areas to specific types of subsurface resource exploration and
development. The f o llowing section de scribes the a r eas closed by the
plan. I t is important to note that these mineral closures and other
policies resulting from this plan do not alter or replace existing
regulations, nor do they affect any e x isting mineral closures in the
area. The areas closed to mining des c ribed below are closed only to new
exploration ,or development ac t ivitie s; any existing leases, prospecting
permits, or claims ~ill not be affec t ed. (Mineral closing orders will
be prepared for these areas in complia nce wi th AS 38.05.185.)
a.
b.
;'(
;'\·-k
Areas closed both to mineral lea s ing and to locatable mineral
entry by this plan**
The Little Susitna River Corri dor Management Unit is closed to all
mineral leasing and to locatable mi neral entry.
Areas closed only to loca t able mineral entry by this plan
Under current department p olicy , areas sold by the state for
residential or agricultur al purposes --including those identified
by t his plan --are closed to all locatable mineral entry. (These
sale areas may . on a case-by-case basis, be open to development of
leasable minerals.)
The state retains subsurface rights when it transfers land to local
governments or private o wners. Consequently all subsurface rights
in the sub-basin, with two no t able exceptions, are held by the
State and are subject t o the p o licies in this plan. The first
exception is certain priv ate lands that were homesteaded and passed
directly from federal to private ownership. Private land of this
type comprises a relatively smal l percentage of the sub-basin's
area, less than 5 percent (mostly in the Willow and Wasilla areas).
The second ex2eption is lands granted to Native regional and
vil l age corpora tions. Under the terms of the Al aska Native Claims
Settlement Act, Native Corpora ·tions received both surface and
subsurface rights. These lands make u p about 1 percent of the sub-
bas i n's area.
"Leaseable" minerals include o i l and gas, coal, and geothermal
resources. Development rights a re acquired either at a lease sale,
(the method always used for oil and gas) or non-competitively (by
app l ying for a prospectin g permit). Minerals such as gold, silver,
copper, iron, asbestos, and u r a nium, are "locatable;" rights to
these minerals are acquired by sta k ing a mining claim.
23
24
c. Areas Closed to Coal Pros~ecting
Certain areas with exceptionally high surface resource values are
closed to the issuance of coal prospecting permits~\:'; the'se areas
are described below:
-Large blocks of class II and III soils: The Point MacKenzie
project and potential agricultural areas in the Fish Creek
and Susitna Corridor Management Units.
-River Corridors: Little Susitna River, Little Willow Creek,
Willow Creek, and the Big Susitna River.
The Little Susitna River: all of the Little Susitna River
Management Unit and a corridor 300 feet on either side of the
river over the remainder of the river's course.
Little Willow Creek:: the portion of Little Willow Creek
Management Unit eas1: of where the railroad crosses the river
and a corridor 300 feet on either side of the river over the
remainder of the river's course.
Willow Creek: Willow Creek Management Unit and a corridor 300
feet on either side of the river over the remainder of the
river's course.
Big Susitna River: a corridor at least ~ mile on either side
of the river (note: only the eastern bank of the river forms
the boundary to the study area).
-Recreation sites identified on the recreation map of this plan
(Appendix 2). (These are primarily small sites --less than
160 acres --used for campgrounds, waysides, boat launches and
access sites on water bodies and along trails.)
-A corridor 300 feet wide on either side of the Parks Highway
right-of-way to protect visual quality.
-Nancy Lake State Recreation Area.
-The proposed state capital site at Willow.
-All past and planned (through 1987) state subdivisions and the
portions of state remote parcel sales areas likely to be staked.
For additional policies and guidelines affecting subsurface resource
development, see Chapter III, Goals, Policies, and Management Guide
lines; subsurface resources.
"l> Under State law, once a coal prospecting permit is issued, the
state is required to grant the permit holder a coal lease if coal
is found in commercial quantities. Any coal mining that occurs
after a lease is issued would be subject to state, federal and
local mining regulations.
FISH AND WILDLIFE
This plan designates approximately 345,000 acres of state land and
26,000 acres of borough land for fish and wildlife use and habitat pro-
tection (see Map 4). In each case, fish and wildlife is one of two or
more primary designated land uses. For example, forestry is an addi-
tional primary use in the Kashwitna and Susitna Floodplain Management
Units; mining, recreation, and grazing are also primary uses in the
Hatcher Pass Management Unit; watershed is a second primary use in the
large wetland areas within t h e Pear Lake, Ronald Lake, and Susi tna
Corridor Management Units; and recreation is a use of equal importance
in the Little Susitna River Corridor and other small stream and river
buffers.
The practical effect of these land use designations is to set aside an
amount and variety of land sufficient to provide opportunities for a
continuing high level of •fish and wil d life use. Shared uses of these
lands will help protect or enhance habitat and assist the development of
necessary access.
AGRICULTURE
Agricultural land use designations fall into three categories: commer-
cial agriculture, grazing, and sm a ll farms (40-80 acres). Approximately
25,000 acres of state and 19,500 acres of borough lands are designated
for commercial scale agricultura l use (p arcels larger · than 80 acres).
These figures include approximately 1 5,000 acres in the Pt. MacKenzie
agricultural project. In addition , approximately 120,000 acres of state
land and 3,000 acres of borough land are designated for grazing (this
includes primary and secondary designations). Lands designated for
small farm use are discussed under the settlement sect ion of this chap-
ter.
The Fish Creek Management Unit is the ma j or commercial agricultural
project proposed by this plan. As indicated on Map 4, the borough owns
about 60% of the unit and the state 40% (except for small parcels in
private ownership). The unit contains approximately 16,000 acres of
prime agricultural land.
Areas available for grazing include the southern two-thirds of the
Kashwitna Unit, the southern and wes tern portions of the Hatcher Pass
Unit, the Moose Range Unit, and the southern portion of the Susitna
Corridor Uait. Grazing is controlled by the guidelines in Chapter III,
Goals, Policies, and Manageme nt Guide lines; Agriculture. These guide-
lines are principally intended to minimize the impacts of grazing on
wildlife habitat and water quality.
Approxima t ely 4,000 acres of borou gh land in the northern portion of the
Susitna Corridor Management Unit, west of Nancy Lake, are designated for
agricultur al use. State land in the Susitna Corridor Unit which has
high agricultural potential (Agricultural Capability classes II and III)
25
26
is to _ remain in non-intensive uses: forestry, habitat, or recreation.
Management of this unit will be designed to minimize negative impa2ts on
potential agricultural development.
SETTLEMENT AND SMALL FARMS
Land designations for settlement r efer primarily to resi dential lands.
It is the policy of the Borough and State to sell suitable lands for
private commercial and industrial use in order to facilitate economic
development. Land disposal decisions for these uses will be made on a
case -by-case basis consisten1: with this plan. Therefore no specific
designations for these land use s have been made. Although small farms
(40-80 acres) are a separate category on the land designation maps, they
are appropriately discussed as a settlement category.
Vacant land suitable for settlement in the sub-basin is abundant. There
are over 17,000 vacant subd ivided private parcels in the sub-basin - a
total of 35,000 acres. (The sub-basin's existing population of approxi-
mately 8,000 people occupies 3,850 parcels.) Much of this private land
is located i n the Wasilla, Willow, and Roger's Creek Management Units
along the Parks Highway; the large majority is road-accessed. In light
of this vast supply of private land for settlement, the borough and
state set a low priority on selling important agricu l tural, timber,
mineral, and recreation lands for residential use.
However, the borough and state recognize that public land should be made
available for residential use when the private supply is l i mited. There-
fore, the borough and state will jointly assess demand for residential
land yearly and establish annual disposal schedules for public lands.
Settlement is a designated primary use on public lands in portions of
the following management uni ts: Pear Lake, Ronald Lake, and Iron Creek.
In these units, the state has identified approximately 3,000 acres of
land for which settlement is a primary des i gnation (this includes two
remote parce l selection areas -LeRoux View and Papoose Twins).
Settlement is . designated as a secondary use on approximate l y 7,000 acres
of state and 10,000 acres of borough land in the Fish Creek Management
Unit. That does not mean that most of this land will be used for
settlement, but that sett lem ent may occur as compatible with the
designated pri mary uses (principal l y agriculture).
For most of the managment units with road access, where private land-
owners hold a majority of land, the plan lists settlement as a "recom-
mended land use." This means that although there may be little public
land in these units, it is both borough and state policy to encourage
settlement in these accessed areas rather than on remote public lands.
Borough and state lands designated for use as small farms are in the
Kashwitna, Ronald Lake , Pear Lake, Little Willow Creek Corridor, and
Iron Creek Un i ts. Agricultural land in the Fish Creek unit not suitable
for large farms because of t opography will be sold for small farm s.
Although specific tracts have not been identified, small farms are a
l
..
..
I.
I.
~
..
..
~
I.
I.
"I
.,
"'
.,
..,
..,
.,
"recommended use" in the Knik Un i t , where private landowners and the
borough own considerable land suitab l e for that purpose. (There are
several thousand acres of priva te land suitable for small farms in the
Wasilla Management Unit .)
It is difficult to spec ify an a creage f i gure fo r small farms because the
plan frequently designates smal l farms a s one of several permitted uses
within a management unit. Sites fo r s mall farms will be identified
specifically through more deta iled p l anning . However, the plan desig-
nates approximately 3,000 acres of s t a te l a n d and 2,500 acres of borough
land for primary small farm u se. Through this ·plan, the state and
borough have also set small f a rm di spo sal targets of 3, 000 acres and
4,000 acres respectively dur ing t h e next 5 years.
RECREATION
Public lands designated for rec r e a tion us e fall into 4 categories: major
public recreation areas , recrea tion s ites larger than 160 acres, recrea-
tion sites smaller than 160 acres, and t r ails. The major public recrea-
tion areas include the Hatcher Pass Un i t, Li ttle Willow Creek Corridor ,
Little Susitna Corridor, and t h e Id.i.t a rod Trail. Primary land use
designations include 18 sites l a rge r t han 160 acres, over 100 sites
smaller than 160 acres, and a ppr o x i ma t ely 400 miles of trails. The
recreation sites include lake and stre am a ccess., trail waysides, camp-
grounds, and historic sites. It is n o t possible to s h ow all of these
recreation areas at the scale of Map 4 . (Th e y are mapped in the recrea-
tion section of Appendix 2.)
Map 4 shows the primary designa t ions in the major public recreation
areas listed above. The Hatch er Pas s Management Unit provides a wide
range of summer and winter r ecreat i on activities including hiking ,
mountain climbing, snowmobilin g, skiing, and wildlife photography .
(Mining, recreation, fish and wi ldlife, and grazing all receive primary
use designations in the Hatcher Pass Unit .) The Little Willow Creek and
Little Susitna River Corridors a re anad romous streams which provide
important recreation opportunit ies to pe ople from all over Alaska. The
Iditarod Trail, between Knik a nd Nom e, is the state's best known dog
mushing rout e.
Map 4 also shows recreation a s a sec ondary use in several units where
dispersed hunting, fishing, hik ing, a nd other recreation activities are
important values that will be prot ect ed as other land uses occur .
WATERSHED (WETLANDS)
Watershed is a primary use designat i on o n approximately 57,000 acres of
state, and 7, 500 acres of borough land . These designations apply to
wetlands in the Iron Creek, Li tt le Susi t n a Corridor, Pear Lake, Susitna
Corridor, Fish Creek, and Ronald La ke Management Units. All primary
watershed designations are also p r imary f ish and wildlife designations .
27
28
The principal feature that most wetlands share is soil that is at least
periodically saturated with or covered by water. Wetlands provide
extremely important hydrologic functions. They serve to filter nutri-
ents and sediment from upland runoff and therefore are one of the envi-
ronment 1 s natural safeguards for water quality. They a l so stabilize
water supply by retaining excessive water during flooding and by re-
charging ground water during dry periods.
The wetlands identified for watershed management on Map 4 will be man-
aged to protect important hyd rologic functions, recreation opportuni-
ties, and habitat.
PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
For this plan 1 s land use designations to be feasible, there are three
areas which will require major road systems: Fish Creek (Agriculture),
Susitna Corridor (Forestry), and Kashwitna (Forestry). Map 5 shows a
possible road system to serve these areas. The routes shown on the map
are not intended to represent precise locations. Nor are they funded
for construction. However, approximatations of these routes would
eventually be necessary to make the l and use designations in this plan
meaningful. Aside from routes related to the land uses proposed by the
plan, Map 5 shows two other routes which have been proposed by v a rious
public and private groups: the Houston right-of way, between Houston
and Point MacKenzie; and a route between the proposed Fish Creek
agricultural project and the town of Willow. All of these proposed
transportation routes are discussed below. A more detailed discussion,
including estimated costs, appears in Appendix 2.
Fish Creek -The Chuitna Right··of-Way and Winnebago Way
The Fish Creek Management Unit is intended to provide acreage for a
major commercial agriculture p roject . Such a project would require a
main road crossing the Little Susitna River and a system of spur routes
to access individual farms. The Alaska Depart ment of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOT/PF) has located an approximate alignment for a
transportation corridor (road or railroad} t o the Beluga Coal Fields,
including alternate alignments to the Susitna River. That alignment,
known as the Chuitna Right-of-Way, a ppears to adequately serve as the
main road through the uni t. A second alignment shown on Map 5
(Winnebago Way) would link the Fish Creek area to Willow . If the Knik
Arm crossing were built, t h is road would shorten the distance from
Anchorage to Willow by approximately 30 miles.
In addition, Map 5 shows approximate alignments for spur roads to all
parcels of agricultural land 40 acres or greater. These routes may be
significantly revised during DOT/PF alignment studies.
Susitna Corridor
The Susitna Corridor is intended to provide a large area to be managed
for its forestry, habitat, and agricultural resources. Forestry opera-
..
..
~
;,
...
"'
I.
t..
T1
Existing and Proposed
Transportation Routes
29
I I
I l
"]
1
l
]
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
I
,., ·~ ~ ' 1' (
\\ ...... ~ ..... ·~··---~
RSW
R7W I
~,oW Little Willow Ck. Corridor
Talkeetna M tns.
I ~ l Go~ Hay;Jw
~t. M..J.ct\.enz•et ,... t-....
' iOi £, J
R4W
MAP5
Existing and Potential
Transportation Routes
Existing transportation:
1 1 1 1 1 1 railroads
-.-L-primary roads
- - -secondary roads
Roads recommended by this plan:
w w Chuitna Right-of-Way and spurs
• • • • • ••• Moraine Ridge
-·-·-Susitna Corridor
•••• -... Kashwitna
---Winnebago Way
Other potential transportation corridors:
_,_,,_ Houston Right-of-Way
Material sites
• sand and gravel
~
scale 1:332,000
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
tions require a network of roads, but these 'roads do not need to be the
same quality as the roads in the Fish Creek Management Unit. Wetlands
can be crossed using winter roads, clearing need not extend beyond the
road itself, and construction techniques need be much less intensive.
In addition, only a main route is shown. The numerous forestry spurs
would probably be built by the various logging companies. Map 5 shows a
possible alignment reaching as far south as Susitna Station. It is
likely that road development would occur in increments spread out over
many years -as more areas are harvested, more roads would be needed.
Kashwitna
The Kashwitna Unit is intended to be a multiple use management area
emphasizing fish and wildlife habitat, forestry, and allowing grazing
and small farms.
The initial access would require one of three expensive options: a
major bridge across Willow Creek just downstream from a canyon-like area
of the creek, or a smaller bridge closer to the Parks Highway and a road
along the north side of Willow Creek, or access from the Parks Highway
north of the creek and a road along the north side of the creek. Access
to the small farm area (just north of the creek) would have to be ade-
quate for conventional vehicles. The remainder of the system could be
forestry roads similar to those described for the Susitna Corridor Unit.
Houston Right-of Way
A north-south connection between Pt. MacKenzie and Houston has been
proposed by various agencies. DOT/PF has a right-of-way application for
this route. There are currently no construction plans. In fact, it is
likely that a corridor through the area would be for railroad only and
not include a conventional road.
31
32
RELATIONSHIP OF WILLOW SUB-BASIN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES' STATEWIDE PLAN
The Department of Natural Resources prepared a statewide land use plan
in 1980 which is updated annually. The purpose of the statewide plan is
to give guidance to planning on a regional and local scale and to serve
as an aid to decisions that require a statewide perspective.
The statewide plan developed general land use designations for all state
land in Alaska. In areas such as the Willow Sub-bas in, which had
already been the scene of extensive study, the statewide plan adopted
the land uses that were identified and classified prior to the develop-
ment of the statewide plan. The amount of land designated for various
uses by the statewide plan in the Willow Sub-basin is, therefore,
exactly the same as the pre-·existing land use classifications in the
area.
The figures in the following table show the amount of land designated
for various uses in the statewide and Willow Sub-basin plans. In both
cases the land use designations define the primary values the land will
be managed for. It should be noted that the designation of a primary
value does not in itself prohibit other uses. In the Willow Sub-basin
plan detailed resource data and analysis resulted in the designation of
more than one primary land use.
Land use designations on the statewide level are not intended as firm
quotas which this or any o~t.her plan had to meet. This would be inappro-
priate considering the more detailed resource information, analysis, and
public participation methods that are used in developing area plans.
Using the acreage figures in the statewide plan as a general guide,
however, it can be seen that the land designations in the Willow
Sub-basin plan conform to the intent of the statewide plan. In each
category, however, the Willow Sub-basin plan allocates more land than
does the statewide plan. This is due to the dual allocations in the
Willow plan and to the fact that not all state lands were allocated to
specific resources in the statewide plan.
COMPARISON OF STATEWIDE TO WILLOW SUB-BASIN PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS (STATE-OWNED LAND)
Resource
Agriculture
Forestry
Recreation
Habitat
Settlement (includes
small farms)
Resource
Agriculture -Cropland
Agriculture -Grazing
Forestry/Fish & Wildlife
Recreation/Fish & Wildlife
Fish & Wildlife/Watershed
Settlement (includes small farms)
Mining
1981 Statewide Plan
Land Use Designations
(In Acres)
19,5001
19,000
195,000
26,500
2,000
Willow Sub-basin Plan
Land Use Designations
(In Acres)
25,0002
130,000
68,300
267,5003
76,300
5,5004
220,500
1 Includes the Pt. MacKenzie agricultural project.
2 Includes the Pt. MacKenzie agricultural project.
3 Includes 220,500 acres designated for recreation in Hatcher Pass
Management Unit. Portions of this management unit are also desig-
nated for mining, grazing, and habitat.
4 Net acreage sold will be less than 5,500 due to varying soil and
terrain conditions. The 5,500 acreas do not include areas where
settlement is a secondary use -specific parcels in such areas will
be identified through more detailed planning.
33
34
MANAGEMENT PLANS
Implementation of land use designations discussed in this chapter will
require a number of management plans. As explained in Chapter I, a
management plan is the next level of planning by DNR for state lands. A
management is a more detailed plan than this document, which is an "area
plan." Area plans designate permitted land uses and management guide-
lines. Management plans are necessary for site planning: delineating
and scheduling parcels for disposals, designating roads and other infra-
structure, scheduling timber sales, rerouting trails to prevent use
conflicts, and developing more detailed management guidelines. Imple-
mentation of the Willow Plan requires a number of management plans.
They are listed in order of priority below:
The Fish Creek Management Plan
The Fish Creek Management Unit is intended to be the site of a joint
borough/state agricultural project of approximately 18,000 acres (10,000
borough; 8,000 state). This area is located between the Little Susitna
and Susitna Rivers, approximately ten miles northest of the Point
MacKenzie agricultural project. As an implementation of· the Willow
Plan, DL&WM and the Borough Planning Department have intitated a de-
tailed management plan for Fi:sh Creek. This management plan will lay
out individual farms, fix the precise road alignments, and design buf-
fers for important wetlands and anadromous fish streams.
The development of Fish Creek will require a main road from the Point
MacKenzie area across the Lit:tle Susitna River and a system of spur
roads to access individual farms. The Willow Sub-basin Area Plan has
proposed a tentative road system adopting the existing Chuitna
right-of-way corridor to the Beluga area as the main road and locating
approximate spur alignments to all parcels of agricultural land 40 acres
or greater.
The Hatcher Pass Management Plan
As indicated above the Willow Sub-basin Plan designates mining, grazing,
recreation and habitat as primary uses in the 220,000 acres Hatcher Pass
Management Unit. Potential conflicts between mining and recreation, and
between grazing and habitat require site specific· decisions about the
location and management of these activities. Recent private requests to
lease parcels for recreation development require action. Therefore DNR
and the borough are current:ly developing a management plan for this
unit.
This management plan will include a range management section which im-
plements the grazing guidelines in Chapter III of the Willow Sub-basin
Plan. These guidelines require the specification of maximum stocking
densities and the protection of water quality, soil stability and habi-
tat.
The Susitna Corridor Management Plan
The Willow Plan designates the Susitna Corridor Unit as a commerical
forestry management area of approximately 14,000 acres along the east
side of the Susitna River from near Willow to the Sus.itna Game Flats.
Approximately 4,000 acres of borough land in this unit will be developed
for agricultural use; some grazing ~vill be allowed on state lands.
This currently remote area could provide a needed boost to the fourteen
lumber mills operating in the borough. These mills are currently
operating at 10% of capacity due to the lack of timber sales on public
lands. The management unit could also provide an important recreation
area accessible by vehicle from Anchorage.
Prior to timber harvest, a management plan will be necessary to design
road systems, schedule sales, and implement the guidelines in the Willow
Plan which limit timber harvests in certain environmentally sensitive
areas.
The Kashwitna Management Plan
The Kashwitna Unit is a large area (60,000 acres) between Willow Creek
and the Kashwitna River along the foothills of the Talkeetnas, north of
the capital site. It is designated as a multiple use area for commer-
cial forestry, grazing, small farms, and habitat management.
Access to the Kashwitna Unit would require one of three options: a
major bridge across Willow Creek just downstream of Willow Creek Canyon;
a smaller bridge closer to the Parks Highway with a road along the north
side of the creek; access from the Parks Highway north of the creek and
a road along the north side of the creek. All options would expensive.
When it is determined that the timber, agricultural and recreation
values in the Kashwitna Unit warrant the development of access, a man-
agement plan will be necessary to design roads, schedule timber and farm
sales and develop detailed management guidelines to minimize conflicts
among land users.
35
Chapter 3
GOALS, POLICIES,
AND .MANAGEMENT
GUIDELINES
Agriculture .•............................... 41
Recreation ................................. 53
Forestry ................................... 59
Fish and Wildlife ............................ 67
Settlement ................................. 7 3
Subsurface Resources ........................ 79
Transportation .............................. 89
Wetlands .................................. 97
River and Stream Buffers ..................... 103
Trails .................................... 109
Public Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
GOALS, POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
INTRODUCTION
Chapter III contains goals, policies, and management guidelines for the
major land management categories addressed in this plan: agriculture,
recreation, forestry, fish and wildlife, settlement, subsurface re-
sources, and transportation.* Policies and management guidelines are
also presented for the following environmental conditions and land uses:
wetlands, river and stream corridors, trails, and public access.
Goals, policies, and management guidelines form a hierarchy from the
general (goals) to the particular (guidelines). Together they lay out a
path from overall statements of intent to specific directives which can
be applied on the ground as development occurs. As used in this chapter
the following definitions apply:
Goal: a general statement of intent, usually not quantifiable nor
having a specified date of completion. Goals identify desired
long-range conditions.
Policy: a definite course of action to be followed by land manag-
ers. Policies set forth official borough and state positions on a
wide range of land management issues such as wetlands management,
and the protection of the agricultural potential of remote lands.
Management Guideline: specific management standards or procedures
to be followed in carrying out goals and policies. Guidelines are
intended to be sufficiently detailed to guide on-the-ground deci-
sions, such as how far development must be set back from a stream.
Guidelines are applied frequently in day-to-day management deci-
sions.
* Background informati.on concerning each of these resources is pre-
sented in Appendix 2.
39
:nm n n:"l I>·tnV
GOALS, POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES -AGRICULTURE
GOALS
1. Agricultural Development: the development of an agricultural
industry which contributes to the state and local economy without
long-term subsijy.
2. Agricultural La_qd Base: the development and maintenance of the
area's agricultural land base:
a. to maintain agricultural lands in agricultural production
b. to protect and develop land capable of production for domestic
and export markets
c. to provide, in addition to large scale farm Fits, a supply of
land in 4J-80 acre parcels suitable for a variety of small-
scale crop and livestock production
d. to manage high capability agricultural lands not presently
designated for agricultural disposal in a manner which will
not preclude future agricultural development
e. to provide roads, railroads, ports, and other transportation
facilities to serve agricultural lands
3. Environmental Guality: adequate regulation of agricultural prac-
tices in areas where those practices may result in increased ero-
sion, sedimentEtion, siltation or pollution which pose significant
threats to wildlife or human activities:
a. to provide adequate buffers between the agricultural areas and
areas of high fish and wildlife and recreation values
b. to provide adequate buffers between agricultural areas and
other lane uses which \vould conflict with agriculture
c. to minimize effects on water quality
43
44
IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
1. Disposal of Agricultural Lands
Agricultural development rights only will be sold on parcels of
borough and state lands which are designated for agricultural use.;
other development rights shall be kept in public ownership.
2. Large-scale Commercial Agricultural Development
3.
Large contiguous blocks (1,000 acres or larger) of lands designated
for agricultural use shall be used primarily to support commercial
scale farms (80 acres or larger).
The state and borough agree to designate the approximately 18,000
acres of high capability agricultural land in the Fish Creek Man-
agement Unit as the focus of a joint large scale agricultural
development project to be initiated at a time mutually agreed. Due
to topographic limitations, some of this acreage will not be suit-
able for large scale farming; however, it is the intention of the
state and borough to dispose of commercial scale f arms to the
maximum extent feasible in this area.
Small Farms (40-80 acres~
The borough and state recognize the considerable demand for land
for small farms and agree to provide additional land for that
.purpose.
State Lands: Most state agricultural lands in the sub-basin
are in large contiguous blocks suitable for commercial scale
agriculture. Smal l farms will be made available in portions
of large scale agricultural projects where topography limits
farm size, specifically within the Fish Creek Management Unit.
To a lesser extent. the state will dispose of small farms in
the Kashwitna, Susitna Corridor, Ronald Lake, and Pear Lake
Management Units.
Borough Lands: Most of the publically owned land suitable for
small farms within the sub-basin is owned by the borough.
This is land with good agricultural capability b u t in parcels
too small or scattered for commercial scale agriculture.
Borough lands suitable for small farms are located in abun-
dance in the Knik, Fish Creek and Iron Creek Management
Units -and in smaller quantities in the Ronald Lake, and Pear
Lake Management Units. The borough will accelerate agricul-
tural disposals within those management units.
...
...
...
..
...
...,
-.
..,
..,
...,
.,
......
-
..,
....
4.
5.
Targets for Small Farm Disposals
State: Within the management units specified above the state
will attempt to meet a small farm disposal target of 3, 000
acres during the next 5 years .
Borough: Within the management units specified above, the
borough will attempt to meet a small farm disposal target of
4,000 acres within the next 5 years .
Disposals of land for small farms shall be contingent on
proximate or planned road a c cess. Therefore targets for small
farm disposals are contingent on economic feasibility of
providing access. In general, providing road access to small
farms will be feasible only when a road serves other resource
development or recreation purp oses.
Protection of Agricultural Potenti al
Public lands of high agricultural potential wh i ch are not desig-
nated for agricultural use are to remain in public ownership to
protect future agricultural potential. These lands will not be
developed for residential, commerical or other uses which would
preclude future agricultural use. Uses such as habitat enhancement
and forestry management will be permitted on these lands.
Timber Salvage on Agricultural Lands
All timber having high value for commercial and personal use shall
be salvaged on borough and state lands to be cleared for agricul-
tural development.
Management plans which include agricultural development projects
should address the following items:
a. the implementation techniques used to assure salvage;
b. the time required for the local timber industry to accomplish
salvage between the times of access development and clearing
completion; and
c. effect of the sale on the development of the forest industry.
6. Grazing
The following policies apply only to state lands in the Willow
Sub-basin where grazing is a designated land use .
45
46
a. All grazing lands will be managed as multiple use lands to
support a variety of public benefits in addition to livestock
production, including the following:
1) fish and wildlife maintenance
2) water quality maintenance
3) public recreat.ion
4) timber management
5) soil conservation
b. Grazing lands will be managed to insure sustainable forage for
domestic stock and wildlife.
c. Public access across and public use of grazing lands may not
be unreasonably limited by persons holding grazing leases or
permits.
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Agriculture guidelines listed below address the following issues:
1. Protection of the Hydrologic System and Associated Habitat
2. Public Access
3. Protection of Trails with Important Recreational or Historic
Value
4. Farm Conservation Plans
5. Timber Salvage on Agricultural Lands
6. Grazing
7. Miscellaneous
1. Protection of the Hydrol<>j~ic System and Associated Habitat
a. Stream buffers: See Policies and Management Guidelines; River
and Stream Corridors, this chapter.
b. Wetland buffers: See Policies and Management Guidelines;
Wetlands, this chapter.
c. Instream flows: See Policies and Management Guidelines; River
and Stream Corridors, this chapter.
d. Hydrologic monitorin~~: See Policies and Management Guide-
lines; River and Stream Corridors, this chapter.
i
....
..,
l
l
2. Public Access
3.
4.
See Policies and Management Guidelines; Public Access, this
chapter.
Trail Protection
See Policies and Management Guidelines; Recreation and Historic
Trails, this chapter.
Farm Conservation Plans
Wherever possible, farm conservation plans should incorporate
appropriate ecologically sound agricultural practices developed by
the Soil Conservation Service and other agencies with relevant
expertise. It is the responsibility of the Soil Conservation
Sub d istricts to act as liaisons between local f a rmers and agencies
or institutions with agricultural expertise. State agencies with
expertise potentially useful t~o Soil Conservation Subdistricts
should make their resources known and available to Subdistrict
officers.
5. Timber Salvage on Agricultural Lands
All timber having high value for commercial and personal use shall
be s alvaged on lands to be cleared for agricult~ral purposes. The
fol lowing are examples of implementation techniques:
a. salvage of forest products is specified at the time of dispos-
al as part of the disposal contract
b.
c.
d.
the agricultural rights holder is allowed to select specified
areas for non-salvage (windbreaks, headquarters site, etc.).
The state or borough contracts the remainder and the agricul-
tural rights holder is given the right of f i rst refusal
economic incentives are created for timber salvage. These
incentives should, at a m1.n1.mum, specify that the value of
forest products on each parcel be added to t he base land price
with that amount not eligible for inclusion in the state loan
program
the useable forest products are sold and removed before sale
of the agricultural rights.
Any method which insures product salvage may be implemented in a
part icular area. The choice will depend on the specific details of
the sale. However, all of t he techniques assume realistic schedul-
ing of clearing and access development.
47
48
6. Grazing
The following management. guidelines apply only to state lands in
the Willow Sub-basin where grazing is a designated land use.
a. Grazing Permits and I~eases
A grazing lease or permit issued by DNR is required for any
person who releases livestock on state grazing lands. Grazing
leases will be granted for a period not to exceed 25 years.
Permits must be renewed annually. Permits, rather than
leases, should be issued in areas especially susceptible to
soil erosion, water quality degradation and other environ-
mentally sensitive areas. These areas will be identified
through DNR's range management plans (see e. below).
The requirements stated in
mented through appropriate
these guidelines will be imple-
lease and permit stipulations.
Note: Provisions of existing grazing leases and permits in the
Hatcher Pass area and in other portions of the Willow
Sub-basin are not affected by these guidelines. In areas
where grazing leases and permits have been issued previously
new permits may be issued and existing leases may be renewed
prior to the completion of range management plans. However
permits or leases issued under this provision should adhere to
applicable management guidelines.
No artificial modification of natural vegetation (e.g., clear-
ing, crushing, seeding, fencing, burning, etc.) will be per-
mitted without approval of DNR. Consultation with the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) will preceed approval of
range modification.
c. Stock-Predator Conflicts
When protection of stock necessitates destruction of predator
species, e.g., bear, wolves, etc., a lessee or permittee must
comply with ADJ?&G salvage regulations. Frequent (three or
more occurences annually) livestock-predator conflicts may be
grounds for modification of a lessee's or permittee's opera-
tions plan (see f. below).
d. Seasonal Limitation
To minimize competition between domestic stock and moose for
browse, seasonal limitations should be placed on grazing.
DNR, with the consultation of ADF&G, may establish spring and
fail dates for the release and removal of stock on grazing
lands. The seasonal limitations are intented to minimize stock
utilization of browse by restricting grazing to the period
when there is adequate protein available in grasses and other
...
..,
..,
l
-
,.....,
non-moose browse s p ecies. Locations for which seasonal
limitations will be in effect will be specified in DNR's range
management plans and will be stipulated in grazing leases or
permits for those locations .
e. Range Management Plans
Prior to the issuance of grazing leases or permits for grazing
areas designated by the plan , DNR will develop range manage-
ment plans (RMP). P l ans shall be developed for the Kashwitna,
Hatcher Pass, Moose Range , and Susitna Corridor management
units. Plans shall be developed by the Division of Land and
Water Management (DL&WM) in consultation with the Division of
Agriculture, ADF&G and SCS. The provisions of range manage-
ment plans, as well as these gu i delines, will be the basis of
stipulations to be i ncluded i n grazing leases and permits in
the Willow Sub-basin. Range management plans shall address,
at a minimum, the following i t ems:
1)
2)
3)
Maximum Stocking Densit ies: The state shall use
standard United States Department of Agriculture
range management procedures to identify the abun-
dance, distribution , annual productivity and sea-
sonal availability of range vegetation to be uti-
lized by proposed grazing stock. Maximum allowable
stocking densities will be computed on the basis of
discounted moose browse species and sustainable
range production a nd condition.
Water Quality Prot ection: Range management plans
will state how ana dromous fish streams, other water-
ways and lakes a re to be protected from adverse
impacts of grazing. Fencing may be required to
protect portions of streams. Specific watering
sites, feeding stations, headquarter sites, or other
methods may be requi red to minimize the adverse
impacts of grazing.
Annual Grazing Schedule: Range management plans
will establish, if necessary, spring and fall dates
for release and removal of stock on grazing lands.
To determine the s e dates, the necessary scientific
research will be conducted to determine seasonal
levels of protein in available forage.
4) Physical Resources~: Range management plans will
include a map which shows the location, acreages,
and configur ations of proposed lease and permit
areas; proposed feed lot sites, stock watering
sites, and supp l emental feeding stations; farm
headquarter sites; fences and other improvements
required to implement these guidelines.
49
50
5) Environmental Monitoring: Range management plans
will establish procedures to monitor the impacts of
grazing on vegetation and soil stability and estab-
lish conditions under which a lessee's or permit-
tee's grazing operations plan may be modified to
prevent environmental degradation.
6) Access: Proposed roads, bridges, etc., necessary
for grazing operations will be identified.
f. Grazing Operations Plan
Persons holding grazing permits or leases must have an approv-
ed grazing operations plan (GOP) prior to placing any live-
stock on state lands. A grazing operations plan will be
approved by DNR: only when it is in compliance with these
guidelines and applicable range management plans. DNR will
assist a lessee or permittee in plan preparation with the
consultation of ADF&G and SCS. Minimum requirements of a
grazing operations plan are as follows:
1) Cooperative
Alaska Soil
subdistrict.
agreement between the lessee and the
Conservation District or appropriate
2) A physical resource map identifying: (1) location,
acreage, and configuration of the proposed lease or
permit areas (s); (2) proposed feedlot sites, stock
watering sites, and supplemental feeding stations;
(3) farm headquarter site, outbuildings, fences, and
other proposed improvements.
3) A record of the lessee's proposed management activi-
ties, including (1) range management practices
considered essential or desirable; (2) livestock
species to be stocked; (3) annual grazing schedule
and (4) forage balance sheet.
4) Proposed stocking densities: Maximum stocking
density will be based on DNR's range management plan
for the area concerneq. A minimum stocking density
with a schedule for achieving it will also be estab-
lished as part of each grazing operations plan to
insure efficient use of state grazing lands.
g. Modification of Grazing Operations Plan
Modifications to grazing operations plans may be required if
grazing activities are determined to impair water quality or
soil stability or if sustainable forage for stock and wildlife
cannot be maintained under an existing grazing operations
plan. Determination that modification of a grazing operations
plan is necessary will be made by DNR with the consultation of
DEC, ADF&G, and SCS. Range management plans for each grazing
area will establish specific conditions under which grazing
operations plans may be modified.
7. Miscellaneous
Individual farms are encouraged to promote ecological diversity and
wildlife abundance by retaining vegetation suitable for wildlife
food and cover in woodlots, hedgerows between fields, and along
roadsides wherever possible. ~'here possible, woodlots should be
situated to increase the effective size of stream and wetland
buffers.
Lessees are encouraged to consider regulated public hunting as a
potential tool for reducing crop damage by wildlife. The Alaska
Department of Fish and Game will provide technical assistance to
any agricultural leaseholder who wishes to permit regulated public
hunting on agricultural lands.
Two publications are highly recommended to both public and private
land developers for practices \vhich protect and enhance wildlife
resources:
a. A Synthesis and Evaluation of Fish and Wildlife Resources
Information for the Willow and Talkeetna Sub-basins. ADF&G,
1980.
b. Guidelines for Wildlife Design in Residential Developments.
ADF&G Habitat Protection Section, 1979.
51
RECREATION
GOALS, POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES -RECREATION
GOALS
1. A wide variety of high quality recreational, cultural and histori-
cal resources to satisfy the needs of residents of the borough, the
Anchorage metropolitan area and other visitors.
a. Protection, enhancement and promotion of the most unique and
significant natural, cultural, and recreational values:
1) to maintain the natural character of certain large areas
to preserve opportunities for a wilderness experience
2) to protect important historic and recreation trails
3) to protect and enhance the following important recreation
opportunities: fishing, hunting (especially moose and
waterfowl), hiking, skiing, snowmobiling, wildlife pho-
tography, dog sledding, climbing, boating and birdwatch-
ing
4) to preserve in a natural state important streams suitable
for rafting, kayaking, and other forms of boating.
5) to protect important vistas and geologic features and
fragile or unique ecosystems ·
6) to preserve public waterfront land
7) to protect important historic and cultural resources
8) to promote public awareness of existing recreation oppor-
tunities
b. Provision of adequate recreation opportunities to satisfy
anticipated needs:
1) to provide a land base to address the following critical
needs (needs for which demand greatly exceeds supply):
developed camping units, boat launches, an alpine skiing
area, stream fishing:, access to moose and waterfowl
hunting areas
2) to provide a land base to address the following important
needs (needs for which demand exceeds supply): picnick-
ing, cross-country skiing, walking/running/cycling,
canoeing, swimming and lake fishing
55
56
3) to provide a land base to address the following notable
needs (needs for which demand is expected to exceed
supply in the near future): dog mushing, hiking and
snowmobiling
c. Recreation activities which are accessible to Anchorage resi-
dents and communities within the sub-basin and which comple-
ment local planning efforts:
1) to establish a community recreation land trust for the
benefit of local recreation program development. This
land trust will include state lands to be transferred to
local government for recreation management
2) to provide for a wide variety of recreational opportuni-
ties within a weekend's drive of Anchorage and opportuni-
ties close to existing communities in the basin
3) to protect and enhance fly-in recreation opportunities
within an hour's flight of Anchorage
d. Maximum use of recreation sites while maintaining high quality
recreation experiences:
1) to provide support facilities at high use areas--in
particular, road accessible salmon ~treams
2) to upgrade and enhance existing campground facilities to
accommodate needs
3) to promote safety and environmental protection through
proper land management and facility development
4) to develop an integrated system of lake access areas for
fishing, boating and related activities
e. Incorporation of educational opportunities in recreation
experiences:
to establish areas with representative or unique eco-
systems for scientific research, education, and enjoyment
2. Integration of recreational and non-recreational land uses where
compatible.
3. An improved and diversified economic condition for the area's
residents and the state:
to provide a land base for commercial recreation operations
and tourism
IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
1. Trails
See Policies and Management Guidelines; Recreation and Historic
Trails, this chapter.
2. Public Access
See Policies and Management Guidelines; Public Access, this chap-
ter.
3. Region-wide and Community Recreation Facilities
a. It is the state's proper role to retain and develop state-
owned recreation areas or properties of region-wide or state-
wide significance such as the Hatcher Pass Management Unit and
the Little Susitna Corridor.
b. It is the borough's proper role to take the lead in meeting
the need for recreation facilities within and adjacent to
existing communities designed to serve ·the needs of those
communities.
c. In recognition of the borough's role in meeting community
recreation needs, the state should establish a community
recreation land trust for eventual transfer of certain state
recreation sites near existing communities to borough owner-
ship. The selection of these sites shall be agreed to by the
borough and the state and shall be contingent on the borough's
commitment to develop and maintain the recreation values of
the sites.
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
1. River and Stream Buffers
See Policies and Management Guidelines, River and Stream Corridors,
this chapter.
2. Lakes
a. Approximately 25% of state-owned waterfront to a landward
distance of approximately 500 feet, all islands, and all
inlets and· outlets of lakes capable of sustaining year-round
natural or stocked game fish species shall remain in public
ownership for habitat protection and public recreation.
Adequate public access to t.hese lakes shall also remain in
public ownership. The amount of public ownership may vary on
a site specific basis, but at a minimum, some portion of these
57
58
lakes shall remain public. The size of the public reservation
shall be appropriate to its expected long range recreational
use.
On borough land, all lakes larger than 20 acres with the
capability of sustaining year-round natural or stocked game
fish species should have some amount of waterfront held in
public ownership. The exact amount should be determined on a
case by case basis and should be appropriate to the lake's
expected long range recreational use.
b. Wherever a lake-side recreation site has been identified, a
minimum of 40 contiguous acres is desirable to be used for
recreational facility development and related purposes.
Adjacent uses should be encouraged which do not detract from
recreational enjoyment of the site.
3. Trails
See Policies and Management Guidelines, Recreation and Historic
Trails, this chapter.
GOALS, POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES -FORESTRY
GOALS
1. Development of forest products :industry which contributes to the
state and local economy without long term subsidy:
a. a continuous flow of commercial quality raw materials
b. a stable base of commercially productive forest lands
2. A supply of forest products from public lands for personal use
commensurate with:
a. the local and Anchorage area demand through at least the year
2000
b. the characteristics of public lands
c. other sources of supply
3. Multiple use of forest lands.
4. Development of roads, railroads, ports and other transportation
facilities to provide access to public forest lands for both com-
merical and personal use.
IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
1. Timber Salvage on Agricultural Lands
All timber having high value for commercial and personal use shall
be salvaged on borough and state lands to be cleared for agricul-
tural development.
Management plans which include agricultural development projects
should address the following items:
a. the implementation techniques used to assure salvage;
b. the time required for the local timber industry to accomplish
salvage between the times of access development and clearing
completion and;
61
62
c. the effect of the sale on the development of the forest in-
dustry.
2. Development of the Forest Industry
The scheduling and prov1s1ons of timber contracts should be
designed to aid the growth of a commercial forest industry in the
area.
a. Timber sales should be scheduled to provide a continuous flow
of commercial quali1:y raw materials taking into account: (1)
the supply of timber available from public and private lands
in other areas of southcentral Alaska, (2) the supply of
timber available from timber salvage on agricultural lands,
and (3) the ability of the local industry to process the
timber.
b. The schedule for timber sales on public lands should be devel-
oped jointly by the borough and the state in order to insure a
continuous and predictable supply of wood products.
c. Timber contracts on state lands should generally be let
through commercial bid sales rather than negotiated sales.
d. Whenever possible, timber contracts should be long term (three
to five years) rather than for a single season.
3. Personal Use Forestr~
Timber stands suitable for commercial sales should be used for that
purpose. Personal use harvests should occur on non-commercial
stands or as a silvicultural tool. Exceptions to this policy
should occur only when the supply of personal use products cannot
be met from other accessible forest lands in the sub-basin.
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Forestry guidelines listed below address the following issues:
1. Forest Resources and Practices Act
2. Timber Salvage on Agricultural Lands
3. Protection of the Hydrologic System
4. Joint Habitat/Forestry Management Areas
5. Management Plans
6. Timber Harvest in Essential Habitat Areas
7. Timber Harvest near Alpine Tree Line
8. Trail Protection
9. Visual Resource Protection and Enhancement
10. Miscellaneous
1. Forest Resources and Practices Act
Guidelines of this plan should not be construed to replace guide-
lines in the implemention regulations of the Forest Resources and
Practices Act or the field manual for Region II, Interior Spruce/
Hardwood Region.
2. Timber Salvage on Agricultural Land s
All timber having high value for commerical and personal use forest
products should be salvaged on land s to be cleared for agricultural
purposes. The following are examples of implementation techniques:
a. salvage of forest products is specified at the time of dispos-
al as part of the disposal contract;
b. the agricultural rights holder is allowed to select specified
areas for non-salvage (windbreaks, headquarters site, etc.).
The state or borough contracts the remainder and the agricul-
tural rights holder is given the right of first refusal;
c. economic incentives are cre ated for timber salvage. These
incentives should, at a m1n1mum, specify that the value of
forest products on each parcel be added to the base land price
with that amount not eligible for inclusion in the state loan
program;
d. the useable forest products a re sold and removed before sale
of the agricultural rights.
Any method which insures product salvage may be implemented in a
particular area. The choice woul d depend on the specific details
the sale. However, all of the options assume realistic scheduling
of clearing and access development .
3. Protection of the Hydrologic Syste~
a. Streams: Generally, the Forest Resources and Practices Act
and implementing regulations will guide operations along
streams. Operations with the potential of affecting anadro-
mous fish streams require on-site review during preliminary
s.ale planning (including and in addition to Title 16 require-
ments). In addition, for e stry operations are subject to
Policies and Management Guidelines; River and Stream Corri-
dors, this chapter.
b. Wetlands: Only selective ·timber harvest will generally be
permitted within 100 feet o f class I and II wetlands. This
guideline may be changed for specific locations by DNR with
the consultation of ADF&G. See Policies and Management Guide-
lines; Wetlands, this chapter, for the definition of class I
and II wetlands.
63
64
c. Lakes: Personal or commercial timber harvests around lakes
with significant recreation value shall be designed to protect
and enhance the rec r eational values of the lake and adjacent
land. Selective cutting only should be done in areas viewed
from the lake, the lakeshore and roads to the lake. Timber
harvest plans with t:he potential of affecting lakes that have
significant recreation value should be reviewed by the
Division of Parks and ADF&G .
4. Joint Forestry/Habitat Management Areas
For management units with important forestry and wildlife values,
forest operations will be geared toward the combined goals of
forest management, habitat enhancement and recreational opport unity
availability. Harvest operations will follow the following manage-
ment guidelines in units where both forestry and habitat receive
primary use designations in this plan.
a. Hardwood management should be based on max1m1z1ng economic
return on wood fiber rather than maximizing wood volume pro-
duced. This will result in decreasing the rotation age, with
a goal of an average of 40% of the primary hardwood stands
within each management unit in the under 25 year old age
stands.
b. In areas of overmat:ure ha r dwood stands, clearcuts up to 15
acres are encouraged as long as adequate escape cover (vegeta-
tion) is available within 300 feet of any point within a
clearcut.
5. Management Plans
For the Susitna Corridor, Susitna Floodplain, and Kashwitna Manage-
ment Units, five-year management plans should be prepared. These
plans will address actions under consideration in the next five
years by DNR-Division of Land and Water Management, DNR-Division of
Parks, DNR-Division of Forestry, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, the Matanaska-Sus i tna Borough, or any other agency with
likely management interest in the area.
6. Timber Harvests in Essential Habitat Areas
In areas of essential habitat or in any habitat necessary to
threatened or endangered species, no harvests are allowed which are
likely to have negative impact on the habitat or the species.
Determination of essential areas, and design and approval of
harvest techniques in these areas shall be conducted jointly by DNR
and ADF&G.
7. Timber Harvest Near Alpine Tree Line
No timber cuts may occur within 1/2 mile of alpine tree line except
with approval and design consultation of ADF&G.
8. Trail Protection
Trail corridors designated in this plan are available for personal
and selective commercial timber harvest only if such harvests
protect or enhance the visual, sound, and other characteristics of
the trail. Harvest practices, timing and transportation must be
coordinated with ·the Alaska Division of Parks. Unless otherwise
noted trail corridors extend 150 feet from trail centerline (300
feet, total width). See Policies and Management Guidelines;
Trails, this chapter.
9. Visual Resource Protection and Enhancement
Forest operations should avoid negative impacts on views from the
Parks Highway, residential areas, other roads, or areas with sub-
stantial human use.
10. Miscellaneous
a. Two publications are highly recommended to both public and
private land developers for practices which protect and en-
hance wildlife resources.
1) A Synthesis and Evaluation of Fish and Wildlife Resources
Information for the Willow and Talkeetna Sub-basins.
ADF&G, 1980.
2) Guidelines for Wildlife Design in Residential Develop-
ments. ADF&G Habitat Protection Section, 1979.
b. The location of and development standards for roads on state
forest lands will be coordinated with the Division of Parks,
ADF&G, and DL&WM.
65
1-'l!:iH & WILDLIFE
GOALS, POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES -FISH AND WILDLIFE
GOALS
1. Maintenance and enhancement of the Willow Sub-basin as one of the
state's most important areas for providing high quality, readily
accessible fish and wildlife for the use of local residents, resi-
dents of the Anchorage metropolitan area, and other visitors.
2. A continuing contribution of King, Red, Silver, Pink and Chum
Salmon to the Cook Inlet commercial fishery from Willow Sub-basin
anadromous fish streams.
IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
1. General
Fish and wildlife habitat values shall be an important considera-
tion in the management of all public lands, regardless of the
dominant land use. Development activities will be conducted in a
manner that minimizes negative impacts on fish and wildlife habi-
tat.
2. Management by Species Type
a. The majority of existing human use of moose, bear, ptarmigan,
spruce grouse and small fur bearing mammals occurs on private
land. As private land in the sub-basin becomes more densely
developed a larger percentage of these species' habitat needs
and of their use by humans must occur on public lands.
b. The quality of anadromous fish streams of the sub-basin and of
the overall hydrologic system -lakes, tributaries, wetlands
and groundwater -should bE! preserved at a level which: a)
supports sportfishing at current (average over 1975-1980) or
increased levels of human use; and b) provides a contribution
of salmon to the Cook Inlet commercial salmon fishery equal to
the average over the last 5 years.
3. Management by General Habitat Typ~
a. The state and borough will strive to preserve and enhance the
diversity of habitat types occurring in the sub-basin.
69
70
1) Particular at1:ention will be given to protecting/
enhancing habitats that support a wide variety of species
or species of high value to human use, are of limited
availability in the sub-basin, and are highly vulnerable
to disruption. Habitat types in this category are tundra
(especially shrub tundra), riparian areas, wetlands other
than riparian, open forest with shrub understory, and
shrublands.
2) Representative amounts of other habitat types in the
sub-basin will be preserved. These include closed spruce
forests, closed mixed deciduous/ coniferous forests and
grasslands.
3) Land management that significantly alters habitat will
give special consideration to the protection of eco-
tones -areas at the juncture of two or more vegetative
zones or physiographic regions. This will occur at the
site design phase of any project and include involvement
of ADF&G to assist in site selection, location of buf-
fers, laying out open spaces in subdivisions, etc.
b. Consideration must be given to the overall pattern of lands
preserved for fish and wildlife production as well as the
qualities of specific sites. Wherever possible, habitat lands
shall be linked through migration corridors, river corridors,
and buffers.
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
1. Public Access to Fish and: Wildlife Resources
See Policies and Management Guidelines, Public Access, this chap-
ter.
2. River and Stream Corridors
See Policies and Management Guidelines, River and Stream Corridors,
this chapter.
3. Wetlands
See Policies and Management Guidelines, Wetlands, this chapter.
4. Forestry Practices
See Policies and Management Guidelines, Forestry, this chapter.
5. Grazing
See Policies and Management Guidelines, Agriculture, this chapter.
6. Subsurface Resources
See Policies and Management Guidelines, Sub-surface Resources, this
chapter.
7. Recommended Development Practices
Two publications are highly recommended to both public and private
land developers for practices which protect and enhance wildlife
resources.
a. A Synthesis and Evaluation of Fish and Wildlife Resources
Information for the Willow and Talkeetna Sub-basins. ADF&G,
1980.
b. Guidelines for Wildlife Desi~ in Residential Developments.
ADF&G Habitat Protection Section, 1979.
8. Life History of Species
Land management practices should be designed to minimize impacts on
species du·ring critical portions of their life histories (e.g.,
moose calving, fish overwintering areas). The borough and state
should consult with the Department of Fish and Game to develop
plans for mitigating impacts during these periods.
71
-....)
w
I"r:rw:n 1 1 ::r.::::
GOALS, POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES -SETTLEMENT
GOALS
1. Provide a supply of public land for a variety of settlement pur-
poses commensurate with:
a. current and projected demand
b. the supply of public lands suitable to meet demand
c. the supply of private lands suitable to meet demand
2. Encourage patterns of year-round settlement which minimize service
costs, facilitate a stable economic base, and preserve the desired
social environment.
3. Avoid settlement in hazardous areas and in areas where development
could cause significant environmental degradation.
IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
1. Supply of Public Lands for Settlement
a. General Policy: Vacant land suitable for residential use
within the Willow Sub-basin is abundant. There are approxi-
mately 35,000 acres of vacant, subdivided private land in this
sub-basin. In light of this vast supply of private land for
residential purposes, the borough and state set a low priority
on selling important agricultural, timber, mineral and recrea-
tion lands for residential use. These resource lands will
provide the region's economic base for long term development.
Economic development within the borough is threatened by
selling important resource lands for residential use.
b. Demand Assessment: The borough and state agree that suitable
public land should be made available for residential use when
the private supply is limited. Therefore, the borough and
state will jointly assess demand for residential land yearly
and establish annual disposal schedules for public lands.
During the next 5 years, disposal of settlement lands with
75
76
road access will be primarily a borough responsibility due to
the lack of suitable state lands near existing roads.
c. Commercial and Industrial Land: It is the policy of the
borough and state to sell suitable lands for private commer-
cial and industrial use in order to facilitate economic devel-
opment. Land disposal decisions for these uses will be made
on a case by case basis consistent with this plan.
2. Settlement Patterns
a. Borough and state land disposals should guide year-round
settlement to areas 'lvhere public services, including transpor-
tation, exist or can be provided at reasonable cost, or where
development of a viable economic base is probable.
b. The borough and si:ate recognize three general categories of
public land that may be sold for settlement: land in or
adjacent to community· centers, rural land with road access,
and remote lands with no road access. General policies for
disposing of public lands in each of these categories are as
follows:
1) Community Cent.ers: Public land inside or adjacent to
existing or planned communities (Wasilla, Willow, Point
MacKenzie, Houston, and Big Lake) should be used to
facilitate the development of that community. Disposal
of land for residential, commercial and industrial use
shall be encouraged as far as consistent with local
plans. Except: for lands designated for public retention,
state lands within community centers are high priority
for disposal.
2) Rural Areas with Road Access: In these areas settlement
should be designed to maintain open space and encourage
efficient, compact residential development. Land should
be offered for disposal in these areas, consistent with
demand.
3) Areas without Road Access: Public lands in this category
are lowest·priority for settlement. This policy is aimed
at minimizing service costs and protecting important
resource lands. However, there is high demand for sites
suitable for private recreational use in the borough.
Therefore, waterfront sites and other sites with special
attraction for residential use are high priority for
disposal if fly-in or boat access is available. (Public
access to lakes, streams and other recreation areas shall
be maintained.)
3. Hazardous Areas and Areas Susceptible to Environmental
Degradation
a. The borough and state should avoid disposing of land for
settlement where environmental hazards such as floodplains or
steep slopes pose a significant threat to life and property
and where human activity will cause serious environmental
degradation such as pollutJ.on of the water table, wetlands,
lakes, streams or other environmentally important areas.
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
1. Public Access
See Policies and Management Guidelines; Public Access, this chap-
ter.
2. Stream Buffers
See Policies and Management Guidelines; River and Stream Corridors,
this chapter.
3. Trails
See Policies and Management Guidelines; Recreation and Historic
Trails, 'this chapter.
4. Wetlands
See Policies and Management Guidelines; Wetlands, this chapter.
5. Floodplains
Public lands within the 100-year floodplain should remain in public
ownership except where a regulatory floodway and regulatory flood
fringe have been identifed through detailed hydrologic studies.*
When such studies have been done, disposals of public lands within
the flood fringe may occur. Disposals within the flood fringe
should be for low density development, for example, private recrea-
tional residences or agriculture, rather than urban density sub-
divisions. In drainages where the 100-year floodplain has not been
identified, the best available information will be used to deter-
mine a flood hazard zone to remain in public ownership.
* The floodway is the unobstructed portion of floodplain which
can convey a 100-year flood and keep it within a specified
height and velocity. The floodway carries the fast-moving and
deep water of the flood. The flood fringe is that part of the
100-year floodplain outside the limits of the floodway. The
flood fringe carries the more shallow and more slowly moving
flood waters.
77
·I SGBSORFACE
RESOORCES
GOALS, POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES -SUBSURFACE RESOURCES
GOALS
1. Resource Development: the development of subsurface mineral and
energy resources to contribute to the local and state economies and
to meet local, regional and national needs:
a. to develop the infrastructure ·~ roads, rail, ports, processing
facilities, etc. -needed to acquire, process and market
subsurface resources
b. to insure that policies or guidelines affecting the develop-
ment of subsurface resources are consistent, simple and pre-
dictable
2. Environmental Protection: minimum adverse impacts of subsurface
resource development on surface resources and land uses
3. Socioeconomic Impacts: minimum adverse social, fiscal, and econom-
ic impacts on communities
81
82
IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
1. The Effects of the Plan on Opportunities to Explore and Develop
Subsurface Resources on S1:ate-owned Subsurface Landi(
*
irk
The large majority of state-owned subsurface areas i n the Willow
Sub-basin are currently open to exploration and development of
subsurface resources and will remain open under this land use plan.
However, an important effect of this plan is that it closes certain
areas to specific types of subsurface resource exploration and
development. The following section describe~ the areas closed by
the plan. It is importan t to note that these mineral closures and
other policies resulting from this plan do not alter or replace
existing regulations, nor do they affect any exi sting mineral
closures in the area. Th e areas closed to mining described below
are closed only to new e x ploration or development activities; any
existing leases, prospecting permits, or claims will not be
affected. (Mineral clos i ng orders will be prepdred for those areas
in compliance with AS 38 .05.185.)
a. Areas closed both to mineral leasing and to locatable
mineral entry by thi s plan**
The Little Susitna River Corridor Management Unit is closed to
all mineral leasing and to locatable mineral entry.
b. Areas closed only to locatable mineral entry by this plan
Under current department policy, areas sold by the state for
residential or agricultural purposes --including those
indentifed by this p l an --are closed to all locatable mineral
entry. ·(These sale areas may, on a case-by-case basis, be
open to development of leasable minerals.)
The State retains subsurface rights when it transfers land to local
governments or privat e owners . Consequently all subsurface rights
in the sub-basin, with two notable exceptions, are held by the
State and are subject to the policies in this plan. The first
exception is certain private lands that were homesteaded and passed
directly from federal to private ownership. Private land of this
type comprises a relatively small percentage of the sub-basin's
area, less than 5 percent (mostly in the Willow and Wasilla areas).
The secon d exception is lands granted to Native regional and
village corporations. Under the terms of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act, .Native Corporations received both surface and
subsurface rights. These lands make up about 1 percent of the
sub-basin's area.
"Leasable" minerals include oi l and gas, coal, and geothermal
resources. Development rights are acquired either at a lease sale,
(the method always used for oil and gas) or non-competitively (by
applying for a prospecting permit). Mineral such as gold, silver,
copper, i ron, asbestos, and uranium, are "locatab l e;" righ ts to
these minerals are acquired by staking a mining claim.
..,
..,
.....
""
l
-.
*
.....
c. Areas Closed to Coal Prospecting
Certain areas with exceptionally high surface resource values
are closed to the issuance of coal prospecting permits*; these
areas are described below.
-Large blocks of class II and III soils: The Point
MacKenzie project and potential agricultural areas in
Fish Creek and Susitna Corridor Management Units.
-River Corridors: Little Susitna River, Little Willow
Creek, Willow Creek, and t h e Big Susitna River.
The Little Susitna Ri ver: all of the Little Susitna
River Management Unit and a corridor 300 feet on either
side of the river over the remainder of the river's
course.
Little Willow Creek: the portion of Little Willow Creek
Management Unit east of where the railroad crosses the
river and a corridor 300 feet on either side of the river
over the remainder of t he river's course.
Willow Creek: Willow Creek Management Unit and a
corrido r 300 feet on either side of t he river over the
remainder of the river's course.
Big Susitna River:
s~de of the river
forms the boundary
a corridor at least ~ mile
(note: the eastern bank of
to the study area).
on either
the river
-Recreation sites identifed on the recreation map of this
plan (Appendix 2). (These are primarily small sites
less than 160 acres --used for campgrounds, waysides,
boat launches and access sites on water bodies and along
trails.)
-A corridor 300 feet wide on either side of the Parks
Highway right-of-way to pro t ect visual quality.
-Nancy Lake State Recreation .Area .
-The proposed state capital site at Willow.
-All past and planned (through 1987) state subdivisions
and the portions of state remote parcel sales areas likey
to be staked .
Under State law, once a coal prospecting permit is issued, the
state is required to grant the permit holder a coal lease if coal
is found in commercial quantities. Any coal mining that occurs
after a lease is issued would be subject to state, federal and
local mining regul ations.
83
84
2. Protection of Streams and Stream Corridors
Protection of fish and wildlife and recreation values is the
primary management objective within the portions of Little Willow
Creek, Willow Creek, and the Litt le Susitna River described below.
These three areas will be open to leasehold location under
AS 38.05. 205. In "leasehold location" areas, a mining claim is
staked in the usual fashion, but must be converted to a lease
before it can be put into production. Lease stipulations will be
used to protect fish and wildlife and recreatioal values. (A
mineral leasing order will be prepared for these areas in
compliance with AS 38.05.85 .)
Little Willow Creek : the portion of Little Willow Creek
Management Unit east to where the railroad crosses the river
and a corridor 300 f eet on either side of the river between
the railroad and the Big Susitna River.
Willow Creek: Willow Creek Management Unit and a corridor 300
feet on either side of the river between the western edge of
the management unit and the Big Susitna River.
Little Susitna River: a corridor 300 feet on either side of
the river between t~he eas t ern edge of the Little Susitna
Corridor Management Unit and the bridge on the road to Hatcher
Pass.
3. Mining in Community Centers
Permits, leasehold stipulations, or other controls affecting sub-
surface development in Wasilla, Big Lake, Houston, Knik, and Willow
shall be prepared with the consultation of borough and city
governments and be consistent with local or borough land use plans.
The boundaries within which this policy will apply are city limits
or community planning areas defined by the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough. The state shall conside r local government recommendations
when considering or issuing development leases or permits.
4. Coal Prospecting and Mining
Coal prospecting will occur in a manner that minimizes adverse
impacts on the natural environment including effects on vegetation,
water quality, fish, bird, and animal life, etc. (See guidelines
sections.)
Prospecting for coal is allowed adjacent to anadromous fish streams
(other than those prot ected in specific corridors); however,
surface entry up to 500 feet from the stream may be restricted if a
lease is eventually granted. This policy is limited to the
anadromous fish streams depicted on the Fish and Wildlife map (Map
13) shown in Appendix 2. Decisions on surface entry adjacent to
streams will be made with the consultation of Division of Parks and
ADF&G.
~
....
...
...
....
'-
!..
I..
~
...
...
\.,
\-
...
I..
\...
..,
..,
""
..,
..,
....,
....,
I
5. Incorporating Area Plan Policies An d Guidelines into Mining
Permits and Leases
6.
Permits and leases required for mining will continue to be issued
on a case-by-case basis coord inate d by the Division of Minerals and
Energy Management (DMEM), wi th involvement by the Department of
Fish and Game, Department of Environmental Conservation, the
Division of Land and Water Man a gement (DL&WM), the Division of
Forestry (DOF), and the Divis i on of Parks. Prior to issuing
miscellaneous land use permits or l eases, the DL&WM will review the
management intent, land use des i gnations, and specific management
guidelines applying to the area a ffected by the proposed mining
operation and see that these consid erations are incorporated into
the miscellaneous land use pe r mit or lease. (See Management
Guidelines Section for specific c r i t eria) .
Promotion of Subsurface Resources Development
a. Infrastructure. This l and use plan can principally affect
necessary infrastruture deve lopment through identification of
needed roads. Speci f ic roa d s proposed by this plan are shown
in the Transportation Section of Appendix 2.
b. Conflicts Between Mining and Ot her Uses: A detailed man-
agement plan for the Hatche r Pass area is being prepared by
DNR in 1983. This p l anning e f fort will develop guidelines to
reduce conflicts between oUter uses occuring in the area
(recreation, grazing, etc .) a nd mining.
c. Coal Development: I t is t he state's policy to promote coal
development through:
1) developing a coa l strip mining reclamation program based
on Alaskan conditions;
2) assisting in t h e deve l opment of the environmental and
social data base r e quired for permits; and
3) encouraging the ma r ket ing of Alaskan coal.
7. Anadromous Fish Streams
8.
Overall water and streambed qua l ity necessary to support existing
leve l s of use of anadromous f i sh within the sub-basin (sport,
subs i stence, and commerci a l) sha l l not diminished as a result of
mining activities .
Sand and Gravel
See Goals, Policies and Manageme nt Guidelines; Transportation, this
chapter.
85
86
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
1. Standard Stipulations
Permits•'~-and lease plans of operations will always address, at
minimum, the following issues: timing and methods of access and
related impacts, disposal of overburden and tailings, disposal of
combustible and noncombustible waste, disposal of sewage and waste
water, sediment control, and fuel and oil storage and spills.
(These are currently applied to all Miscellaneous Land Use Permits
(MLUP) issued by DMEM and are included here primarily to inform
prospective miners of the types of requirements they will have. to
meet and to formalize existing procedure).
2. Erosion Control Adjacent to and Upland from Anadromous Fish
Streams
Stipulations in mining permits or in plans of operations associated
with leases will insure that anadromous fish streams are protected
from siltation that may be caused by mining activiites. On a
case-by-case basis, with the consultation of the Department of Fish
and Game, stipulations should be prepared to address:
a. location of tailings and overburden
b. alteration of natural vegetation and natural contours
c. impacts on non-anadromous fish tributaries that affect water
quality downstream
d. revegatation of disturbed areas
e. maintenance of a buffer of undisturbed vegetation adjacent
to streams.
3. Reclamation
The Miscellaneous Land Use Permit or plan of operations associated
with a lease will specify that land must be returned to a useful
state. Determination of the specific type of reclamation will be
done in consultation wit.h the agency responsible for the primary
land use value(s) in the affected area.
* Under the existing permit process a miner who has staked and
intends to work a claim must submit a triagency permit application
to· the Department of Nat.ural Resources. The application includes
sufficient information to issue the permits required to develop the
claim; water quality (ADEC), anadromous fish (Title 16-ADF&G) and
miscellaneous land use (ADNR).
4. control o! Visual lmpacts
Guidelines will be developed as necessary through the Miscellaneous
Land Use Permit or leasing process to minimize the adverse visual
impacts of mining in settled areas, recreation areas, and in areas
viewed from roads. In such areas guidelines will address, at a
minimum, the following items: eontrol of solid wastes; removal of
vegetation; siting of mining structures, tailings and overburden;
roads; and rehabilitation of mining sites.
5. Access for Mineral Development
a. Access to tundra, wetlands, and other environmentally
sensitive areas should occur in a manner at a time that
minimizes damage. (See Goals, Policies, and Management
Guidelines; Transporation, this chapter.)
b. Existing roads and trails should be used to provide access to
mine sites wherever possible.
6. Public Access
See Policies and Management Guidelines:
chapter.
Public Access, this
87
...,
....
l
~
...,
...,
..,
..,
..,
...
..,
J.JOil. V HIOdSJ.JVH.l
GOALS, POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES -TRANSPORTATION
GOALS
1. A transportation system which supports the goals and objectives of
other plan elements.
2. A transportation system with the lowes~t possible long run costs in-
cluding construction, operations, and maintenance.
3. A transportation system with minimal impact on the environment:
a. the aquatic environment
b. the terrestrial environment
c. aesthetic and cultural features
4. A transportation system which efficiently uses energy: a system
which encourages compact, efficient development patterns
IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
1. The prov1.s1.on of the requisite access should precede disposal or
resource development. This plan provides general recommendations
for transportation routes to meet the needs of the various re-
sources. However, much more det:ailed route alignment and feasi-
bility analysis will be required before the routes can be con-
sidered final.
2. The borough and state should avoid actions incompatible with the
construction of potential routes until such time as final decision
is made on the feasibility/appropriateness of the routes.
3. Alignment of transportation corridors should be coordinated with
all public and private agencies with jurisdiction over the affected
land and resources.
4. In order to minimize construction and maintenance costs, sand and
gravel sites should be lDcated on public land as near to transpor-
tation routes as is possible and appropriate.
91
92
5. Management of public lands adjacent to the Parks Highway should be
consistent with the recommendations of the report "Scenic Resources
Along the Parks Highway." The recommendations in that report which
are relevant to the \llillow Sub-Basin are in Appendix 1. The
borough and state will encourage private land owners to follow
recommendations in the report in order to protect the scenic values
along the highway.
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Transportation guidelines listed below address the following issues:
1. Rights-of-Way Size and Permitted Uses
2. Protection of the Hydrologic System
3. Road Pull-outs
4. Timber Salvage from the Right-of-Way
5. Material Sites
6. Section Line Easements
7. Miscellaneous
1. Rights-of-Way Size and Permitted Uses
The width of major road rights-of-way should be determined on a
pite specific basis. However, they should be sufficient to accom-
modate recreation trails within the rights-of-way but not directly
adjacent to the road, future road expansion, and the addition of
miscellaneous utilities. Minor r6ad rights-of-way should be suffi-
cient to accommodate recreational trails only when the road re-
places an existing trail.
The vacant portions of rights-of-way should be used for selective
timber harvest or leased for agricultural purposes if such uses do
not create hazards or impair necessary visual screening.
2. Protection of the Hydrologic System
Transportation corridors should be located to avoid influencing the
quality or quantity of water in adjacent streams or lakes, or
detracting from recreational use of the waterway. Specific guide-
lines are contained below.
a. Minimize stream crossings
streams.
especially anadromous fish
b. Wherever possible, avoid routing roads parallel to and within
100 feet of any waterway or parallel to and directly upslope
from any waterway.
c. Leave sufficient space on either side of road for buffers when
routing near streams and wetlands. Buffers will vary with the
degree of potential erosion hazard, but all buffers should be
at least 100 feet. Where existing buffers lack sufficient
protective vegetation, more e f fective vegetation should be
planted.
d. When it is absolutely necessary to cross a wa t er way, position
the crossing as nearly as possible at a 90° angle, or perpen-
dicular to the water channel.
e. All water crossings (bridges and culverts) should be large
enough and positioned to avoid: (1) changing direction and
velocity of stream flow, (2) interference with migrating or
spawning activities of fish and wildlife. In addition, all
bridges and culverts should be large enough to accommodate the
25 year peak discharge without interfering wi t h volume, veloc-
ity and sediment transport or substrate characteristics of the
stream. Bridges and culverts should provide adequate clear-
ance for boat, pedes t rian, horseback and large game passage
whenever these uses occur or are anticipated.
f. Construction or cons t ruction activities should not encroach
upon streams.
g. Road drainage should not be d ischarged directly over the edges
of the streambanks. Diverted flows from road gutters should
be provided with adequate outlets.
h. Vegetative cover along streambanks should be encouraged -as
long as it does not restrict channel capacities.
i. When routing through wetlands or peat, culverts should be
installed to enable free movement of fluids, mineral salts,
nutrients, etc.
j. Construction should be confined, whenever possible, to level,
well drained areas. In potential problem areas, excavation
and soil disturbance should be minimized.
k. Routing should be avoided :i.n severe hazard erosion areas
(i.e., steep slopes) -especially those directly above or
adjacent to wetlands or water ways.
l. When it is necessary to route through erosion hazard areas
(primarily slopes grea ter than 12%), methods should be employ-
ed to decrease runoff, erosion, and sedimentation by vegeta-
tive coverings, surf ace roughening, diversion dikes, etc .
m. Construction should be minimized in poorly drained areas -
particularly l owlands and peat. Construction should be mini-
mized in areas of s a ndy or gravely soils where the seasonal
water table comes with a maximum of four feet of the surface
and in areas of silty soils where the water table comes within
a maximum of three feet from the surface.
93
94
3. Road Pull-outs
Where road corridors contact streams, habitat corridors or other
areas of expected recreational useage, sufficient acreage should be
retained in public ownership to accommodate public access, safety
requirements, and expected recreational use. The size and location
of pullouts should be de:termined in consultation with Division of
Parks and Department of Fish and Game.
4. Timber Salvage from the_Right-of-Way
All timber having high value for commercial and personal use will
be salvaged on right--of-ways to be cleared for construction.
5. Material Sites
To minimize the construction and maintenance cost of transporta-
tion, material sites should be located as near to transportation
routes as possible, while at the same time protecting the fish and
wildlife and related recreational resources.
Given the current pauc:l ty of information in the undeveloped por-
tions of the sub-basin, the State Division of Geologic and Geo-
physical Surveys and. the Department of Transportation should inven-
tory and analyze potential gravel sources near proposed trans-
portation corridors. The results of the work should be used to
locate the required material sites.
The location and extraction of road building material within
streams, stream buffers, and habitat/recreation corridors should
occur only after design consultation with ADF&G, DOT/PF and DNR's
Divisions of Parks and GE!ologic and Geophysical Survey.
Material sites should be screened from the road, residential areas,
recreational areas, and other areas of significant human use.
Sufficient land should be allocated to the material site to allow
for such screening.
6. Section Line Easements
See Policies & Management Guidelines, Public Access, this chapter.
7. Miscellaneous
a. Guidelines of this plan should not be construed to replace
requirements of thE: Forest Resources and Practices Act, or
other applicable State and Federal laws.
b. Two publications are highly recommended to both public and
private land developers for practices which protect and en-
hance wildlife resources.
1) A Synthesis and Evaluation of Fish and Wildlife Resources
Information for the Willow and Talkeetna Sub-basins,
ADF&G, 1980.
2) Guidelines for Wildlife Design in Residential
Developments. ADF&G Habitat Protection Section, 1979.
95
WETLANDS
POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES -WETLANDS
POLICIES
1. Wetlands Management
It is the intent of the borough and state to provide for the pro-
tection of the hydrologic, habitat and recreation functions of
public wetlands. Land management practices shall be directed at
minimizing adverse impacts on the following important functions of
wetlands:
a. Water quality: Wetlands serve to filter nutrients and sedi-
ment from upland run-off.
b. Water supply: Wetlands serve to stabilize water supply by
retaining excessive water during flooding and by recharging
groundwater during dry periods.
c. Habitat/recreation: Wetlands provide important feeding,
nesting, and breeding grounds for many species; related recre-
ational use is also important.
2. Wetlands - A Definition
"'k
For the implementation of wetland policies and management guide-
lines, the following definition of wetlands shall apply: Wetlands
are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor deter-
mining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and
animal communities living in the soil and on its surface. The
single feature that most wetlands share is soil or substrate that
is at least periodically saturated with or covered by water.* For
purposes of this plan, land areas must fall into one of the follow-
ing two categories to be identified and mapped as wetlands:
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Clas-
sification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United St~
USFWS, Office of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington
D.C. 103 pp.
99
100
1) land areas which, at least periodically, support predominantly
hydrophytes* and in which the substrate is predominantly very
poorly drained or undrained hydric soil**; or
2) land areas which are located within an active floodplain+;
regardless of vegetation or soil conditions.
In accordance with this definition, wetlands in the Willow
Sub-basin have been identified and mapped by combining data on soil
drainage obtained from the Soil Conservation Service, with data on
wetland vegetation types provided by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service . The resulting maps are available at off ices of the Soil
Conservation Service and the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources. These maps will be used to identify wetlands in the
implementation of this plan.
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
For purposes of these management guidelines, wetlands are divided into
three classes: Class I, wetlands larger than 100 acres and all wetlands
with a locatable stream outlet (the stream shall be considered part of
the wetland); Class II, wetlands between 40 and 100 acres with no out-
let; and Class III, wetlands less than 40 acres with no outlet.
1. Agricultural Development Adjacent To Wetlands
a. Class I wetlands and certain surrounding lands (buffers)
should remain in public ownership whenever feasible. A Class
I wetland buffer shall include all soils of Class IV or worse
agricultural capability (e.g. Class V, VI, etc.) which lie
adjacent to the wetland or a 100-foot strip adjacent to the
wetland -whichever provides the greatest buffer width.
However, maximum buffer width should be 300 feet. Restrictive
use covenants and public access easements rather than public
ownership may be used to protect Class I wetlands and
associated buffers under conditions specified in 4 below.
* hydrophyte: any plant growing in water or on a substrate that is
at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive
water content.
** hydric soil: soil that is wet long enough to periodically produce
anaerobic conditions, thereby influencing the growth of plants.
+ active floodplain: the flood prone low lands and relatively flat
areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including contiguous wet-
lands and floodplain areas of off shore islands; this will include,
at a minimum, that area subject to a 1% or greater chance of flood-
ing in any given year (100-year floodplain).
b. Class II wetlands and certain surrounding lands (buffers)
should remain in public ownership whenever feasible. A
Class II wetland buffer shall include all soils of Class IV or
worse agricultural capability which lie adjacent to the wet-
land, or a 60-foot strip adjacent to the wetland -whichever
provides the greatest buffer width. However, maximum buffer
width should be 300 feet.
Restrictive use covenants and public access easements rather
than public ownership may be used to protect Class II wetlands
and associated buffers under conditions specified in 4 below.
c. Class III wetlands may be sold as part of the farmstead.
Draining, clearing, or other modifications must conform to the
applicable permit requirements (e. g. Army Corps of Engineers
"Section 404" Permit).
2. Forestry Management Adjacent to ~etlands
a. Winter access only should be used in or across wetlands when-
ever feasible.
b. Selective timber harvest only will generally be permitted
within 100 feet of Class I and II wetlands. This guideline
may be changed for specific locations by DNR with the consul-
tation of ADF&G.
3. Other Land Uses Adjacent to Wetlands
On all lands adjacent to public wetlands adequate buffers will be
preserved in a natural state to protect the hydrologic, recreation
and habitat functions of the wetlands. These buffers should be
retained in public ownership whenever feasible. Restrictive use
covenants and public access easements rather than public ownership
may be used to protect wetland buffers under conditions specified
in 4 below.
The following standards shall apply when publicly-owned wetlands or
publicly-owned lands adjacent to wetlands are sold to private
parties for non-agricultural use.
a. Class I wetlands and land within 100 feet of Class I wetlands
will remain in a natural state.
b. Class II wetlands and land within 60 feet of Class II wetlands
will remain in a natural state.
c. Class III wetlands will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis
through public land disposal processes or applicable public
land management plans.
101
102
4. Restrictive Use Covenants and Public Access Easements
Class I and II wetlands (including outlet streams) and associated
buffers should remain in public ownership whenever feasible. Re-
strictive use covenants and public access easements may be used
rather than public ownership under the following conditions:
a. Where the configuration of the wetland is such that survey
along the meander of the wetland would be excessively ex-
spensive. In this case a aliquot part (rectangular) survey
rather than a meander survey may be used along the edge of the
wetland. This may result in portions of the wetland being
conveyed to private ownership. Restrictive use covenants and
public access easements shall be applied to ensure that those
portions of the wetland and associated buffer conveyed to pri-
vate ownership remain in a natural state and that public
access and use are maintained.
b. Where the wetland is entirely included with a parcel of land
to be sold for private use. In this case the wetland and
associated buffer may be conveyed to private ownership with
restrictive use covenants which ensure that the wetland and
associated buffer 1:emain in a natural state. If there is a
stream outlet from such a wetland, public access easements
shall also be applied to both the outlet and the wetland.
-0 w
S~OOI~~O;)
WV3~.1S ~ }I ::I' 1\ I >I
POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES -RIVER AND STREAM CORRIDORS
POLICY
It is the policy of the borough and state to protect and enhance the
public recreation, habitat and water supply functions of rivers and
streams in the Willow Sub-basin. Public access to and use of river and
stream corridors will be encouraged.
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
1. River and Stream Buffers
Specific guidelines for use of public lands along the Fish Creek
drainage, the Little Susitna River, and Little Willow Creek are
listed under the appropriate management unit.
All rivers and streams with significant recreation value should
have a publicly owned wildlife habitat/public recreation buffer
surrounding the watercourse. The size of river and stream buffers
will be determined on a site specific basis and will vary depending
on the particular values of each stream. However, buffers should
include a minimum of 50 feet each side of the ordinary high water
mark. The buffers should be dE~signed to minimize negative impacts
on visual character, habitat value, water quality, noise screening
ability, and public access. Therefore buffer design will require
coordination and review with the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, the Department of Environmental Conservation, and the
Division of Parks -Department of Natural Resources.
2. Forestry Practices
Personal use of timber or commercial harvest in river and stream
buffers must be consistent with habitat/recreation values. Gener-
ally, the Forest Resources and Practices Act and implementing regu-
lations will guide operations along streams. Operations on state
lands with the potential of affecting anadromous fish streams re-
quire on-site review during preliminary sale planning (including
and in addition to Title 16 requi·rements).
105
3.
106
Instream Flows
To minimize conflict bet;ween water appropriations and fish and
wildlife/recreation resources , it is recommended that hydrologic
studies be done to provide data necessary to establish instream
flow requirements for the following streams and their lateral
drainages:
Priority 1
Little Willow Creek -· Returning salmon runs exceed
20,000. Angler man-days -5,000 to 10,000.
Willow Creek -Returning sa l mon runs exceed 100,000.
Angler man-days -25,000 to 30,000.
Deception Creek -Ret;urning salmon runs exceed 5, 000.
Closed to salmon fishing to protect spawners.
Lilly Creek (inlet to Nancy Lake) and Lake Creek
(outlet of Nancy Lake). Salmon migration for
more than 5,000 adult red salmon and rearing area
several hundred thousand silver molt. Major
juvenile rearing areas for Little Susitna River
coho salmon.
Little Susitna River and Tributaries -Returning salmon
runs exceed 50,000. Angler man-days -20,000 to
25,000. Major rearing areas occur in connecting
drainages in the area from the Parks Highway crossing
downstream to the Burma Road intersection. Notable
drainages include Papoose Twin Lakes, Horseshoe Lakes
Complex, Finger Lake, Butterfly lakes area and numerous
unnamed lake drainages immediately adjacent to the river,
most of which fall within the Little Susitna Corridor
Management Unit .
Fish Creek (outlet of Big Lake) -Returning salmon runs
exceed 40,000. A major expenditure of state funds is
proposed for a hatchery further up in the drainage to
rebuild the salmon runs.
Meadow Creek (inlet t;o Big Lake) -Salmon spawning and
rearing area . Major salmon hatchery is located on this
stream and is dependent on stream flows for its water
supply.
Cottonwood Creek -Returning salmon runs exceed 10,000.
Angler man-days -8 ,000 to 10,000.
Wasilla Creek -Returning salmon runs exceed 5,000.
Angler man-days -5,000 to 7,000.
..
..
Spring Creek (tributary of ~lasilla Creek) -The major
rearing area for Wasilla Creek coho salmon.
Fish Creek (outlet of Red Shirt Lake and inlet to Flat
Horn Lake) -2,000 to 5,000 adult red salmon migrate
to Red Shirt Lakes, producing several hundred thousand
red salmon rearing smolt; more than 2,000 silver adults
spawn throughout the system. This system has high
recreational fishing potential when access is developed.
Priority 2
Threemile Creek (Big Lake drainage) -Salmon spawning
and rearing area.
Priority 3
Noname Creek (inlet of Nancy Lake) -Salmon rearing area.
Located on east side of Nancy Lake.
Lucille Creek (outlet of Lucille Lake) -Salmon rearing
area.
Goose Creek (outlet of Stephan Lake) -Salmon spawning
and rearing habitat.
4. Hydrologic Monitoring
It is recommended that baseline hydrologic monitoring be conducted
(by DGGS or the USGS) in areas where major agricultural disposals
are planned. Such areas curren1:ly include only the Fish Creek
Unit, but may be extended to other areas as borough/ state small
farm disposals are located. :t1onitoring of Fish Creek and its
tributaries should begin as soon as possible.
5. Road Crossings
Where road corridors contact streams, appropriate areas should be
retained in public ownership to accommodate the expected recreation
use, including parking. The size of these areas will vary but
should generally be 20-80 acres. Exceptions to this size may be
made for sites anticipated to ha.ve very low or high use. These
river access/recreation sites should be located to be readily
accessible from the highway without being visible. Typically, this
will require a short section of access road to a parking area
screened from the highway by vegetation or topography.
107
TRAILS
POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES -RECREATION AND HISTORIC TRAILS
POLICY
The state and the borough will reserve in public ownership (or otherwise
insure public use of) important historic and recreational trails identi-
fied in this plan.
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
1. Trail Corridors
a. The Iditarod Trail: Those portions of the Iditarod Trail in
state and borough ownership will be protected by a public
ownership corridor 1000 feet; wide (500 feet either side of
centerline). This width allows flexibility to reroute the
trails within the corridor, combine motorized and non-motor-
ized uses on separate trails within the corridor, and include
a visual and sound buffer between the recreation corridor uses
and adjacent uses. To minimize potential land use conflicts
or the impact of the trail's existence on adjacent land uses,
the corridor width may be expanded or reduced. These width
adjustments, as well as rerouting of the trail corridor may be
permitted in specific instances with the consultation and
agreement of the Alaska Division of Parks. The Matanuska-
Susitna Borough Trails Committee shall also be consulted if
rerouting the trail corridor is proposed. Example: The trail
corridor width could be reduced to 600 feet or less where the
adjacent land use would not adversely impact the trail ex-
perience. Such adjacent uses might include farming, grazing,
personal use or commercial timber harvesting, habitat manipu-
lation, or similar low intensity uses. A corridor wider than
1000 feet may also be desirable in certain instances to incor-
porate high quality adjacent land features and scenery or
where adjacent land uses such as high density residential,
industrial, or commercial uses would adversely affect the
trail.
No structures or equipment of a permanent nature should be
placed within the trail corridor which could adversely affect
the trail experience. Where necessary, trail crossings may be
permitted to allow access to lands on both sides of the trail.
Crossings should be limited to a few discrete areas rather
than random crossings along the length of the trail.
111
112
b. Other Recreation and Historic Trails: Other trails identified
in this plan shall be retained in public ownership with a
width of 300 feet (150 feet either side of centerline). This
distance may be modified on a case by case basis with approval
of the Division of Parks and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Trails Committee. This width allows flexibility to re-route,
separate motorized and non-motorized uses, and include a
visual buffer. Re-routing of the trail corridor may be per-
mitted to minimize land use conflicts with the provision that
alternate routes provide opportunities similar to the origi-
nal. Re-routing of trails on public land requires consulta-
tion with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Trails Committee and
the Alaska Division of Parks. The ADF&G shall also be
consulted.
·2. Land Management of Trail Corridors
a. Where necessary for power lines, pipelines or roads to cross
trail corridors, crossings should be at 90° angles when feas-
ible. An exception is when a trail corridor is deliberately
combined with a public facility or transportation corridor.
Land uses immediately adjacent to the trail corridor should
not adversely affect the recreational enjoyment of the trail.
Examples of negative effects are trees blown down within the
corridor caused by removal of protective trees on adjacent
land; pollution of streams . that flow across or along the
corridor caused by agricultural, industrial, resource extrac-
tive or residential development; and uncomfortable noise,
light, dust, smoke or odor levels adjacent to trail corridor.
b. Trail corridors are available for personal and selective
commercial timber harvest only if such harvests protect or
enhance the visual, sound, and other characteristics of the
trail. Harvest practices, timing and transportation should be
coordinated with the Alaska Division of Parks, ADF&G and the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Trails Committee.
--w
ss::~::>::>v ::>naod
POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES -PUBLIC ACCESS
POLICY
In all public land disposals and land management the borough and state
will strive to maintain access to important public resources, including
areas for mineral exploration, timber harvest, trails, streams, hunting
and fishing areas, and other important recreation lands.
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
1. Land Disposals
Access to important public resources should be maintained or im-
proved during land disposals. Section line easements will not be
vacated unless appropriate substitute access can be located.
However, the location of realistic substitute access is encouraged.
The substitution can be in the form of trail easement but in cases
where heavy use is expected, access should be through publicly
owned corridors. Determination of the adequacy of substitute
access should involve consultation with the Division of Parks and
Department of Fish and Game.
2. Stream Crossings
See Policies and Management Guidelines; River and Stream Corridors,
this chapter.
3. Sub-surface Development
Trail and road access to recreation, fish and wildlife, and other
public resources should be maintained or improved during sub-sur-
face development. Access should be designed to minimize the poten-
tial for trespass, vandalism, or other public nuisance in mining
areas.
4. Forestry Management
Public access within forest lands may be curtailed during periods
of active timber harvest.
115
l
l
l
l
l
n
l
l
0
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
Chapter 4
LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS BY
MANAGEMENT UNIT
Units of Predominant State and Borough
Ownership ................... : . . . . . . . . . . 123
Units of Predominant State Ownership ........... 207
Units of Predominant Private and
Borough Ownership ........................ 223
Units for Which the Legislature Has Designated
Specific Uses ...........•..........•..... 281
117
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS BY MANAGEMENT UNIT
INTRODUCTION
This chapter applies the land use designations presented in Chapter II
and the policies and management guidelines presented in Chapter III to
each of 25 "management units" in the Willow Sub-basin. A management
unit is an area that is generally homogeneous with respect to resources,
topography, and land ownership. These management units are shown on
Map 6.
For the organization of this chapter, the management units have been
divided into four categories:
a. Units of Predominant State and Borough Ownership
In these management units land use designations have been made on
both state and borough lands. All specific designations made on
borough lands are in this section.
b. Units of Predominant State Ownershi:e_
In these management units land use designations have been made on
state lands only.
c. Units of Predominant Private and Borough Ownership
In these management units, in most cases, general recommendations
rather than specific land use designations have been made. A few
parcels of state land have been designated for specific uses in
th~se management units.
d. Units for Which the Legislature has Designated Specific Uses
These management units consist of state-owned land. They include
the capital site, the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area, and three
state game refuges.
The format of this chapter varies among the categories listed above.
For management units in categories a) and b) the following are pre-
sented: a statement of management intent, a list of designated land
uses, and a set of management guidelines. For units in category c)
there are a statement of management intent and a list of recommended
land uses. The designated and recommended land uses of categories a),
b), and c) are shown at the scale of l inch to 1 mile. Land ownership
is also shown at that scale. The plan does not address lands in
category d).
119
120
The land use designations shown on maps in this chapter are not inflex-
ible. Uses not shown may be permitted on a case-by-case basis if the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
determine they are consistent with the statement of management intent
for the management unit in question and consistent with applicable
policies and management guidelines. Specific boundaries of land use
designations shown on the following maps may be modified through
on-the-ground implementation (site planning, disposal, etc.) as long as
modifications adhere to the intent of the plan. For example, field
surveys may be necessary to delineate precisely the wetland boundaries
shown on management unit maps. In addition, through implementation of
the plan, additional areas mey be identified which meet the established
resource objectives for a particular management unit. This plan should
not be construed to preclude site decisions which are clearly in com-
pliance with the management intent, policies and guidelines herein.
(I) ..-1 ..... N ·a ..-1
0
..... c
4)
E
4)
0)
co c co
:€ .....
0
:><
4)
"0 c -
Capital Site
R5W
R4W
MAP6
anagement
Unit In
~
scale 1: 332,000
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
J
l
J
J
]
J
J
J
._J
J
J
.Management Units of Predominant State and Borough
Ownership
In the following management units land use designations have been made
on both state and borough lands. All specific designations made on borough
lands are in this section.
Fish Creek ................................ 125
Susitna Corridor ............................ 135
Kashwitna . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7
Iron Creek ...........•••...••...•......••. 155
Little Willow Creek Corridor ................•... 163
Susitna Floodplain . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 71
Ronald Lake ..............................• 179
Little Susitna Corridor ........................ 181
Pear Lake .•.•............................. 199
123
MANAGEMENT UNIT: FISH CREEK
MANAGEMENT INTENT
The Fish Creek Unit is to be the setting for a major commercial agricul-
tural project planned and developed jointly by the borough and state.
This project will add to the size and stability of the local agricul-
tural industry, provide additional employment, increase the local tax
base, and diversify the statewide economic base. Agricultural develop-
ment should be designed to protect other resource values in the unit:
fish and game habitat (stream and wet:land buffers); recreation (the
Iditarod Trail, other trails and streamside recreation including access
sites); forestry (timber salvage on agricultural lands); settlement
(land of marginal agricultural potent.ial); and small farm agriculture
(where configuration of the land makes large farms infeasible). Interim
management of the unit will be for forestry, fish and wildlife, recre-
ation and other uses which do not diminish the agricultural value of the
unit.
Land use designations and management guidelines are presented below for
three sub-units within Fish Creek: the agricultural areas, the hydro-
logic system, and the Iditarod Trail.
SUBUNIT A: THE AGRICULTURAL AREA
Primary Land Use Secondary Land Uses
-Commercial Agriculture -Forestry (salvage)
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Agriculture
-Settlement (land of marginal
agricultural capability)
-Small Farm Agriculture
(where topography makes large
farms infeasible)
-Recreation (access sites and
trails)
To the extent feasible, class II and III soils in this unit should be
sold for agricultural use. Small farm agricultural development should
125
126
be encouraged where parcel configuration or topography render large
farms infeasible.
Forestry
All timber having high value for commercial and personal use shall be
salvaged on lands to be cleared for. agricultural purposes. See Chapter
III, Goals, Policies, and Management Guidelines; Forestry, for imple-
mentation techniques.
The management plan for the Fish Creek Unit will address: (a) the
implementation techniques used to assure salvage; (b) the time required
for the local timber industry to accomplish salvage between the times of
access development and clearing completion; and (c) the effect of the
sale on the development of the forest industry.
Agricultural land disposals should be designed to provide adequate
personal wood supplies for individual farmsteads.
Trail corridors identified in the Fish Creek Unit are available for
personal and selected timber harvest under guidelines for Trails, Chap-
ter III.
Settlement
Land of marginal agricultural capability, because of topography or soil
limitations, may be used for settlement. In addition, residential and
commercial settlement necessary to support the agricultural project or
commercial recreational needs oriented to the Fish Creek drainage may·be
planned as necessary. Settlement should be concentrated in as few
locations as possible in order to minimize both the cost of services and
the impact on the agricultural land base.
Transportation
For management guidelines affecting the development of roads and other
transportation facilities see Chapter III, Transportation.
Recreation
In addition to the Iditarod Trail (which is discussed in Sub-unit C),
two trails are identified in the Fish Creek Unit. Each of these should
be retained in public ownership with a width of 300 feet ( 150 feet
either side of centerline). This width allows flexibility to reroute,
separate motorized and non-motorized uses, and include a visual buffer.
Rerouting of the trail corridor will be permitted to minimize impact on
agricultural land with the provision that alternate routes provide
opportunities similar to the original. In order to minimize impacts on
agricultural land and to reduce management costs, rerouting to combine
the trail corridor with streams, wetlands, or other recreation corridors
is encouraged.
Where road corridors contact streams, appropriate areas should be re-
tained in state ownership to accommodate the expected recreation use,
including parking. The size of these areas will vary but should gener-
ally be 20 -80 acres. Exceptions to this size may be made for sites
anticipated to have very low or high use.
Trail access to the Fish Creek system should be maintained and improved
during agricultural development. Section line easements shall not be
vacated unless an appropriate substitute access is provided. Provision
of realistic substitute access is encouraged.
SUBUNIT B: THE HYDROLOGIC SYSTEM
Streams/Stream Buffers
Primary Land Uses Se~ondary Land Use
-Fish and Wildlife -Forestry
-Recreation
Wetlands/Wetland Buffers
Primary Land Uses Se~ondary Land Use
-Fish and Wildlife -Forestry
-Watershed
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Location of Stream Buffers
Along Fish Creek and tributaries, wildlife/ public recreation buffers
will be retained in public ownership. Each stream buffer will include
all adjacent non-class II -III soils (e.g. Moose River (Mr) and Bernice
(Ber) soil types) adjacent to the stream, or the buffer will be 200 feet
back on either bank from the high water mark -whichever is the greater
distance.
Location of Wetland/Wetland Buffers
For management guidelines governing the disposal of agricultural lands
adjacent to wetlands see Chapter III, Wetlands.
Forestry
Personal use or commercial harvest in the stream or wetland buffer must
be compatible with the habitat/recreation characteristics of the buffer.
Negative impacts on visual character, habitat value, water quality,
noise screening ability, or adverse changes in access should be avoided.
127
128
Operations inside the buffers will require coordination and on-site
review with ADF&G and the Division of Parks during sale planning (in-
cluding and in addition to Title 16 requirements). If significant
adverse impacts cannot be avoided no sale shall occur. These guidelines
should not be construed to replace the Forest Resources and Practices
Act and implementing regula~ions which also guide operations along
streams. See also Chapter III, Wetlands; Forestry Management Adjacent
to Wetlands.
Transportation
For management guidelines affecting the development of roads and other
transportation faciltities see Chapter III, Transportation.
Other Guidelines
Baseline hydrologic monitoring should be initiated as soon as possible
on the mainstream and tributaries of the Fish Creek system. Knowledge
of the impacts of the agricultural project on the quantity and quality
of the stream waters will be cseful in planning future projects.
SUBUNIT C: THE IDITAROD TRAIL
Primary Land Use Secondary Land Use
-Recreation -Forestry
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Location of the Iditarod Trail
Because of the compatible nature of the Iditarod Trail uses and agricul-
tural practices planned for this unit, a 600 foot wide (300 feet either
side of centerline) public ownership corridor will be established. This
width may be further reduced, and some rerouting permitted, after con-
sultation and agreement ¥7ith the Division of Parks. The Matanuska-
Susitna Borough Trails Committee shall also be consulted if rerouting
the trail corridor is proposed. Any reduction of corridor width will be
contingent on the maintenance or enhancement of the quality of the trail
experience.
No structures or equipment of a permanent nature should be placed within
the trail corridor which could adversely affect the trail experience.
Trail Crossings
Where necessary, trail cross:_ngs may be permitted to allow access to
lands on both sides of the trail. Crossings should be limited to a few
discreet areas rather than random crossings along the length of the
trail.
Forestry
Forestry guidelines for the Iditarod Trail are presented in Chapter III,
Goals, Policies, and Management Guidelines; Forestry.
129
130
AREA-WIDE POLICIES AND MANAGE}ffiNT GUIDELINES
Chapter III presents additional policies and land management guidelines
which may be relevant to particular decisions in this management unit.
Categories of these policies and guidelines are listed below for ease of
reference:
AGRICULTURE
RECREATION
FORESTRY
FISH & WILDLIFE
SETTLE}mNT
SUBSURFACE RESOURCES
TRANSPORTATION
WETLANDS
RIVER & STREAM CORRIDORS
TRAILS
PUBLIC ACCESS
Pages
41
53
59
67
73
79
89
97
103
109
113
--
a·
16
21
28 c;;
no(J
-!!' ,_
T17N
T16N
4
.., -'6,115
Fl HCREEK
Land Ownership
mgt. unit size = 32, 100 a c.
LOCATION of MGT. UNIT
State
Borough
Private/Federal
Ill
~
D a University
scale 1" = 1 mile
topo. maps:
Tyonek B 1, 82,
C1, C2 ~
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
.\U.~--\1.<.
g.. :!!;-~-~
?6 ..,. -
l
~-~ -4-
a·
16
21
28 c;;
IIO(J
..,__
T17N
Tl6N
4
-4.
_, ·';5,_115 I
' I
I
'· I
FISH CREEK
Land Use Designations
mgt. unit size = 32,100 a c.
SUBUNIT A
Primary Use:
• Agriculture
Secondary Uses:
• Forestry
• Settlement
• Small Farms
• Recreation
SUBUNIT B. (The Hydrologic System)
STREAMS/BUFFERS (not shown)
Primary Uses: -
• Recreation
• Fish & Wildlife
Secondary Use:
• Forestry
WETLANDS, BUFFERS
Primary Uses:
• Fish & Wildlife
• Watershed
Secondary Use:
• Forestry
0 RECREATION SITES
2-Flathorn Lake
3-Fish Creek
~
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
.J
"'
.,
"'
MANAGEMENT UNIT: SUSITNA CORRIDOR
MANAGEMENT INTENT
The Susitna Corridor is to be managed for its forestry, fish and wild-
life, and agricultural values. Management of state lands within the
unit for forestry will help provide a stable flow of commercial quality
raw materials to the area's deve l oping forest industry and help meet the
growing demand for personal use products. At the same time forestry
management can improve habitat -principally for moose.
The potential recreational opportunities within this management unit
should be developed. The principal near term recreational use will be
hunting. As access to the unit improves trails, access sites and camp-
grounds should be provided adjacent to the Susi tna River. The water-
shed/habitat values of the wetlands in the eastern portion of the unit
should be preserved.
This plan also recognizes the high agricultural value in portions of the
unit: forestry and habitat management will not adversely affect the
potential for future agricultural development. An area of approximately
920 acres in the northeast corner of the unit is scheduled for agricul-
tural disposal by the state in fiscal year '82. An additional approxi-
mately 4,000 {teres of borough land in the northern part of the unit are
designated for agricultural use.
Grazing is permitted as a secondary use in subunit D, south of Susitna
Station. This portion of the management unit has limited forestry
value. Much of it is in the active floodplain of the Susitna River.
Because of the dominance of alder, willow and other shrub and brush-type
vegetation, this subunit is very important moose winter habitat. Grazing
can be compatible with the protection of this habitat if appropriate
guidelines are followed.
To show the land use designations, the unit is broken into four sub-
units: the forestry/habitat lands, the wetlands, the agricultural land,
and the grazing area.
SUBUNIT A: FISH AND WILDLIFE/FORESTRY AREA
Primary Land Uses
-Fish and Wildlife
-Forestry
Secondary Land Use
-Recreation (hunting; access
sites, trails, and camp-
grounds along the Susitna
River)
135
136
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Forestry
Forestry guidelines for this area are presented in Chapter III, Goals,
Policies, and Management Guidelines; Forestry, -Joint Forestry /Habitat
Management in Upland Areas.
Agriculture
The potential agricultural value of this area should be protected.
Transportation routing and forestry/habitat enhancement should minimize
negative impacts on potential agricultural development.
Subsurface Resources
See Chapter III, Goals, Po:icies, and Management Guidelines; Subsurface
Resources.
SUBUNIT B: THE AGRICULTURAL LAND
Primary Land Use Secondary Land Use
-Agriculture -Forestry
-Fish & Wildlife
-Watershed
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Agriculture
To the extent feasible, Class II and III soils in this subunit should be
sold for agricultural use. Small farm agricultural development should
be encouraged where parcel configuration or topography renders large
farms infeasible.
Wetlands/Wetland Buffers
For management guidelines governing the disposal of agricultural lands
adjacent to wetlands, see Chapter III, Goals, Policies, and Management
Guidelines; wetlands.
Stream Buffers
Rolly Creek and tributaries with significant recreation value should
have a publicly owned buffer designed to protect water quality, riparian
habitat, public access and use, and to provide protection from erosion.
The buffer should be designed prior to sale of agricultural lands in the
subunit. See Chapter III, River and Stream Corridors for more specific
guidelines concerning retention of publicly-owned buffers along streams
with significant recreation value.
Forestry
All timber having high value for commercial and personal use shall be
salvaged on lands to be cleared for agricultural use. See Chapter III,
Goals, Policies, and Management Guidelines; Forestry, for implementation
techniques.
SUBUNIT C: THE WETLANDS
-Fish and Wildlife
-Watershed
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Wetlands/Wetland Buffers
See Chapter III, Policies and Management Guidelines; Wetlands.
SUBUNIT D: THE GRAZING AREA
Primary Land Use Secondary Land Use
-Fish and Wildlife -Grazing
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
See Chapter III, Goals, Policies, and Management Guidelines; Agricul-
ture, Grazing Guidelines.
137
138
AREA-WIDE POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Chapter III presents additional policies and land management guidelines
which may be relevant to particular decisions in this management unit.
Categories of these policies and guidelines are listed below for ease of
reference:
AGRICULTURE
RECREATION
FORESTRY
FISH & WILDLIFE
SETTLEMENT
SUBSURFACE RESOURCES
TRANSPORTATION
WETLANDS
RIVER & STREAM CORRIDORS
TRAILS
PUBLIC ACCESS
Pages
41
53
59
67
73
79
89
97
103
109
113
v" ~ .
(page 1 of 2)
ITNA CUKKIDUK ~
Lao d Ownership '---------??~~ v/l -+-If( l~:>f--::r .
,,
_ _,u... ~
-\Ht--~
34-
19
(
State
vu
-'*' . ~
14
Borough
Ill
~
D Private/Federal
m University
scale 1" = 1 mile ~ topo. maps:
Tyonek 82, C 1, C2
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
T17N
~~~ State
~ Borough
D
~ University
scale 1" = 1 mile A
topo. maps: ~
Tyonek ~k C2, ~ une1 1, 1982
_.,
28---4 .,._.
.,_ ...
·~
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
141
(page 1 of2)
Land Use Designations
mgt. unit size
"' 9
4
"'
-""
17
-.,_
<?~
~...>ll_l.o...
~ ...,
"
_.,
29 JJ 28
Cabins~
i
.:
·-
8
19
14
0
SUBUNIT A.
Primary Uses:
• Forestry
• Fish & Wildlife
Secondary Use:
• Recreation
SUBUNIT B.
Primary Uses:
• Fish & Wildlife
• Watershed
SUBUNIT C.
Primary Use:
• Agriculture
Secondary Uses:
• Forestry
• Fish & Wildlife
• Watershed
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
(page 2 of 2}
esignations
mgt. unit size = 50,900 Ill ()1 1
..:::9~
T17N
SUBUNIT A
Primary Uses:
• Fish & Wildlife
• Forestry
Secondary Use:
• Recreation
SUBUNIT B.
Primary Uses:
• Watershed
• Fish & Wildlife
SUBUNITD:
Primary Use:
• Fish & Wildlife
Secondary Use:
• Grazing
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan 145
MANAGEMENT UNIT : KASHWITNA
MANAGEMENT INTENT
The Kashwitna Unit is intended for multiple use management emphasizing
fish and wildlife habitat and forestry, and allowing grazing and small
farms. Hiking, snowmobiling, skiing, and other forms of recreation
(including hunting and fishing) will also be encouraged. The unit is
currently a heavily used hunting area as it is excellent spring and fall
moose habitat and serves as a moose migration corridor between Hatcher
Pass and the lowlands. The moose habitat value could be improved by
forestry management since the timber stands are over-mature and need
thinning. The Peters-Purches Creek Trail in the southeast corner of
this unit is important for hunting access and other recreation use.
Grazing is an important secondary use in the area. It could possibly
serve to increase the habitat value by opening up the understory.
(Potential conflicts between domestic stock and moose will be minimized
through the grazing guidelines in Chapter III). To make grazing feasi-
ble, it is necessary to supply small farm sites in the southwest corner
of the unit, which is predominately borough owned. The grazing, agri-
culture and forestry uses are dependent on the p'rovision of access and
would only occur after access is provided. Access would require a bor-
ough/state monetary commitment.
To illustrate land use designations, the area is divided into three
subunits: north of Little Willow Creek; south of Little Willow Creek;
and the southwest corner.
SUBUNIT A: NORTH OF LITTLE WILLOW CREEK
Primary Land Uses Secondary Land Use
-Forestry -Recreation
-Fish and Wildlife
147
148
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Forestry
Management guidelines for forestry are specified in Chapter III,
Forestry.
SUBUNIT B: SOUTH OF LITTLE WILLOW CREEK
Primary Land Uses Secondary Land Uses
-Forestry -Grazing
-Fish and Wildlife -Recreation
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Grazing
A Range Management Plan will be prepared by DNR prior to issuance of
grazing permits or leases for this area. For an explanation of the
Range Management Plan and other grazing policies and guidelines, see
Chapter III, Goals, Policies, and Management Guidelines; Agriculture.
The Peters-Purches Creek Trail
See Chapter III, Policies and Management Guidelines; Trails.
SUBUNIT C: THE SOUTHWEST CORNER -AGRICULTURE
Primary Land Use Secondary Land Uses
-Small Farm Agriculture -Forestry
-Fish and Wildlife
-Grazing
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Small Farm Agriculture and Secondary Uses
To the extent feasible class II and III soils in this subunit should be
used for small farms. Forestry, grazing and public use of fish and
wildlife resources should be encouraged to the extent compatible with
agricultural use.
There will be no disposal of farmsteads prior to provision of adequate
physical access into the management unit ..
See also Chapter III, Goals, Policies, end Management Guidelines; Agri-
culture.
149
150
AREA-WIDE POLICIES AND MANAG£MENT GUIDELINES
Chapter III presents additional policies and land management guidelines
which may be relevant to particular decisions in this management unit.
Categories of these policies and guidelines are listed below for ease of
reference:
AGRICULTURE
RECREATION
FORESTRY
FISH & WILDLIFE
SETTLEMENT
SUBSURFACE RESOURCES
TRANSPORTATION
WETLANDS
RIVER & STREAM CORRIDORS
TRAILS
PUBLIC ACCESS
Pages
41
53
59
67
73
79
89
97
103
109
113
KASHWITNA
Land Ownership
mgt. unit size = 36,500 ac.
~
~
II'., D
g
--/ 9 l
State
Borough
Private/Federal
University
scale 1" = 1 mile
topo. maps: ~~
Anchorage 08 ~
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
KASHWITNA
Land Use Designations
mgt. unit size = 36,500 ac.
34
._;
J 9
SUBUNIT A.
Primary Uses:
• Forestry
• Fish & Wildlife
Secondary Use:
• Recreation
SUBUNIT B.
Primary Uses:
• Forestry
• Fish & Wildlife
Secondary Use:
• Grazing
SUBUNIT C.
Primary Use:
• Small Farms
Secondary Uses:
• Forestry
• Fish & Wildlife
• Grazing
0 RECREATION SITES
88-Trail Wayside
11 7-Unnamed Lake Access
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
1
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
MANAGEMENT UNIT: IRON CREEK
MANAGEMENT INTENT
The Iron Creek Unit will be managed to provide small farms on the few
areas of good agricultural soil, and to provide habitat and a game
migration corridor for moose and other species. This area is an impor-
tant corridor for moose that move seasonally between uplands in the
Kashwitna and Hatcher Pass Units and lowlands along the Susitna River.
The Iron Creek Unit has many of the same values as the Kashwitna Unit
but less potential for habitat enhancement through forest management.
The southeast corner of the unit is adjacent to the potential small farm
area of the Kashwitna Unit. Small farms in the area should be encour-
aged because they could serve as headquarter sites for the grazing stock
which will use the Kashwitna Unit. The good agricultural soils are
mostly borough owned.
Forestry (salvage, personal use) will be encouraged in this unit where
feasible and consistent with other management objectives.
To illustrate land use designations and guidelines, the area is divided
into three subunits: the agricultural area, the poorly drained land
throughout, and the isolated small farm area in the northwest.
SUBUNIT A: THE AGRICULTURAL AREA -SOUTHEAST
Primary Land Use Secondary Land Uses
-Small Farm Agriculture -Fish and Wildlife
-Forestry (salvage, personal
use)
-Grazing
· MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Relevant guidelines are presented in Chapter III, Goals, Policies, and
Management Guidelines; Agriculture, and Forestry.
155
156
SUBUNIT B: THE WETLANDS
Primary Land Uses
-Fish and Wildlife
-Watershed
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
See Chapter III, Policies and Management Guidelines; Wetlands.
SUBUNIT C: THE SMALL FARM AREA
Primary Land Use Secondary Land Uses
-Small Farm Agriculture -Fish and Wildlife
-Forestry (salvage, personal
use)
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Small Farm Agriculture
This subunit contains approximately 110 acres of potential agricultural
land near an unnamed lake. A road to the parcel would provide access to
waterfowl and moose hunting in the upper portion of the Iron Creek Unit.
A condition of disposal, therefore, should be that public access to the
lake and hunting areas is guaranteed. For guidelines regulating agri-
cultural development adjacent to wetlands, see Chapter III, Policies and
Management Guidelines; Wetlands.
AREA-WIDE POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Chapter III presents additional policies and land management guidelines
which may be relevant to particular decisions in this management unit.
Categories of these policies and guidelines are listed below for ease of
reference:
AGRICULTURE
RECREATION
FORESTRY
FISH & WILDLIFE
SETTLEMENT
SUBSURFACE RESOURCES
TRANSPORTATION
WETLANDS
RIVER & STREAM CORRIDORS
TRAILS
PUBLIC ACCESS
Pages
41
53
59
67
73
79
89
97
103
109
113
157
N CK.
Land Ownership 33
i rl
State
. WA?J/,.f%1_-l ~
= -. ----\ .vg~){o
~
Borough
Private/Federal
University
scale 1" = 1 mile
topo. maps: _...
Anchorage 08 ~~
TyonekD1 ~
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
IRONCK.
Land Use Designations 33
mgt. unit size = 23,900 ac.
. Primary Use:
') • Small Farms
Secondary Uses:
• Fish & Wildlife
V ~ ~ "' · ~ ~--"", ·. -=A" Vr L--...r • Grazing ----__ B .JL ___________ !_ ---' -.-~.":-;.·_ \ -' I . • T21 N
lj ~-._.::;rc--,-.--,--.L ,....,_'"' • F t . "· . ---· , __ ~ . "" , --.:"~ ~~~~· ores ry
SUBUNIT C.
Primary Use:
• Small Farms
Secondary Use:
• Fish & Wildlife
Primary Uses:
• Watershed
• Fish & Wildlife
)
\
'/ J
(' \
~
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
...
..,
~
..,
..,
..,
..,
....
MANAGEMENT UNIT: LITTLE WILLOW CREEK CORRIDOR
MANAGEMENT INTENT
This presently remote area is intended to serve primarily as a habitat
and recreational area between the potentially more intensive uses north
and south of the management unit. It is also intended to provide loca-
tions for small farms in four specific areas. A publicly-owned buffer
along Little Willow Creek shall be retained within the management unit
(except where private land holdings now occur) to insure high quality
recreational opportunities, water quality maintenance, and habitat
protection. Forestry operations will be encouraged within the unit when
appropriate for enhancement of recreational or habitat values or when
negligible adverse impacts on these resources would occur.
In the upper, remote reaches of the stream, road access should be en-
couraged. In the lower, accessible reaches, trail access should be
maintained and road access confined to as few locations as possible.
Land use designations and management guidelines are presented below for
sub-units: The river corridor and the agricultural areas.
SUBUNIT A: THE RIVER CORRIDOR
Primary Land Use Secondary Land Use
-Fish and Wildlife -Forestry
-Recreation
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Location of Publicly-Owned Buffer
A publicly-owned buffer will be retained adjacent to the river (except
where private land holdings now o ccur ). Buffer width may vary with
topography and vegetation within this subunit but should include suf-
ficient land to provide for water quality maintenance, habitat protec-
tion, and recreational use on and along t he river. In this subunit the
buffer shall include, at a minimum, land ~mile beyond the ordinary high
water mark of the e~trem~ channel mean der or the 100-year floodplain,
whichever provides the buffer of greatest width. (This guideline does
not apply to Subunit B, the agricult ural areas,' where the buffer shall
include land 300 feet from the extreme channel meander.)
163
164
Forestry
For guidelines related to forestry management within publicly-owned
river buffers, see Chapter III, Policies and Management Guidelines,
River and Stream Corridors.
Subsurface Resources
See Chapter III, Goals, Policies, and Management Guidelines; Subsurface
Resources.
SUBUNIT B: THE AGRICULTURAL AREAS
Primary Land Use Secondary Land Uses
-Small Farms -Forestry
-Recreation
-Fish and Wildlife
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Agriculture
Class II and III soils on public lands within this subunit should be
used for small farms (40-80) whenever feasible. These farms should be
designed in a manner which improves rather than limits public access to
the river.
Location of Publicly-owned Buffer
A publicly-owned buffer will be retained adjacent to the river (except
where private land holdings now occur). Buffer width may vary with
topography and terrain within this subunit but shall include, at a
minimum, land 300 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the extreme
channel meander.
Forestry
For guidelines related to forestry management within publicly-owned
river buffers, see Chapter III, Policies and Management Guidelines,
River and Stream Corridors.
Parks Highway
Management of public lands adjacent to the Parks Highway should be
consistent with the recommendations of the report "Scenic Resources
Along the Parks Highway." The recommendations in that report which are
relevant to the Willow Sub-basin are in Appendix 1. The borough and
state will encourage private land owners to follow recommendations in
the report in order to protect the scenic values along the highway.
AREA-WIDE POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Chapter III presents additional policies and land management guidelines
which may be relevant to particular decisions in this management unit.
Categories of these policies and guidelines are listed below for ease of
reference:
AGRICULTURE
RECREATION
FORESTRY
FISH & WILDLIFE
SETTLEMENT
SUBSURFACE RESOURCES
TRANSPORTATION
WETLANDS
RIVER & STREAM CORRIDORS
TRAILS
PUBLIC ACCESS
Pages
41
53
59
67
73
79
89
97
103
109
113
165
Land Ownership
LITTLE WILLOW CK. CORR.
167
LITTLE WILLO Rl
Land Ownership
mgt. unit size = 9,100 a c.
LOCATION of MGT. UNIT
State
Borough
NOTE: The upper 4 miles of the
Little Willow Ck.
Management Unit are not
shown on this map. The up
river segment is similar to
the portion shown on this
page: it is a state owned
corridor roughly V4 mile
either side of the river. (See
Map 4 for exact location).
Private/Federal
University
scale 1" = 1 mile
topo. maps:
Anchorage 08
Tyonek 01
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
Land Use Designations
LITTLE WILLOW CK. CORR.
169
LITTLE WILLOW CK. COR IDOR
Land Use Designations
mgt. unit size = 9, 100 acres
25
SUBUNIT A
Primary Oses:
• Fish & Wildlife
• Recreation
Secondary Ose:
• Forestry
SUBUNITB
Primary Ose:
• Small Farms
Secondary Oses:
• Forestry
• Recreation
• Fish & Wildlife
NOTE: The upper 4 miles of the
Little Willow Ck.
Management Unit are not
shown on this map. The up
river segment is similar to
the portion shown on this
page: it is a state owned
corridor roughly 1/4 mile
either side of the river. (See
Map 4 for exact location).
0 RECREATION SITE
79-Little Willow Creek Access
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
MANAGEMENT UNIT: SUSITNA FLOODPLAIN
MANAGEMENT INTENT
This unit is to be managed both to preserve and enhance the existing
fish and wildlife habitat and to maximize the long term commercial
harvest potential of the timber stock. The unit contains important
potential public recreation sites on the Susitna River which will be
identified through detailed planning.
The public lands along Willow Creek below the Parks Highway bridge are
being studied cooperatively by the borough a.nd state for possible re-
creation development and inclusion in the S·tate Park System.
Primary Land Uses Sec?ndary Land Use
-Forestry -~Recreation
-Fish and Wildlife
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Forestry
Forestry guidelines are designed to protect views of the area from the
river and the shore, prevent erosion, and provide vegetative cover for
wildlife.
Visual Protection: Clearcuts are prohibited where the cuts would
affect frequently viewed areas. This prohibition extends 200 feet
from the river shore of both the mainland and islands which can be
viewed from the main channel of the river. This distance may be
modified based on site specific visual analysis. This clear-cut
buffer also applies adjacent to heavily used boating routes in
smaller channels of the river and on islands easily viewed from
shore.
Wildlife Cover: The preceding guideline is sufficient to provide
vegetative screens for wildlife on all islands and riverbanks.
Coordination: All timber sales should be planned in coordination
with the ADF&G. Visual analysis should be coordinated with the
Division of Parks.
171
172
Miscellaneous: For other guidelines, see Chapter III, Forestry.
Recreation
The management plan for the area should identify potential public
recreation access sites on the Susitna River, and access routes neces~
sary to reach them. Forestry activities on or adjacent to these sites
should not affect future recreation potential. Restrictions on forestry
might include outright prohibition or a restriction on clearcutting.
Forestry access routes should follow potential recreation access.routes
when feasible.
Subsurface Resources
See Chapter III, Goals, Policies, and Management Guidelines; Subsurface
Resources.
AREA-WIDE POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Chapter III presents additional policies and land management guidelines
which may be relevant to particular decisions in this management unit.
Categories of these policies and guidelines are listed below for ease of
reference:
AGRICULTURE
RECREATION
FORESTRY
FISH & WILDLIFE
SETTLEMENT
SUBSURFACE RESOURCES
TRANSPORTATION
WETLANDS
RIVER & STREAM CORRIDORS
TRAILS
PUBLIC ACCESS
Pages
41
53
59
67
73
79
89
97
103
109
113
173
Land Ownership
SUSITNA FLOODPLAIN
175
20N
~ ~~~ ~ e::: e::: ~~ ~·!
-""'-~ . '"'"--~ ..=;._ I -,""~~'-....._-
_.,., 20N ""5i1t ......._, L~ "'_., 19N
_o
->\! l --!!!
25
..
LOCATION of MGT. UNIT
Ill
~
D m
State
Borough
Private/Federal
University
scale 1" = 1 mile
topo. maps:
Tyonek Cl, D1 ~
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
mgt. unit size = 20,900 ac.
22-------------------------------------------------------------------------
_, Land Ownership
FL ODPL
Land Use Designations
SUSITNA FLOODPLAIN
177
~
scale 1 " = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
:;:1:;: ..,.. ~It)
~~ ~ ~·; 0:: 0::
-"'"-~ ::::_.::;; i '~
20N ....
~·--------~~---~ ~ ---------19N
21N
20N
22
~ ,~~
•'
•'
25
Primary Uses:
• Fish & Wildlife
• Forestry
Secondary Use:
• Recreation
mgt. unit size = 20,900 ac.
Land Use Designations
SUSITNA FLOODPLAIN
MANAGEMENT UNIT: RONALD LAKE
MANAGEMENT INTENT
This unit is to be managed to support scattered residences and small
farms on a limited amount of developable land interspersed with poorly
drained areas. Development should proceed with care to avoid damaging
the water quality of various streams and wetlands. Road access will not
be provided through this unit to the Nancy Lake Recreation Area or the
Little Susitna River. Wetlands in the unit will be managed for water-
shed and habitat uses.
SUBUNIT A: SETTLEMENT/SMALL FARMS
Primary Land Uses Secondary Land Uses
-Settlement (dispersed) -Fish and Wildlife
-Small Farm Agriculture -Forestry
Note: The areas shown on the following map as settlement or small farm
sites are tentative; more detailed study of existing data and field work
are necessary to identify areas that can support these uses and avoid
damaging surrounding water quality.
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Small Farm Agriculture
On good agricultural soils, priority should be given to small farm
agriculture rather than settlement.
Settlement
Residential disposals are encouraged at a density commensurate with land
capability and with appropriat:e wetland and stream buffers as specified
in Chapter III, Policies and Management Guidelines; Rivers and Streams;
and Chapter III; and Wetlands.
179
Forestry
See Chapter III, Policies and Management Guidelines; Forestry.
SUBUNIT B: WETLANDS
Primary Land Uses
-Fish and Wildlife
-Watershed
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
See Chapter III, Policies and Management Guidelines; Wetlands.
180
AREA-WIDE POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Chapter III presents additional policies and land management guidelines
which may be relevant to particular decisions in this management unit.
Categories of these policies and guidelines are listed below for ease of
reference:
AGRICULTURE
RECREATION
FORESTRY
FISH & WILDLIFE
SETTLEMENT
SUBSURFACE RESOURCES
TRANSPORTATION
WETLANDS
RIVER & STREAM CORRIDORS
TRAILS
PUBLIC ACCESS
Pages
41
53
59
67
73
79
89
97
103
109
113
181
32
J 0
0 D I o I
I
, T 19 N I --0-TlS_N _____ _
242\]5[]
()
MOUNTAINS
b
Land Ownership
mgt. unit size = 5,100 a c.
State
Borough
Ill
~
D
1m~
Private/Federal
University
scale 1" = 1 mile
topo. maps:
TyonekC1
Anchorage C8 ~
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
183
I
I 32
I
D D 0 D 0
I
~ T 19~----~----0-TJS N
242(]5[]
()
~~
.~
•\!!•
~ ID
esignations
mgt. unit size = 5,100 a c.
SUBUNIT A.
Primary Uses:
• Small Farms
• Settlement
Secondary Uses:
• Fish & Wildlife
• Forestry
SUBUNIT B.
Primary Uses:
• Watershed
• Fish & Wildlife
0 RECREATION SITE
43-Houston Lakes
~
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
185
MANAGEMENT UNIT: LITTLE SUSITNA CORRIDOR
MANAGEMENT INTENT
This area is to be managed to maintain and enhance the recreation/
habitat resources along the Little Susitna River.
Where public land now abuts the river, this unit will be managed to
provide a continuous scenic recreation experience. Fish and wildlife
habitat will be protected, with special emphasis placed on the anadro-
mous fish stream and adjacent riparian areas. This undeveloped corridor
will be increasingly important for species (notably moose) migrating
between uplands to the northeast and the game refuges and other lowlands
to the south and west.
Principal recreational uses will be on and adjacent to the river. To
protect these recreation values the unit should be managed to provide
both a visual and sound buffer from uses outside the corridor and to
protect water quality. Non-road accessible public recreation cabins
should be developed with a coordinated river and trail access system.
The Division of Parks may recommend that the legislature designate this
corridor as a state recreation area. Road access to or across the
corridor will 'be minimized.
Where private land now abuts the river, the state will consider purchase
of land for public access. The state will not use the power of eminent
domain in such cases but will purchase land from willing sellers to en-
hance public enjoyment of the river corridor, should funds be
appropriated by the legislature for this purpose.
The northern portion of this unit includes a portion of the City of
Houston. Management of the public lands inside that boundary should
contribute to the city's development plans. Any irreversible management
decision· (e.g., disposal) must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
for the City of Houston. In addition, the state and borough will not
pursue actions which obstruct any of the Department of Transportation's
proposed transportation routes into the cit~y.
To illustrate land use designa1:ions, the Little Susitna Corridor unit is
divided into two subunits: the Houston wetlands, and the river corri-
dor. Management guidelines presented below apply to both subunits.
187
188
SUBUNIT A: HOUSTON WETLAND
Primary Land Uses
-Fish and Wildlife
-Watershed
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Management guidelines for Subunits A and B are presented below.
SUBUNIT B: THE LITTLE SUSITNA RIVER
Primary Land Uses Secondary Land Use
-Recreation -Forestry
-Fish and Wildlife
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES: SUBUNITS A and B
The following guidelines apply throughout the Little Susitna Corridor
Management Unit.
Forestry
Timber harvests shall be permitted only where appropriate for enhance-
ment of the recreation and habitat values of the corridor.
Transportation
Road Access to or across the corridor will be minimized, and shall be
prohibited between Houston and Burma Road. See also Chapter III, Poli-
cies and Management Guidelines; Transportation.
Sub-surface Development
A mineral closing order will be issued for this management unit closing
it to all mining.
Water Quality
Water entering the Little Susitna River should remain undiminished in
quality and quantity.
Wetlands
Uses on lands adjacent to wet.lands will be managed in accordance with
Chapter III, Policies and Management Guidelines; Wetlands.
Siting of Public Cabins
Public cabins should be sited by the Alaska Division of Parks in consul-
tation with the Department of Fish and Game and the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough.
189
190
AREA-WIDE POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Chapter III presents additional policies and land management guidelines
which may be relevant to particular decisions in this management unit.
Categories of these policies and guidelines are listed below for ease of
reference:
AGRICULTURE
RECREATION
FORESTRY
FISH & WILDLIFE
SETTLEMENT
SUBSURFACE RESOURCES
TRANSPORTATION
WETLANDS
RIVER & STREAM CORRIDORS
TRAILS
PUBLIC ACCESS
Pages
41
53
59
67
73
79
89
97
103
109
113
.,
""
,
""
..
,
..,
..,
...
Q)
Q)
Cll
...
c:P
~ -·· -0 --
9
'!£.-~~ 0
'<:::>~-
0
-~~fi~I~:
.....
-
~--.... ,:::;--
_ ... :ft)~1~ff:~~~
-..... _..,._-.:_ .... -
T18N
·:..·-
~~ ·~:
-~ ......... --·· __ -.... _-
~~
•.. ··
~~
·:?a: I a: ~h ,,_ • ~ ~
~ -•_-r:,_
.. '·· ~~--
,,-; -::_..;,..._ ...... ;:.----
....... -~ $'-
... "'";;: --;. ... -
_...,__ -'1t--~
~1
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
June 1, 1982
.~.
:;I~~:;;/\~;~~;~~~1:=~-T17N ... ---:;,:__
1=·:~::-~~=-~
_.J~!~~~
_ • ..,--.!..~
-~~~----): -__ ....,__
-~~ ~~~~iJr~~:-~
LOCATION of MGT. UNIT
~/1, ·'~'
,
,, , ,
g
~
D
~
State
Borough
Private/Federal
University
scale 1" = 1 mile
topo. maps: ..A.
Anchorage CB ~~
Tyonek81,C1 ~
mgt. unit size = 15,300 ac.
Land Ownership
LITTLE SUSITNA CORRIDOR
(page 1 of 2) 191
'"I
.,
....
~
......_
-0 •. -c --
9
~~~ 0
'e:>~~
0
.9
~}~~if>·
3: -~~._:-;;_;;..;-........
M ~;
0:::
·~!frs:~~}fc ___ n 7N
-J.'· ... ---
SUBUNIT A.
Primary Uses:
• Watershed
• Fish & Wildlife
SUBUNIT B.
Primary Uses: --~~~~~\i~;;;L
~
• Recreation
• Fish & Wildlife
Secondary Use:
• Forestr y
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
mgt. unit size == 15,300 ac.
Land Use Designations
0 RECREATION SITE
127-Little Susitna River Corridor
LITTLE SUSITNA CORRIDOR
(page 1 of 2)
193
RECREATION SITES LARGER THAN 160 ACRES
Site
Number Site Location
3
14
34
43
48
54
59
64
66
89
90
92
93
98
104
113
116
127
Willow Creek Scenic Area(one)
Cow Lake
Fish Creek
Houston Lakes
Meadow Creek
Willow Creek Scenic Area (two)
Steven 's Lake
Fry Pan Lake
Four Lakes
Willow Creek Canyon Scenic Area
Bullion Mountain Scenic Area
Twelve Mile Lake
Willow Creek Island
Susitna Scenic Area
Little Susitna (Access Site)
Barry's Resort (Finger Lake)
Lucy Lake I Cottonwood Creek
Little Susitna River Corridor
RECREATION ELEMENT-TRAILS
Trail
Number Trail Location
39
74
81
87
91
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
Willow Lake Trail
Susitna Flats Trail
Deception Creek Trail
Willow Creek Mountain Trail
Sled Road Trail
Susitna F l ats Branch Trail
Susitna Flats Branch Trail
Twin Island Lakes Trail
Connecting Trail
Yohn Lake to Susitna River Trail
Susitna Station Connection
Nancy Lake Loop Trails
Bench Lake Trail
Meadow Lakes Trail
Bald Mountain Access Trail
Grubstake Gulch Trail
Purches Creek Trail
Shorty Creek Trail
Canyon Creek Trail
Upper Willow Creek Trail
Independence Mine Trail
Reed Lakes Trail
Fern Mine Trail
Glacier Creek Trail
Little Susitna River Trail
Upper Little Susitna River Trail
Steven 's Lake Connecting Trails
Willow Creek Trail
Big Lake to Knik Loop Trail
lditarod Trail Connections
R5W
All recreation are-as shown on this map are designated fcor
recreational use by the Willow Subbasin Area plan exce:pt
portions of trails not on public land and the non-state
recreation areas. See maps of each management unit fotr
names and detailed locations of trails and recreation areas
under 160 acres.
Nancy Lakes
Recreation Area
R4W
Important
Recreatio~n Areas
Talkeetna IVltns.
141
Hatcher Pass
1 1~ 143 •
147
f4.l
104 t •
D MAJOR RECREATION AIREAS
These areas are generally larger than 1 township and
contain a variety of recreational~ opportunities (e.g. the
Little Susitna River Corridor).
W21 RECREATION AREAS
~LARGER THAN 160 ACR:ES
These areas provide a variety of I recreational opportunities
including camping, access to fislhing sites, boat launches,
hiking, plane tie ups, etc.
RECREATION AREAS
SMALLER THAN 160 AC:RES
e Lake or Stream Access
• Trail Wayside
• Campground <> Historic Site
4 Non-State Recreation Area
133 TRAILS
.............. Trails
scale 1 :25~0,000
June 1, 1. 982
Willow Subbas;in Area Plan
tys~
3
16
21
28
"!c-
0
4
....,.
basin Area Plan
-'!L-~
----::;;;.::_· ""~ ::::c-= !::. ::""~;;~:
~ ri i-"'" '''"-o, . .P -<;:
,_..u. _.,: tS~~~ :s: I :s: ~.·. 19 .. -• I ... .<). "gp~~-~
:Q ~ ~-··"rt' ., .. o_ "2 ~ 1 .• ·'"· .11"1 . .ili._ --+-;::J---6-~p.:::;,---t=::_:;:l __ l_ I . "9 -.;,
L ---D -----'--~~
0
~ 0'1-a
26
'r17N
T16N
0
J.>IL
;:I;:
,.,n "<:t
BIEi±!±l
l±ttttW State
~
D
~
Borough
Private/Federal
University
scale 1" =
topo. maps:
Anchorage C8
Tyonek Bl, Cl
1 mile
~
~..... tl;;,,l·. • ... ,.~mQ.t...unitsize == 15,300ac.
Land wnership
I I I
(page 2 of 2) 195
~·
16
21
28
0
4
.cl_
"""
/i~ ~5~
3
•"· ~ 63)
10 /'\
180\J
~
·o
··"" 0 1-D
~
36
~·
\u&~·£•~ .. ~~t~ .. ·u-··~·~~·~-D / _!!1!!._ \ . b L ~ . ) g.,., T 16N
CJ
~1~
"'I"' "'"
·'"
I
~-=--
,ll!. .>._!!,., =-...I_!;.~
""'
I .c ,._ -!!
SUBUNIT B.
Primary Uses:
• Recreation
• Fish & Wildlife
Secondary Use:
• Forestry
~
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
es;ignations
·------
ID
(page 2 of 2) 197
MANAGEMENT UNIT: PEAR LAKE
MANAGEMENT INTENT
The Pear Lake Unit is to be managed for a wide spectrum of uses. Por-
tions of the unit with limited development potential will function
primarily as a buffer between the scenic Little Susitna Corridor and the
more developed uses in the adjacent Wasilla Management Unit.
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINE: SUBUNITS A-D
Much of the Pear Lake Unit is adjacent to the Little Susitna Corridor.
Land management and disposals within those portions of the Pear Lake
Unit adjacent to the Little Susitna Corridor Management Unit shall be
consistent with the recreation objectives of the Corridor. No clearing
or use of land for residential, commercial or industrial use shall occur
in areas viewed from the river. Roads shall be prohibited within 1/4
mile of the river except as approved by the Division of Parks. Efforts
shall be made to protect water quality and to prohibit noise impacts on
the corridor. The unit has been divided into 4 sub-units for presenting
land use designations and additional guidelines.
SUBUNIT A: PEAR LAKE \VETLAND
Primary Land Uses
-Fish and Wildlife
-Watershed
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Wetlands
See Chapter III, Policies, and Management Guidelines; Wetlands.
Transportation
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities has lo-
cated a transportation corridor through this subunit. The corridor
connects the Pt. MacKenzie area to Houston and the Capital Site. Cur-
rently there are no construction plans, but management of this unit
199
200
should prevent disposal of the route or any other action which would
foreclose a future option to build.
SUBUNIT B: PEAR LAKE MULTIPLE USE AREA
Primary Land Uses Secondary Land Use
-Settlement -Forestry
-Small Farm Agriculture
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Settlement and Small Farms
See MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES, SUBUNITS A-D, Page 199 . Any state land
disposals in this unit which could affect views from the Little Susitna
River should be designed with the participation of the Division of
Parks. In areas of good agricultura1 soils, priority will be given to
small farms rather than residential use.
Transportation
See MANAGEMENT GUILDELINES, SUBUNITS A-D, Page 199 . Road alignments
shall be located as far from the Little Susitna Corridor as is feasible.
SUBUNIT C: SETTLEMENT NEAR UNNAMED LAKE
Primary Land Use Secondary Land Use
-Settlement -Recreation
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Settlement
See MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES, SUBUNITS A-D, page 199 ; and Chapter III,
Goals, Policies, and Management Guidelines; Recreation, Management
Guideline 2.
SUBUNIT D: PEAR LAKE "L"
Primary Land Uses
-Fish and Wildlife
-Forestry
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Forestry
See Chapter III, Goals, Policies, and Management Guidelines; Forestry.
201
202
AREA-WIDE POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Chapter III presents additional policies and land management guidelines
which may be relevant to particular decisions in this management unit.
Categories of these policies and guidelines are listed below for ease of
reference:
AGRICULTURE
RECREATION
FORESTRY
FISH & WILDLIFE
SETTLEMENT
SUBSURFACE RESOURCES
TRANSPORTATION
WETLANDS
RIVER & STREAM CORRIDORS
TRAILS
PUBLIC ACCESS
Pages
41
53
59
67
73
79
89
97
103
109
113
Land Ownership
PEAR LAKE
203
PEAR LAKE
Land Ownership
mgt. unit size = 22~200 ac.
c::::,
<?
-n
""~
...
I·_-
~
=(i-
-""'"-•I!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I _________ I __
5
""
33
()
4 {
0
C\()
~
Ill
~
D
m
State
Borough
Private/Federal
University
scale 1" = 1 mile
topo. maps: ...._
Anchorage C8 ~~
TyonekB1,C1 ~
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
Land Use Designations
PEAR LAKE
205
PEAR E
Land Use Designations
mgt. unit size
0
-n
~-
~0~
-~
1-
»
3 c!J 0
22,200 ac.
0~
c::,
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I _________ I __
5
_...,
.1l • .ili.
33
Cl
4 (
0
Cl()
SUBUNIT A
Primary Uses:
• Watershed
• Fish & Wildlife
SUBUNIT B.
Primary Uses:
• Small Farms
• Settlement
Secondary Use:
• Forestry
SUBUNIT C.
Primary Uses:
• Settlement
• Small Farms
Secondary Use:
• Recreation
SUBUNIT D.
Primary Uses:
• Fish & Wildlife
• Forestry
~
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
l
l
l
l
l
n
l
J
J
1
J
J
J
J
Management Units of Predominant State Ownership
In the following management units land use designations have been made
on state lands only.
Hatcher Pass ...........................•.. 209
Moose Range ........•...•••............... 21 7
207
MANAGEMENT UNIT: HATCHER PASS
MANAGEMENT INTENT
Hatcher Pass is to be managed as a multiple use area, emphasizing the
uses that are most important in the area now: mining (Independence and
other mine operations); recreation (full range of winter and summer
activities, including hiking, skiing, snowmobiling, etc.); fish and
wildlife related uses (moose and ptarmigan hunting, and providing impor-
tant habitat to these and other species); and grazing. In many cases,
the areas where these uses occur directly overlap. As a result, effec-
tive management of the area calls for careful control of the way the
uses occur, their timing, and exact locations.
A detailed management plan for this unit is scheduled for completion in
1983. This planning effort \\rill establish guidelines which prevent
~onflicts among primary uses. It will also designate appropriate se-
condary uses in the area. The organization and anticipated products of
this plan are outlined below.
Primary Land Uses
-Mining
-Recreation
-Fish and Wildlife habitat
-Grazing
MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING TEAM
1. Division of Land and Water Management -lead agency.
2. Division of Parks
3. Division of Research and Development
4. Division of Minerals and Energy Development
5. Division of Agriculture
6. Division of Forestry
7. Alaska Department of :fish & Game
8. Matanuska-Susitna Borough
9. Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public meetings to discuss land management in the Hatcher Pass area will
be held in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and in Anchorage during 1982.
Meetings will also be held with groups such as the Alaska Miners
Association and the Alaska Visitors Association to solicit opinions on
land management issues.
209
210
PRODUCTS OF THE HATCHER PASS MANAGEMENT PLAN
The management plan will further specify designated uses of ~tate land
within the the four watersheds identified on the following map. It will
also present guidelines which control how these uses occur. Issues to
be addressed by the plan include the following:
1. Road improvements and maintenance.
2. Methods of enforcing regulations affecting uses in the area.
3. Siting of commercial recreation facilities on public land.
4. Borough zoning.
5. Methods of preventing conflicts between designated land uses.
AREA-WIDE POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Chapter III presents additional policies and land management guidelines
which may be relevant to particular decisions in this management unit.
Categories of these policies and guidelines are listed below for ease of
reference:
AGRICULTURE
RECREATION
FORESTRY
FISH & WILDLIFE
SETTLEMENT
SUBSURFACE RESOURCES
TRANSPORTATION
WETLANDS
RIVER & STREAM CORRIDORS
TRAILS
PUBLIC ACCESS
Pages
41
53
59
67
73
79
89
97
103
109
113
211
0< T19N
~ T18N
~~
-------_----, _/-~
_ ~t\N -.-*ooC::: ~ ~~~. 1 :.~-
LOCATION of MGT. UNIT
HATCHER PASS
Land Ownership
II
~
D
~
State
Borough
Private/Federal
University
scale 1:250,000
topo. maps: ..&.
Anchorage C6, ~~
C7, 06, 07, DB ~
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan 213
0c T19N
I ~ T18N
~"
' -----~ ~ ~ ~4000:: I o::. __ _
[) RECREATION SITE
3!)-Three Mile Lake
Primary Oses:
• Grazing
mgt. unit = 214,000 ac.
Land Use Designations
HATCHER PASS
• Mining
• Fish & Wildlife
• Recreation
~
scale 1" = 1:250,000
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
215
MANAGEMENT UNIT: MOOSE RANGE
MANAGEMENT INTENT
The management intent for this area is expressed in the borough's Moose
Creek Reserve Ordinance. Under this ordinance, the area will be inten-
sively managed for production of moose, principally through controlled
timber harvest. Grazing will be permitted as compatible with the pri-
mary habitat enhancement objective of the unit.
Primary Land Use Secondary Land Uses
-Fish and Wildlife -Forestry
-Grazing
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
See Borough Moose Creek Reserve ordinance. See also Chapter III, Goals,
Policies and Management Guidelines -Agriculture, Grazing.
217
218
AREA-WIDE POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Chapter III presents additional policies and land management guidelines
which may be relevant to particular decisions in this management unit.
Categories of these policies and guidelines are listed below for ease of
reference:
AGRICULTURE
RECREATION
FORESTRY
FISH & WILDLIFE
SETTLEMENT
SUBSURFACE RESOURCES
TRANSPORTATION
WETLANDS
RIVER & STREAM CORRIDORS
TRAILS
PUBLIC ACCESS
Pages
41
53
59
67
73
79
89
97
103
109
113
wner'ship
mgt. unit size = 5,000 acres
-9C-
State
Borough
topo .. maps:
Anchorage C6
Ill
~
D
~
Private/Federal
scale 1" = 1 mile University
June 1, 1982
'Mill ow Subbasin Area Plan 219
Land Use esignations
mgt. unit size = 5,000 acres
.a \::.; -s--~~ ~ ~ i ~. =» J ~4~
UJ ' ''------' o '--~~d
No o o ,._ '>.._) "" ~~------,oz: I ..,. --:::-,.:::--~ ' ~ --u I
.1oo/\_C:::::::::::, /I ~--/ ----~ ~ ~-0/ I I '-' ~--\C::l ~• I~~-1 : \) c';;:,' ~ 1 ''ZI ~ /' b ~ ~r' R I I ~ V/1 d • j)_'1 \ rl
.-: '!-~~ .• ~L_Lgft:1~ ~~('2 _ __l ___ L.
Primary Use:
• Fish & Wildlife
Secondary Use:
~
scale 1" = 1 mile
"June 1, 1982 • Forestry
• Recreation Willow Subbasin Area Plan
221
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
Management Units of Predominant Private and Borough
Ownership
In the following management units, in most cases, general
recommendations rather than specific land use designations have been
made. (A few parcels of state land have been designated for specific uses in
these units.) Although the plan does not regulate private land, the
recommended uses indicate development patterns the borough and state
wish to encourage. Management of public lands will be consistent with
these recommended land uses.
Houston ................................. 225
Fishhook •................................ 231
Wasilla ......................•............ 237
Knik ......................•............. 245
Point MacKenzie ............................ 251
Rogers Creek .............................. 257
Willow Creek Corridor .................•...... 263
Willow ...•........•...................... 269
Moraine Ridge .................•........... 275
223
MANAGEMENT UNIT: HOUSTON
MANAGEMENT INTENT
0 Management of the limited public land in this unit is to be consis-
tent with the comprehensive plan for the City of Houston.
0 Land disposals shall be consistent with the flood plain regulations
in Chapter III, Goals, Policies, and Management Guidelines; Settle-
ment.
0 Management of public lands adjacent to the Parks Highway should be
consistent with the recommendations of the report "Scenic Resources
Along the Parks Highway." The recommendations in that report which
are relevant to the Willow Sub-basin are in Appendix 1. The borough
and state will encourage private land owners to follow recommenda-
tions in the report in orde~ to protect the scenic values along the
highway.
Recommended Land Uses
-Community Land Needs for the City of Houston
-Parks Highway Scenic Areas
225
-!!<·
l\)
l\)
-....]
9
16"
mgt. unit size = 8,500 ac.
HOUSTON
.·;.
Land Ownership
State
Borough
Private/Federal
University
scale 1" = 1 mile
~ topo. maps:
Anchorage C8
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
9
lt>
mgt. unit size = 8,500 ac.
Recommended Land ses
RECOMMENDED USES:
• Parks Hwy. Scenic Areas
• Community Land Needs
0 RECREATION SITES
65-Nancy Lake Marina
67-Millar's Landing
69-Houston Campground
88-Trail Wayside
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
MANAGEMENT UNIT: FISHHOOK
MANAGEMENT INTENT
0 Where private land abuts the river the state will consider purchase
of land for public access. The state will not use power of eminent
domain in such cases, but will purchase land from willing sellers to
enhance public enjoyment of the river corridor, should the
legislature appropriate funds: for that purpose.
0 Where public land abuts the river, a publicly-owned buffer shall be
retained. The width of the buffer will be determined on a site
specific basis. The buffer shall be designed to protect water
quality, riparian habitat, public access and use, and to minimize
erosion. The buffer should be a minimool of 50 feet on each side of
the river.
0 A high priority shall be placed on protection of the watershed value
of this area, in particular the flow of water to the Little Susitna
River.
0 This unit is one of the better moose habitat/hunting areas in the
borough. Attempts should be made to provide adequate open space for
moose migration from Hatcher Pass south to the Little Susitna River.
In addition, brush/shrub areas at timberline and along streams should
be protected.
0 Public land managers should encourage small farm and residential
densities sufficiently low 'to protect extremely important watershed
and habitat values in this unit.
0 Grazing should be allowed in areas of high forage potential under
restrictions to minimize adverse impacts on habitat and water quali-
ty.
Recommended Land Uses
-Settlement -
densities -
-Watershed
(low densities or scattered areas of relatively high
Planned Unit Developments)
-Fish and Wildlife (moose habitat)
-Recreation
-Forestry -(principally personal use)
-Grazing
231
Land Ownership
FISHHOOK
233
Land Ownership
•t size -16,900 a c. mgt. um
I
I
I
I ~~~~~---:---~--·--!'
'---
Jill State
~ Borough
D Private/Federal
~~ University
I 1 , - 1 mile sea e -
~ topo. maps:
Anchorage C6, C7
June 1, 1982
S b basin Area Plan Willow u
Recommended Land Uses
FISHHOOK
235
I
Recommended Land ses
mgt. unit size = 16,900 ac.
.
4.~?: .~'
RECOMMENDED USES:
• Fish & Wildlife
• Forestry
• Watershed
• Recreation
• Settlement
0 RECREATION SITE
1 00-Little Susitna Access
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
MANAGEMENT UNIT: WASILLA
MANAGEMENT INTENT
Management of public lands should be designed to include the following:
0 encourage settlement, consistent with the settlement policies out-
lined in Chapter III and the comprehensive plan for the City of
Wasilla;
0 encourage continued use of the unit as a moose harvest area (espe-
cially that part of the unit known as the "Golden Triangle" where
much of the Sub-basin's moose harvest now occurs);
0 maintain the water quality and quantity of the anadromous fish
streams;
0 maintain in public ownershi.p all publiely-owned recreation sites and
trails shown on the following map;
0 where private land abuts the Little Susitna River the state will
consider purchase of land for public aecess. The state will not use
the power of eminent domain in such cases, but will purchase land
from willing sellers to enhance public enjoyment of the river
corridor, should the legislature appropriate funds for that purpose.
0 where public land abuts the Little Susitna River, a publicly-owned
buffer shall be retained. The width of the buffer will be determined
on a site specific basis. The buffer shall be designed to protect
water quality, riparian habitat, publie access and use, and to
minimize erosion. The buffer should bE! a minimum of 50 feet on each
side of the river.
0 encourage agricultural development on the good agricultural land in
the area; encourage existing farms to remain in agricultural uses.
The possibility of an agricultural commodity processing site in this
unit should be explored and encouraged if feasible;
0 Management of public lands adjacent to the Parks Highway should be
consistent with the recommE~ndations of the report "Scenic Resources
Along the Parks Highway." The recommendations in that report which
are relevant to the Willow Sub-basin are in Appendix 1. The borough
and state will encourage private land owners to follow recommenda-
tions in the report in ordE~r to protect the scenic values along the
highway.
237
.J J '-J
scale 1" = 1 mile A
June 1,1982 ~ Wi~ow Su,bbasin Area Plan ~
I
topo. maps: Ill Anchorage 87, 88, C6, C7, C8 State
Tyonek 81, Cl
~ Borough
mgt. unit size = 139,900 acres D Land Ownership Private/Federal
(\) WASILLA ~ w University
1.0 scale 1:250,000
Recommended Land Qses
WASILLA(page 1 of2)
241
2
Recommended Land ses
0
mgt. unit size =139,900 acres
RECREATION SITES
16-Papoose Twins
17-Finger Lake Fly in Wayside
18-Flat Lake
19-Sara Lake
24-West Shore Big Lake
26-Lake Access 'A'
27-Hourglass Lake
28-Mud Lake
29-Bottle Lake Access
30-Alaska Sailing Club
31-Lake Marion Public Access
32-Lake Marion
33-Play Bouy (Big Lake)
44-Horseshoe Lake
45-Lake Access 'C'
46-West Beaver Lake
4 7-Big Beaver Lake
48-Meadow Creek
49-Rocky Lake Wayside
50-Big Lake (East) Wayside
51-Sail-n-Fun (Big Lake)
122 -Horseshoe Lake
123-Finger Lake Fly-in-Wayside
124 -Flat Lake
52-Big Lake (South) Wayside
53-Sunset Park (Big Lake)
70-Morvico Lake Access :·::.:.··:.
71-Praetor Lake ~O>E=-~ -....• /
72-Praetor Lake Public Access ··~~-D.:::; 1
"" --
16
73-Frog Lake o·~ J.:~ ~--
~~: ~~~~it~~: -#'--~-,:~~~;_-::: ..... _,_-':>'7<-..;-c... #1--:~P~......,~--""'!
85-Seymour Lake ~ 0~ -•• / ·-
86-Heming Lk. Public Acc:ess i ~0~~ ~ -"'~~o t
l ~ (7 24 ""' T ~ )··I "" ,--20 5:2 I '
1 1-• I
'\1 I -I "'--"""' I~
-I I" I -
I ~--~-
Q· I
o ~ I o ""-l . ~ ""' .1/q:.~"'"" OQo --~29D·'
0-'i"-
G
scale 1 " = 1 mile
S: S: June 1, 1982
~{ 0 ~ ~Willow Subbasin Area Plan
Recommended Land Uses
WASILLA(page 2 of 2)
243
(page 2 of 2)
Recommended Land
mgt. unit size = 139,900 acres
ses
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan~~-1111111181!111!"1-""'--.c,...
j!.,l~,_l---c<==_7-~ /J ?N.-l:-/ ~'ll
RECREATION SITES
Meadow Lakes Trail Access
1 0 1· Kalmback Lake
102-Memory Lk. Public Access
, 103-Memory Lake
104-Little Susitna Access
1 06-Wolf Lake
107-Kings Lake Camp
108-Hallea Lodge (Lake Lucille)
109-Lake Lucille Public Access
110-Wasilla Lake Rest Area
111-Green Acres Resort (Wasilla Lake)
112-Finger Lake
113-Barry's Resort (Finger Lake)
114-Finger Lake Wayside
115-Green Ridge Camper Park
MANAGEMENT UNIT: KNIK
MANAGEMENT INTENT
0 Land in the Knik Unit should be managed to maintain the existing low
density residential settlement pattern. This unit has the sub-
basin's greatest concentration of publicly owned land suitable for
small farms but not feasible for commercial farms. Small farms would
be compatible with low density residential settlement. For these
reasons, small farms should be encouraged on the good agricultural
land in this unit (except areas noted below). Most of this land is
in borough ownership.
0 Public land in the unit between Goose Creek and Fish Creek (both
anadromous fish streams) should be managed to provide a long term low
density buffer separating t.he projected higher intensity uses in
Wasilla and Point MacKenzie. To achieve this goal the seven state
parcels near these streams (see the following map) will be retained
in public ownership and managed for habitat, recreation, and
watershed values. These parcels contain limited amounts of potential
agricultural land, approximately 160 acres, that would be lost to
small farm use as a result of this policy.
0 The hydrologic integrity of Fish Creek, Goose Creek, and related
wetland system should be maintained by public land buffers around the
streams and important wetlands. See Chapter III, Policies and
Management Guidelines; Wetlands, and River and Stream Buffers.
0 Developable land unsuited for farms and outside the undeveloped
Goose/Fish Creek buffer should be made available for low density
residential use.
0 The integrity of the Iditarod Trail should be maintained. For guide-
lines regarding the management of public:ly owned portions of the
Iditarod Trail, see Chapter III, Policies and Management Guidelines;
Trails.
0 Existing mushing trails should be maintained in public ownership.
Recommended Land Uses
-Settlement
-Recreation (Recreation sites,, the
Iditarod Trail, and other mushing
trails)
-Small Farms
-Fish and Wildlife
(Stream buffers)
-Forestry (personal use areas)
245
_ _,
.. ~~
41:-~ -~ ~ ~
·~
Land Ownership
KNIK
247
K I
3s
T16N
6
State
Borough
Private/Federal
University
scale 1" = 1 mile
topo. maps:
Anchorage 88, C8
Tyonek Bl
June 1, 1982
~
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
Recommended Land Oses
KNIK
249
6 5
I
mgt. unit size =51 ,000 acres
Recommended Land Uses
I
RECOMMENDED OSES:
• Small Farms
• Settlement
• Recreation
• Fish & Wildlife
• Forestry
0 RECREATION·SITES
11-Iditarod Trail Wayside
20-Stephan Lake
21-Anna Lake
22-Sevenmile Lake
34-Fish Creek
35-Threemile Lake
36-Girl Scout Camp
37-Knik Center
38-Knik Lake Public Access
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
MANAGEMENT UNIT: POINT MACKENZIE
MANAGEMENT INTENT
0 Land in this unit should be managed to contribute to development of
the Point MacKenzie industrial area and supporting land uses. Land
disposals and management decisions should be consistent with borough
development plans.
Recommended Land Uses
-Development of the Point MacKenzie port facility, industrial area,
and community
-Management of public land adjacent to Lost and Twin Island Lakes to
ensure continued public access to these areas as well as continued
recreational use of the lakes
-Point MacKenzie agricultural project
251
Land Ownership
PT. MAC KENZIE
253
i: THiN
22 ~
• .
.
~
D
~
State
Borough
Private/Federal
University
scale 1" = 1 mile
topo. maps: _....
Anchorage 88 ~~
TyonekB1 ~
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
-25
·~
~ a-. 140~
,/],'~:
( /-, I
\_! <
,-v,a~ -i .-(~b ~ I /i »/ I
VI • M
Land Ownership
mgt. unit size= 45,600 acres
+
LOCATION of MGT. UNIT
Recommended Land Uses
PT. MAC KENZIE
255
1/Sif, ~--u 1;1 r -, --) PT MAC KENZIE -:__.J-. -"'-. " I u ill' I -~-~--1 .1~ '-l
25 -~:~ ~) -•~?~\ '*
0 r.G ({2 ; •
-1 Recommended Land Uses -, ___________ _
'-a~ I ~ ",:;_'-\D
//"!:!--~':..,"
' ......_ ' ~ _,,_/34_:"'-~_.:>,j!;_
-4' ~
-f ~Ttsl'l
@ ~~--32 '•ocnJ•_J 11 ~~ rl& l ~~~~j(~~~
-:• 1:1pN
/. ,/ I zSo . "'
' .l'lo ,., A I e ' 1!\.-,c_ _____ ,~x -~-I ( J JY • -Ui~ I ,__..._.-• ' '
-=~~~?-~ -_j-At;~ --_:>,~3 ttr_..,
-?.£.~-a;_..,_
' -\)_<l~_o! go ~1J . ~~li'~ ~~
o-. ~ ~
-4
~ -....w:...... ---
~ ~-
· .
• . • . •
6
·~ .~
./b' " ~Of
~ ...
~vo'<-•
·'li ~0~'·
~~~.
'\,/.
.~·
11 . . \
12\ '!'.,c,
\ z.'\.'li • It>' ,.;
'Y" • • •
14 . '"'.,
'(}t.oGiS -~ I I
'*'~ ... ·· :;,.r.J_.1
().13)
,so i
24
~"m /; ( v-0 r
22 ~
~.<n
Primary/Secondary Uses:
The only use designated in the
Pt. MacKenzie area is agriculture.
Actions on other public lands
should be designed to accommodate
development of the proposed
I 18
I 1
I
I
\ Hol~ein 11_ts
St ~e Su divisi
I xrs:)
I I\~ I 29
0 RECREATION SITES
5-Twin Island Lake
6-Sport Fish Access
7-Lake Lorraine Pt. MacKenzie Port Facility,
industrial area and community. 125-Twin Island Lake
mgt. unit size = 45,600 acres
~
scale 1 " = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
MANAGEMENT UNIT: ROGER' S CREEK
MANAGEMENT INTENT
0 Settlement in this area should be designed to preserve adequate open
space for the big game migration corridor between the Hatcher Pass
Management Unit and the Susitna River. The Roger's Creek Unit is an
important big game harvest area.
0 Management of public lands adjacent to the Parks Highway should be
consistent with the recommendations of t.he report "Scenic Resources
Along the Parks Highway." The recommendations in that report which
are relevant to the Willow Sub-basin are in Appendix 1. The borough
and state will encourage private land owners to follow recommenda-
tions in the report in order to protect the scenic values along the
highway.
Recommended Land Uses
-Settlement (avoid continuous development: along highway which could
impede animal movement)
-Fish and Wildlife (habitat, big game movement, and harvest)
-Parks Highway Scenic Areas
-Forestry
257
Land Ownership
ROGER'S CREEK
259
T19N
K.
Land wnership
mgt. unit size = 7,900 ac.
LOCATION of MGT. UNIT
State
Borough
Ill
~
D
~
Private/Federal
University
scale 1" = 1 mile
~ topo. maps:
TyonekD1
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
Recommended Land Oses
ROGER'S CREEK
261
25
G
ecommended Land
t '. _)~ Watershed/Fish & Wildlife
T20N
T19N
mgt. unit size = 7, 900 a c.
RECOMMENDED USES:
• Settlement
• Fish & Wildlife
• Forestry
• Parks Hwy. Scenic Areas
0 RECREATION SITE
7 8-Kashwitna Lake
~
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
•
ses
MANAGEMENT UNIT: WILLOW CREEK CORRIDOR
MANAGEMENT INTENT
0 This area, adjacent to the capital site, currently supports much
recreation along the Willow Creek-Hatcher Pass road. Public land
should be managed to respect and contribute to the recreational value
of the area (access to the river, views from the road, and water
oriented use of the river) and to provide land for settlement and
small farms.
0 Where public land exists adjacent to the river, a publicly owned
river buffer should be estab1ished and maintained according to guide-
lines in Chapter III, River and Stream Corridors. The width of this
buffer should be determined through field examination and review of
existing soils, vegetation, and flood plain data.
0 Settlement within this unit should be designed to minimize negative
impacts on the recreational and habitat values of the river corridor.
This can be achieved through low density settlement (maximum 1 unit
per 5 acres) or isolated planned developments of higher density
screened from the river by topography or vegetation.
0 Public lands along Willow Creek below the Parks Highway bridge are
being studied cooperatively by the borough and the Alaska Division of
Parks for possible recreation development and inclusion in the State
Park system.
0 Management of public lands adjacent to the Parks Highway should be
consistent with the recommendations of the report "Scenic Resources
Along the Parks Highway." The recommendations in that report which
are relevant to the Willow Sub-basin are in Appendix 1. The borough
and state will encourage private land owners to follow recommenda-
tions in the report in order to protect the scenic values along the
highway.
0 This management unit will be closed to coal prospecting and develop-
ment. See Chapter III, Goals, Policies, Management Guidelines;
Subsurface Resources.
Recommended Land Uses
-Fish and Wildlife
-Small Farms
-Settlement
-Recreation
-Parks Highway Scenic Areas
263
Land Ownership
WILLOW CK. CORRIDOR
265
14
IL .c I
Land wnership
mgt. unit size = 11,000 a c.
-----~~.t.=t-~----
14
r~ ~"'o
1'··.
1\.)
I
I
I
I
State
Borough
Private/Federal
University
scale 1" = 1 mile
topo. maps: A
Anchorage D8 ~~
TyonekD1 ~
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
LOCATION of MGT. UNIT
R
r:r·
Recommended Land Uses
WILLOW CK. CORRIDOR
267
WILLO K.CORRIDOR
Recommended Land Uses
mgt. unit size = 11,000 ac.
RECOMMENDED USES: [j_
• Fish & Wildlife
• Small Farms
• Settlement
• Recreation
54-
55-
56-
57-
58-
80-
89-
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
RECREATION SITES
Willow Ck. Scenic Area
Willow Ck. Scenic Area
Willow Island
Pioneer Lodge (Willow Ck.)
Willow Ck. Wayside
Willow Creek Access
Trail Wayside
Willow Ck. Canyon Scenic
Area
. Willow Subbasin Area Plan
MANAGEMENT UNIT: WILLOW
MANAGEMENT INTENTS
0
0
0
Public land in this unit should be managed to support the community
land needs of the town of Willow and the capital site.
Management of public lands adjacent to the Parks Highway should be
consistent with the recommendations of the report "Scenic Resources
Along the Parks Highway." The recommendations in that report which
are relevant to the Willow Sub-Basin are in Appendix 1. The
borough and state will encourage private landowners to follow
recommendations in the report in order to protect the scenic values
along the highway.
Borough lands should be considered for possible agricultural use
(small farms) and forestry (personal use).
Recommended Land Uses
-Community Land Needs for the City of Willow
-Parks Highway Scenic Area
269
-
22 0-'1~ •
'"'" 1\ ~ '12_-r\..r
27 -
~ ~~ ...w.._
-~ ·-
,--"'1 w J _h • nL""" • nn
11:7 ~-MOUNTAINS r1
Land wnership
scale 1" = 1 mile
topo. maps:
Anchorage CB
Tyonek C1, 01
mgt. unit size = 14,800 ac.
-I "\) 1\\ ~I
Ill State
~ Borough
\.-,
11
c
---rt--~-c!_
0
-'!;--\;.so
~
D Private/Federal
m University
June 1, 1982 271
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
-~ ~ -+-·--!~-~ WILLOW
~-~ ~ _-= I ·--..w........_~
f1 ·{~ =-1~ Recommended Land Uses
T19N ~ ·
.,.,.. ':...,.0 o:: o:: ~~ mgt. unit size = 14,800 ac. ~/ ;;;;;:;v ~\ 'lJ..-..,_
r--....r -~ "'"Re~~d
,~ ~~;~r
~--:--~-41--w~-
:._ . .;: ~A~--<f----~--~-L ..... ~-·.:::-!!' -..;. ~"
~-=~-':!!!:4
..,.
~--.IJ!.-
~~
~~-!.
" -4--"'"*'-~~~
22
... -,.j\.._
--"'--""\J .
...... -.,;;; 27
~-'!!!.-., ---...... ~-~
-~--!!!c-
....,_ .....
~-·
l'!g~ ::=-~-;,---, ~~£~~
--AI.!...-~
~00"'-_~ .......... ~ ~~ Q. -....II.:....
' • ~ C --~ ;)j¥· I ~o»~--'I
'·-~----~ ~~~ ;';' 5 ..,.,.,~ -~ ..,.,_ " -...... 1 "'
~
2
0 , Do
T19N
., r--.. -
.,
RECOMMENDED USES: .,
• Community Land Needs
• Parks Hwy. Scenic Areas
.,
.,
LJ I T18N
?.t..?r l , I
D RECREATION SITES
6-Sport Fish Access
40-Florence Lake
41-Long Lake
42-Honeybee Lake
59-Stevfms Lake
60-Lynne Lake Access
61-Kelly Lake
63-Nancy Lake Wayside
118-Willow Lake Access
4
10
~
I
1 '-
1
I
.. i .zso \.., r--.-·-
1
: 11
I
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
0
"so~
Community Park
119-Honeybee Lake Willow Subbasin Area Plan
273
MANAGEMENT UNIT: MORAINE RIDGE
MANAGEMENT INTENT
0 Moraine Ridge is well suited for settlement due to its well drained
soils and varied terrain offering lakes and excellent views. The
unit lies encircled by other management units where limited settle-
ment is anticipated: the Nancy Lakes Recreation Area and Little
Susitna Recreation Corridor, the Susitna Game Flats, and the agricul-
tural and forestry lands of the Fish Creek and Susitna Corridor mana-
gement units. Therefore, as access is developed, Moraine Ridge will
be the focus of demand for settlement land in the general area and
will be able to provide many excellent homesites.
0 This unit has high forestry values and could provide areas for both
personal use and commercial sustained yield management.
0 Moraine Ridge is presently valuable for moose, bear and other spe-
cies. It could support additional recreation on lakes and trails
coordinated with recreation activities in the adjacent Little Susitna
Corridor Management Unit and in Nancy Lakes State Recreation area.
More detailed planning is necessary to define areas where the above uses
should occur. Areas of settlement and commercial forestry should be
separated, possibly using personal use woodlots as buffers. Prior to
road access, settlement can be located along edges of fly-in lakes.
Forestry should occur in a manner that enhances habitat whereever pos-
sible.
Recommended Land Uses
-Settlement
-Forestry
-Fish and Wildlife
-Recreation
275
Land Ownership
MORAINE RIDGE
277
'6
7
19
) 30
~
31
--c
-
~1 £ "'= ~ 1)))1
20
!!:!--'b-
-
" ".
~ ~ -
~ ~ -· -----
~-
~0
T17N
T16N
;f
/
~ ~ ,_
~ -....... ~n.:~
~ o~10 l
........ ~~ 'i
-_ ~Q~ ~?\ 5
~ -&a/):J-~\.,_
~-o~ft,;;:.-
~· ~ ' .:.. l~(h ~~
1 ! --"=v ,...,._
~~~'~
~.11.!.-_uu.. ~:~ 13-
""
.,_
ORAINE RIDGE
Land Ownership
mgt. unit size = 13,300 acres
0
-""!!.•-"!:-
C) ~-"'" q cs: ::: ~ (10<:::1'~~ 0:: 0:: -\
""it .
~ ~_,.
18
~ .c:.
"" ~ I ·------·-"· ~ ~-; ~.. ~---
-~ I
23,0
0.
0 '
I
I
I
."t:
Borough
Private/Federal
~ University
scale 1" = 1 mile
~ topo. maps:
Tyonek Bl, C1
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
Recommended Land Uses
MORAINE RIDGE
279
u~-, ~-~~
~~ ~--15 INERIDGE
29
!' • • • ' •
""o· Recommended Land Uses
. .,
·-"'
··J...r:J!v ..,_-
~~~-)~\J-i_o~~ ~\)'jfr -· ~Q-o;cl'-::-v-~~-'~:~!.:
--!6
~~
....
32
8
•
. • . • •
• • .· . i34. 't\;;c'J V
16
0
13,300 acres
0
c:]34 180u
3
0~
~~·
~!.!·-....u.,.
c:::, .. .L ." ~
c s: ~ (s:'<:t'~~ Ln "" \ o:: ..... -~ -. -.
~h ,
~ . ..,
18
""' -.c::
~ I"" .. 3E I I tv I ~ 0 I~ ·'-." ~ i ~~~~:~-~
19
)30
~
' -~
j -,
' '
20
--
\ ~ ~
' ~ '29...
·. -~~----~!Jl:-~----r-;::-.'}--4
O...>.l.l.c ~
l
-~o~~~; :-~
....u.._ ....\. () ''!--
·-\6 ·~ .. u..._ 31 ::::;,
~0
T17N
.,_ 23,0 0 0 21
.0 Q_
.,
,_
.. o
-~ Cf J-a _.;g._ -.·
28
-_ ..... .a •. :U-:: 'Q~ .. ~~--
--c.>,' ? ~ -~ -....... ""~--. SJ-"'=
' o.....u..-o-
t(: 1~ -~-D~~~~ 21 7-:""
RECOMMENDED USES:
• Forestry
• Fish & Wildlife
• Recreation
• Settlement n RECREATION SITES
'fl-Fish Ck. Archaeological Site
14-Cow Lake
120-Fish Ck. Historic Site
121-Delyndia Lake
c
"'-
:i~
I
I~
-:'t:
.ooO-
C)
~
scale 1" = 1 mile
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
281
LEGISLATIVELY DESIGNATED MANAGEMENT UNITS
There are five management units within the study area which the state
legislature has designated for specific uses. These units include the
capital site, Nancy Lake State Recreation Area, and three game refuges.
This plan does not make land use designations or establish land manage-
ment guidelines for these management units, which are discussed briefly
below. (See the following map for the location of legislatively de-
signated management units.)
The Capital Site
The capital site near Willow has been classified reserved use to main-
tain the land in a condition that will allow it to be planned and devel-
oped as a unit should the capital be moved. The reserved use classifi-
cation will prevent title conflicts and preclude a pattern of land use
incompatible with future development of the area as a capital site.
Until the voters decide whether to move the capital no permits will be
issued or land sold within the unit that might adversely affect use of
the area for the capital site. The site has been closed to additional
subsurface exploration and development by the Commissioner of DNR.
Nancy Lake State Recreation Area
The Nancy Lake State Recreation Area (NLSRA) was established by the
legislature to protect the high quality recreation values of state-owned
land and waters within its boundaries. (The boundaries of the Nancy
Lake Management Unit and NLSRA are the same). The unit has been classi-
fied public recreation.
The State Division of Parks is now updating a master plan for NLSRA.
This plan will designate zones which permit varying levels of develop-
ment and intensity of use. It will also designate specific areas for
trail and facility development. The master plan is scheduled for com-
pletion in 1982.
State Game Refuges: Susitna Game Flats, Palmer Hay Flats, Goose Bay
These game refuges were established by the legislature to preserve the
natural habitat and fish and game populations within their boundaries.
Uses permitted within game refuges will be only those which are com-
patible with this purpose. The refuges are classified resource manage-
ment.
283
INTRODUCTION
APPENDIX 1
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR LANDS ADJACENT TO THE
PARKS HIGHWAY
In 1978 the Alaska Department of Natural Resources conducted an inven-
tory of scenic values along the Parks Highway. This information was
compiled in a report entitled "Scenic Resources Along the George Parks
Highway." The report contains a set of management recommendations
designed to protect views from the highway. Recommendations from the
report relevant to the Willow Sub-basin are presented in this appendix.
Management of public lands adjacent to the Parks Highway should be con-
sistent with these recommendations. The borough and state will en-
courage private landowners to follow these recommendations in order to
protect the scenic values along the highway.
The scenic resources of the George Parks Highway are of considerable
value to Alaskans living along it as well as the thousands who travel it
for business and pleasure. As with any valuable resource, some type of
management strategy or planning is deemed necessary to preserve areas
with high scenic resource values, to improve those areas where man-made
diversity can enhance the driving experience, and to restore areas where
the scenic quality has been severely eroded by landscape alteration.
This set of recommendations points out places and types of, actions
required to protect the unique scenic values found along the George
Parks Highway while at the same time allowing other land and resource
uses as deemed necessary by public demand and planning study.
1-3
1-4
WASILLA MANAGEMENT UNIT
GENERAL
This section of the Parks Highway is characterized by generally low
scenic resource values and intensive roadside land use. Management
recommendations are directed at specific areas where measures should be
taken to prevent further deterioration of scenic resources, use the
natural visual absorption capability when possible, and restore the
foreground visual quality where it has been severely encroached upon by
development and intensive land use.. Land ownership is the primary
limitation to the management of scenic resources within this area be-
cause roadside lands are almost exclusively under private ownership.
PRIMARY MANAGEMENT RECOMffi~NDATIONS
0 Utilize the existing high visual absorption capability of this
landscape.
0 Screen the numerous intensive industrial land uses immediately adja-
cent to the highway and begin land reclamation efforts on those areas
which are no longer used.
0 Restore foreground visual quality in those areas where intensive
roadside commercial d.evelopment has almost completely removed the
natural vegetative cover and where the intensity of roadside land
uses severely affects the visual environment. Restoration measures
include:
1. Encourage the natural revegetation process where possible.
This process usually begins with a shrub stage (cottonwood,
willows, and alders) followed by birch and spruce stands.
2. Encourage landscaping around existing parking areas, partic-
ularly between the highway right-of-way and parking lots.
3. Reduce the number of possible highway turnoff areas by build-
ing frontage roads along areas with intensive commerical
development which would significantly reduce the safety haz-
ards associated with strip development. When properly land-
scaped, a frontage road could also reduce the visual impact of
strip development.
4. The highway through Wasilla should be studied by landscape
architects to develop recommendations for camouflaging the
extended commercial strip.
,
~
,
,
,
,
...
"'I
...
...
~
Many portions of the Parks Highway in this unit have high visual
absorption capabilities. The s e areas are identified within heavy black
lines on the attached maps. The str etch of highway shown in Figures 1a
and 1b is characterized by mix ed resid ential and commercial development,
gravel pits, clearings, and numerous i ntersections. This strip is in
the early stages of development , and road side activity could take place
without severely affecting the exi s t i n g visual quality by taking
measures to protect the natur a l landc ove r.
A minimum of 25% of the na t u r al landc ov er and topography should be left
undisturbed on those l ots immedia t e ly a d jacent to the highway. Those
areas not circled in black h a v e lowe r vi s ual absorption capability a n d
need additional on-site evaluations t o determine how the land might be
developed with minimal impact on sceni c resources.
The following notes refer to F igu re 1a.
1. This area is the b e ginni n g o f intensive roadside commercial
development. More veget at i o n and landscaping along the
highway is needed, pa r tic ula rly along the north side of the
road.
2.
3.
The crossroads of downt own Wa s illa is a particularly important
area from a visual s t andpo int . Definition of a downtown a rea
could reduce the f e eling o f extensive s'trip developments on
either end of downtown . Wh i l e this is an urban design
problem, a numbe r of t hing s could be accomplished in the near
future to improve the "Was illa Strip".
a. The planting of str e et trees and the construction of
sidewalks in t h e downt own-crossroads area could help
create a sense of plac e.
b. Taller buildin gs shoul d be encouraged in the downtown
area to provide a visual aecent and focus to make it l ook
and feel differen t from the commercial areas away from
downtown. The r a ilro a d stat ion and a few old historical
buildings near the cros sroa ds should be preserved to give
Wasilla a sense o f his tor ieal heritage.
Intensive strip developmen t and land clearing occur here .
This area, as well as the a rea described in Note 1, should be
considered focal po i nts in a v isual analysis study of Wasilla .
4 . The railroad, which p aralle ls the highway, provides an effec-
tive southern edge t o the community. Vegetated areas between
the highway and railr oad wo u l d provide added visual interest .
1-5
~
Figure la.
-·--
····.I
lr / :I __ ;_~---~r----~~~~~~~~~-=~---
r
1
I
33 [)!
r r ,.. ,.. r
WASILLA MANAGEMENT UNIT
Figure lb.
Designate this secti on as a scenic
highway corridor and establish as
a greenbelt.
,. .. ,. .-
See Note
(p. l-5)
c::> Areas circled in heavy black lines
have high visual absorption
capability. Roadside development
should be located within these areas
if possible.
... .-r
HOUSTON MANAGEMENT UNIT
GENERAL
Some of the most scenic portions of the Parks Highway are included
within the Houston Management Unit (Figure 2). ·
This high scenic resource value is the result of a diverse landscape
with numerous views to distant mountains and constantly changing pano-
ramas as the road climbs over and winds around the gently rolling low
hills. It also contains the only extended views from the highway across
the broad lower Susitna Valley. Due to the proximity of this area to
Anchorage and the numerous recreation attractions nearby (Nancy Lake,
Willow Creek, etc.) this portion of the highway is subject to intensive
use, especially during the smmaer. The Little Susitna River receives a
great deal of recreational use during the summer salmon runs.
PRIMARY MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
0 Designate this section of the Parks Highway as a scenic highway
corridor.
0 Encourage roadside commercial development around the existing com-
munity of Houston and Nancy Lake while encouraging residential,
agricultural and other non-commercial land uses along the remaining
stretches of road if they need to occur near the roadway.
0 Use the natural visual absorption capability of the land to reduce
the visual impact of intensive land uses adjacent to the highway
(mining, gravel pits, logging, subdivisions). Figure 2 shows areas
with high visual absorption capability.
0 Establish a greenbelt along the highway within this unit. This would
be ·a 100 feet minimum width beyond the right-of-way along stretches
of road with high visual absorption capability. Areas with lower
visual absorption capability would require a wider greenbelt, the
actual width to be determined through field checks.
0 Within the Little Susitna River Corridor, establish a greenbelt.
Auto/ camper access should be established away from the bridge and
outside of the greenbelt boundaries. Visual impacts of intensive
recreation use adjacent to the bridge should be reduced.
1-7
,.
co
Figure 2 HOUSTON MANAGEMENT UNIT
First views of Mt. McKinley
and Foraker while heading north.
High visual absorption/
capability. Locate
Nancy Lake Recreational
roadside related developments
here.
Numerous views across Susitna
Valley. No development recommendeq
immediately adja~ent to highway
along this section of road. Selective
cutting of trees could
increase duration of some views.
Locate land uses beyond 200' from
the edge of the roadway.
Excellent sites for scenic turnouts
along this section of the road.
Good views to Talkeetna Mountains.
Protect foreground.·
Foreground restoration
of landscape is needed
around the community of
Houston to screen gravel
pits and reduce visual
impacts of roadside commercial
development.
Establish a greenbelt
at the Little Susitna
NANCY LAKE MANAGEMENT UNIT
GENERAL
The Nancy Lake Management Unit contains a short but very scenic portion
of the Parks Highway. The area is subject to intensive recreation use.
PRIMARY MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
0 Designate this section of the Parks Highway as a scenic Highway
corridor.
0 Encourage necessary roadside commercial development in this unit to
occur along the stretch of highway with high visual absorption
capability.
Figure 3
32
0 () 0
.IJ.9_!1 __ _
T 18 N
Removal of taller vegetation could
open up some views of Nancy Lake.
-·----.,..~-:-<'
......... -&..
---·-
""
26
,.
35
---
High visual absorp-
tion capability.
1-9
t-to
WILLOW MANAGEMENT UNIT
GENERAL
The Parks Highway within the Willow Management Unit contains moderate
scenic values (Figure 4). Willow is still in the early stages of
development, and while some signs of strip development are visible, it
is not as extensive as areas further south.
PRIMARY MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
0 Include the portion south of Milepost 6 7 in the scenic highway and
greenbelt designations recommended for the management units to the
south.
0 Encourage necessary highway related commercial development within
this area rather than areas immediately to the north or south.
0 Use the natural visual absorption capability of the landscape to
reduce the visual impacts of land developments in the foreground
distance zone (~ to ~mile either side of the highway). This can ~e
accomplished by leaving some of the forest vegetation between the
highway and the development, and on those lots bordering the highway
right-of-way. Retain at least 25% of the land in natural vegetation.
0 Reduce the number of intersections with the highway by building a
frontage road. Vegetation left standing between the highway and the
frontage road will help maintain existing scenic quality and soften
the visual impacts of development.
0 Encourage landscaping around parking areas, particularly where they
are immediately adjacent to the highway. Native birch, spruce trees,
and mounds of earth can be quite effective.
0 Encourage the growth of native trees and shrubs within the highway
right-of-way. Presently the righ·t-of-way is neatly clipped back to
the forest in a straight line, parallel to the roadway. Some areas,
specifically where the land beyond the right-of-way is publicly
owned, could have the natural vegetation extend into the
right-of-way. This would create visual interest and diversity and
soften the impact of the road on the landscape.
WILLOW MANAGEMENT UNIT
Area of high visual absorption
capability. Take advantage of
this area in roadside
developments.
Protect views across Willow Lake
from the highway. Land develop-
ment, tree removal , and other
land uses should not block or
destroy these important views .
~I! -----f--...
I . • '• I•
I
Fig ure 4
~Vl~~il:s~iion ~
·I . ·\' l nd . S . I 't ' . 1 a 1ng tnp 1 111 -·.'li :l._ .. 9 -~
. I -I ---
2,..,.{;#11/1> • l ' .• ~ ~
-
J ]~----,--\
~ t:J. I
IT\'tN
....J1'18N
t-tt
1-12
WILLOW CREEK CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT UNIT
GENERAL
Willow Creek is an :in1:ensively used recreation area. Removal of
vegetation and vehicular use of the land adjacent to the highway has
resulted in some erosion, litter, and trespassing problems in this area.
PRIMARY MANAGEMENT RECOMffi~NDATIONS
0 Establish a greenbelt along the river a minimum of \ mile either
direction from the bridge, and at least 1501 either side of the
water's edge. Within this area only pedestrian movement would be
allowed and no removal of vegetation would be permitted.
0 Establish auto/camper access and camping/parking facilities outside
the greenbelt and away from the bridge. Easier access to other
portions of Willow Creek, especially via paved roadway would help
disperse intensive salmon fishing activities presently concentrated
around the bridge.
Establish a greenbelt
Figure 5 ~,~
lt\'1
ct~
Area of high
visual absorption
capability.
ROGER'S CREEK MANAGEMENT UNIT (SOUTF.[ OF LITTLE WILLOW CREEK)
GENERAL
This section of the Parks Highway is characterized by very high scenic
resource values.
PRIMARY MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
0 Designate this section of the Parks Highway as a scenic highway
corridor.
0 Establish a greenbelt to protect sensitive foreground scenic resource
values. The greenbelt should be a minimum width of 100' beyond the
highway right-of-way in the area of high visual absorption capabili-
ty, and wider in the other areas. Actual width should be determined
in the field. At least 75% of the land within the designated area
should be left in a natural state.
c::::> Areas of high visual ab-
sorption capability where a
100' greenbelt would be
sufficient . These are also
the places where roadside
development might occur
with minimum impact on high
scenic resource values.
Excellent
muskeg to
Range, and
views across open
Mt. McKinley, Alaska
Talkeetnas.
Establish a greenbelt
around Willow Creek.
Designate this section as
a scenic highway corri -
dor.
Figure 6
I .
•II La. I I
1 . ~ ~ ~~~-__ j~ '~~-----"T \q N
1-13
t-14
LITTLE WILLOW CREEK CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT UNIT
GENERAL
The Little Willow Creek Co r ridor receives high recreation use, partic-
ularly during summer salmon r uns.
PRIMARY MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Little Willow Creek is an intensive recreation area. Removal of vegeta-
tion and vehicular use o f lan d immediately adjacent to the highway has
resulted in some erosion and litter problems in this area. To remedy
this the following recommendations are made.
0 Extend highway greenbelt !t; mile up and down the creek (100' m1n1mum
beyond waters edge). Perm i t only pedestrian use in this area.
0 Establish auto/camper access and camping/parking facilities outside
this greenbelt and away from the bridge.
0 Include this section of t h e Parks Highway in scenic highway designa-
tion and greenbelt establishment .
Figure 7
Establish a greenbelt and
designate this section as a
scenic highway corridor.
~
~
~
~
~
ROGER'S CREEK MANAGEMENT UNIT (NORTH OF LITTLE WILLOW CREEK)
GENERAL
Parts of the highway in the Roger' s Creek Management Unit are very high
in visual resource values, and other sections .are fairly low (Figure 8).
PRIMARY MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
0 Designate the section below milepost 78 (in Section 31) as a scenic
highway corridor.
0 Establish a greenbelt below milepost 78 to protect the sensitive
foreground scenic resource values. At least 75% of the land within
the designated area should be left in a natural state. The greenbelt
should be a minimum width of 100' beyond the highway right-of-way in
areas of high visual absorption capability and wider in other areas.
Actual width should be determined in the field .
0 Necessary intensive roadside land uses (e.g., gravel pits, commerical
developments, industries) should be encouraged, when possible, to
locate along stretches of :road which have high visual absorption
capability.
1-15
1-16
ROGER'S CRE EK MANAGEMENT UNIT
c:==:> Areas of high visual ab -
sorption capabi lity.
Intensive roadside land
uses can be located wi th
minimal impact in these
areas.
This stretch of road has ve ry
high scenic resource values a nd
excellent views of Mt. McKinl ey
and other distant mountains .
Retain existing veget ation
whenever possible.
Designate this section of t he
road as a scenic' highway co r -
ridor.
Important view across Kashwitna
Lake when driving south. Re-
strict roadside development a nd
removal of vegetation.
Excellent scenic turnout site .
Presently it is a large grave l ·
area with a few trash barrels by
the lake. A much nicer are a
could be created by relocatin g
the trash barrels away from the
lakeside and encouraging some
trees along the highway.
Establish a greenbelt
APPENDIX 2
BACKGROUND RESOURCE INFORMATION
Appendix 2 presents basic information about the land and resources in
the Willow Sub-basin. The appendix is organized by resource, or major
land use. Lands with high value for agriculture, settlement, recrea-
tion, mining, and other import:ant resources are mapped and described.
Public lands allocated to each of these resources are also mapped, and
potential transportation routes are analyzed in greater detail than in
Chapter II.
2-3
2-4
AGRICULTURE
INTRODUCTION
In 1980 agriculture occupied approx i mately 2,000 acres in the Willow
sub-basin. These acres produce mainly hay and grass with a few acres in
potatoes, barley, and rape seed. Crop production has never developed
substantially in the sub-basin due to limited amounts of productive
soils, inadequate markets, poor access, high clearing costs, and the
lack of a regional agricultural infracture -including processing
plants, storage and transportation facilities, and cooperative financing
arrangements.
Farming has recently declined in the sub-basin. The estimated 2,000
acres in production in 1980 is a qua r ter of the land previously devoted
to crops. The remainder has grown to brush or sprouted houses. The
decline of agriculture in the Willow Sub-basin mirrors conditions in the
entire Matanuska-Susitna Borough where agricultural production peaked in
the mid-1960's. Since then, the decline in the numbers of farmers and
production has been dramatic. By 1977, the number of full-time farmers
dropped from 70 to 30-40, the number of dairy farms dropped from 47 to
12, and the number of veget able farms declined from 22 to 17. By 1980
only 10 dairy farms remained i n production.
In the Willow Sub-basin, as in most of the borough (and much of the
U.S.), agricultural land provi des more income to the owner when sold for
residential development than when farmed. Between 1975 and 1978, 27
farms were subdivided within the borough. Land in the area which sold
for $70 per acre in the mid 1960's s old for $7,500 per acre in the mid
1970's. A Soil Conservation Service economist has calculated that to
compete with such land prices, a crop would have to net $1,350 per acre
per year. That is possible only for very high value production such as
truck crops and livestock farming.
It is clear that agricultural development in the Willow Sub-basin faces
a number of problems, from a limit;ed land base to limited markets.
However, the proposed commitment of 15,000 acres of public land in the
Point MacKenzie area to :farming, and the policies and land use commit-
ments presented in this plan should help provide the basis for a stable
agricultural industry in the borough. Through this plan, 41,000 acres
of state and borough land are designated for large scale commercial
agriculture; 40,000 acres a r e designated for grazing; and small farm
disposal targets of 4,000 acres for the borough and 3,000 acres for the
state are established for the period 1981-1986.
The remainder of this section of the plan is divided into three parts:
1) a summary of issues; 2) a · description of sub-basin's agricultural
potential; and 3) a discussion of public lands designated for agricul-
tural development.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
A number of issues and problems have been identified which must be
addressed through this plan, and through other government policies, in
order to strengthen the agricultural industry in the Willow Sub-basin.
These issues are as follows:
a. the need for a stable and adequate land base.
b. the need for access to potential farm lands.
c. limited export markets for Alaskan products.
d. shortage of low-cos1: farming inputs, such as fertilizers,
lime, power, equipment, etc.
e. the need for a developed agricultural infrastructure, such as
processing facilities, storage, ports, etc.
f. the need to achieve economies of scale necessary to take
advantage of current technology.
g. high public demand for small farm units (less than 80 acres in
size).
h. the importance of salvaging timber with high commercial and
personal use value when lands are cleared for agriculture.
i. potential conflicts between agricultural activities and other
land uses.
Some of these issues can be addressed through land use planning for
public lands, principally those which concern land availability and
infrastructure. This plan addresses these issues in two ways: first, by
establishing goals, policies, and land management guidelines (Chap-
ter III, Agriculture) which commit the borough and state to supporting
agricultural development; and second, by designating public lands which
will be made available for private agricultural use.
2-5
2-6
POTENTIAL FOR AGRICl~TURAL DEVELOPMENT
LAND CAPABILITY
The Willow Sub-basin is generally characterized by acidic soils which
require extensive applications of lime (initially 3-5 tons of high grade
lime per acre) for most crops. The growing season is short and precipi-
tation irregular. The longer and warmer growing season in the Matanuska
Valley makes it better suited for agricultural development than is the
Willow Sub-basin. However, certain soils in the basin are capable of
producing crops -principally grains, hay, and potatoes. In addition, a
number of soil types in the area are suited to truck farming. Uplands
between the Little Susitna River and the Talkeetna Mountains, and be-
tween Willow Creek and the Kashwitna River have good grazing potential.
Map 7 shows the location of soils with high agricultural potential in
the sub-basin and shows the ownership of these areas. Soil capability
classes range from I-VIII; the higher the number, the greater the limi-
tations for agricultural use. Class II and III soils are the Willow
Sub-basin's (and the state's) best potential agricultural soils.
As Map 7 shows, there are five areas within the sub-basin containing
significant concentrations of class II and III soils in public owner-
ship.
1. Point MacKenzie Management Unit
The approximately 15,000 acres of state-owned class III soils in
this area and 600 acres of borough land have been committed to
agricultural use.
2. Fish Creek Management Unit
East of Flathorn Lake the state and borough own approximately
20,000 acres of class II and III soils. Though remote, these lands
have high agricultural potential.
3. Susitna Corridor Management Unit
Just east of the Susitna River along most of the western border of
the sub-basin there are approximately 26,000 acres of state and
borough-owned class II and III agricultural soils. Much of this
area is hilly, divided by numerous drainages and interspersed by
wetlands. It does not have road access.
4. Kashwitna and Iron Creek Management Units
Within these two units between Willow Creek and the Kashwitna
River, there are approximately 22,073 acres of state and borough
class II and III soils. Most of this land is rugged upland cur-
rently much more sui·ted to grazing than crop production.
5. Susitna Game Flats
Along the banks of the Little Susitna River east of the Point
MacKenzie agricultural project are a few thousand acres of class II
and III soils. This area is a state wildlife refuge and is not
presently being considered for agricultural development.
Private Land
In the Wasilla Management Unit between and around the towns of Palmer
and Wasilla there are approximately 49,556 acres of prime agricultural
soils in private ownership. However, much of this land has been sub-
divided and land prices generally preclude economical farming.
Grazing Lands
Aside from the potential agricultural areas discussed above, the Hatcher
Pass Management Unit contains important grazing lands in river valleys
and on the lower slopes of the Talkeetna Mountains. Important potential
grazing areas are also located between the Willow Creek and Kashwitna
River drainages (Kashwitna Management Unit.) and adjacent to the Susitna
River northeast of Flathorn Lake. These areas, which total approxi-
mately 120,640 acres, are shown on Map 8.
ECONOI1IC FEASIBILITY
The United States Department of Agriculture has evaluated the implica-
tions of current market conditions for agriculture in the Willow Sub-
basin as follows:
Future agricultural development in the sub-basin will be
a function of economic feasibility which in turn depends
largely on demand for both agricultural products and
other competing land uses, e.g., urban, recreation, etc.
Feasibility is a function of demand for agricultural
products because prices are partially established by that
demand. In Alaska, prices received by farmers tend to
approximate the Seattle, Washington price plus trans-
portation to Alaska markets. This price remains in
effect up the to point when the local demand has been
largely saturated; beyond this point the prices received
by farmers would ·tend to drop sharply towards the
Seattle, Washington price less transporation to Alaska
markets. For the products analyzed, i.e., barley, oats,
potatoes, and brome :• feasibility does not exist at the
latter price for yiE!lds which can reasonably be expected
in the Susitna Basin. In many cases, however, feasibili-
ty does exist at the former price; farming can survive in
the basin, but production in excess of the quantity that
will be readily used locally will cause economic failure.
2-7
2-8
It should be noted that the preceding discussion assumes
the existence of only two markets -Alaska and the lower
forty-eight states. There has been much recent discus-
sion of a third market, the Orient, which now counts the
contiguous U.S. west coast as one of its major suppliers
of grains. Alaska can compete on the world market if it
can produce and ship grain to the Orient at a cost equal
to or less t h an production and shipping costs from the
west coast. Labor, equipment, and building costs per
unit of output are usually higher in Alaska, but the
distance from Sea t tle to the Orient exceeds the distance
from Alaska to the Orient. Whether or not Alaska's
mileage advantage can offset its higher production costs
will be known soon from the Delta Barley project.
Regardless of the world market situation, a good deal of
agricultural potential exists at the local level yet
Alaska continues to import every product which economic-
ally could be grown and processed locally. ( Susitna
River Basin Stuc!l, 1981, United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.)
In sum, although there are economic constraints, the potential exists
for an expanded agricultural i ndustry in the Willow Sub-basin.
PUBLIC LANDS DESIGNATED FOR AGRICULTURE
Public lands designated by this plan for agricultural use fall into
three categories: commercia l agriculture, grazing, and small farms
(40-80 acres). These descriptions are shown on Map 8. Approximately
25,000 acres of state and 19 ,500 acres of borough lands are designated
for commercial scale agricultural use (parcels larger than 80 acres).
These figures include approximately 15,000 acres in the Point MacKenzie
agricultural project. In addition, approximately 120,000 acres of state
land and 3,000 acres of borou gh land are designated for grazing. Lands
·designated for small farm use are discussed under the settlement section
of this appendix.
The Fish Creek Management Unit is the major commercial agricultural
project proposed by this plan . The borough owns about 60% of the unit
and the state 40% (except for several small parcels in private owner-
ship). The unit conta i ns app roximately 16,000 acres of prime agricul-
tural land.
Areas opened for grazing include the southern two-thirds of the
Kashwitna Unit, the southern and west;ern portions of Hatcher Pass Unit,
the Moose Range, and the southern portion of the Susitna Corridor Unit.
Grazing is controlled by guidelines in Chapter III, Agriculture. These
guidelines are principally intended to minimize the impacts of grazing
on wildlife habitat and water quality .
Important Agricultural Lands
2-9
Willow Ck. Corridor
Hatcher Pass
R5W
MAP7
Important
Agricultural Lands
Class II & III soils on state lands
• Class II & III soils on borough lands
~~ Class II & III soils on private lands
D Other lands
No parcels of class II and III soils below 40 acres are shown.
scale 1: 332,000
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
T
State and Borough Land
Designated For Agriculture
2-11
l
J
l
1
1
l
J
J
1
J
Grazing
(secondary use
' > _v ".. '"
·capital Site ·.
' '-_,
MAPS
Grazing
(one of 4 primary land
use designations in
this unit)
State and Borough
Land Designated
For Agriculture
rn•=>r':l.~
Commercial agriculture (parcels larger than 80
acres).
·see
notes
on map
Grazing
Small farm (parcels smaller than 80 acres, used for
small scale and non-commercial farming).
Small farms is considered a settlement category;
areas designated for small farms are also shown
on the settlement map. Only areas with primary
designations for small farms are shown on this
map.
R 1 E ~~ Legislatively Designated Areas
D Areas with specific Land Use
Designations
Management units shown in gray are
primarily owned by the state and borough.
In these areas detailed land use
designations are prepared as well as
management guidelines to control how
these uses occur.
Diagonal lines indicate where land
use designations are made on
borough lands.
D Areas with Gtmeral Land Use
Objectives
Management units shown in white
are primarily privately owned but contain
some parcels of state/borough lands. The
area plan addresses appropriate land uses
in these areas through general land use
objectives prepared for each management
The state and borough will also dispose of
small farms, as compatible with other
major land uses, in the following manage
ment units:
•FIShHOOK
• WASILLA
• KNIK
e PT. MACKENZIE
• FISH CREEK -In this unit small farms
will be identified and sold at the time
commercial agricultural development
occurs. Small Farms will be located in
areas of Class II and Ill soils that are
too small for commercial agriculture.
LAND MANAGEMENT UNITS unit; specific land use designations are
made for state land in some cases. ~
scale 1:332,000
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan.
Borough and state lands designated for use as small farms are in the
Kashwitna, Ronald Lake, Pear Lake, Little Willow Creek Corridor and Iron
Creek Units. Agricultural larid in the Fish Creek unit not suitable for
large farms because of topography will be sold for small farms.
Although specific tracts have not been identified, small farms are a
"recommended use" in the Knik Unit, where private landowners and the
borough own considerable land suitable for that purpose. (There are
also several thousand acres of private land suitable for small farms in
the Wasilla Management Unit.)
It is difficult to specify an acreage figure for small farms because the
plan frequently designates small farms as one of several permitted uses
within a management unit. Si1:es for small farms will be identified
specifically through more detailed planning. However, the plan desig-
nates approximately 3,000 acres of state land and 2,500 acres of borough
land for primary small farm use. Through this plan, the state and
borough have also set small farm disposal targets of 3, 000 acres and
4,000 acres respectively during the next 5 years.
Approximately 4,000 acres of borough land in the northern portion of the
Susitna Corridor Management Unit, west of Nancy Lake, are designated for
agricultural use. State land in the Susitna Corridor Management Unit
which has high agricultural potential (agricultural capability classes
II and III) is to remain in non-intensive uses: forestry, habitat, or
recreation. Management of this unit will be designed to minimize nega-
tive impacts on potential agricultural development.
2-13
2-14
RECREATION
INTRODUCTION
The Susitna River Basin is exceptionally well endowed with recreational
resources. Its landscapes and ecosystems are as diverse as those found
anywhere in the state, ranging from rugged mountains to coastal wet-
lands. Recreation opportunities in the basin are considerable, enhanced
by vast acreages of undisturbed public lands. The basin's proximity to
Anchorage results in substantial recreation demands, which, coupled with
abundant recreational resources, suggests that the basin will host much
of southcentral Alaska's outdoor recreation activity in years to come.
The Willow Sub-basin in particular is the focus of much of the recrea-
tion activity of Anchorage and borough residents. It is the most dense-
ly populated area of the entire Susitna River basin. The communities of
Wasilla and Willow have experienced significant growth in recent years
due largely to an ample supply of buildable private lands within con-
venient travel distance of Anchorage coupled with the area's outstanding
recreational potential.
Abundant surface water is the single most important element of the
area's recreation potential. Fishing is a major recreation pursuit
throughout the sub-basin and is particularly important on the Little
Susitna River and Willow Creek. The Nancy Lake System is a year-round
recreation area offering fishing, canoeing, cross-country skiing, snow-
mobiling, and camping.
Waterfront waysides or resorts featuring picknicking, fishing, and water
skiing are especially popular in settled areas like Wasilla. The
Talkeetna Mountains are host to a full range of mountain based uses,
including climbing, hiking, skiing, snow-machining, and wildlife photog-
raphy. South and west of the Parks Highway are the Pt. MacKenzie,
Palmer Hay Flats, and Susitna lowlands areas. Duck and moose hunting
are the most extensive recreational activities occurring in these areas.
RECREATION ISSUES
The three most basic recreation issues are the same in the sub-basin as
they are in other areas, ·that is, providing a land base that can support
recreational activities and providing the facilities and access that
allow people to use these recreational areas. Specific recreation
issues within these general categories are listed below.
1. Recreational Land Base
The Willow Sub-basin is likely to experience significant population
growth and resource development in the near future. This will
result in pressure to use existing and potential recreation land
for other uses. Two specific problem areas are discussed below.
a. Hatcher Pass: conflicts between mining and recreational uses
have to be resolved in this primarily state owned area.
b. River Corridors and Lake Fronts: settlement values in these
areas are very high. Use of buffers, public retention and
other methods will be required to maintain opportunities for
public recreational use of these areas.
2. Access
The combination of heavy use and limited facilities creates conges-
tion, reduces user satisfaction, and causes management problems.
This is a special problem during salmon fishing season where few
road accessed areas exist to accommodate many users. It is also a
year-round problem where a large numbe~ of outdoor recreationists
congregate in the Hatcher Pass area of the Talkeetna Mountains, but
find inadequate parking, staging, and restroom facilities.
A second important access related issue involves ownership. Many
recreational activities in the sub-basin, especially hunting and
fishing, occur on or across private lands. Increased development
on private lands as well as pressure to dispose of public lands can
reduce public recreational opportunities and create trespass prob-
lems.
3. Coordination to Meet Varied User Needs
The Willow Sub-basin is now and will continue to be an important
recreation area for people from Anchorage and other visitors from
outside the sub-basin. Additionally, there will be an increasing
need for community parks and other recreation facilities for local
residents. It is essential to identify the nature of these varied
recreational demands and determine the best means to meet them,
including the most appropriate and efficient role for state and
local agencies and private recreational providers.
A specific example of this issue is campgrounds. Presently the
Willow Sub-basin does no t have sufficient camping facilities,
especially in fishing areas, to meet regional and local needs.
Meeting this need will require coordination between the state and
borough and knowledge of existing and planned private campgrounds.
Based on the existing availability of recreation land and facili-
ties and an assessment of likely future recreation demands in the
Willow Sub-basin, the Alaska Division of Parks has ranked the
importance of the following recreation needs:
2-15
2-16
Critical Needs (needs for which current demand greatly exceeds supply)
Developed camping units
Boat launches
Alpine skiing area
Stream fishing areas
Important Needs (needs for which demand exceeds supply)
Picnicking units
Cross-country ski trails
Walking, running, cycling trails
Stream and lake areas for c.anoeing, rafting, kayaking
Swimming areas
Lake fishing sites
Notable Needs (needs for which demand is expected to exceed supply
in the near future)
Dog mushing trails
Hiking areas
Snow-machine trails
These rankings are not me.ant to suggest that one activity is more impor-
tant or desirable than another, but rather to indicate which activities
most lack an adequate land base to meet expected public demand.
Recreation issues and needs identified above are addressed by this plan
in two ways. First, the borough and state have developed goals,
policies, and management guidelines (Chapter III) which will direct the
use of important public recreation lands. Second, the plan designates
specific lands to be managed for their public recreation values. These
land use designations are. presented below.
EXISTING AND POTENTIAL RECREATION AREAS
As part of this plan, many of the most important existing and potential
recreation sites within the sub-basin have been identified. These are
shown on Map 9. These recreation areas have been divided into four
categories and are described below.
1. Major Public Recreation Areas
The major public recreation areas in the sub-basin are the Hatcher
Pass/Talkeetna Mountains area (Hatcher Pass Management Unit), the
Nancy Lake State Recreation Area, the Little Willow Creek Corridor,
the Little Susitna Corridor, and the Iditarod Trail.
The Hatcher Pass Managemen1t Unit provides a wide range of summer
and winter recreation activities including hiking, mountain climb-
ing, snow-mobiling, skiing, and wildlife photography. (Mining,
recreation, fish and wildlife, and grazing all receive primary use
designations in the Hatcher Pass Unit.) The Nancy Lake State
Recreation Area is a major boating, camping, fishing and winter
sports area for southcentral Alaska. The plan does not affect this
area or other legislatively designated areas. The Little Willow
Creek and Little Susitna River Corridors are anadromous streams
which provide important recreation opportunities to people from all
over the state. The Iditarod Trail, between Knik and Nome, is the
state's best known dog mushing route. (The Susitna Flats and
Palmer Hay Flats state game refuges also provide important dis-
persed hunting and fishing. These areas are discussed in the Fish
and Wildlife section of this appendix.)
2. Recreation Areas Larger Than 160 Acres
Map 9 identifies eighteen publicly and privately owned outdoor
recreation areas larger than 160 acres within the Willow Sub-basin.
These 18 areas and the many sites smaller than 160 acres discussed
below encompass approximately 23,000 acres and provide 474 camping
units (many double as picnic units), 1l•6 picnic units, and 13 boat
launches. Existing facilities serve picnicking, camping, boating,
canoeing, and fishing activities. The sites larger than 160 acres
are listed below.
Recreation Sites Larger Than 160 Acres
Site Number
3
14
34
43
48
54
59
64
66
89
90
92
93
98
104
113
116
127
Site Name
Willow Creek Scenic Area (one)
Cow Lake
Fish Creek
Houston Lakes
Meadow Creek
Willow Creek Scenic Area (two)
Steven's Lake
Fry Pan Lake
Four Lakes
Willow Creek Canyon Scenic Area
Bullion Mountain Scenic Area
Twelve Mile Lake
Willow Creek Island
Susitna Scenic Area
Little Susitna (Access Site)
Barry's Resort (Finger Lake)
Lucy Lake/Cottonwood Creek
Little Susitna River Corridor
2..:J.7
2-18
3. Recreation Areas Smaller Than 160 Acres
This category includes over 100 publicly and privately owned trail
waysides, campgrounds, historic sites, and lake and stream access
points. These sites are indicat.ed through appropriate symbols on
Map 9.
4. Recreation and Historic Trails
Work by the Alaska Division of Parks and the Matanuska Susitna
Trails Commission identified approximately 400 miles of important
trails in the Willow Sub-basin. These trails, some of which have
been in use since gold rush days and even earlier, serve hikers,
snowmobilers, dogsledders, ~nd cross-country skiers and provide
recreational access and other uses throughout the sub-basin. Trails
are indicated by dotted line and by number on Map 9.
Recreation and Historic Trails
Trail Number
39
74
81
87
91
128
129
130
131
132
133
131+
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
141+
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
Trail Name
Willow Lake Trail
Susitna Flats Trail
Deception Creek Trail
Willow Creek Mountain Trail
Sled Road Trail
Susitna Flats Branch Trail
Susitna Flats Branch Trail
Twin Island Lakes Trail
Connecting Trail
Yohn Lake to Susitna River Trail
Susitna Station Connection
Nancy Lake Loop Trails
Bench Lake Trail
Meadow Lakes Trail
Bald Mountain Access Trails
Grubstake Gulch Trail
Purches Creek Trail
ShorEy Creek Trail
Canyon Creek Trail
Upper Willow Creek Trail
Independence Mine Trail
Reed Lakes Trail
Fern Mine
Glacier Creek Trail
Little Susitna River Trail
Upper Little Susitna River Trail
Stevens Lake Connecting Trails
Willow Creek Trail
Big Lake to Knik Loop Trail
Iditarod Trail Connections
Important Recreation Areas
2-19
In addition to the 4 categories of recreation areas identified above,
considerable recreation occurs on public lands which are not specifical-
ly designated or managed for recreation. The areas include many of the
Willow Sub-basin's lakes, rivers, streams, and mountains. Nearly a
thousand miles of undesignated and unprotected trails are used for
hunting and fishing access, dogsledding, hiking, snow-machining, and
cross-country skiing.
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
An important part of the implementation of the recreation goals, poli-
cies, and guidelines presented in Chapter III is the designation of a
land base which will be managed to provide recreation opportunities.
All major recreation areas, recreation sites, and trails as shown on Map
9 will be managed for public use. Securing these recreation oppor-
tunities will help meet the needs identified above by establishing areas
for developed recreation activities such as campgrounds and boat
launches and by protecting public access to trails, streams, and wilder-
ness areas. The Hatcher Pass Recreation Area provides a possible site
for alpine skiing, one of the "critical needs" cited above.
Important recreation opportunities also exist on public lands which are
not designated for recreation as a primary use. Map 4 in Chapter II
shows recreation as a secondary use in several units where dispersed
hunting, fishing, hiking, and other recreation activities are important
values that will be protected as other land uses occur.
2-21
222
FORESTRY
One of the most notable features of the Willow Sub-basin is its timber.
Thousands of acres of spruce, birch, and cottonwood are visible from the
highways. Yet, the area imports almost all of its lumber, and the state
is not able to keep up with the local or Anchorage-based demand for
firewood and house logs. Long range planning for the use of public
forestry resources is an important goal.
This section is divided into three parts. First is a brief discussion
of important forestry management issues in the study area. Second is a
summary of forestry resources in the area, including analyses of exist-
ing and potential activity and of the resource base. Third is an
identification of public lands designated for forestry management by
this plan. (Goals, policies, and management guidelines which will guide
forestry operations on public lands are presented in Chapter III,
Forestry.)
ISSUES
The following issues related to fon~stry in the Willow Sub-basin have
emerged from public meetings and staff analysis. These issues have been
addressed through the formulation of goals, policies, management guide-
lines and land use designations presented in this plan.
1. Lack of a Committed Land Base
Currently, there is not a continuous supply of commercial quality
raw materials from a committed resource base with which to develop
or support the local timber industry. It is not likely that log-
gers and mill operators will r:lsk capital on the current tenuous
and intermit tent supply of timber. In addition, one of the major
reasons why the industry has been unable to develop a market for
processed products (finished lumber, veneer, etc.) is that they
have been unable to guarantee an continuous supply of the products.
2. Short Term Contracts
Short term contracts offered in the past have inhibited loggers'
acquisition of loan financing. Longer contracts (at least 3 to 5
years) are needed to alleviate this problem and to help offset the
limited time available for logging in good weather conditions.
3. Timber Salvage on Cleared Lands
Forested land that must be cleared prior to road construction or
agriculture offers substantial opportunities for salvage of timber
products. Procedures need to be developed, however, that coor-
dinate the timing of timber salvage with the schedules for road
construction and agricultural production.
4. Firewood Demand
Demand for firewood cutting on public land is expected to increase
in the near future as the borough population grows and private land
currently used for cutting is developed.
5. Access
Lack of access is the factor which most limits the ability of the
state and borough to sell timber. However, the costs of providing
access are often prohibitive unless roads serve other uses.
FORESTRY RESOURCES
Existing and Potential Activity
0 Commercial
Existing mills produce only a small amount of lumber and employ few
people. Fourteen mills are located inside the sub-basin; eleven of
these operate seasonally; and three, full time. Even though these
mills are all small, "mom and pop" varieties, 1979 annual pro-
duction was less than 9% of capacity, or 1.1 MBF. Reasons for this
under-production were a restricted market and limited timber sales.
The inability of Susitna mills to find local timber for sale have
forced them to import from the Kenai Peninsula and Canada. The
timber cut from within the sub-basin has been taken mostly from
clearing projects on private land.
Just over half of the commerical harvest in the sub-basin is
cottonwood used for rough dimensional lumber. Most of the remain-
ing volume is cut from white spruce for manufactured houselogs. In
addition some birch is cut for commercial firewood producers, and a
very small amount is used for finished products (cabinets, veneer,
etc.). No local timber is chipped for pulp.
Even if long term timber contracts begin to become available on a
routine or continuous basis, it is not possible to predict to what
extent the industry will develop. The quality of the timber is not
good enough to be able to predict with assurance that an advanced
industry can develop. In addition, sustained yield forestry in
223
0
0
2'24
Willow Sub-basin alone will not allow enough harvesting to keep
more than a few mills operating full time. However, there are in-
dications that low intensity operators which exist in the valley
are beginning to grow. The Overall Economic Development Plan of
the Matanuska-Susitna. Borough, recommends a fully integrated timber
facility to be established in the borough to operate off public
forest and timber sa l v a ge land s. This facility would provide
sawlog quality spruce to a mill near Moose Creek, would manufacture
hardwood sawlogs and cants from high quality materials, use lower
quality materials for firewood and use the tops, limbs, etc., for
chips. Such a facility could be a harbinger of future operations.
In addition, the existence of ag r icultural salvage, providing large
amounts of inexpensei ve t imber, could provide a tremedous oppor-
tunity for more industria l ized facilities to develop.
Personal Use
Personal use is defined a s a harvest of less than 12 MBF. A per-
sonal use contract or firewood permit specifies that wood may not
be sold; rather it must be used by the logger. Personal use areas
(woodlots) are logged a l most exclusively for houselogs and fire-
wood. Personal use contra cts are currently not issued by either the
borough or Native landowne r s, although the borough is looking into
the possibility of estab lishing firewood cutting sites.
The exact amount of personal use activity is unknown because of the
availablity of private land where no records are kept. In the six
months preceding April 1980, the state issued 266 firewood permits
in the Willow Sub-basin for a total of 915 cords or 0.46 million
board feet (MMBF).
Residents expect to be able to cut firewood in the land near their
homes. Presently, firewood is t aken from state and private lands
(though the amount t a ken f rom private lands is unrecorded). As the
populations of Anchorage and the sub-basin grow and the area be-
comes more urban the amount of p rivate land available for firewood
harvest will surely decrease. More and more, residents will be
forced to get their firewood from government land set aside for
that purpose.
Projection of demand for pers ona l use products is a difficult
process. Making assumptions of per capita firewood usage,
population, and forest productivity, one can calculate an average
requirement of 12,000-50 ,000 acre s to satisfy the year 2000 demand
of the Willow Sub-basin populati on. Many times that acreage would
be required to satisfy Anchorage . It seems clear that it is not
possible to find this amount of state land in the Willow Sub-basin
to dedicate to personal use firewood harvest.
Multiple Use of Forest Lands
Most of the time people spend on forestry lands is spent for rea-
sons other than logging -recreation and hunting, for example.
Most of the management effort s p ent on the land is spent managing
the multitude of non-forestry values which are likely to be present
there.
Forestry lands are important for maintenance of opportunities for
dispersed recreation, hunting and habitat protection. Logging
operations, managed correctly, can markedly improve the habitat for
moose. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough , DNR and ADF&G have agreed to
cooperatively manage the Moose Reserve for the production of moose.
A crucial component of the agreement is clearcut harvests which
create openings for the growth of moose browse.
In addition to moose habitat, forestry roads open up previously un-
accesible areas to hunting and recreation. A well-managed forestry
operation benefits most passive uses of the land.
The Resource Base
The forest types in the Willow Sub-basin can be divided into four dif-
ferent categories: white spruce , black spruce, cottonwood, and mixed
forest. Each of these types has a different value for different forest-
ry uses.
0
0
White Spruce
Extensive·, accessible closed stands of tall white spruce are highly
valuable for sawtimber and houselogs. It is the most useable tim-
ber type in the area . Unfortunately, it occurs on only 730 acres
in the sub-basin: 60 acre s in the capi t al site, 110 acres near
Flat Horn Lake, 40-60 acres on s t ate land north of the Little
Susitna River, and approximately 350 acres on University land north
of the Little Susitna. This meager amount cannot support signifi-
cant forestry activities. There are many acres of open white
spruce stands in the basin (1,200 acres of tall, 29,900 acres
short). Open stands are generally less desirable for commercial
activities than closed stand s because they have much less volume of
merchantable wood per acre. Useable houselogs can be found in the
open stands. If some of these acres fall on good woodland soils,
it is possible that they can be managed to become closed stands.
Black Spruce
The stands of tall black spruce in the Willow Sub-basin contain a
high proportion of white spruce and birch. Good black spruce is
the second choice for house logs a f ter white spruce; it is heavier
and usually has more taper than white spruce. There are 6, 070
acres of this type scattered over the sub-basin. Individual sites,
if extensive and on good soil, would possibly be capable of sup-
porting some personal use activity , and with time and good manage-
ment would have the potential of emphasizing the white spruce. In
areas of poor soils, the many years r equired to grow these tall
trees precludes profitable sustained yield management.
225
0
0
0
226
Short black spruce stands are not considered valuable for con-
ventional commercial or personal uses. This type is very extensive
in the sub-basin -123,530 clos4~d and 830 open acres.
Cottonwood
All of the Willow Sub-basin cottonwood lies inside the Little
Susitna River floodplain on borough and private land in the approx-
imately 25 miles between the Parks Highway bridge and Hatcher Pass
and in the Susitna Floodplain Management Unit. The cottonwood is
sought after for use as lumber, and the stands are capable of
supporting commercial cutting on a sustained basis.
Mixed Forest
This forest type is by far the most extensive in the sub-basin,
covering 276,000 acres, over a quarter of the sub-basin. As it is
predominantly birch, it is excellent firewood. Except for the
better,stands and trees, birch is not generally used for house logs
or sawtimber. It ls sometimes used for veneer or furniture cants,
and the stands do have the highest fiber content of any local type
and so would be the most useable for chipping. Trees of birch
stands in the study area are small because of overstocking, but
with time 'and appropr i ate management they could grow to sawlog
size. Except for the best stands, their present use would be for
chipping, veneer, and firewood. However, with extensive thinning
or regrowing these sites could sometimes produce good lumber stock.
Mixed forest stands are divided into young (less than 40 years old)
medium (40-100 years), and o l d (greater than 100 years). The
succession typically begins with the young, almost pure stand of
thin birch trees , ,but as the stand ages, the trees fill out and
holes begin to form in the canopy. White spruce fills in these
holes and becomes a significant but secondary species in the stand.
The medium age category is a better category for cutting than
either the young or old .
Important Forestry Areas
Map 10, Forestry Areas in the Willow Sub-basin, shows the sui ta-
bili ty of the Willow Sub-basin for commercial and personal use
forestry. (Public l ands actually designated for forestry manage-
ment are shown on Map 11.) Long term commercial forestry requires
large blocks of public land with high growth potential. These
areas would also, of course, be excellent personal use areas.
Public land in smaller blocks or of only moderate growth potential
are sui table for personal limited commercial harvests. Size and
productivi t,.Y make these areas unable to support intensive commer-
cial activity. In addition, forestry management of these areas
would be more diffi.cul t and mo r e expensive than their "high suit-
ability" counterparts. Areas of small lot private ownership would
be very difficult to manage for sustained yield forestry. The cost
and difficulty of put ting together enough private owners to sustain
any sizeable commercial cuts is very unlikely and would probably
Important Forestry Areas
2-27
MAP tO
Forestry Areas
D
High forest management potential
• suitable for personal use and large scale commercial
harvest
• high capability forest lands
• public ownership
Moderate forest management potential
• suitable for personal use and small scale commercial
harvest
• high or moderate capability forest
• mixed public/private ownership
Limited forest management potential
• suitable for limited personal use harvest
• various capability forest lands
• existing small lot private ownership
Non-forested lands
scale 1:332,000
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
give an extremely low rate~ of return to the various owners. These
areas are suitable for personal use activities only.
Forestry Land Use Designations
The important forestry areas designated in the plan include the primary
designations in the Kashwitna and the Susitna Corridor units, and a
secondary designation in Fish Creek for agricultural timber salvage.
These areas are shown on Map 11. In addition, there are a number of
other areas under passive management which are available for limited
harvest. None of these other areas is large enough to make a major
contribution to either commercial or personal timber demand. However,
they are important for local personal use and limited commercial
harvests.
The Kashwitna area includes many areas of older forests where extensive
management will be necessary to bring the amount and volume of the
standing timber up to commercial quality. The area will require much
initial cutting to create better growth conditions, but it will be one
or two decades before the area's potential can be realized. In addi-
tion, much of the higher area in the unit is open forest which is not
likely to support extensive harvest activity. However, the area is very
important for moose habitat and hunting. Therefore, a joint
forestry/habitat land use designation was made for the area. Access to
the Kashwitna unit is very difficult, and is not likely to occur for at
least a few years.
Susitna Corridor contains much currently harvestable timber. Access
exists to the north edge of the unit. For the next few years this will
be the only area in the sub-basin where long-term forestry management
can begin. In addition, the unit is valuable for long term habitat
enhancement which can replace the quality moose habitat currently being
lost to development in the central portion of the sub-basin. The fact
that the Susitna River runs adjacent to this unit makes it particularly
valuable for recreation and habitat.
Timber salvage from agricultural lands presents a unique opportunity for
the local forest industry. It can provide a large but short-term supply
of timber to help a developing industry. For this reason secondary
designation of Fish Creek (for timber salvage purposes) is particularly
important.
229
State and Borough Lands
Designated For Forestry
2-31
1
l
l
l
l
l
J
l
J
1
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
scale 1:332,000
June 1, 1982
MAPll
State and Borough
Land Designated For
Forestry
Primary land use
~ Secondary land use
• Legislatively Designated Areas
.D• Areas with specific Land Use
Designations
Management units shown in gray are
primarily owned by the state and borough.
In these areas detailed land use
designations are prepared as well as
management guidelines to control how
these uses occur.
Diagonal lines indicate where land
use designations are made on
borough lands.
D Areas with General Land Use
Objectives
Management units shown in white
are primarily privately owned but contain
some parcels of state/borough lands. The
area plan addresses appropriate land uses
in these areas through general land use
objectives prepared for each management
LAND MANAGEMENT UNITS unit; specific land use designations are
made for state land in some cases.
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
FISH AND WILDLIFE
The Willow Sub-basin, like much of Alaska, faces "rapidly growing de-
mands for fish and wildlife use which are in sharp contrast to the
shrinking area available to support this use.""'' The following pages
summarize management issues, the fish and wildlife resources of the
area, and related land use designations made by this plan.
FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ISSUES
The Willow Sub-basin is situated on the edge of the most populous,
developed area in Alaska. Pressures to use sub-basin habitat lands for
settlement, agriculture, mining, and other resource uses are substantial
and certain to increase. Demands for the use of fish and wildlife are
also large. This situation - a growing demand for fish and wildlife use
with a simultaneous decrease in the land base available to support this
use -is the fundamental fish and wildEfe issue in the sub-basin. The
challenge to land managers is to blend these potentially conflicting
demands in a manner that can maintain the sub-basin's unique status as
an area that provides both high quality and readily accessible oppor-
tunities for fish and wildlife use. Four specific issues are outlined
below.
1. Role of Public Lands
A large percentage of existing fish and wildlife habitat is in
private and borough ownership. These areas are likely to be devel-
oped in the relatively near future. Supporting existing population
levels will require state lands to take up a larger percentage of
this function.
2. Access
Much of the existing use of fish and wildlife occurs on or across
private land. As this land is developed, publically owned access
corridors, hunting areas, etc., must be provided to insure future
opportunity to use fish and wildlife .
.,., Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Wildlife Management
Plans -Southcentral Alaska, 1978.
2-33
2-34
3. Environmental Quality
Many activities such as mining, grazing, agricul·ture, and forestry
potentially impact habitat quality. Aquatic habitats are especial-
ly vulnerable.
4. Habitat Manipulatio~
Blocks of land need to be available where various habitat manipula-
tion practices can be used to provide new habitat for species such
as moose.
FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
Sustaining fish and wildlife populations requires certain types,
amounts, and spatial arrangements of habitat. These requirements vary
from Sfecies to species.. For example, food requirements of moose are
met almost entirely by willow, dwarf birch, and a few other shrubs which
grow primarily in wet areas, near 1:imberline and in recently cleared
areas. In addition, moose, like all species, have specific habitat
requirements for cover and reproduction.
The Willow Sub-basin, due to its particular combinations and varieties
of climate, topography, and vegetation, is an unusually good area for a
variety of fish and wildlife species. Map 12 presents information on
generalized habitat types in the sub-basin.
The list below shows the principal types of species typically using
these different habitats~ This list, like Map 12, is general. Species
cited are limited to fish and wildlife most frequently used by people.
Habitat Use By Impor·tant Fish and Wildlife
Tundra and Associated Uplands -spring, summer, fall moose; brown
bear; potential dall sheep, caribou and mountain goat; rock
and white tailed ptarmigan, headwaters for anadromous streams.
Upland/Lowland Transitional Areas
use), ptarmigan and spruce
-moose (migration and seasonal
grouse, brown and black bear.
River Corridors -anadromous fish and other sportfish, small fur
bearers, brown and black bear, moose (Note: Some anadromous
streams are protected by major river corridors, e.g., the
Little Susitna.. Streams running through non-public lands are
often protected by a 50 foot easement along each bank. The
many lakes supporting sportfish are not shown on this map).
Important Fish and Wildlife
Areas
2-35
l
1
1
J
J
J
J
R7W I RGW
+ R2E
R2W
...
RSW
R4W
.MAP12
Important Fish and
Wildlife Areas
State game refuges, state recreation area,
moose range
First priority habitat & human use areas:
~ tundra & other uplands
H transitional shrub/forest zone
~ selected key lowlands
CJ river corridors
•••.•••••• anadromous streams
Second priority habitat & human use areas:
CJ other important lowlands
scale 1:332,000
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
Lowlands -moose, limited bear, and game birds.
Tidewater Estuaries and
three legislatively
moose winter habitat.
Adjacent Lands (presently protected by
designated game refuges) -waterfowl,
Habitat areas on Map 12 are prioritized into two categories to show
their importance within the sub-basin. First priority areas (shaded on
the map) were chosen because they support. species most important to
human users or support a large number of species, because they are of
limited availability in the sub-basin and/or because they are unusually
vulnerable to disruption. In addition, certain areas were designated
first priority because they provide key linkages between two or more
habitat zones. The remainder of the' sub-basin is also important for
fish and wildlife habitat and human use but is designated as second
priority.
HUMAN USE OF FISH A1~ WILDLIFE
The use of most sub-basin fish and wildlife species -waterfowl, salmon,
trout, moose, ptarmigan, and o·thers -is large and growing. The sub-
stantial local population and the proximity of the sub-basin to
Anchorage residents and visitors from other areas make this particular
portion of Alaska one of the most heavily used fish and wildlife areas
in the state. Details are outlined below:
1. The first and third most heavily used waterfowl hunting areas in
Alaska, the Susitna Flats and Palmer Hay Flats state game refuges,
are in the sub-basin.
2. The area offers high quality, accessible moose and other big game
hunting. There were an average of 5700 hunter days per year from
1975-1980 with an average of 200 moose taken per year.
3. There is increasing nonconsumptive use of fish and wildlife includ-
ing observation of birds and other species, wildlife photography,
scientific study, etc.
4. There is substantial trapping along sub-basin streams and rivers
although it is less than in the past.
5. Sub-basin streams contribute approximately 10% of the salmon caught
in the multi -million dollar Cook I:J.let Commercial Salmon Fishery.
6. There were 82,000 fishing days per year in 1977 within the basin or
approximately 7% of the state's total sportsfishing activity,
second only to the Kenai system.
2-37
2-38
In addition to the satisfaction directly obtained by these fishers,
hunters, and sightseers :• fish and wildlife related activities bring
significant economic benefit to local and regional economies.
DESIGNATED LAND USES
This plan designates substantial acreage to fish and wildlife use and
habitat protection (see Map 13). In each case, fish and wildlife is one
of two or more primary designated land uses. For example, forestry is
an additional primary use in the Kashwitna and Susitna Floodplain man-
agement units; mining, recreation, and grazing are also primary uses in
Hatcher Pass; watershed is a second primary use in the large wetland
areas within Pear Lake, Ronald Lake, and Susitna Corridor Management
Units; and recreation is a use of equal importance in the Little Susitna
River Corridor and other small stream and river buffers (these last two
items are not shown on map).
The practical effect of these land use designations is to set aside an
amount and variety of land sufficient to provide opportunities for a
continuing high level of fish and wildlife use although the location of
use will likely shift some from present locations. Shared uses of these
lands will help protect or enhance habitat and assist the development of
necessary access. Specifically, these designated land uses will:
a. protect Little Susitna, Little Willow Creek, Fish Creek, and other
aquatic habitats on public land to maintain existing sportfishing
opportunities. This is partially contingent on protection of water
quality in tributaries and portions of streams flowing through
private land.
b. provide sufficient spring, summer, fall, and winter habitat for
moose as well as corridors connecting these areas to assure con-
tinuing high moose harvests. It is important to note that terres-
trial species like moose require large amounts of land, at least
one square mile per moose. Much of the existing moose habitat is
currently on non-state land. Even if all the public land desig-
nated for fish and wildlife were to remain in that use, future
development of the remaining land in the sub-basin will lead to
reduced populations and significantly reduced human use.
State and Borough Land
Designated For Ose and
Protection of Fish and Wildlife
2-39
l
1
J
j
j
J
1
J
J
scale 1:332,000
June 1, 1982
Hafcher Pass
MAP13
State and Borough
Land Designated For
Use and Protection
of Fish and Wildlife
Primary land use
Secondary land use
• Legislatively Designated Areas
Areas with specific Land Use
Designations
Management units shown in gray are
primarily owned by the state and borough.
In these areas detailed land use
designations are prepareq as well as
management guidelines to control how
these uses occur.
Diagonal lines indicate where land
use designations are made on
borough lands.
D Areas with General Land Ose
Objectives
Management units shown in white
are primarily privately owned but contain
some parcels of state/borough lands. The
area plan addresses appropriate land uses
in these areas through general land use
objectives prepared for each management
LAND MANAGEMENT UNITS unit; specific land use designations are
made for state land in some cases.
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
SETTLEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Settlement refers to residential, commercial, industrial and related
land uses. The Willow Sub-basin is as yet sparsely settled with only
8, 000 people for its nearly one million acres.. Gold mines and farmlands
were the historical attraction of the area; in recent times the
sub-basin's location relative to Anchorage -near enough to provide
jobsi~ and services but distant enough to provide a bit of Alaskan
wilderness -has been the princi:pal growth incentive.
Population growth in the Willow Sub-basin is almost certain to continue;
the question is only how much and when. Presently the area has large
amounts of vacant, subdivided land (17,350 lots totaling approximately
35,000 acres), is adjacent to the state's largest center of population,
and may soon be affected by several proposed growth inducing projects,
including port and industrial de11elopment at Pt. MacKenzie, the Knik Arm
Crossing, the nearby Susitna Dam, and the capital mo11e. The state and
borough can have a profound effect on the future quality of life-in the
area through decisions on the amount, location, and type of land opened
for settlement.
This land use plan designates approximately 6, 000 acres of state and
borough land for settlement use. Included in this. figure is land
designated solely for residential use or small farms and land designated
for a combination of these uses. Additional public lands will be opened
for settlement when the Fish Creek agricultural development occurs and
on various solitary parcels of public land in management units that are
primarily in private ownership.
The determination of the appropriate quan·tity and location of this land
was based on several general conclusions. First, the existing large
supply of private land is sufficient to meet existing and near term
settlement needs. Second, public lands in the sub-basin are needed to
provide a land base for the future economic development of the area.
Third, the cost of publicly provided services and facilities is lowest
when growth is concentrated.
* Approximately 33% of the sub-basin work force commutes to jobs outside
the borough.
2-41
2'42
Given these considerations, the borough and the state have set a low
priority on selling the outlying portions of the sub-basin, especially
forestry, agriculture, mining and recreational lands. It is recognized,
however, that public land should be made available when the private
supply is limited or ·when public land highly suitable for residential
use is of limited value for other purposes. The borough and state will
jointly assess demand for residential land and establish annual disposal
schedules.
The remainder of this discussion begins with a look at settlement re-
lated issues in the sub-basin. This is followed by a discussion of the
current and future supply of and demand for settlement lands. Conclud-
ing the section are a mapped and narrative description of the lands
designated for settlement use.
ISSUES
The over-riding issue relating to settlement in the sub-basin is deter-
mining which lands in which ownerships -state, borough, or private -
will best meet future residential, commercial, and industrial land
needs. Developing policy to resolve this {ssue requires consideration
of the factors outlined below:
1. Sources of Supply of Land
There are limits to the amount of land that is physically capable
of supporting settlement in the sub-basin. In addition, the supply
of land available for settlement at any given time is affected by
land· ownership, access, and the presence of existing development.
2. Demand for Land
Various indicators of demand must be investigated to determine
future needs for settlement land in the sub-basin. These include a
review of price trends and sales activity on private land as well
as for public land disposals; a look at the types of demand -year
round and seasonal residential, commercial, industrial, and other
urban uses; and a consideration of factors likely to induce popu-
lation growth such as the capital move, Pt. MacKenzie industrial
development, Susitna hydropower, etc.
3. Provision of Public Services and Facilities
The pattern of development -its relative compactness or scattera-
tion -has a strong influence on the costs of providing and main-
taining roads, schools, water and sewer, police and fire protec-
tion, and other public services and facilities. In almost every
case, costs per household increase as densities decrease. In the
case of services such as central water or sewer, the density of
development can determine not just the cost but the feasibility of
providing the service.
4. Impacts of Settlement on Economic Development
The future economic base of the Willow Sub-basin, and Alaska gen-
erally, is dependent on availability of large blocks of land in
public or single ownerships for resource development or conserva-
tion. This is true both of activities that alter the landscape
such as coal mining, agriculture and forestry, and of activities
that require maintaining the land in a relatively natural state
such as hunting, fishing, and other forms of outdoor recreation.
Land disposal reduces or eliminates the potential to develop (or
conserve) these resources.
5. Impact of Settlement on Natural Systems
The direct and indirect effects of settlement can have serious
impacts on vegetation, water qualit.y, and other aspects of the
natural environment. Of special concern in the sub-basin are the
long term impacts of wastewater discharge on the area 1 s lakes and
streams. In addition, development in areas subject to flooding or
other hazards can pose risks to human life and property.
6. Impacts on Social Environment
Many of the residents of the Willa"' Sub-basin are living in the
area specifically to get away from more populous, densely settled
environments in Anchorage and elsewhere. Additional development in
the region will likely affect this existing rural character.
This plan addresses these issues through the Goals, Policies, and
Management Guidelines for Settlement in Chapter III, and through various
land use designations. These land use designations are summarized
below.
SETTLEMENT LANDS -SUPPLY AND DEMAND
The following discussion looks at the supply of and the demand for
settlement lands. The discussion of the supply of land is divided into
two general categories: the land 1 s physical ability to support settle-
ment, and the existing conditions (those affected by human activities
such as road construction or land ownership) that affect supply. Exist-
ing conditions are discussed first.
2'43
2744
SUPPLY OF SETTLEMENT LANDS
Existing Conditions
This section describes land ownership, existing developed areas, access
and public facilities and services. Of the Willow Sub-basin's nearly
1,000,000 acres, over 200,000 are privately owned and a very small
area -less than 10,000 acres or 1% :mpports settlement. Residential
uses comprise the large majority of developed lands with essentially no
industrial land and only sntall amounts of commercial land. Most private
land in the sub-basin was originally obtained from the federal
government through mining claims, homesteads, and two federally surveyed
townsites (in Wasilla and Knik). Native Alaskans received title to
13,300 acres within the area under the Native Claims Settlement Act.
Several relatively small sales of land from local and state governments
to private individuals have occurred or are planned for the near future.
Further details of the supply and demand of land for settlement can be
best described by dividing the sub-basin into three geographic regions:
community centers, rural road accessed areas, and remote non-road acces-
sed areas.
The Willow Sub-basin contains several communities: Wasilla, Houston,
Willow, Big Lake, and Knik. These are depicted on the map as existing
cities (Wasilla and Houston), proposed cities (Willow), and areas of
community influence which depict communities which people consider
themselves part of (Big Lake, Knik, and a suburban Wasilla area).
The rural, road accessed area is intended to capture the portions of the
borough where road access exists or is close by. This includes places
(such as the Burma road area) where the accuracy of this description
will vary with road conditions, type of vehicle, and the boldness of the
driver. Road accessed areas (including community centers) make up
approximately 60% of the sub-basin. The remainder of the area is de-
fined as remote. This is, roughly, the region west of the Little
Susitna River and south of Nancy Lakes, the area north of Willow Creek
and east of the railroad, most of the capital site, and the Talkeetna
Mountains (excepting the Hatcher Pass and several adjacent roads).
Residential land use in the sub-basin could be described by proponents
as having a much desired low density rural quality; by detractors as
sprawling without thought t~o many of the considerations deemed important
in community development. The principal pattern is a strong orientation
toward water, most sub-basin houses are located on or adjacent to
streams or lakes. Average lot sizes are 1. 43 acres per unit for exist-
ing dwelling units, 2.0 acres per lot for existing subdivided undevel-
oped lots. Highest densities occur inwediately adjacent to the lakes,
particularly those with a longer history of residential use, and within
old federally surveyed townsites (in Wasilla and Knik). State law
places a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. on lots with both on-site wells and
disposal of sewage. This law has ·probably not had a significant effect
on sub-basin densities to date however, as most residents strongly
prefer larger lots.
Residential Land Use Capability
2-45
Hatcher Pass
RSW
MAP14
esidential Land
Use Ca ability
[¥~~-[{j' High/moderate capability on private land
• High/moderate capability on borough land
High/moderate capability on state land
D Low/very low capability-all ownerships
This map shows the land's physical capability to support low
density residential land use ( 1 -3 acres/unit -the typical existing
density in the subbasin). This information is based on an
evaluation of slope, soil drainage, soil bearing capacity and other
natural factors affecting capability. (See text for details).
Separate patterns are used to depict capable lands in different
ownerships.
scale 1:332,000
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
There is some slight increase in residential densities adjacent to and
within the small retail and service nodes that exist at the center of
the communities in the sub-basin. Settlement densities in the remainder
of the areas shown as communities on the map are similar to densities in
the surrounding rural residential areas.
Public services and facilities in the sub-basin are limited. Nearly all
residences in the area have some form of road access. The few resi-
dences in the remote area are typically located on lakes with fly-in
access such as Red Shirt or Flathorn or along navigable rivers. There
are no centralized water or sewer systems in the sub-basin although one
is in the planning stages in Wasilla.
Physical Capability to Support Settlement
Certain qualities of the land -natural hazards such as floodplains or
unstable slopes, slope, soil drainage and bearing capacity, etc.
-together determine the physical capabilities of an area to support
settlement. Some environmental attributes, such as slope or bearing
capacity, primarily affect construction costs. Locating settlement in
areas of natural hazards such as floodplains or unstable slopes, on the
other hand, can pose a risk to human life and property.
Map 14 shows areas that are physically capable of supporting low density
residential development of the type typically found in the sub-basin
(single family units on 1-3 acres, on-site water and sewer).* This
information was derived through an evaluation and systematic rating of
information on soils, slopes, vegetation, natural hazards, and water
availability. The original ma.p rates each ten acre grid cell as having
high, moderate, low, or very low capability to support this particular
type of development. For purposes of this document, the categories have
been compressed into high/moderate and low/very low. Approximately 38%
of the sub-basin, or about 375,000 acres, falls into the high/moderate
category. The majority of the lands in the sub-basin are steeply slop-
ing, above timberline or in wetland areas where construction would be
costly if feasible at all.
It is important to note that this information is intended to present a
picture of the areas that have the physical capability to support devel-
opment -not to present a final decision on where development should go.
In addition, this information will not replace site specific evaluation
but rather provide a good, la·rge-scale indication of capable areas for
the Willow Sub-basin's 1,000,000 acres.
* This map is one of several similar maps depicting capability for
settlement. Other available maps not pictured cover settlement uses
more and less intense than the one described here.
2'21-7
2""48
DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT LAND
Demand for land for settlement can be divided into several categories:
residential land for the population residing year round in the
sub-basin, land to support second homes, and demand for commercial and
industrial uses. In addition, there is general demand for land itself,
either for investment purposes or some unspecified future use. Predict-
ing the amount of demand in this last category is nearly impossible and,
in addition, is not likely to affect management decisions. As a result,
it is not dealt with here.
Projections of the need for land to support year round residential uses
(as oppposed to seasonal uses) are based on three population growth
scenarios and an estimate of average household size and average land
requirement per new household. Land demand for this use is shown in the
first four rows of the following Table.
In the fifth row of the Table, projected land requirements for seasonal
residential and commercial uses are added. Projections of seasonal or
second home land demand are based on projections of population growth
among people thought to be in the market for such homes (principally
Anchorage), the relationship between population growth and the number of
people buying homes, and the average land requirement per new household.
Commercial land demand, which is the most speculative of these projec-
tions, is based on typical requirement.s of commercial space for popula-
tions of various sizes.
SUPPLY/DEMAND SUMMARY
There are 375,000 acres of land with high/moderate capability for resi-
dential use in the sub-basin (38% of the total area). More than half of
this capable land, or over 185,000 acres is located within the rural
road accessed and community center areas. Another measure of the
existing supply of land was supplied by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Based on estimates prepared for January 1981, there are 17,350 vacant,
subdivided parcels in the sub-basin (a total of 35,270 acres). This
land is essentially all within the rural road accessed and community
areas.
Comparing these various measures of supply against existing use and
possible future demand shows that the amount of road accessed capable
land is well in excess of near term demand. For example, under proj ec-
tions two and three, total settlement land demand in the year 2000 is
45,425 and 60,820 acres respectively, well below the 185,000 plus acres
of capable land in the road accessed portions of the sub-basin. If the
existing 17,350 vacant subdivided lots in the Willow Sub-basin were all
developed and occupied at the existing average of 3. 2 people per
dwelling unit, this existing supply of land could support 55,000 new
Settlement Land Required to Support
Projected Increases in Population
Three Population Proje~ctions
PROJECTION 1
No capital move
Moderate resource
development
PROJECTION 2
No capital move
Major resource
development
PROJECTION 3
Capital move*
Moderate resource
development
1980 Existing
Population
& Residential
Land Use
1980-1985
Population increase
Residential land
required
1985-2000
Population increase
Residential land
required
1980-2000
Population increase
Residential land
required
1980-2000
Seasonal residential
land required
Commercial land
required
TOTAL NEW SETTLEMENT
Land required
1980-2000
Total (existing and
new) settlement
land in 2000
Total (existing and
new) population
in 2000
8, 000 pE!Ople
5, 400 aeres
4,900 people
3,648 aeres
19,800 people
13,810 aeres
24,700 people
17,458 acres
1,600 acres
145 acres
19,200 acres
24,600 acres
32,700 people
8,000 people
5,400 acres
13,500 people
10,075 acres
40,000 people
27,970 acres
53,500 people
38,045 acres
1,600 acres
380 acres
40,025 acres
45, Lf25 acres
61,500 people
8,000 people
5,400 acres
18,800 people
16,295 acres
83,200 people
36,803 acres
102,000 people
53,098 acres
1,600 acres
725 acres
55,423 acres
60,823 acres
110,000 people
Source: Demand for Land to Accomodate Projected New Dwelling Units and
Commercial Facilities. Land and Resource Planning Section
Unpublished Report. 1980.
* Residential land requirements for the capital move projection are
based on plans developed by the capital move commission. Under these
plans it is assumed that many new residents would reside in relatively
high density dwelling units within the capital site, thus consuming less
land than an equal number residing at the sub-basin 1 s typically lower
densities.
2""49
2-50
residents. This is larger than the population growth projected under
projection two (53,500 new people) and larger than the population
anticipated to live outside the capital site if the capital were to be
moved. (Of the 102,000 people projected to move into the Willow
Sub-basin if the capital moves to Willow, it is assumed the majority
would live on the capital site.)
The purpose of these projections pf demand for settlement land is not to
predict the future but rather to identify a range of future conditions
that might occur given assumptions about population growth, average
household size, etc. Assuming that the demand projections cover a
reasonable range of land needs, it is possible to conclude that the
existing supply of capable road acc•essed land can meet the majority of
settlement land needs through the year 2000.
DESCRIPTION OF LANDS DESIGNATED FOR SETTLEMENT
Map 15 illustrates spectfic areas where land is designated for settle-
ment within the sub-basin. The following are management units in which
settlement is a designated wmary use on public lands: Pear Lake,
Ronald Lake, and Iron Creek. In thdse units, the state has identified
approximately 2, 000 acres of land for which settlement is a primary
designation. Settlement is desigpated as a secondary use on approxi-
mately 10,000 acres of state and 7~00 acres of borough land in the Fish
Creek Unit. That does not mean tha·~ most of this land will be used for
settlement, but that settlement may occur as compatible with the desig-
nated primary uses (principally agrieulture).
For most of the managemE~nt units with road access, where private land-
owners hold a majority of land, the plan lists settlement as a "recom-
mended land use." This means that although there may be little public
land in these units, it is both borough and state policy to encourage
settlement in these aCCE!SSed areas rather than On remote public lands.
I
Borough and state lands designated for use as small farms are in the
Kashwitna, Ronald Lake, Pear Lake, Little Willow Creek Corridor, and
Iron Creek Units. Agricultural land in the Fish Creek Unit not suitable
for large farms because of topography will be sold for small farms.
Although specific tracts have not been identified, small farms are a
"recommended use" in the Knik Unit, where private landowners and the
borough own considerable land suitable for that purpose. (There are
several thousand acres of private land suitable for small farms in the
Wasilla Management Unit.)
It is difficult to specify an acreage figure for small farms because the
plan frequently designates small farms as one of several permitted uses
State and Borough Land
Designated For Settlement
2-51
l
l
J
J
J
J
J
R7W 1 R6W R5W
'Capital Site
~ --
scale 1:332,000
June 1, 1982
MAP15
State and Borough
Land Designated For
Settlement
Primary land use
Secondary land use
.Legislatively Designated Areas
D Areas with specific Land Use
Designations
Management units shown in gray are
primarily owned by the state and borough.
In these areas det.ailed land use
designations are prepared as well as
management guidelines to control how
these uses occur.
Diagonal lines indicate where land
use designations are made on
borough lands.
D Areas with General Land Use
Objectives
Management units shown in white
LAND MANAGEMENT UNITS
are primarily privately owned but contain
some parcels of state/borough lands. The
are?! plan addresses appropriate land uses
in these areas through general land use
objectives prepared for each management
unit; specific land use designations are
made for state land in some cases.
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
within a management unit. Sites for small farms will be identified
specifically through more detailed planning. However, the plan does
designate approximately 3,000 acres of state land and 2,500 acres of
borough land for primary small farm use. Through this plan, the state
and borough have also set small farm disposal targets of 3,000 acres and
4,000 acres, respectively, during the next 5 years.
2-53
254
SUBSURFACE RESOURCES
The Willow Sub-basin possesses a wealth of known and potential mineral
resources. The history of the sub-basin has been influenced consider-
ably by the rise and decline of mining activities. The area is present-
ly the focus of growing interest in gold, oil and gas, coal, and a
number of other subsurface resources. This section presents a dis-
cussion of subsurface management issues, a brief inventory of the
sub-basin's mineral resources, and an explanation of how sub-surface
exploration and development is affected by this plan.
SUBSURFACE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES
The principal management issues in the sub-bas:i,n are similar to those
confronted throughout the state: locating and developing these resources
and minimizing unwanted effects of their development on the surrounding
countryside and communities. The following list summarizes subsurface
management issues in the Willow Sub-basin.
1. Infrastructure
One hurdle in the development of subsurface resources in the
sub-basin is the lack of an adequate supporting infrastructure.
Developing the region's subsurface resources will require access to
explore and develop these resources, processing facilities, and the
means to transport these resources from mine sites and processing
areas to their final users. In addition, markets for some of these
resources need to be explored and developed.
2. Protection of Surface Resources
Many of the known and potential mineral areas in the sub-basin are
overlain by valuable surface resources. Mining could potentially
have serious negative impacts on these resources. On the other
side of the picture, efforts to protect surface resources from the
unwanted side effects of mineral development can be so burdensome
as to make mining impossible. There are numerous specific issues
within this general category, several of which are listed below:
a. Conflicts bet.ween Mining and Surface Uses: Specific areas
where conflicts between surface uses and mining are likely to
occur are as follows:
0
0
Hatcher Pass/Willow Creek Mining District
Anadromous Streams/River Recreation Corridors
COAL
0 Residential and other developed areas where the surface
is privately owned and the subsurface is publicly owned
and therefore potentially open to some forms of mineral
development.
b. Placer Mining: Settling ponds and other standard procedures
to protect water quality and streambed quality from the ad-
verse effects of placer mining are costly and not always
successful.
c. Existing Permit and Regulation System: A system of permits,
regulations, performance standards, etc., that can adequately
protect the environment, that can be implemented with
available staff and funds, and that also allows mineral
development to occur in an economic fashion is not currently
in existence in Alaska. State agencies responsible for
issuing and monitoring water quality permits, anadromous
stream permits, and miscellaneous land use permits do not
always have the time or the staff to review each mining claim
carefully or check compliance to permit stipulations in the
field. In addition, 1:here are communication problems between
the various agencies responsible for this process.
A SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE RESOURCES
Coal deposits in the Willow Sub-basin have been known and worked since
the early 1900's. The Matanuska Coal Field extends into the area from
the east, overlapping the Susitna Coal Field which extends into the
northwestern regions of the sub-basin (see Map 16). The coal in this
area is subbituminous.
Commercial use of coal
small mine near Houston
This mine is presently
rehabilitation.
in the Willow Sub-basin has been limited to a
which has operated intermittently since 1917.
closed, and the city is seeking funds for
Future prospects are difficult to predict. Hypothetical reserves of the
sub-basin down to 1000 feet exceed 14 million short tons; however,
existing data suggest beds are discontinuous and relatively thin.
Ratios of the thickness of overburden to the thickness of the coal seams
appear to make coal mining uneconomical. Geologists familiar with the
area seem to agree other areas of the state are more likely prospects
for development over the next 10 to 20 years. (Based on discussions
with geologists at the State Division of Geological and Geophysical
Surveys).
255
2-56
OIL AND GAS
The Willow Sub-basin is part of the Cook Inlet and Susitna sedimentary
basins (Map 17). Interest in the sub-basin portions of these sedimen-
tary basins has been fairly steady over the years; however, there have
been no commercial finds to date.
Because these basins have produced commercial wells in other parts of
Cook Inlet, petroleum geologists feel this area has definite potential.
This opinion was reinforced when tracts in the Willow Sub-basin received
the highest bids by industry in recently held state Oil and Gas Lease
Sale No. 33. Another oil and gas lease sale, number 40, is scheduled in
the area for the third quarter of 1983. Only future exploration will
answer questions regarding the sub-basin's potential as an oil and gas
producer.
METALLIC METALS
The Talkeetna Mountains' portion of the sub-basin (Map 16) has produced
millions of dollars in gold in the last 80 years. Other minerals that
have been found in the area (principally as a spin-off of gold mining)
include tungsten, copper, mercury, molybdenum, and nickel.
High operating costs combined with a ceiling on gold prices effectively
kept mines closed after they were temporarily shut down by federal
decree during World War II. In more recent times, surging gold prices
have resulted in a high level of interest in the area. Both placer and
hardrock mining and exploration is occurring in earnest on the area's
numerous claims (both patented federal and those staked on state land).
The Independence Mine, largest operator in the area, currently employs
70 people year round.
Future activity will be determined by the success of the Independence
Mine and several adjacent projects. It appears probable, however, that
with high gold prices, mining on both small and large scales is likely
to continue.
Development of other metals is more uncertain. Development will depend
on discovery of additional deposits, changes in minerals markets, and
the effects of government policy.
NONMETALLIC MINERALS
A variety of useful nonmetallic minerals occur in the Willow Sub-basin.
Like other minerals discussed however, prospects for commercial develop-
ment are generally uncertain. A partial list of nonmetallics occurring
in the Willow Sub-basin is provided on the page following Maps 16
and 17.
Important Coal and Mineral
Areas
2-57
MAP16
Coal and Mineral
Areas
COAL
fW& Potential coal areas
-Coal prospecting permit applications
METALLIC MINERALS
Potential/existing metallic mineral areas:
-First priority
~ Second priority
scale 1:332,000
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
Important Oil and Gas Areas
2-59
Hatcher Pass
MAP 17
Oil and Gas Areas
~ Potential oil & gas areas
r----.,
I I L ____ ..J
Existing oil & gas leases
Expiring in '82 · '84
Lease sale no. 33
scale 1:332,000
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan~
TYPE
Quartz Sand
Phosphorus,
Potassium
Clay
Lime (Marl)
Soapstone
Sand Gravel
Sandstone,
Marble
NO~ffiTALLIC MINERALS
USE
Abrasives
Fertilizers,
Chemical Products
Brick Making,
Ceramics
Various Uses
Jewelry
Roads,
Construction
Construction
LOCATION
Willow Creek,
Little Susitna River
By-product of
Matanuska Coal Field
Little Susitna,
Fishhook Creek
Bi~Lake, Wasilla,
Lucille, Finger Lakes
Grubstake Gulch
neat; Willow Creek
Throughout the
Sub-basin -see
discussion under
Transportation
Periphery of
Talkeetna Mountains
CURRENT*
ACTIVITY
Minimal
None
Minimal
None
Moderate
Heavy
None
* Information on current activity is the result of limited research.
Any corrections or additions by people familiar with this area would be
appreciated.
2-61
2-62
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The large majority of state-owned subsurface areas in the Willow
Sub-basin are currently open to exploration and development of
subsurface resources and will remain open under this land use plan.*
However, an important effect of this: plan is that it closes certain
areas to specific types of subsurface resource exploration and
development. The following section describes the areas closed by the
plan. It is important to note that these mineral closures and other
policies resulting from this plan do not alter or replace existing
regulations, nor do they affect any existing mineral closures in the
area. The areas closed to mining described below are closed only to new
exploration or development activities; any existing leases, prospecting
permits, or claims will not be affected. (Mineral closing orders will
be prepared for these areas in compliance with AS 38.05.185.)
a. Areas closed both to mineral leasing and to locatable mineral entry
by this plan**
The Little Susitna River Corridor Management Unit is closed to all
mineral leasing and to locatable 1nineral entry.
b. Areas closed only to locatable mineral entry by this plan
Under current depar1:ment -policy, areas sold by the state for
residential or agricultural purposes --including those identified
by the plan --are closed to all locatable mineral entry. (These
sale areas may, on a case-by-case basis, by open to development of
leasable minerals.)
* The State retains subsurface rights when it transfers land to local
governments or privat~e owners. Consequently all subsurface rights
in the sub-basin, with two notable exceptions, are held by the
State and are subject to the policies in this plan. The first
exception is certain private lands that were homesteaded and passed
directly from federal to private ownership. Private land of this
type comprises a relatively small percentage of the sub-basin's
area, less than 5 percent (mostly in the Willow and Wasilla areas).
The second exception is lands granted to Native regional and
village corporations. Under the terms of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act, Native Corporations received both surface and
subsurface rights. These lands make up about 1 percent of the
sub-basin's area.
"'"'' "Leasable" minerals include oil and gas, coal, and geothermal
resources. Development rights are acquired either at a lease sale,
(the method always used for oil and gas) or non-competitively (by
applying for a prospecting permit). Minerals such as gold, silver,
copper, iron, asbest.os, and uranium, are "locatable;" rights to
these minerals are acquired by staking a mining claim.
c. Areas Closed To Coal Prospecting
Certain areas with exceptionally high surface resource values are
closed to the issuance of coal prospecting permits*; these areas
are described below:
-Large blocks of class II and III soils: The Point MacKenzie
project and potential agricultural areas in the Fish Creek and
Susitna Corridor Management Units.
-River Corridors: Little Susitna River, Little Willow Creek,
Willow Creek, and the Big Susitna River.
The Little Susitna River: all of the Little Susitna River
Management Unit and a corridor 300 feet on either side of the
river over the remainder of the river's course.
Little Willow Creek: the portion of Little Willow Creek
Management Unit east of where the~ railroad crosses the river
and a corridor 300 feet on either side of the river over the
remainder of the river's course.
Willow Creek: Willow Creek Managment Unit and a corridor 300
feet on either side of the river over the remainder of the
river's course.
Big Susitna River: a corridor at least ~mile on either side
of the river (note: the eastern bank of the river forms the
boundary to the study area).
-Recreation sites identif:Led on the recreation map
(Appendix 2). (These are primarily small sites
160 acres --used for campgounds, -c;.7aysides, boat
access sites on water bodtes and along trails.)
of this plan
--less than
launches and
-A corridor 300 feet wide on either side of the Parks Highway
right-of way to protect visual quality.
-Nancy Lake State Recreation Area.
-The proposed state capital site at Willow.
-All past and planned (through 1987) state subdivisions and the
portions of state remote parcel sale.s areas like to be staked.
See Chapter III, Subsurface Resources, for additional policies and
management guidelines affecting subsurface development in the Willow
Sub-basin.
* Under State law, once a coal prospecting permit is issued, the
state is required to grant the penni t holder a coal lease if coal
is found in commerical quantities. Any coal mining that occurs
after a lease is issued would be subject to state, federal and
local mining regulations.
2-63
664
TRANSPORTATION
INTRODUCTION
Transportation planning is a necessary component of a comprehensive land
use plan. A plan which identifies areas for developable resources
should also locate transportation corridors which provide access to
those resources. It is necessary to do a general transportation assess-
ment to insure that the routes are practical, that they can be con-
structed at reasonable cost, and that they do not have unacceptable
environmental or social impacts. In addition, it is important to
analyze the alignment of potential transportation routes, to determine
if they are needed to access the resources described in this plan, and
to ascertain if construction materials such as sand and gravel deposits
are easily accessible. This is necessary tb insure that today' s land
management and disposal decisions do not unnecessarily prevent the
construction of a route which may be needed in the future.
This portion of the Willow Sub-basin plan is not intended to provide
detailed route alignment or construction recommendations. This planning
effort cannot hope to duplicate the detail or scope of preliminary
engineering studies conducted by the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOT/PF). This section addresses two subjects:
1. the general location of transportation routes necessary to provide
access to resource development areas located in this plan;
2. a general analysis of the costs of proposed routes and of potential
environmental impacts;
A set of policies and guidelines designed to minimize unwanted impacts
created by proposed routes, to insure compatibility between transporta-
tion corridors and adjacent land uses, and to maintain the integrity of
corridors which may be needed in the future is presented in Chapter III,
Transportation.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED TRANSFORATION CORRIDORS
To implement the land use objectives of this plan, three major trans-
portation systems are required: Fish Creek (agriculture), Susitna Cor-
ridor (forestry and agriculture), and Kashwitna (forestry). In addi-
tion, the Houston Right-of-Way is a potential future corridor accessing
Point MacKenzie. Each of these routes is shown on Map 5 and described
in detail below. The cost referred to in the discussion of each of the
roads is the estimated total initial construction cost of the road.~~
Using cost information from DOT/PF, the Soil Conservation Service and
the Department of Natural Resources developed a methodology to estimate
road costs based on soil characteristics, topography and hydrologic
information. Cost estimates include the initial construction costs of
gravel surfaces, underlying material, bridges, and culverts as well as
related engineering, inspection, mobilization, and contingency fees.
Unless otherwise noted below cost estimates are for "class I" roads. A
class I road is Alaska's standard, well built, two lane gravel road. It
requires all of the costly design and construction techniques of the
Parks Highway except for final paving; pavement can be added directly to
it. Generally, the road is 32 feet wide including two four foot
shoulders. (It has three to one side slopes and at least two feet of
subbedding with six inches of graded gravel on top.) Examples of class
I gravel roads include most of the Alaskan Highway and the first six
miles of Petersville Road. If pavement is applied to class I roads, the
result is a road similar to the Knik Road or much of the Parks Highway.
In a few cases cost esimtates have been made for "pioneer roads."
Unlike a class I road, a pioneer road is not designed for highway
traffic volumes and speed. The road is narrower, has no shoulders, and
does not have the same quality surface. Pioneer roads are recommended
when access is needed into hunting, forestry, and some agricultural
areas. Typically, costruction costs of such a road is about 30%-35%
less than that of class I roads.**
FISH CREEK -THE CHUITNA RIGHT-OF-WAY/WINNEBAGO WAY
The Fish Creek Management Unit is intended to provide acreage for a
major commercial agriculture project. This project will require two
main roads and a system of spur routes (pioneer roads) to access indivi-
dual farms. DOT/PF has located an approximate alignment for a transpor-
tation corridor (road or railroad) to the Beluga Coal Fields, including
alternate alignments to the Susitna River. That alignment, known as the
Chuitna Right-of-Way, appears to adequately serve as the main road
through the Fish Creek Management Unit. The second alignment located by
DOT/PF runs north to south from five miles west of Willow to the
Chuitna-Right-of-Way just north of Point MacKenzie. This route, also
referred to as Winnebago Way, would provide continuous access from Fish
Creek and Point MacKenzie to the Parks Highway and the Capital Site.
* Total initial construction costs are based on DOT/PF' s average
costs for engineering services, mobilization, construction,
inspection, and contingencies.
~~k This cost assumes DOT/PF lets and administers the construction
contract.
665
266
If the Knik Arm crossing were constructed, such a route would provide
direct access from Anchorage to the Capital Site and shorten the
distance between AncQorage and Fairbanks by 30 miles. Constructing this
route would require particular care to avoid unwanted visual, noise, or
access impacts on the adjacent Nancy I.ake State Recreation Area.
In addition, the Fish Creek Management Planning Team has located
approximate alignments for spur roads to all parcels of agricultural
land 40 acres or greater and to possible settlement areas on Moraine
Ridge. These routes are shown on Map 5. It is expected that these
routes will be significantly revised during the Management Plan for the
Fish Creek Unit or during DOT/PF aligr~ent studies.
The road system in this area has the potential to generate important
negative impacts on the hydrologic system of Fish Creek, its related
recreational habitat resources, and the Iditarod Trail. Fish Creek is
an anadromous fish stream, and its flow and quality is dependent on the
many large and small wetlands which dot the area. Numerous stream and
wetland crossings are required of the main road and the spur system. It
is crucial that the crossings be minimized and that roads be designed to
not disturb either the streamflow or the water and nutrient flow of the
wetlands, and to avoid creating erosion and introducing sediment or road
pollution into the streams. This will require special care due to both
the number of crossings required and the fact that steep slopes routine-
ly abut the streams and wetlands. Because the stream crossings will
create excellent road access for recreation/fishing sites, care must be
taken to incorporate the expected recreational use into road design.
Road Segment
Chuitna Right-of-Way
Pioneer Road to agricultural
parcels
Winnebago Way
Morraine Ridge Road (pioneer)
To tali>
Fish Creek
Total Length
(Miles)
10.1
27.5
20.2
10.3
68.1
Total Cost
(Million $)
5.0
10.00
8.1
3.7
26.8
* These totals assume that the entire system is constructed.
Average Cost
per mile
(Million $)
.50
.36
.40
.36
T Existing and Proposed
Transportation Routes
2-67
J
l
'
j
l
1
J
J
Talkeetna JY\tns.
R5W
R7W 1
MAPS
Existing and P otential
Transportation Routes
Existing transportation:
1 1 1 1 1 1 railroads
.-.._L-primary roads
• • • secondary roads
Roads recommended by this plan:
us w Chuitna Right-of-Way and spurs
• • • • • ••• Moraine Ridge
-·-·-Susitna Corridor
-···-··· Kashwitna
---Winnebago Way
Other potential transportation corridors:
-11--11-Houston Right-of-Way
Material sites
• sand and gravel
scale 1:332,000
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
SUSITNA CORRIDOR
The Susitna Corridor Management Unit is intended to provide a large area
to be managed for its forestry/habitat values. Forestry operations
require a network of logging roads that typically have 12 foot wide road
surfaces which would probably be designed and built by various logging
companies. It is likely that the development of logging roads would
occur in increments spread out over many years--as more areas are
harvested, more roads would be needed. However, a pioneer road is
recommended through the plan to provide initial access into the area.
Map 5 shows a possible alignment reaching as far south as Susitna Sta-
tion. The estimated cost of this road is 35% less than the cost of an
average class I road. The lower cost of the pioneer road is attributed
to less intensive construction techniques, narrower clearing require-
ments, and the use of winter roads to cross wetlands. The cost es-
timates below are for a pioneer road from the Parks Highway South 20
miles to the Sustina Station (see Map 5).
Road Segment
Susitna Corridor
KASHWITNA
Susitna Corridor
Total Length
(Miles)
24
Total Cost
(Million $)
4.7
Average Cost
per mile
(Million $)
.24
The Kashwitna Unit is intended to be a multiple use management area
emphasizing fish and wildlife habitat, and forestry. Grazing and small
farms are also permitted uses.. Although cost estimates were prepared
for most of the road, entry into the unit is very difficult, and infor-
mation is not available to provide a reasonable cost estimate for the
northern portion of the road.
The initial access would require one of three expensive options: a major
bridge across Willow Creek just downstream from a canyon-like area of
the creek; a smaller bridge closer to the Parks Highway and a road along
the north side of Willow Creek; or access from the Parks Highway north
of the creek and a road along the north side of the creek. Roads cost
estimates were prepared for the first option --a major bridge across
Willow Creek and 9 miles of road extending into the management unit.
Access to the small farm area (just north of the creek) would need to be
a class I road to allow conventional vehicle traffic into the
agricultural areas. This portion of the road (segment 1) would extend
2-69
2-=70
5. 8 miles. The remaining portion of :road (segment 2) leading into the
part of the management unit designated for forestry and habitat manage-
ment could be a pioneer road similar to that described for the Susitna
Corridor Unit. See the table below foJ~ details.
Kashwitna Route
Road Segment Total Length
(Miles)
Total Cost
(Million $)
Average Cost per Mile
(Million $)
1~'\"
z~~
Total
* Class I Road ** Pioneer Road
5.8
3.2
9.0
HOUSTON RIGHT-OF-WAY
2.4
1.6
4.0
.41
.so
A north-south connection between Point MacKenzie and Houston has been
proposed by various agencies. Presently, DOT/PF has a right-of-way
application for this route, but there are currently no construction
plans. Construction through this area involves miles of continuous
wetlands. For that reason, road construction would be tremendously
expensive (approximately $1.1 million per mile of road). Instead of a
conventional road, DOT/PF is considering a rail corridor for trans-
porting commodities into and out of Point MacKenzie.
Road Segment
Houston Right-of-Way
)fouston Right-of Way
Total Length
(Miles)
18.2
Total Cost
(Million $)
20.7
Average Cost
per Mile
(Million $)
1.14
SAND AND GRAVEL
Sand and gravel -known in construction as "materials" -are essential
for both the construction and maintenance of roads, railroads, and
airports. In 1978, revenues from these materials reached $160 million -
second only to oil and gas of all mineral resources extracted in Alaska.
DOT/PF is the state's largest user of sand and gravel.
The cost of building and maintaining a road is in large part dependent
on whether materials must be purchased from private sources or are
available from public lands, and whether materials must be found locally
or must be hauled from a distance. Personnel at DOT/PF suggest that
five miles from borrow site to building site is the maximum feasible
hauling distance. Thus, it is critical that an analysis of potential
material sites precede detailed management design of proposed route
areas.
The quality of information concerning the locations of sand and gravel
deposits varies throughout the area. In current road accessed parts of
the basin, fairly good informa·tion exists and DOT/PF has located enough
potential borrow sites to supply their needs through at least the year
2000 (these are shown on Map 5) . In the areas currently without road
access, existing soils data provide an indication of the existence of
material deposits; however, a much more detailed analysis will be
necessary to locate the required borrow sites. This analysis will be
conducted by Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) or
DOT/PF and the results should be integrated into the management plan for
currently non-road accessed areas. DGGS has completed a detailed
assessment of the materials potential in the areas covered by USGS
quadrangels Anchorage C-7 and C-8.
2-71
APPENDIX 3
CLASSIFICATION OF STATE LAND IN THE
WILLOW SUB-BASIN
As explained in Chapter I, the land use designations made in this plan
will be officially established in state records through the state's land
classification system. The system is a formal record of the primary
uses for which each parcel of state land will be managed. Classifi-
cation of state land in the Willow Sub-basin occurs simultaneously with
the adoption of this plan. The classifications will be shown on land
status plats which can be viewed at various offices of the Department of
Natural Resources. These plats indicate the primary uses designated by
this plan and will refer the reader to thE~ plan for more detailed in-
formation, including land management guidelines.
Table 1 translates the land designations made by this plan into the
language required by the state's classification regulations. Refer to
the map following Table 1 for the location of management units and
sub-units.
3-3
3""4
MANAGEMENT
UNIT
Kashwitna
Iron Creek
Little Willow
Creek Corridor
Susitna
Floodplain
Susitna
Corridor
Fish Creek
SUB-
UNIT
la
lb
lc
2a
2b
2c
4a
4b
-
8a
8b
8c
8d
9a
9b-
TABLE 1
PRIMARY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
AND LAND CLASSIFICATIONS
STATE I.AND
PRIMARY USE(S) DESIGNATED
BY WILLOW SUB-BASIN PLAN
Forestry/Fish & Wildlife
Forestry/Fish & Wildlife
Small Farms
Small Farms
Watershed/Fish & Wildlife
Small Farms/Settlement
Fish & Wildlife/Recreation
Small Farms
Forestry/Fish & Wildlife
Forestry/Fish & Wildlife
Fish & Wildlife/Watershed
Small Farms
Fish & Wildlife
Agriculture
(streams) Fish & Wildlife/
Recreation
(wetlands)Fish & Wildlife/
Watershed
9c Recreation (Iditarod
Trail)
Little Susitna lla Watershed/Fish-Wildlife
Corridor
llb Recreation/Fish & Wildlife
CLASSIFICATION
Forestry/Wildlife
Habitat
Forestry/Wildlife
Habitat
Agriculture
Agriculture
Watershed/Wildlife
Habitat
Agriculture/Private
Recreation
Wildlife Habitat/
Public Recreation
Agriculture
Forestry/Wildlife
Habitat
Forestry
Wildlife Habitat/
Watershed
Agriculture
Wildlife Habitat
Agriculture
Wildlife Habitat/
Public Recreation
Wildlife Habitat/
Watershed
Public Recreation
Watershed/Wildlife
Habitat
Public Recreation/
Wildlife Habitat
Pear Lake 12a Fish & Wildlife/Wa1:ershed Wildlife Habitat/
Watershed
12b Small Farms/Settlement Agriculture/Private
Recreation
12c Small Farms/Settlement Agriculture/Private
Recreation
12d Fish & Wildlife/Forestry Wildlife Habitat/
Forestry
Ronald Lake 13a Settlement/Small Farms Agriculture/Private
Recreation
13b Fish & Wildlife/Watershed Wildlife Habitat/
Watershed
i•Hatcher Pass All Mining/Recreation/ Public Recreation/
Subunits Fish & Wildlife/Grazing Minerals
Moose Range -Fish & Wildlife Wildlife Habitat
~"'DNR policy allows a maximum of two primary land uses to be listed in
the classification of a single parcel of land. Therefore, in the
Hatcher Pass Management Unit, where the land use plan designates four
primary uses, only two uses appear in the proposed classification.
However, the classification records will defer to the plan for detailed
land management guidance. Therefore, the other primary uses designated
in the plan are not adversely affected by the official classification.
Potential conflicts among these land uses will be dealt with through
management guidelines and through more detailed land allocations to be
made in 1982.
3-5
-I: ~
t'l4N
Designated Primary and
Secondary Land Uses
3-7
R4W
.MAP4
Primary and Secondary
nated Land Uses • es1
Legislatively designated areas
Areas with specific land use designations
Management units shown in gray are primarily owned by
the state and borough. In these areas detailed land use
designations are prepared as well as management
guidelines to control how these uses occur.
17"7ADiagonallines indicate where land use designations
fLL.dare made on borough lands.
D Areas with general land use objectives
Management units shown in white (excluding
legislatively designated areas) are primarily privately
owned but contain some parcels of state/borough lands.
The area plan addresses appropriate land uses in these
areas through general land use objectives prepared for
each management unit; specific land use designations are
for state land in some cases.
example mgt unit
The map and the accompanying
chart show primary and secondary
land uses. Numbers on the map
identify management units and
management subunits; the chart
shows the designated land uses
within each of these areas.
scale 1:332,000
June 1, 1982
Willow Subbasin Area Plan
-~
n4NI
WILLOW SUB-BASIN AREA PLAN: PRIMARY & SECONDARY DESIGNATED LAND USES
Management {)nit & No. Subunit
1. Kashwitna 1 a
1b
1c
2. Iron Creek
3. Rogers Creek
4. Little Willow
Creek Corridor
5. Willow Creek
Corridor
6. Susitna Floodplain
7. Willow
8. Susitna Corridor
9. Fish Creek
10. Moraine Ridge
11. Little Susitna
Corridor
12. Pear Lake
13. Ronald Lake
14. Houston
15. Hatcher Pass
16. Fishhook
17. Moose Range
18. Wasilla
19. Knik
20. Pt. MacKenzie
Legislatively
Designated Areas:
2a
2b
2c
Recommended
Land Uses
4a
4b
Recommended
Land Uses
Recommended
Land Uses
8a
8b
8c
8d
9a
9b 0 streams
0 wetlands
9c
11a
11b
12a
12b
12c
12d
13a
13b
Recommended
Land Uses
All sub-units
Recommended
Land Uses
Recommended
Land Uses
Recommended
Land Uses
Pt. MacKenzie Agri·
cultural Project.
Recommended
Land Uses
(in remainder of area)
21. Capital site
22. Nancy Lakes
Recreation Area
Primary ases
Forestry/Fish & Wildlife
Forestry/Fish & Wildlife
Small Farms
Small Farms
Watershed/Fish & Wildlife
Small Farms
*Settlement
*Fish & Wildlife (Migration & Harvest)
*Parks Highway Scenic Areas
*Forestry
Fish & Wildlife Recreation
Small Farms
*Fish & Wildlife
*Small Farms
• Settlement
*Recreation
Forestry/Fish & Wildlife
*Community Land Needs
*Parks Highway Scenic Areas
Forestry/Fish & Wildlife
Fish & Wildlife/Watershed
Agriculture
Fish & Wildlife
Agriculture
Fish & Wildlife/Recreation
Fish & Wildlife/Watershed
Recreation (lditarod)
Settlement
Watershed/Fish & Wildlife
Recreation/Fish & Wildlife
Fish & Wildlife/Watershed
Small Farms/Settlement
Small Farms/Settlement
Fish & Wildlife/Forestry
Settlement/Small Farms
Fish & Wildlife/Watershed
*Community land needs
*Parks Highway Scenic Areas
Mining, Recreation, Fish & Wildlife
Grazing
*Settlement
*Watershed
*Fish & Wildlife (Moose Habitat)
Fish & Wildlife
*Settlement
*Small Farm & Commercial
Agriculture
*Recreation (fishing-local &
regional parks)
*Small Farms
• Settlement
*Recreation (lditarod & other trails)
*Development of Port, Industrial
Area, Community
23. Susitna Flats Refuge
24. Goose Bay Refuge
Recreation
Grazing
Secondary ases
Grazing, Fish & Wildlife, Forestry
Grazing, Fish & Wildlife, Forestry
Fish & Wildlife
Forestry
Forestry, Fish & Wildlife, Recreation
Recreation
Recreation
Forestry, Fish & Wildlife, Watershed
Grazing
Forestry, Settlement,
Small Farms, Recreation
Forestry
Forestry
Forestry
Forestry, Fish & Wildlife, Recreation
Forestry
Forestry
Recreation
Fish & Wildlife, Forestry
*Recreation
*Forestry
Forestry, Grazing
*Forestry (personal use)
*Parks Highway Scenic Areas
*Fish & Wildlife (stream buffers)
*Forestry (personal use)
25. Palmer Hay Flats Refuge
Note: For details of subsurface resource management, see Chapter Ill (Subsurface resources, goals and policies)
APPENDIX 4
MODIFICATIONS OF AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE
PLAN AS IT AFFECTS STATE LANDS
The goal of this land use plan is to produce maximum benefits from
public land. To achieve this goal the plan strongly encourages multiple
land uses. Primary uses designated by the plan are not the exclusive
uses allowed to occur on public lands; designated secondary uses as well
as other uses not specifically mentioned by the plan may occur if they
are consistent with the management intent for the management unit in
question and any applicable policies. In general the plan specifies the
intent for the management of a particular resource or area and leaves
the method for achieving this goal to the knowledge and creativity of
staff implementing the plan.
Procedures for amendments to and minor modifications of the plan as it
affects state lands are described below. Following this is a descrip-
tion of the procedures for making special exceptions to the plan to be
used when modifications are not necessary or appropriate.
4-3
MODIFICATION OF PLAN
The land use designations, the policies, and the management guide-
lines of this plan may be changed if conditions warrant. The plan
will be updated periodically as new data and new technologies be-
come available and as changing social and economic conditions place
different demands on public lands. The Department of Natural
Resources and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough will jointly review
proposed modifications of the plan.
A. Periodic Review
An interagency planning team, led by the Division of Research and
Development, will coordinate periodic review of this plan at the
request of the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources
or the Mayor of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The plan review
will include meetings with all interested groups and the general
public.
B. Amendments
The plan may be amended. An amendment adds to or modifies the
basic intent of the plan. Changes to the planned uses, policies,
or guidelines constitute amendments. A proposal to change an agri-
cultural area for disposal to residential use, or a proposal to
sell land up to the river's edge where a guideline requires-'that a
300 foot buffer be retained in public ownership are examples of
changes requiring amendment. Amendments require public notice and
public hearings. They must be approved by the Commissioner.
Management plans developed by the Divison of Land and Water
Management may recommend amendments to the plan. Amendments may be
proposed by agencies, municipalities, or members of the public.
Requests for amendments are submitted to the Anchorage office of
the Division of Research and Development, Alaska Department of
Natural Resources.
C. Minor Changes
A minor change is one which does not modify or add to the basic in-
tent of the plan. Minor changes may be necessary for clarifica-
tion, consistency, or to facilitate implementation of the plan.
Minor changes do not require public review. Minor changes may be
proposed by agencies, municipalities, or members of the public.
Requests for minor changes are submitted to the Anchorage office of
the Division of Research and Development, Alaska Department of
Natural Resources.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS -DNR PROCEDURES
Exceptions to the provisions of the plan may be made without modi-
fication of the plan. Special exceptions shall occur only when
complying with the plan is excessively difficult or impractical and
an alternative procedure can be implemented which adheres to the
purposes and spirit of the plan.
The Department of Natural Resources may make a special exception in
the implementation of the plan through the following procedures:
A. The District Manager of the Division of Land and Water Manage-
ment shall prepare a finding which specifies the following:
1. The extenuating conditions which require a special excep-
tion.
2. The alternative course of action to be followed.
3. How the intent of the plan will be met by the alterna-
tive.
B. Agencies having responsibility for land uses with primary or
secondary designations in the affected area and the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough will be given an opportunity to review the
findings. In the event of disagreement with the District
Manager's decision, his decision may be appealed to the
Director of the Division of Land and Water Management, and the
Director's decision may be appealed to the Commissioner. If
warranted by the degree of controversy, the Commissioner will
hold a public hearing before making his decision. The public
hearing may be held jointly with the Borough if appropriate.
45
AG-FPP 401-83