HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2098Susitna River Basin Study • Alaska
Willow Subbasin
Final Report
by
U.S. Department of Agriculture
in cooperation with
State of Alaska and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
October 1981
.......
o·
C\1
1'--
t--
C\1
.......
0 ,Q
I!)
I!)
1'--
Ct)
Ct)
Willow Subbasin
Susitna River Basin Study -Alaska,
by the
Final Report
October 1981
U.S. Depart~ent of Agriculture
Economic Research Service
F crest Service
Soil Conservation Service
in cooperation with the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Division of Agriculture
Division of Forestry
Division of Land and Water Management
Division of Parks
Division of Research and Deveiopment
Division of Technical Service
and the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division of Game
Division of Sport Fish
Habitat Protection Section
and the
U.S. Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
ARLIS
Iaska Relources Library & Jnrormation SeiVices
Ll'bnny Building, Suite ttl -:;
321 t Providence Drive '
Anchorage, A K 99508-461&
f/~
Jo:f-
,-Atf~
r,r-
liJ5S
!7¥1
··-----~~~---~------·
ACKNOWLEDGeMENTS
Acknowledgement is made to the Alaska Soil Con-
servation District; Palmer, Wasilla, and Montana
Soil Conservation Subdistricts; Matanuska-Susitna
Borough; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency; U.S. Geological
Survey; U.S. Bureau of Land Management; U.S. Na-
tional Park Service; the Arctic Environmentallnfor-
mation and Data Center; and the Matanuska
Agricultural Experiment Station for assistance in
the development of this report. Special
acknowledgement is given to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game for assistance on wetlands, habitat
evaluation, and environmental quality analysis.
Thanks are extended to the many persons who
gave of their time to review drafts and provide
suggestions. '
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Summary ••••..•••••.•••••••.••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••. 3"
2. Problems and Objectives •••••••••••.•••••••••••...•••.••••••••••..••.•••.•••. 5
3. Resource Base ••••••••••••....••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•••••••..•.•••••. 9
Physical Factors •••••••••.•.••••••••••••..••••••••.•.•.•..•••••••••••••••• 9
Location ••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••...•••••••••••••• 9
Climate • • • • • • . • . • • • • . • • • • • . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • , . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 9
Topography .••••••••.•••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•••••••.• 9
Soils •••••••••••••••••...•.•••••••••••••.••••••••••••.•••••••••••••• 10
Geology and Ground Water ••.•••••••••••••••••.••••••••••...•.•••••••..••• 15
Vegetation Cover ••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•.••••••••••••• 29
Socioeconomic Factors ••••••••.••••••••••••••.•••••.••••••..••••••••••.••• 35
Background, Population, and Growth ••••.••..•••••••.•••••••••••••.•••••••••• 35
Employment and Work Force •••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••..•••••••••••• 35
General Social Conditions •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.••.•••••••• 36
Transportation •••••••••••.••••••••••••••.•••••••••••.••••.•••••••••••• 37
Influence of Nearby Urban Centers •••••.•••••••••••.•••••••••••• "• .•..••••••.• 37
Influence of Tourism ••••••••••••••••••.••••••••.••••••••••.•.••••••••••• 37
Archeological and Historical Resources •••..••••••••••...••••••..•••.••••••••• 38
4. Present and Future Conditions under Existing Programs . • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • . • 41
Background ••••••••••.•••.•••••••••••••..•••••••...••••••..•••••••..••• 41
Resource Conditions ••••••••••••••••••••••••..•.•• ,, •••.......••...••••••.• 41
Agricultural Land •••••.••••••••••.••••••••••.•••••••.••••••••....••••••. 41
Timber Land ••••.•••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••.••• 54
Settlement Land ••••••...••••••••••••.•••••.•••..•••••••••••••.•.•.•••. 55
Flooding •••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••..••••.••...••••••..•••••.•.. 67
Erosion and Sediment .•••••••••.•••••••••••••••••.•••..•••.••...••.••.•. 68
Recreation •••••••.•••.•.••.••••...••••••.••.••.•••••.•..•••...••••.•• 71
Fish and Wildlife • . • • • • • . . . • • • • • • • . . • . • • • • • • • • • . . . . . • • • • • . • • . • . . . • • . • • . . 7 3
Wetlands •••••••••••••••.••••••••••..•••••••...••••••••.••••.....•••• 78
5. Functional Resource Needs and Alternative Programmatic Approaches • • • • • • • • • . . . • . • • • • . . 93
Introduction ••••••••••••..•••••••••••.••••••••••...••••.••..•• , ...•••..•• 93
Needs •••••..•••••.•••.••...••••••••••• , .••••••••......•.•.•..•.•..... 93
Alternatives •••••••••.••••••••••..•.••••••••...•••••••••••...•...••.••.. 97
Alternative Accounts • • • • • . • • • • • . • • • • . . . • • • • . • • • . . . • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . • • • . • • • 106
6. Programs for Implementation of Alternatives • • • . • • • • • • . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . • • . • • • 113
Introduction ••••••••••••••••••••..••••••••••...•..•••••••••......•••••• 113
Current Programs •••••••.••••.•••••...••.•••.••••••..••••••••••..••••.•. 113
Program Implementation .••..•••••••••••...•.•••.••••••. , ..•....•••..•...•• 116
Appendix A: Soil Associations of the Willow Subbasin ••••••.•....••••.••••••..••••..•• 123
Appendix B: Fish and Wildlife Species of the Willow Subbasin ••••••..••••...••••..•••••.. 125
Appendix C: Agricultural/Timber Alternatives for the Willow Subbasin • • . • • • • • • . . • • • . . • . • • • 139
~,
il
-Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.5
Figure 3.6
Figure 3.7
Figure 3.8
Figure 3.9
Figure 3.10
Figure 3.11
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.7
Figure 4.8
Figure 4.9
Figure 4.10
Figure 4.11
Figure 4.12
Figure 4.13
Figure 4.14
Figure 4.15
Figure 4.16
Figure 4.17
Figure 5.1
List of Figures
Location Map of Susitna River Basin •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11
Map of Wil~ow Subbasin • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • 13
General Soils Map ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 17
Soil Drainage Map • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 19
Soil Slope Map ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 21
Soil Limitations for Septic Tanks •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 23
Soil Limitations for Dwellings •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25
Ground Water Availability Map •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 27
Forest Resources Map •. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 31
Range Resources Map •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 33
Route Selection Map ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 39
Land Use Map ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 43
Barley Prices •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 45
Oat Prices ........................................................ 46
Hay Prices •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4 7
Potato Prices • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 48
Important Farmland Map •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 49
Important Grazing Lands ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••.••••• 51
Commercial/light development • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • 57
Capability for Remote Subdivision •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••• 59
Capability for Accessed Large Lot Residential Development • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 61
Capability for Moderate/High Density Residential Development ••••••••••••••••••• 63
Capability for Low Density Remote Residential Map ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 65
Soil Erosion Potential ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.• 69
HEP Habitat Model-Moose and Snowshoe Hare ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 79
HEP Habitat Model -Red Squirrel, Spruce Grouse •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 81
Wetlands Map ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•. 85
Wetland Classification Taxonomy ••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••• 87
Map and Listing of Recreation Sites • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 101
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Problems and Objectives • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • . • • • • 5
Table 3.1 Temperature and Precipitation Data ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•..••••• 9
Table ·3.2 Population Projections •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••• 36
Table 3.3 Population, Employment, and Income-Matanuska-Susitna Census Division, by year •••• 36
Table 3.4 Important Historical or Archeological Sites •.••.•••••••.•••••••••• ~ ••••••••• 38
Table 4.1 Land Cleared and Presently in Agricultural Use by Watershed ••••••••••••••••••••• 42
Table 4.2 Average Yield (Improved Management) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 53
Table 4.3 Capability of Grazing Model Rating Categories in Animal Unit Months ••••••••••••••• 53
Table 4.4 Projected Timber Demand ••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••• 55
Table 4.5 Projected Settlement Land Requirements, 1980-85 and 1980-2000 •••••••••••.•••. 55
Table 4.6 Existing User-Day Demand •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•••••••••• 71
Table 4. 7 User-Day Values (Dollars) ••••••••••••••••••.•••.••••••••••.•••••••••••• 71
Table 4.8 Existing Annual Recreation Resource Values •••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••• 72
Table 4.9 Year 2000 User Day1 Demand (without new Capital Site) •••••••••••••••••••••••• 72
Table 4.10 General Vegetation Types and Associated Plant Communities ••••••••••••••••••••• 7 4
Table 4.11 Suitability of Willow Subbasin for Selected Wildlife Species .••••.•••••••••••••••• 7 5
Table 4.12 Legislatively Protected Areas in the Willow Subbasin ••••••••••••••••••••••••••. 7 5
Table 4.13 Human Use of Moose, Willow Subbasin 1979-1980 •••••.•••••••••••••••••••••• 76
Table 4.14 Fall 1979 Drawing Permit Applications •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 77
Table 4.15 Waterfowl Hunter Days and Average Harvest Per Day on Willow Subbasin Refuges,
1971-1976, Calculated from Statewide Waterfowl Hunter Mail Surveys ••••••••••••.• 77
Table 4.16 Willow Subbasin Refuge Duck Harvests 1971-1976, Calculated from Statewide
Waterfowl Hunter Mail Surveys •••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••.• 77
Table 4.17 Willow Subbasin Refuge Goose Harvests 1971-197 6, Calculated from Statewide
Waterfowl Hunter Mail Surveys ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• · •••••.••••••• 78
Table 4.18 Factors Affecting Use and Value of Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Resources ••••••••••••• 78
Table 4.19 Classification of Wetlands •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••• 89
Table 4.20 Wetland Types •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••.••••. 91
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Agricultural Land Use Needs •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••. 93
Timber Land Use Needs ••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••............... 94
Settlement Land Use Needs • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • . • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • . • • 94
Flood Plain Land Use Needs • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • 95
Table 5.5 Recreation Land Use Needs •••••••••••••••••.••••.•••.•.•••••••••••••••• 95
Table 5.6 Fish and Wildlife Needs •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••.•.•.••• 96
- - - - - -Table-5~7---Hiking-: :-.-.-.-:-:: ..--.-:-:-; : ~-. ::-. ~ :-.-.-. -. =-~-.-.-: -.-.-.-:-: .. -.-: .-: ... : ~ .. ~ : .-.. : : .-... 99--
Table 5.8 Stream Fishing •••..••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••• 99
Table 5.9 Lake Fishing •••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••.•••••.•..•.•••••.•••••• 100
Table 5.10 Developed Camping •••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••.•••••• 103
Table 5.11 Picnicking •••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••• 104
Table 5.12 Recreation Alternative No. 1 ••••••••••..•••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••.• 104
Table 5.13 Recreation Alternative No. 2 •.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.•.• 105
Table 5.14 Recreation Alternative No. 3 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•••••••••• 105
Table 5.15 Recreation Alternative No. 4 ••••••••••••••••.••••.•••••••••••••••••.••• 105
Table 5.16 Alternative Accounts Display ••••••••.••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••• 106
Table 6.1 Applicability of Public Resource Programs for Implementing Alternatives • • . . • • • • • • • 117
Table B.1 Habitats Used for Food, Cover, and/or Reproduction ••••••••••••••••••..•••••• 128
Table C.1 Potential Crop Yield for Improved and Average Management Conditions by
Agricultural Capability Class ••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••.•••••• 139
Table C.2 Net Growing Stock Volume and Stand Density by Vegetation Class ••..••••.••.•.•• 140
Table C.3 Estimated Costs of Crop Production Per Acre and Per Unit of Commodity Produced by
LandCiassandFarmSize, 1979 •••••.••• /:'· •.•••••••••••••.••••••••••••• 141
Table C.4 Estimated Logging Costs Per Acre and Per Unit of Commodity Produced
by Timber Class •••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••.••••.••••••••••• 141
Table C.5 1979 Domestic and Export Prices and Projected Domestic Commodity Needs,
Susitna Cooperative River Basin Study ••••••••••.••••••••..•••.••••.•••••• 142
Table C.6 Comparison of Crop Prices and Cost of Production • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . • • • • • • • • 142
Table C.7 Projected Population and Commodity Demands for the Year 2000, Willow Subbasin
and Greater Anchorage Area • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • . • • • • . • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • 143
Table C.8 Results of the Agricultural/timber Benefit/cost Analysis •.•••••.••..•..••.•••••• 143
iii
PREFACE
The State of Alaska and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) are conducting a study of the
quality, conditions, and deficiencies of the water
and related land resources in the Susitna River
Basin. Initiated in 1976 and fully staffed in 1978, the
study is scheduled for completion in 1982. This
report discusses results of the analysis conducted in
the Willow Subbasin, one of the four principal water·
sheds of the Susitna River Basin. The results of
analyses of the remaining three watersheds, cover·
ing the entire river basin, willbe available shortly.
At the request of the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), the USDA is participating in this
study as part of its continuing river basins program.
Section 6 of the Watershed Protection and Fiood
Prevention Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-566, as
amended) authorizes such participation in this
study.
Authority for DNR to cooperate with USDA in river
basin studies is set forth in Title 38 and 41.08 of the
Alaska Statutes.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
is actively involved. Their authority for participation
is set forth in Title 16 of the Alaska Statutes. Also
actively involved is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
The report was prepared by the USDA's Soil Conser-·
vation Service (SCS); the Economic Research Serv-
ice (ERS); and the Forest Service (FS); the Alaska
Departments of Natural Resources and Fish and
Game; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The report will be
used by state and borough planners concerned with
land use and natural resources management. The
study was initiated by the State of Alaska in order to
analyze and evaluate potential alternative resource
uses and to provide guidelines for resolving any
conflicts in these uses.
Agency responsibilities in this study are as follows:
A. USDA Agencies
The Soil Conservation Service is responsible for the
administration of USDA activities in connection
with river basin investigations and preparation of
reports thereon. The SCS is responsible for develop-
ment of general principles, criteria, and procedures.
The SCS is responsible for making physical ap-
praisals of agricultural and rural water problems and
resource development needs and defining them in
terms of meeting regional and community
economic needs for water-related goods and serv-
ices. The SCS determines the conservation treat-
ment needs for nonfederal open lands within river
basins. The SCS determines the development
potentials of upstream watersheds, including their
physical and economic feasibility and development
effects; detennines the scope and scale of upstream
watershed development needed, and coordinates
this with the proposals of cooperating agencies.
The Soil Conservation Service, the Forest Service,
and the Economic Research Service coordinate
with the Water Resources Council as well as federal,
state, regional, and local organizations in program
formulation, budget coordination, and development
of guidelines and procedures.
The Forest Service is responsible for all aspects of
river basin planning relating to woodlands and
forested lands, both federal and nonfederal, the
1
2
rangelands within national forests, and other moun-
tainous watershed wild lands. The FS provides the
analyses and projections of economic activity
related to the multiple uses and products from
forests, woodlands, and wild lands, and interprets
these projections with respect to the use of and re-
quirements for water and related lands.
The FS is responsible for appraising the suitability
and capability of forested lands to satisfy future
demands for products and services and determines
the kinds, amounts, and costs of needed watershed
management practices. The FS determines the
hydrologic characteristics as to runoff, water yields,
sediment, and erosion on forested and related wild
lands.
The FS estimates and evaluates the impacts of water
resource development plans and proposals of USDA
and other agencies upon the forest resource-
public and private. The FS carries out continuing
coordination with other land management and con-
servation agencies-federal, state, and locaL The
FS participates in the identification of areas having
opportunities for feasible USDA projects and pro-
grams(PL-566, RC&D, National Forest Develop-
ment, etc.) to help meet the development needs of
the River Basin.
The Economic Research Service is responsible for
basin-wide economic aspects and elements of this
planning effort. ERS develops and analyzes the
economic base of the study area which includes an
appraisal of trends in land and water use, projec-
tions of production, erilployment, income, and
population, and land use needs and potentials. ERS
also analyzes the economic impact of water
development programs as applicable in the basin on
production, employment, and income in the
agricultural and related sectors of the economy.
The ERS evaluates the demand for water-based
recreational needs of the basin and participates in
the formulation of plans for recreation development
including the analysis of economic benefits of alter-
native plans.
B. State Agencies
The State of Alaska, represented by DNR, will work
directly with USDA until the study is completed.
The DNR is involved in all phases of the project from
development of objectives and priorities, to
membership on the study team, to review of
schedules, drafts, interim, and final reports. State
agencies other than DNR are contacted as ap-
propriate for information, technical assistance, or
direct participation.
1. Introduction and Summary
1. Introduction and
Summary
In recent years, the State of Alaska and the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough have been transferring
land to private ownership in the Susitna River Basin.
These transfers are often accompanied by title
restrictions for each particular parcel in question,
i.e., the state or borough withholds certain develop-
ment rights and allows only the uses it deems are
best suited.
"Best uses" were at times based on insufficient data
because adequate inventory information simply did
not exist. As a result, in many instances inap-
propriate uses evolved on basin lands. For example,
homes were built in flood plains and septic tanks
were constructed in or adjacent to wetlands.
In addition to physical compatibility problems,
social and environmental tradeoffs became major
issues. The best wildlife land was at times the best
agricultural or urban land, and disposal of land for
its "best use" became even more subjective. Realiz-
ing these problems would grow with the population
and the subsequent increases in demand for land for
all uses, the State of Alaska in cooperation with the
USDA embarked on the river basin study.
. This report discusses the study process in five major
sections. Section Two, discusses the study goal, the
resource problems evidenced in the initial stages of
1. Introduction and Summary
the study, and the study objectives formulated to
redress the resource problems and achieve the
overall study goal. Section Three discusses the
stocks and flows of the Willow Subbasin's natural
resources and the important socioeconomic fa~tor~
relating to the area's human resources. ·ri1is section
essentially presents the results of the early resource
inventories and surveys conducted in the study. One
of the most important features of this study con-
sisted of several landscape capability/suitability
analyses. Each analysis combined several physical/
biological landscape attributes for a land site to
determine that site's capability for supporting
various land uses. Mapped results at a scale of
1 :63,360 are available for the entire "Willow Sub-
basin Land Use Atlas" published under separate
cover as part of this study effort. The same maps at
a scale of 1:250,000 are included in the main report.
Section Four relates resource problems and con-
cerns outlined in section Two with resource supply
and quality discussed in Section Three. It displays a
"snapshot" of the natural resource situation found
in the Willow Subbasin at the present time and
discusses the probable ''future without" any
changes or additions in public sector resource
policies and programs.
Section Five suggests some alternative public sec-
tor approaches to ameliorating present or expected
resource problems, or improving resource use. The
final section, Six, discusses federal, state, and local
resource-oriented programs and their alternatives.
3
2. Problems and Objectives
2. Problems and Objectives
2. Pr.oblems and
Objectives
principal objective was to gain a basic understand-
ing of the subbasin's resources. This required major
resource inventories, surveys, and evaluations. Of
course, identified problem areas merited particular
attention in the study design.
The goal of this study is to provide resource
managers, public and private, with the nec,essary in-
formation to make sound, rational decisions regard-
ing the natural resources in their charge. To meet
this goal, interim study objectives were defined, that
provided the necessary information to address
specific resource "problems" or anomalies which
were evidenced early in this investigation. These
problems stem from inefficient resource use, with
inefficiency defined in economic, physical, and en-
vironmental terms.
From the outset, a lack of basic information about
the character of the Willow Subbasin's natural
resources: their location, quantity, and quality was
the greatest problem encountered in the study. The
For purposes of the study, resource problems or
concerns were identified for each of six functional
land resource use types. They included agricultural
land, urban/settlement land, recreational land, flood
plains, timber land, and land and water areas impor-
tant to fish and wildlife. It is important to note that
any given site may be highly valued for several or
even all of these functional uses. Multiple uses of
resources may be compatible on a site, but other
uses by their nature must be exclusive. Many
resource problems and conflicts stem directly from
noncompatibility of alternative resource uses. The
identified resource problems and study objectives
are displayed in Table 2.1.
Resource Area
A. Agricultural land
B. Urban/settlement land
C. Recreation land
Table 2.1 Problems and Objectives
Problems or Concerns
1. Best agricultural land is und~rutilized.
· 2. Lack of information to determine capability
of land to support various agricultural
enterprises.
3. Lack of demand data for potential agricultural
enterprises.
· 4. Ccncern that Alaska's remoteness cvuld
result in food shortage during times of labor
strikes, natural disasters or other such
emergencies.
5. Loss of agricultural land to other uses such as
urban development.
6. Statewide economic instability could be
dampened by development of a larger
agricultural sector.
1. The Alaska state legislature has mandated
disposal of land in five separate settlement
categories, yet information on the capability
and suitability of state land to support these
uses is inadequate.
1. Overcrowding of developed recreation areas
has resulted in poor quality recreation
experience and made recreation opportunities
unavailable for large segments of the population.
2. The capability and suitability of land to
support recreational activities is unknown in
many areas of the basin.
Objectives
1. Identify lands suitable for agricultural
production. Areas to be mapped and
quantified.
2. Determine farming enterprises and
practices which optimize net returns on
lands with agricultural potential.
3. Identify methods for maintaining existing
agricultural land.
4. Determine pioducticm needed for self-
sufficiency for those enterprises suitable
for production in the basin.
5. Determine economic feasibility for selected
enterprises for export given present world
prices.
6. Determine viable commodity prices for
selected enterprises on alternative
farm unit sizes.
1. Determine resource information needed to assess
capability and suitability of the land to
support designated disposal categories.
Collect appropriate data.
2. Develop criteria to consolidate data into
land use settlement maps and determine
settlement areas suitable for disposal.
1. Identify demand and supply of selected
recreation opportunities
2. Determine resource information needed to
assess capability and suitability of land
areas to support recreation uses for which
a shortage exists. Collect appropriate data.
3. Develop criteria to consolidate data into
"recreation moael" and map recreation land.
5
Resource Area
D. Timber land
E. Fish and Wildlife Land
6
Table 2.1 Problems and Objectives
Problems or Concerns
1. Timber is underutilized.
2. Lack of information to determine the capability
and suitability of the land to support timber
related enterprises.
1) Value to public of fish and wildlife resources
(populations and habitats) is difficult to
quantify and often underestimated.
2) Fish and wildlife resources (populations and
habitats) are reduced in quantity and quality as
suitable habitats are transferred into private
ownership or other incompatible management/use
categories associated with human population
increases and increased pressures for
deveiopment.
3) Public opportunities to use and enjoy fish and
wildlife resources are reduced as public lands
and public access are transferred into private
ownership or other incompatible management/use
categories associated with human population
increases and increased pressures for develop·
ment
Objectives
1. Identify lands suitable for timber
production. Areas to be mapped and quantified.
2. Determine timber enterprises and practices
which optimize net returns on lands with
timber potential.
3. Determine production needed for self·
sufficiency for those enterprises suitable
for production in the basin.
1) Develop and use adequate methodologies for
determining value of fish and wildlife
resources.·
2a) Develop criteria for maintenance and enhance·
ment of the quality and quantity of habitats
required to support wildlife populations
which can meet current or increased levels of
human use; in the Willow Subbasin, focus
habitats maintenance/enhancement on habitats
which support moose, brown and black bear,
caribou, mountain goat, Dall sheep, waterfowl,
and protected species such as trumpeter swans
and bald eagles.
2b) Develop criteria for maintenance and enhance·
ment of the quality and quantity of
lakes and streams which provide, or
could orovide. fisheries habitats and
angling opportunities.
2c) Identify key habitat types, i.e. those
which support a high abundance or
variety of species, are of limited
availability in the Subbasin, or are
highly vulnerable to disruption; in the
Willow Subbasin, habitats meeting one
or more of these criteria are: tundra,
riparian corridors, other wetlands,
open forests, and ecotones ("edges").
2d) Develop criteria for management of fish and
wildlife species to maintain populations
at optimum levels in terms of habitat
carrying capacity, physical quality of
managed animals and human user success.
3a) Develop criteria for areas which currently or
potentially provide opportunities to harvest
fish and wildlife; in the Willow Subbasin,
focus maintenance/enhancement on areas which
i) provide opportunities to harvest moose,
brown or black bear, caribou, Dall sheep,
mountain goat, willow ptarmigan, spruce grouse,
waterfowl, or sport fish, and ii) provide
opportunities to harvest game under aesthe·
tically pleasing natural conditions.
3b) Identify areas which currently or
potentially provide opportunities for non·
consumptive enjoyment of fish and wildlife
resources, including areas where fish and
wildlife resources can be enjoyed while
driving, hiking, skiing, etc.
3c) When access is opened to areas providing
habitat for harvestable species listed
under (3a, i), ensure that harvesting
consistent with area species management
goals is permitted.
3d) Identify corridors that will improve access to
existing fish and wildlife use areas, emphasize
traditional access routes that cross lands
which are now, or soon will be, in borough or
private ownership.
3e) Determine needed access to potential fish and
wildlife use areas.
Resource Are<t
Fish and Wildlife Land
(Continued)
Problems or Concerns
4) Cook Inlet salmon fisheries may be negatively
impacted by land uses in the Willow Subbasin
which reduce the quality or quantity of
anadromous fish streams.
5) Activities occurring outside of fish and
wildlife habitat lands may negatively impact
conditions within habitat lands.
6) Data on fish and wildlife population dynamics,
habitat requirements, responses to land uses
and human activities, etc. are inadequate for
many management purposes.
7) Damages to human life and property (e.g., crop
damage, livestock predation, bear injuries,
beaver damage, etc.) increase as human activi-
ties encroach on fish and wildlife habitats.
8) Implementation of fish and wildlife management
activities is hampered by public unfamiliarity
with the ecological/biological basis of manage-
ment decisions and procedures.
9) Coordination among agencies affecting fish and
wildlife resources is often inadequate.
Objectives
3f) Identify needed access corridors and measures
for providing them, e.g. continued government
ownership of access corridors; securing, right-
of-way easements; zoning; and tax incentives,
direct payments, or management assistance for
private landowners.
4) Identify the quality and quantity of Subbasin
anadromous fish streams which contribute to
the Cook Inlet salmon fisheries.
5 Identify and maintain flows of matter and
energy which sustain fish and wildlife
habitat quality.
6a) Prioritize data needs on the basis of
imminent or existing problems, concerns,
conflicts, etc. and implement studies to
collect necessary data.
6b) Provide for reducing detrimental impacts to
fish and wildlife associated with many land
uses by improving the organization and
accessibility of existing data bases to local,
state, and federal resource and development
agencies, as well as to private individuals.
7a) Develop siting and design criteria which will
minimize wildlife caused damages to life and
property where necessary human deveiopments
conflict with fish and wildlife resourcesa
7b) Improve public knowledge of methods to
decrease wildlife-caused injuries and property
damage by utilizing public information programs
when instituting management programs.
8) Improve public knowledge of management
programs.
9) Formalize procedures for ensuring interagency
communication, coordination, and cooperation.
7
3. Resource Base
3. Resource Base
Physical Factors
Location
The Susitna River Basin is located in southcentral
Alaska and is bounded by the Copper and
Matanuska River Basins to the east; the Tanana
River Basin to the north; the Kuskokwim River Basin
to the west, and Cook Inlet to the south. The basin
includes about 13.7 million acres or about 3 percent
of the total Alaska land area. For the Susitna
Cooperative River Basin Study, the region was divid-
ed into four subbasins: Willow, Talkeetna, Beluga,
and Upper Susitna. (Figure 3.1) The Willow Region
includes the drainages of Little Willow and Willow
Creeks and the Little Susitna River. It encompasses
an area of 1 million acres and lies entirely within the
southcentral portion of the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough. (Figure 3.2)
Climate
The climate of this subbasin is greatly influenced by
the air flow off Cook Inlet, and the air moving over
the Chugach Mountains from the Gulf of Alaska. In·
terior Alaska's cold dry air occasionally crosses the
Alaska Range from the north or northwest in winter.
Summers are mild with high temperatures mostly
between 60 degrees F and 70 degrees F in the
lowlands. Freezing temperatures have been record-
ed in every month of the year. The winters are cold,
but not as cold as the interior of Alaska. Springtime
has little precipitation and summers are moist.
Table 3.1 summarizes temperature and seasonal
distribution of precipitation.
Topography
Elevations in the Willow Subbasin range from sea
level to 6536 feet above sea level at Montana Peak,
the extreme northeastern limit. The area generally
slopes from northeast toward the south and west.
Major drainages are the Susitna River to the west
and Cook Inlet to the south. Tributaries are Little
Willow Creek, Willow Creek, Little Susitna River,
Goose Creek, Fish Creek, Cottonwood Creek, .
Lucille Creek and Wasilla Creek.
Topography to the northeast is dominated by the
rugged Talkeetna Mountains where elevations are
primarily between 3000 and 5000 feet above sea
level. The remainder of the region is low with un-
dulating surface typical of glacial deposits. There
are many lakes, ponds, muskegs, and swamps
among the wooded hills, but vegetation is sparse in
the Talkeetna alpine areas. The Susitna River, drain-
ing portions of the Alaska Range and Willow Sub-
basin, is braided and heavily laden with glacier-fed
silt. Glacial silt causes some discoloration in the
Littie Susitna River; ail other basin streams are
dear.
Table 3.1 Temperature and Precipitation Data
Susitna, Alaska
Temperature• Precipitation
Two years In 10 will have One year in 10
at least 4 days with-will have-
Average
Average Average Average Days depth of
Month daily daily Maximum Minimum total with snow on
maximum minimum temperature temperature snow ground
equal to or equal to or cover last day
higher lower Less More of month
than-than-than-than-
Inches Inches Inches Number Inches
January ......... 23 2 40 -30 1.38 0.29 4.52 29 17
February 0 ••• 0 ••• 31 13 43 -17 1.28 .34 2.13 28 13
March ••••••• 0. 0 35 12 45 . 9 1.16 .60 1.68 31 12
April ••••••• 0 ••• 48 24 58 10 .88 .37 1.61 17 1
May ............ 60 32 71 20 1.46 .59 2.34 1 0
June •••••••• 0. 0 69 41 80 33 1.69 .52 2.94 0 0
July ............ 70 46 79 38 2.55 1.24 3.77 0 0
August .......... 67 44 74 34 5.52 2.52 9.71 0 0
September ....... 57 38 65 27 5.07 2.49 7.84 0 0
October ......... 44 27 54 3 3.53 1.84 4.20 3 1
November ........ 31 13 41 . 8 1.82 .16 4.40 18 4
December ........ 24 5 41 -27 1.71 .11 4.20 26 10
Year 47 25 28.05 153
•Maximum and minimum temperature data are for the period 1933-47. Temperatures are shown in degrees Fahrenheit.
9
3. Resource Base
Physical Factors
Topography to the northeast is dominated by the
rugged Talkeetna Mountains where elevations are
Soils
Soils of the area have predominantly formed in
very shallow to deep deposits of silty volcanic ash ,
loess, alluvial sediments, or colluvium over very
gravelly sandy material derived from glacial till or
outwash. The silty loess blown from the outwash
plains of the Matanuska and Knik Rivers is man-
tled over much of the eastern part of the area. The
thickness of the loess generally decreases depen-
ding upon the distance from the rivers, but the
density is directly influenced by the direction of
the winds from the Knik and Matanuska glaciers.
Ash from ancient volcanoes in the Alaska Range
and silty loess from the Susitna River is mantled
over much of the western part of the area. The
glaciar till is dominantly very gravelly sand or very
gravelly sandy loam. Compactness of the till can
vary within a short distance. The outwash material
is mostly loose very gravelly sands, but in places
is stratified sand and gravel. Organic decompos-
ing plant materials are found in muskegs and
other depressional areas.
Soils on the upland terraces, outwash plains, and
moraines are generally well-drained. Poorly and
very poorly drained soils occur in depre-ssions ,
along drainageways , in muskegs, and in areas that
receive seepage from higher elevations. Terraces,
outwash plains and muskegs are nearly level or
undulating. Glacial moraines usually have com-
10
primarily between 3000 and 5000 feet above sea
level.
plex slopes that range from undulating to very
steep. Terrace escarpments include mostly steep
slopes.
Soils of the area have predominantly formed in
very shallow to deep deposits of silty volcanic
ash, loess, alluvial sediments, or colluvium over
very gravelly sandy material derived from glacial
till or outwash.
~
J\)~ O(f~?~~
) ..
"L,f
Source:
Bose map prepared by SCS,WTSC Corto Unit from USGS 1:1,000,000 Not. Atlos.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE usoA·SCS·PORTLAND.OR '"'
->'<-Deadman
"' Mtn.
FIGURE 3.1
SUSITNA RIVER BASIN
ALASKA
AUGUST 1981
lf!0!5iiiiil!!!!!!iiiiiii!!~~~~~I0~~~~20 MILES
SCALE ld,OOO,OOO
M7-N-24165
Ul
Ul
"' ~ 'it
~ t\1
!: I
2
I ,...
::il
JIINJI
-
+
The general soil map (Figure 3.3) depicts the soil
associations in the Willow Subbasin. A soil
association has a distinctively proportional pattern
of one or more major soils and at least one minor
soil.
Soil association maps are useful to those who
want to gain a general understanding of the soils
in an area, to compare different parts of an area,
or to establish the location of tracts that are
capable of supporting certain types of land use.
Such maps are useful as general guides for
managing watersheds, wooded tracts, wildlife
areas, or in planning engineering works, recrea-
tional facilities, and community developments.
Detailed soils maps of the Willow Subbasin showing
the capability of specific sites to support various
uses are available at the SCS office, Anchorage,
~A~!aska. The sci! capabilities are derived from the
physical soil characteristics identified by the soil
survey maps. Soil characteristics such as drainage,
slope, texture, permeability, and so forth, determine
soil interpretations for land capability and potential
uses. For example, soils with poor drainage and ex-
cessive slope may render areas unsuitable for septic
tanks, or construction of buildings and roads. See
Figure 3.4 for drainage interpretations, 3.5 for
slope, 3.6 for septic tank limitations, and 3.7 for
building limitations.
The soii associations in the Wiiiow Subbasins are
briefly described in Appendix A.
Geology and Ground Water
The Willow Subbasin lies in a geologically impor-
tant area between the Aleutian volcanic island arc
system on the south and continental bedrock on the
north. It is at the upper end of Cook Inlet basin
which has a complex history of repeated large scale
sedimentation, deformation, and intrusion. In more
recent times glaciation has strongly influenced the
area.
During late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic time, the
sea covered the southcentral Alaska region, which
was bordered on the north by an island arc system.
Marine sedimentary deposits accumulated for a
thickness of several miles. Intervals of volcanic ac-
tivity resulted in layers of volcanic lava and
volcaniclastic rocks intermixing with sedimentary
rock units. The Mesozoic era included several cycles
of sedimentation, along with mountain building
resulting from implacement of large masses of ig-
neous rock which form the heart of the present-day
Talkeetna Mountains. The processes of mountain
building and erosion resulted in thick sequences of
sedimentary units in the Cook Inlet region, creating
3. Resource Base
Physical Factors
probable source beds and reservoir rocks for
petroleum deposits. By the end of the Mesozoic
period, a trough had gradually formed in the vicinity
of the present-day Cook Inlet basin between the
ancestral Alaska Range to the northwest and
primitive Kenai-Chugach Mountains to the east.
During the Tertiary epoch more uplift occurred in
the Talkeetna mountain province, with subsequent
increases in erosion into the lowlands. These
sediments were deposited in the Willow region,
along with other sediments derived from interior
Alaska, western Canada, and adjacent borderlands.
A broad linear trough formed in the Cook Inlet
vicinity, and climatic conditions were generally
warmer and more temperate than today. Early Ter-
tiary sedimentation centered in the region now
known as the Matanuska Valley region, where thick
sequences of conglomerate, sandstone, and
siitstone were interiayered with seams of coai. Dur-
ing the late Tertiary period, thousands of feet of
sediment were deposited in a large, slowly sub-
siding trough in the lowlands of the region west and
southeast of the Talkeetna Mountains. This
sedimentary sequence, known as the Kenai Group,
consists of conglomerate, sandstone, shale,
claystone, and interbedded coal. Deposition was
primarily by rivers and streams with at least one
marine estuary. Present-day commercial oil and gas
production, which is centered generally southwest
of the Wiiiow Subbasin in Cook inlet, is derived
from reservoirs in the Kenai Group. The finai eie-
ment of late Tertiary activity was deposition of some
basaltic lava flows with associated dikes and sills.
The major topographic elements of the subbasin
were established by late Tertiary time, i.e., the
Talkeetna highlands. The elements are flanked by
major valleys to the west and southeast. The present
topographic configuration is a reflection of glacial
and interglacial processes which occurred primarily
in the Pleistocene era, with fluvial deposition and
reworking since then. Five sequences of glaciation
occurred, filling the valleys with ice and extending
into Cook Inlet. Deposition in the lowlands was
predominantly unstratified glacial till, with some.
stratified outwash and fluvial sediments. These
deposits are up to several hundred feet thick and
have resulted in complex drainage and ground water
conditions. The water table is shallow and the
ground is frozen seasonally. See Figure 3.8 for
ground water availability. Local eolian deposits
cause further complications. Glacial landforms
dominate the present lowland topography in the
subbasin.
The setting of the Willow Subbasin shows it to be a
juncture of two structural troughs which merge into
15
+ Source:
,.
M~
/
~
-a,.,
00
~
\.
Base mop prepared by SCS,WTSC Corto Unit from AMS 1:250,000 series.
Thematic detail compiled by state staff.
u.s . DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE USDASCSI'ORTLAND.DR ""
-a,.,
o<l'
~
SOIL ASSOCIATIONS
SOILS OF THE MOUNTAINS
Al Rock Outcrop
~ A2 Talkeetna-Torpedo Lake
Q:-A3 Talkeetna-Starichkof
~ A4 Torpedo Lake-Starichkof
A5 Mutnala-Starichkof
A6 Torpedo Lake-Homestead
D SOILS OF THE VALLEYS
Bl Homestead-Knik
B2 Knik-Coal Creek
B3 Doone-Knik
B4 Bodenberg
B5 Homestead-Salamatof
B6 Naptowne-Salamatof
B7 Rabideaux-Salamatof
·~ B8 Nancy-Homestead -~ B9 Nancy-Kashwitna
~ OsoiLS OF THE LOWLANDS
Cl Salamatof-Moose River
C2 Tidal Marsh-Ciunie
C3 Susitna-Salamatof
FIGURE 3 .3
GENERAL SOIL MAP
WILLOW SUBBASIN
ALASKA
AUGUST 1981 •
0 5 10 MILES
SCALE USO,OOO
M7-N-24166-1
I
I·
\
/
'0\ E> c;.o 0
/'
0 z w
0 w .....
-o
Q)
r::::
0
"--o
-o
Q)
r::::
0
"--o
Q)
-o ~
Q) >-~ r:::: ~
> e o
-o
Q)
r:::: ·c;
"--o
·;;; -o Q; >-
"' -o "-~ Q) 0 g
~ ~ ~ Q...
-o
Q)
r::::
0
"-
"-
0
0 a.
>-"-
Q)
> DDDD D
--
~· ~f><
"·
'Oo
0
'1-~.
~· ~~
,.
~~
~~
~·
~· ~"
''t>
o<l' "/
/,/\
o\<o '0 rc' .~ 00
~/
U .S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SEP.VICE uso • scs PORTlA N D OR 1982
-----~ ---
"~ ~·
~
~
Q:-
~
/
0 0..;
0'
-o.,
o<l'"
/
LEGEND
-0-3%
• 3-7%
7-12%
12-20%
20-30%
30-45%
I '
I
Greater Than 45 ~
'0 0
00
~/
FIGURE 3.5
SOIL SLOPE MAP
WILLOW SUBBASIN
ALASKA
FEBRUARY 19 82
SC ~L [ I 150 .JOO
Variable
Water
10 MI LES
7 -N-24192
~· ~()<
-oo
"\.
"'~·
~· ~~
I
~· <o ~·
,.
~~
~· ~~
/ r~o'
~ "' ,<o
~·
..
j..,_-
"\ 1 rr
~·
~\
'<t>
O(j'
"'..-
~ ~·:fj \~~~~i \:.'~.~ _ · ~ ·~~o~'.:i r
x.-· ~·\
y.~~~ w l ~ ? f®~}fl \:) ~~ C.'' ...
liD .. ,~~~-E 0'"
l!l ( .• \.·w-D ~ ar":~ X~ "ff'JJi'~· -0''-1""~1. .• m t l:'r . .,.,.-tJl 1/z:r. t
I. ""'
-~."\. .-~ _/ "" -~~« -~a...,..:-:swt ,.,~
~
Q:-
~
~
'
/
0 Do.;
"''
'O,n
O(j'
~
L E GEN D
-Slight
• Moderat e
• S e vere
-~· -v.., \. . RhJ~ tl.t-f"i6~~ -A -II.( p · w ~r-~ <:: Wate r
~1 o_
/,/ '\ 0,., '0
0' ~,..,
00
->'/
~='IG U RE 3 6
SOIL LIMITATIONS FOR SEPTIC TANKS
WILLOW SUBBA SIN
ALAS KA
FE BRUARY 1982
10 Mll(l
SCALE I 250 .000
aac:._ncD&DTILICIUT n.: &r..DII"'III Ttao ~cn•• rniUC:CO\I&TaniU C:I:PVII"'C~ Q 7!a.J!J ... 24-/92 j
-
/
<J' ~ .._o
0
/'
0 z w
C)
w
_J
N
OJ
0>
>-a:
<(
::::> a:
CD w
LL
~· ~De
\
-<_.
"'~·
~· ~~
J
~· ~10
'\~
~·
"
,. M-..
~· ~'?
\'0
~·
-~
00
~
~·
~\
''*' o<S'
"'/
C)
c,
\)0
'\:J
C)
//\ o\.~ "'<;_" ~' 0 o_.._...
~· ~\
fJ IJ IS
() ~ {) t~' If e ~.J?
0 c,o'9 (f/ .._p'~-8
~
Q:-
\~
~ -
FIGURE 3.8
D
D
D
/
\ -o,.,
oO.~
~'
o<S'
&,.
High
Moder ate
Low
GROUNDWATER AVAI LABILITY
WILLOW SUBBASIN
ALASKA
JUNE 1982
SCAlf U50 ,000
10 MI LES
--------------· ~--~-~~--· ----------~---~-----~-~-~~---~---------~
the upper end of the Cook Inlet Tertiary basin, an
elongated basin superimposed on older sedimen-
tary rocks. Between the troughs are the Talkeetna
Mountains.
The major regional tectonic feature, the Castle
Mountain fault, trends northeast by southwest and
essentially bisects the subbasin. It has been mapped
further northeast through the Matanuska Valley and
also to the southwest; it probably is continuous with
the Lake Clark and Bruin Bay faults. In the subbasin
lowlands and Talkeetna Mountains the fault plain
dips steeply northward and is nearly vertical.
South of the fault system, the Tertiary sediments in
the subbasin have been deformed into a series of
broad asymmetric folds trending northeast by
southwest. These folds generally plunge southwest,
and fold axes are possible prospects for oil and gas
deposits.
Vegetation Cover (Forestry/Range)
Less than 4 percent of the acreage in the Willow
Subbasin has been cleared for agricultural land or
other uses. About 50 percent of the study area is
wooded, 16 percent consists largely of very poorly
drained muskegs and tidal plains that support low
growing plants, and 22 percent consists of grass and
alder. The grass and alder grow at elevations of
1500 to 2500 feet above sea level and tundra at
higher altitudes. About 4 percent of the area is water
and 4 percent is snow, ice, and rock. The root
systems of most plants and trees are generally
shallow and concentrated in the surface layer of the
soil.
The vegetation in the subbasin varies by location.
The predominant vegetation is a mixed forest of
paper birch and white spruce, although pure stands
of paper birch, white spruce, and aspen occur in
some places . Cottonwood stands are common on
alluvial flood plains and thrive on some uplands.
Above 1000 feet elevations, clear stands of white
spruce are fairly common. Forests of black spruce
dominate muskeg borders with sedges, mosses,
shrubs, and forbs common within the muskegs.
Tidal flats have a cover of grass, sedges, and
associated species. Alluvial stream deposits, tidal
fla t s , and rough mountainous areas are barren .
For purposes of this study, a total of 34 vegetation
cover types were identified and mapped at a scale of
1:63,360 (1 inch = 1 mile). These types were then
consolidated and mapped according to group ings
oriented either toward timber or range production.
Figures 3.9 and 3.10 illustrate existing timber and
range resources. A complete set of these as well as
the original 34 category type maps are available for
3. Resource Base
Physical Factors
the entire Willow Subbasin, and may be obtained at
the SCS office, Anchorage, Alaska.
The vegetation in the area varies by location. The
predominant vegetation is a mixed forest of paper
birch and white spruce, although pure stands of
paper birch, white spruce, ana aspen ao thrive in
places.
29
D<~
~-
I ~
"~-' ~
~~~
I
~-IQ ~-
/
~-,co
,.
M~
~~":>
.. ,
'?-~ ~-
~
-· ~--
~--of'
~ '\ 00
.0
~-:~·'
1'1'
' '
~
~\
'0"'
06'
"'..-
~ ..
'
...
:'\.
~
,-,
~
1-
,
·-s
'"
//\
&.;
/.l ' '
--
S.· ~\
r ' ·~-~-... . ~ ~:
o'\<:> '0 ro' ~ 00
-"...-
\.
~
/
0 0..;
<>'
-o,...
06'
<!_...
( -. ~
)'\ ,t\·
.·A.W"&
: ~ ' -NON-FOREST S '\ -O PEN COTTONWOOD -C L OS ED COTTO N WOOD -O PEN M IXED FO RE ST -C L OS ED M I XED FOR EST
D OP EN BL ACK SPR UC E
~ -lt-f.~~.~fi l C L OS ED BLACK SPRU C E
:~. ~· <:: , .. D ·~-·4 ... / '~ O PEN W HITE SP RU C E
D C L OS ED WHI TE SPRUCE
FIGURE 3.9
FOREST RESOURSES MAP
SUSITNA RIVER BASIN
WILLOW SUBBASIN
ALASKA
J UNE 1982
'o 5 10 M IL ES
SCALE L250 ,000
~· ~}'
~·
<t' ~·
~·
<('-".)
~
~
.
•
.•
'~ M~
~·
<('-'?
~
~
...
. .. . . .
·~ .
-~ ,
. . .
• :; .
,'#
' . . . . . . . ...
. ... .... -
. .
~
<('-\
'0,<>
..
0<5' "/
.
)·.
--.
' •. ..,
'
/.r \
o\'=' '0 .,, ...
00
'"'.--
X-·
<('-\
.. , .
~ .. ,. .
.. !-> .i ..
<?-"'
~ .l~
/
\
0 r;,..,
"''
'0"'
•
:\
---
FIGURE 3.10
0<5'"
/
•
••
.
•
.
..
I
••
: ...
RANGE RESOURCES MAP
SUSITNA RIVER BASIN
WILLOW SUBBASIN
ALASKA
JUNE 1982
I
• •
. I
. •
I
10 MILES ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SCALE "250,000
Socioeconomic Factors
Background, Population, and Growth
Fur trading was the principal enterprise in Alaska
during the period of Russian settlement, 17 41 to
1867. Except for fur trading with the Athabascan In-
-dians, the area was virtually untouched and unex-
plored by "white man" during this period. After the
purchase of Alaska by the United States in 1867,
conditions remained generally stagnant until placer
gold was discovered in the district around Willow
Creek in 1897 and in other areas shortly thereafter.
Although a trading station had been previously
located at Susitna, the first major center of popula-
tion was at Knik where a trading post was established
abouU 900 and a post office in 1905. This village
was a major point of departure for prospectors and
miners. The Knik village continued to be the
transportation and trading center of the region,
reaching a peak population of about 1500 in 1915.
During this early period, a number of homesteads
were established around Knik and along radiating
trails.
With construction of the Alaska Railroad-which
runs from Seward to Fairbanks, bypassing
Knik-starting in 1915, there was a population shift.
Within the region, mining camps and trading
centers grew at Pittman, Houston, Willow, and
Kashwitna. A major village center was also
established at Wasilla.
Homesteading contributed to regional growth in the
early years, however between 1930 and the end of
World War II, the population remained relatively
stable. After the war, favorable veteran's clauses in
the Homestead Act provided a new incentive for
growth with notable expansion taking place along
the Willow-Hatcher Pass Road.
The Homestead Act, however, imposed a 160-acre
limitation for farms and many farmers found this
size to be an uneconomical enterprise unit. As a
result, many continued ownership but opted to seek
employment elsewhere. Those who chose this alter-
native profited in the early 1970's when subdivision
activity increased. This activity continues, boosted
substantially by a statewide referendum calling for a
new Alaska State Capital site at Willow.
The 1976 population for the Willow Subbasin was
estimated at 6, 759 people. More than 40 percent of
this total were concentrated in Big Lake (pop. 721 );
Wasilla (pop.384); and Houston (pop. 166).
Figures for 1981 are not available currently,
however, construction activity within the past 5
years indicates that substantial growth has occur red.
---------
3. Resource Bas-e
Socioeconomic Factors
Growtl:l projections for this study have been made
for two scenarios: (1) with and (2) without the Alaska
state capital move from Juneau to Willow. This was
made necessary because of a recent statewide
referendum indicating the public will not support
bonded funding for a new capital. Table 3.2 displays
population projections for the Willow Basin.
Employment and Work Force
Population, employment, and income for the
Matanuska-Susitna census district are shown in
Table 3.3. This census district coincides with the
Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough and encom-
passes the drainages of the Matanuska and Susitna
Rivers. While most of the district's economic activi-
ty takes place outside the study area, in the vicinity
of Palmer, USDA economists felt that the economic
indicators are valid for the study area as a whole.
Although Anchorage serves as the place of work for
a large number of borough residents-some 24 per-
cent of the work force-employment fluctuations
are much greater locally than in Anchorage. As of
March 1981, the Mat-Su Borough's unemployment
rate was 13.8 percent 1 compared to a rate of 7.5
percent for Anchorage and 10.5 percent statewide.
This is unusual considering the total number of
borough workers employed in typically stable
employment categories, e.g., government; transpor-
tation, communications and utiiities and finance, in-
surance, and reai estate.
One explanation for the unemployment discrepan-
cies is that those on the Borough unemployment
rolls had previously worked in other areas of the
state such as the North Slope or the coastal fishery.
Subsequently, upon job termination they took up
residence in the Mat-Su Valley because of its milder
climate and private land availability. Another ex-
planation offered by some residents is that
unemployment is part of an accepted lifestyle for
many in the area. Many work when they can and
when weather permits. During the so-called off-
season many of the jobless resign themselves to the
fact that no local jobs are availabe and commuting
to Anchorage, where jobs may be availabe, is
untenable during the winter months.
In 1978 2 , the per capita income of $8,803 annually
was_ about 28 percent less than that of nearby An-
chorage and 19 percent less than the state average
of $10,851.
1 This may be understated, particularly in remote
areas, because of Alaska Department of Labor
reporting procedures.
2 Most recent published data.
35
36
3·. Resource Base ·
Socioeconomic Factors
Table 3.2 Population Projections, 1 Willow Subbasin
1976 1985 2000 2025
Existing Without With Without With Without With
Willow-Houston 550 597 7,080 749 43,602 793 69,402
Wasilla 1,566 4,318 6,942 13,119 27,618 15,751 37,720
Big Lake 721 1,526 2,453 4,218 8,880 5,020 12,022
Other 3,922 6,471 10,403 14,633 30,805 17,060 40,855
TOTAL 6,759 12,192 26,878 32,719 110,905 38,624 159,999
SUBBASIN
1 "With" and "Without" refer to new state capital development at Willow.
Table 3.3 Population, Employment, and Income
-Matanuska-Susitna Census Division, by year
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Population (thousand persons) 10.9 13.3 14.2 14.2 18.9 17.8
Employment (persons employed)
Total 2,155 2,405 2,660 3,090 3,206 3,341
Federal government' 130 136 115 103 97 113
State and local government 758 856 904 1,125 1,101 1,212
Transportation communit;ation and utilities 218 243 279 307 316 314
Wholesale and retail trade 315 419 554 588 745 725
Construction 188 208 219 235 184 178
Finance, real estate, insurance 62 82 105 124 129 117
Services 288 288 305 363 433 466
Farm 129 129 129 129 129 117
Other• 67 44 50 116 72 99
Unemployment rate 11.1% 14.3% 14.6% 18.2% 14.6% 15.0%
Income
Total wages($ millions) 30.2 37.1 43.6 51.0 56.7 60.1
Total personal income
($millions) 88.2 115.5 133.1 150.0 167.9
Per capita personal income ($) 8,092 8,664 9,020 8,939 8,878
Ratio of per capita income to U.S. average per
capita income• 0.90 0.88 0.77
• Preliminary
• includes military
3 mining, manufacturing, and miscellaneous
• adjusted for cost of living differential
• not available ·
Source: Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise, Basic Economic Statistics of Alaska Census
Divisions, November 1979. ·
Assuming that workers commuting to Anchorage
are paid on a par with Anchorage residents, it
follows that jobs within the basin pay significantly
less. In 1978, the average wage was $16,505 com-
pared with $19,188 in Anchorage.
General Social Conditions
The residents of the Susitna Basin, like those in
much of Alaska, fall largely into four loosely defined,
indistinct groups. These groups are composed
of individuals who prefer primitive ("bush") living,
community, commercialism, or recreation. Many
persons like to hear the term "rugged individualist"
and maintain a degree of respect for one another's
preferences.
Several hundred people live in the "bush" without
road access. They derive a large portion of their in-
come from subsistence activities (hunting, farming,
trapping, and so forth) supplemented by outside
seasonal employment. They are not enamored of
government and wish to keep "public services and
control to a minumum."3 The services they seek
"must, of necessity, be few and rudimentary,"" for
example, an airstrip, trading post, elementary
school, and post office. These residents live in the
bush because they like it and wish to maintain the
status quo as voiced in public meetings. They disap-
prove of economic development occurring in their
proximity.
3 Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Planning Depart-
ment, Goals Statement, Phase two: Comprehen-
sive Development Plan, Palmer, May 1978. p. 20.
4 Matanuska-Susitna Borough, p. 19.
---·-·---·--~·----·-----·-------
The community oriented tend to gather, though not
closely, and provide consumable goods and services
for themselves, bush people, and the occasional
passer-by. In many instances, they were one time
bush residents to whom a road was constructed;
they, too, may be seasonally employed elsewhere.
The commercially oriented population consists of
individuals who are employed-usually full
time-in commercial or public establishments in
the larger communities. The largest Matanuska-
Susitna community, Palmer, lies outside the study
area but draws many persons from within the area
for employment.
These people wish to avail themselves of goods and
services, such as roads, water, sewer, waste
disposal, educational facilities, and police and fire
protection. This type is interested in local economic
development and population growth to help
minimize per unit cost of social services as well as to
enhance opportunities for personal income growth.
The recreationally oriented types may be permanent
or part-time residents who locate in the area
because of the abundant recreational and aesthetic
amenities. They may be retired, employed locally,
or employed outside the area. Generally in the up-
per income classes, as private landowners they have
distinct ideas about the course of resource develop-
ment in the area.
The path of resource development in the Susitna
River Basin will depend largely on the degree of
resolution among the conflicting goals and objec-
tives of the residents. The information presented in
this study will aid the public, the state, and local
officials in resolving these conflicts.
Transportation
The central portion of the area is well serviced by
the Parks (Anchorage-Fairbanks) Highway and
several secondary roads. From the northwest the
Parks Highway provides the only access to the basin
while to the east the area may be reached via several
secondary roads in addition to the Parks Highway.
Hatcher Pass Road running east and west traverses
the northern portion of the subbasin, however,
because of the rough mountainous terrain and other
construction limitation factors, there are few
tributary roads. To the south most areas remain in-
accessible to all but air transportation as evidenced
by the large numbers of light aircraft landing strips.
A new road has recently been constructed to Point
McKenzie. A potential route selection model
developed for this study to tie several existing key
areas together is presented on Figure 3.11. The
model depicts an approximation of the most cost-
3. Resource Base
Socioeconomic Factors
effective method of providing general access to sub-
basin lands.
Influence of Nearby Urban Centers
Located less than 50 highway miles from the basin,
Anchorage plays a major role in the local economy.
It is estimated that 1, 700 of the subbasin residents
are employed, of which 300 or about 18 percent
work in Anchorage. In addition to being a source of
employment, Anchorage generates a significant de-
mand for Willow area resources. The entire road net-
work is within 2 hours driving time of Alaska's most
populated urban center. This convenience factor
has contributed to the recreational cabin boom in
recent years; as noted by the fact that approximately
55 percent of the Mat-Su Borough tax notices are
mailed to Anchorage addresses.
Recreational vehicles from Anchorage occupy most
of the fishing sites in the subbasin on any given
summer day. A large percentage of the traffic
that passes through the basin has Anchorage as
either its departure point or final destination.
Basin residents also depend on Anchorage for many
of their goods and services. Many local residents
have indicated that, although commet~ial stores are
available nearby, Anchorage's large shopping malls
and supermarkets are frequented by many on a
weekly basis. The primary reasons for this being
that many goods sold in Anchorage are not --
available locally; prices for many items are lower;
and the convenience factors associated with mall
shopping.
Influence of Tourism
In 1977, more than 500,000 people spent nearly 370
million dollars traveling to, from, and within Alaska.
Over 75 percent of those visitors entered the state
partly for pleasure, e.g. sightseeing, camping,
hiking, fishing, and so forth, and 55 percent came
solely for this purpose. The most frequently visited
places in the state by non-residents included
Anchorage (358,300 visitors), Fairbanks (174,000
visitors), and Mt. McKinley National Park (120,200
visitors). A large number of visitors pass through
the Willow Basin en route to special interest areas
such as Mt. McKinley and Fairbanks. A good many
visitors utilize basin recreational resources in their
travels.
Many commercial establishments scattered along
the Parks Highway are geared to the tourist in-
dustry. Gift shops, restaurants, and lodges are com-
mon and sporting equipment is sold at gasoline sta-
tions as well as commercial sporting outlets.
Tourism is a significant factor in the region's
37
3. Resource Base
Socioeconomic Factors
economy at present and has been projected to grow
even more important in years to come. However,
projections made in Alaska during the past five
years have often been no more than "best guesses"
because of a lack of sufficient data. Energy costs are
increasing at a tremendous rate, and as real
disposable income decreases, tourism may decline.
Archeological and Historical Resources
Several sites in the Willow Subbasin have been iden-
tified as having archeological and historical
significance. Detailed descriptions and interpreta-
tions ofsite values may be found in the Report of
Archeological Field Survey in the Willow-Wasilla
Area, 197 8 by Douglas R. Reger, undertaken as
part of this study. A listing of those sites is
presented in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Important Historical or Archeological Sites, Willow Subbasin
38
National Register
Historic Sites
Knik Town Site
Teeland's Country Store
Wasilla Depot
Confirmed Alaska
Heritage Resource
Survey Sites
Cottonwood Creek Vicinity
Knik Lake Locale
Fish Creek Site
Fisher-Hong Site
Big Lake Vicinity
Lake Creek No. 1
Crocker Creek Site
Lake Creek No. 2
Blodgett Lake Site
Kroto
Red Shirt Village
Nancy Lake Site
Tyo 8
Alexander
Tyo 14
Susitna Roadhouse
Fish Creek No. 2
Horseshoe Caches
Deshka River No. 1
Reported Sites With
Unconfirmed Existence
or Location
Memory Lake
Anc 12
Meadow Creek Locality
Fish Creek Crossing
Tyo 9
Tyo 12
Nancy Lake Village
Niklason Lake
Red Shirt Lake Inlet
Cow Lake Village
~· ~I><
'Oo
\
~
"'~·
~· ~':)
,.
M~
~· ~'?
~·
~'
-q,
06' "/
~· ~'
~.~~· / ~\,{~?-~~~ y ~~\0 )~
~
0) ~ruo ~
q)\ ~
/
\
0 ,.<;
~'
'0"'
06'
4,..-
-Optimal
~. ,..~ f v v ~Q~~~~~ ~ ~~ .. ~.
-High
,<o co'i D Moderate ~·
1~
~·
-~
00
~
/,/ \
o,<o '0 co' ~~ 00
-P_...
-Low
-Verylow
~ -Unsuited
......
FIGURE 3.11
ROUTE SELECTION MAP
WILLOW SUBBASIN
ALASKA
JUNE 1982
SCA LE 1'250,000
I
I
I 1
i
l
10 MILES
4. Present and Future
Conditions under Existing ·
Programs
4. Present and
Future Conditions
under Existing
Programs
Background
The Principles and Standards for Planning include a
J!lajor requirement to "evaluate resource
capabilities and expected conditions without any
plan." This involves an appraisal of future economic
and environmental conditions expected without a
plan, so that these conditions may be compared
with those desired for the planning area .
For a selected future date, projections are made
which reflect the inventory and capabilities of the
natural resources, the trends which are likely to con·
tinue into the future, and the effects of any authorized
public projects which may alter conditions in the
region . The "without-plan" portion of the title im-
plies that the future conditions are t o be projected
without consideraton of any projects which may be
in planning stages. This restraint makes it possible
to project future conditions which could be ex-
pected in the absence of any new programs or pro-
jects.
Resource Conditions
Relative to most areas in the Uni'ted States, the
resources of the Willow Subbasin are virtually
undeveloped, a situation that is rapidly changing. At
present only 9.8 percent of the land area is not in its
natural state as illustrated in Figure 4.1 . The
development that has occurred, however, has often
been poorly planned; examples include homes con-
structed in flood plains and on poorly drained soils,
septic tanks found in and adjacent to wetlands, and
disturbed areas devoid of vegetation making them
subject to erosion. This is expected to be the
"future-without-project" condition.
Given present development patterns and trends,
problems are likely to increase. A projected popula-
tion growth of over twentyfold by 2025 has the
potential of destroying many current basin
amenities unless steps are taken to in sure proper
use of the resources . In this regard the Susitna
Cooperative River Basin Study conducted a suit-
ability/capability analysis, a procedure whereby the
entire basin was subdivided into land units
(polygons) two acres or greater in size. The size and
shape of each polygon was determined from several
hundred resource properties or bits of information
distinguishing each individual polygon from all
others. Once the polygons and their attributes had
been identified, criteria were developed for various
land uses. The land use criteria were then matched
to polygon information to determine the capability
and suitability of each land unit for each selected
use.
The following sections discuss, in more detail, pre-
sent and future conditions for each resource con-
cern and, where applicable, display suitability/
capability information developed for this study.
Agricultural Land
Agriculture occupies a minor role among the land
use types in the Willow Subbasin, even though it is
adjacent to Alaska's traditional "breadbasket," the
Matanuska Valley . Historically , crop production was
not established to any degree in the subbasin
because of remoteness, insufficient supply and
market infrastructure, lack of availability of private-
ly owned land, clearing difficulties, and the overall
malaise of Alaskan agriculture. A small amount of
land (0.8 pecent) in the subbasin has been cleared
over the years, but little is presently utilized in
agriculture. Most of the remainder has grown to
brush. (Table 4.1)
Within the decade a new factor has come to
dominate the region's landscape. The impediments
to agricultural development listed above have been
compounded by competition for home and recrea-
tion sites. Coincidental with the North Slope oil
boom, land in the area which was priced at $70 per
acre in the mid 1960's was selling in excess of
$7,500 per acre in the mid 1970's.5 Given this
return to land for urban purposes it is impossible for
agriculture to be competitive.
University of Alaska Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion, Mat-Su Valley.
5 Matanuska-Susitna Borough , Planning Depart-
ment, Comprehensive Development Plan
Background Report, April1978, p. 108.
41
4. Existing Programs
Agricultural Land
Table 4.1 Land Cleared and Presently
In Agricultural Use by Watershed,
Will~w Subbuln .
Land In use, Land not In Total land
1979 use cleared
Drainage (acres) (acres) (acres)
Cottonwood
Creek 399 314 713
Fish Creek 429 3,010 3,439
Goose Creek 730 730
Little Susitna 1,159 1,214 2,373
Willow Creek 6 469 475
Little Willow
Creek 149 149
Other 218 218
TOTAL 1,993 6,104 8,097
Source: Allen D. Koester, District Conservationist, SCS, Palmer
Alaska
While gardening and other subsistence type ac-
tivities may flourish as the population expands away
from metropolitan Anchorage, past trends of settle-
ment and development indicate that commercial
agriculture may take second place to competing
uses. In light of the state's current agricultural land
policy however, past trends do not appear likely to
continue.
The state expects to have 250,000 additional acres
in agricultural production by 1983 and a total of
about 500,000 acres of agricultural land in produc-
tion by 1990. Alaska's dedication to agricultural
land disposals is evidenced by a legislative decree
mandating that 650,000 acres qe set aside for farm-
ing. Outside the subbasin, 65,000 acres are in the
process of being developed for grain farming in the
Delta Juction and Tanana loop areas, and The Two
Rivers agricultural disposal, scheduled to take place
in 1981, is estimated to involve 10,000 acres. The
15,000 acre Point McKenzie Dairy project, located
in the southwestern portion of the subbasin was
disposed of on March 6, 1981 (subject to litigation
at this writing). There are nearly 40,000 acres in
total which have potential for being developed in
this area.
Cost/return information developed for this study in-
dicates that agriculture is viable in certain areas
under specific conditions as explained below.
Figures 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 show various combina-
tions of production and prices received necessary
for feasibility according to farm size. These curves
are based on 1979 farm input prices and will shift
upward as costs of production increase.
The important farmlands model, Figure 4.6, rates
land in six categories. Table 4.2 presents what these
ratings mean in ferms of output under improved
management6 conditions. This table, when used in
42
~~ ~--~ --~ ~ -·--·~·~~~----~··-----·---~
conjunction with the break-even curves and model
output, identifies feasibility for the crops analyzed.
It is emphasized that the six groups shown are
average ratings only and represent the overall
potential of the land in terms of grain, hay, and
potato production. Because of the particular in-
terest expressed by agricultural concerns in dairy
potential, a separate model (Figure 4. 7) depicting
potential grazing lands has been developed. Ratings
shown on the potential grazing map are converted
to animal unit months per acre as illustrated on
Table 4.3. Both the important farmlands model and
grazing model are based upon soils variables in-
cluding pH, texture, moisture holding capacity,
organic content, and so forth, as well as topography.
Future agricultural development in the subbasin 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 Seat-
tle, Washington price plus transportation to Alaska
markets. This price remains in effect up to the 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 transportation to Alaska
markets. For the products analyzed in this study, i.e.
barley, oats, potatoes, and brome, feasibility does
not exist at the latter price for yields which can
reasonably be expected in the Susitn_a_Basin. In
many cases, however, feasfbHity 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.
6 The following practices and conditions are in-
cluded under improved management: (1) fer-
tilizer is applied at maximum rates determined
from periodic soil tests, and adequate fertility is
maintained for optimum plant growth; (2) barn-
yard manure, crop residue, and grass crops are
used intensively, and sufficient organic matter is
maintained for the most efficient use of moisture
and plant nutrients; (3) con~ervation practices are
applied to the fullest extent to prevent wind and
water erosion; (4) weeds and harmful insects are
controlled on crops as well as pastures; (5) cut-
ting and grazing for forage is carefully managed
to maintain vigorous stands; (6) if necessary, lime
is applied at rates required to bring the soil reac-
tion within the range that is most desirable for op-
timum plant growth.
~--·--~--~~·--------~---· -----·-~---~---··-----~~·---~-~---
~
<(1-.D<
~-
'(..~-
~<(!..~
I
,.
·~
~<(!..~
~
<(!..'
''1:>
o!S' ......
...
X,·
<(!..\
•
'
/
\
0 ,..;
~'
'O,o
o!S'
.......
. ' . . . , ,,... ~ . . . , '" # • , . . ' ~ -~. ~
: .. .
'· .... "'
,, .
' . -· .. . . . .. . . ( .. . . . .
" .. , . .. . .. ... ./ -..
.. . .
, ~L
' .
.
.
~ ·.
/,/ \
0,<:> -~,.,
"'' 0 o,.,,..
.
• & • -
' , , ... -.. ......
FIGURE 4 .1
LAND USE
WILLOW SUBBASIN
ALASKA
JUNE 1982
5 0 5 10 MILES
SCA Lf U50,000
Ill
""' .!
0 ,
Figure4.2
Barley Prices Required to "Break Even"1 at Various Yields, Willow Subbasin
6.00
5.00
4.00
(3.41)
3.00
(2.34)
2.00
Map Rating
F E D c 8 A
----··-··
200 acre farm
480 acre farm
640 acre farm
----~ -Alaska Price2
I
---+-----l------+--+---=-.iiillllr::-P-..,-=:::1----Export Price3
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
yield/acre (bushels)
53.9 bu./acre is break even point on 200 acre farm (domestic) ~
38.7 bu./acre is break even point on 480 acre farm (domestic)
36.1 bu./acre is break even point on 600 acre farm (domestic)
78.6 bu./acre is break even point on 200 acre farm (export)
56.5 bu./acre is break even point on 480 acre farm (export)
52.6 bu./acre is break even point on 600 acre farm (export)
1 Exclusive of payments to land, overhead, risk, and management. Curves are based on 1979 prices paid by farmers.
2 Derived from weighted average of prices received by farmers from 1976 through 1979.
3 Represents Seattle, Washington normalized price for 1979.
45
6.00
5.00
"' ..
.!
0 4.00 "0
3.00
(2.66)
2.00
46
Figure4.3
Oat Prices Required to "Break Even"1 at Various Yields, Willow Subbasin
F
30
Map Rating
E D c B
200 acre farm
1
.,.,_ --480acrefarm I
-• • -· • 640 acre farm
A
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
yield/acre (bushels)
69.1 bu./acre is break even point on 200 acre farm.
49.7 bu./acre is break even point on 480 acre farm.
46.3 bu./acre is break even point on 640 acre farm.
1 Exclusive of payments to land, overhead, risk, and management.
2 Derived from weighted average of prices received by farmers from 1976 through 1979.
Alaska Price2
Ill ..
.!
0 .,
Figure4.4
Hay Prices Required to "Break Even"1 at Various Yields, Willow Subbasin
Map Rating
F E D c B A
150.00
(130.26)------~--t AlaskaPdce'
200 acre farm
---480 acre farm
120.00
90.00
60.00
I !
-• • -• • 640 acre farm
:::...--•• --··--30.00~----------~~----------~------------~------~----~---
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
yield/acre (tons)
1.28 tons/acre is break even point on 200 acre farm.
1.09 tons/acre is break even point on 480 acre farm.
1.04 tons/acre is break even point on 640 acre farm.
' Exclusive of payments to land, overhead, risk, and management.
3.5
2 Derived from weighted average of prices received by farmers from 1976 through 1979.
47
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
48
Figure4.5
Potato Prices Required to "Break Even"1 at Various Yields, Willow Subbasin
120
Map Rating
I ---1 -··-··
170 220
yield/acre (cwt.)
41.6 cwt./acre is break even point on 200 acre farm.
37.3 cwt./acre is break even point on 480 acre farm.
36.1 cwt./acre is break even point on 640 acre farm.
200 acre farm
I
480 acre farm
I
640 acre farm
270
1 Exclusive of payments to land, overhead, risk, and management.
2 Present Alaska price is $11.61/cwt. Derived from weighted average
of prices received by farmers from 1976 through 1979.
~~IX
'\-
'~-~-
~~"_)
,.
M~
'?~
~
\~
~-
-~
0<5' "'/
~
s ~\
...
~-
~
Q:-
/
0 o.c;
"''
<0"'
0<5'
"'...-
'o~ /'II: W:lR~l:At 1 .)J;l ~,~)~ )'.,) ~~~,.o~ ~ \ • ~ ~ <I ~ ·'" • ~ (J .._ ' ~
-CLASSA
\~ ~ <' • :~~~~~,.~~~~v , q ~A,.Ll.~~.~~} -CLASSB
-CLASSC
~ ·u .... ~-~M •• ! • ~~ 4 . ".('
~1 00 '~ ; \) ,(\
/,/\
o'<:J '0,..
"'' "o 0-P/
~
.......
-."'\.11!~\_ -~
'0 0
00
,p/
-CLASSD
-CLASSE
D CLASSF
D WATERBODY
FIGURE4.6
IMPORTANT FARMLAND MAP
SUSITNA RIVER BASIN
WILLOW SUBBASIN
ALASKA
JUNE 1982
SCALE "250 ,000
10 MILES
~·
<(\.()<
~
'I.-' ~
~· <(\.~
,.
~~
~· <(\.'~;)
~·
<(\.\.
-ca-.
0(5'
"'/
_// \
o\<o '0
<O' ~'"' 00
~/
U.S . DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE USD A scs PORTlA N D OR'"'
X-·
<(\.\.
'0
0
00
~/
FIGURE 4.7
/
o~><~
"''
-o...,
0(5'
6_...
IMPORTANT GRAZING LANDS
WILLOW SUBBASIN
ALASKA
FEBRUARY 1982
10 Mllfl ~~~~~~~~~~~~
SCALE I 750.000
7-N-24192
Table 4.2 Average Yield
(Improved Management),
Willow Subbasin
Grains Hay&SIIage
Map (Bu./Acre) (Tons/Acre) Potatoes
Rating Barley Oats Brome Oats& (Cwt./acre)
Hay Peas
(2 cuttings) for Silage
A 60 70 3.5 12.0 270
8 55 65 3.25 11.5 250
c 45 50 3.0 11.0 240
D 40 40 2.50 9.0 230
E 30 35 2.0 8.0 180
F 25 30 1.5 7.0 120
Table 4.3 Capability of Grazing Model Rating
Categories in Animal Unit Months,
Willow Subbasin
Grazing Model Rating
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Animal Unit Months1
(per acre)>
6·7
5·6
3-5
less than 3
1 An animal unit (AU) is generally one mature cow of approx-
imately 1,000 pounds and a calf as oid as 6 months, or their
equivalent. An animal unit month (AUM) is the amount of
forage required by an animal unit for one month.
2 Three month grazing period.
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 discussion 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
than 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 Seattle to the Orient exceeds the
distance from the lower Basin to the Orient.
Whether or not Alaska's mileage advantage can off-
seF 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 literally every pro-
4. ExistingPrograms
Agricultural Land
duct which economically could be grown and pro-
cessed locally. Some of the underlying reasons for
this anomally include:
l.lnability of farmers to market products locally as
a result of limited production.-Alaska's short
growing season requires that local grocery
distributors buy local produce for resale for only
about 3 months, and import during the remainder of
the year unless freezing and storage facilities are '
available. In the absence of these facilities,
distributors must switch sources of supply; this is in-
convenient and is disruptive of normal wholesale
supply channels.
2. Lack of farmer experience.-Agricultural experts
generally agree that management is one of the most
important factors in determining agricultural
feasibility. The state has provided an excellent in-
centive for residents to obtain agricultural land
rights through their disposal program. The program
offers a 5 percent discount for each year of res-
idency up to a total of 50 percent. It is doubtful that
experienced farmers with necessary management
capabilities will be attracted to the state unless in-
centives are also provided for these nonresidents.
3. Lack of processing facilities.-For certain enter-
prises, such as beef, dairy, and pork operations, pro-
cessing plants are required. Economies of size and
scale for these plants are such that several farms are
often necessary to support one plant. To be feasible
in the short run several beef and hog enterprises
would have to come on line simultaneously. This is
not likely without short term subsidies. As an exam-
ple, machines used for milk packing in the Seattle,
Washington area can process milk at two to three
times the speed and at a much lower per unit cost
than machinery currently used in Alaska. Alaskan
firms cannot justify the cost of this machinery
because total sales volume is not sufficient. A
relatively small population simply prohibits some
Alaskan firms from taking advantage of
technologies which otherwise would make them
competitive with contiguous U.S. firms.
7 Quality is an important consideration-the
discussion assumes grain quality in Alaska is
equal to that shipped from the contiguous U.S. to
the Orient. Recent tests have shown Alaska barley
is of sufficient quality to meet the needs expressed
by Japan and generally of superior quality to
that produced in the contiguous U.S. At this time
however Japan does not appear willing to pay a
premium price for Alaska's higher protein barley.
53
--------~~~-----··-·-----·--·------·~~--~~----·--~---·
54
4. Existing Programs
Timber Land
4 . Competition from other land uses.-Lack of
private land in relation to population has placed
heavy demands on this land for urban uses. This de-
mand has driven land values to a point where
returns on urban land investments far exceed
returns from agriculture on the same acreages. It
should be noted that the state's current policy of
selling only agricultural rights in certain areas effec-
tive ly prohibits competition from other uses.
While each of these areas merit individual study, it
must be emphasized that agricultural development
in Alaska must depend on continued public support.
The rationale for government support of an industry
must stem from a concept of benefits received, that
is, in the case of agriculture , will income increase
and/or food prices decrease by amounts commen-
surate with the public subsidies?
Timber land
Past utilization of the timber resources in the Willow
Subbasin has been light and sporadic . Logs for
cabins and pit props for the mining activities of the
early 1900's were the first noted uses for commer-
cial purposes. A peak probably was attained in
1915-20 during the construction and early opera-
tion of the Alaska Railroad.
Small sawmills have operated at various times over
the years. One of the first recorded was at Eklutna in
1916. Similar operations have continued
throughout the years with 14 sawmills now located
in Palmer-Wasilla-Willow area . These sawmills are
all small units which have a rated capacity of pro-
With the energy p r oblem facing t he Nation,
firewood is becomi ng a major use of the timber
ducing between 2-7 MBF 8 per day. Based upon 250
working days per year (normal working years for a
sawmill) the sawmills could conceivably produce
12.5 MMBF 9 per year for both local and regional
markets .
Because of a restricted market and limited sales of
standing timber, the total annual production of all
the mills in 1979 was 1.1 MMBF, less than 9 percent
of their capacity. The production was mostly for
private and local use with a small amount going for
regional consumption. More than half of the volume
cut was cottonwood which was sawed into dimen-
sional lumber. The main use of white spruce, the
other major species used, was for manufactured
house logs.
Just over half of the logs for the mills came from
outside the Willow Subbasin in 1979. Timber
originating in the subbasin came mostly from
private land as the result of clearing projects. The
breakdown of log sources is as follows:
0.10 MMBF from Canada
0.28 MMBF from Borough land near Talkeetna
0.18 MMBF from State land on the Kenai
Peninsula
0.24 MMBF from Private land in the subbasin
0.30 MMBF from other sources
1.10 MMBFTOTAL
8 One thousand board feet.
9 One million board feet.
resource in the subbasin both on a commercial and
private use basis.
With the energy problem facing the Nation,
firewood is becoming a major use of the timber
resource in the subbasin both on a commercial and
private use basis. The exact amount of wood being
cut is unknown because of the availability of private
land where no records are kept on cutting activities.
The State issued 266 firewood permits from
November 1979 to March 1980 representing a total
of 915 cords. The borough has not issued any
firewood permits on their land, although they are
looking into suitable sites for firewood cutting.
Table 4.4 displays present and future demand for
sawtimber and fuelwood from both the Willow Sub-
basin and other areas within the Cook Inlet area.
Figure 3.9 illustrates the forest land resources of the
study area.
Table 4A Projected Timber Demand,
Willow Subbasin
Demand From
Product
Sawtimber
(MMBF)
Fuelwood
(cords)I
Willow Subbasin
Year 2000
Present Without New
Capital Site
2.8 13.8
720 3,500
Other Cook lnl~t Area
Year 2000
Present Without New
Capital Site
85.2 164.9
21,600 41,840
1 Standard cord is 4' x 4' x 8' and contains 80 cu. ft. of solid
wood with a mositure content of approximately 20%.
Assumes average cord produces approximately 16 million
B.T.U.'s. This is equivalent to approximately 120 gallons of
fuel oil.
Settlement Land
Settlement in the Willow Subba!)in can be described
as sparse, sporadic, and ungoverned. Wasilla, the
major community, is characterized by commercial
strip development along the Parks Highway, the old
Palmer-Wasilla Highway, Fishhook Road, and Knik
Road. Primary and secondary residences are located
on generally large (1-5 acre) lots along roads and in
clusters around lakes. Most of the population is con-
centrated in the eastern portion of the area. As yet,
no central water and sewer systems exist in the sub-
basin although these services are in the develop-
ment stage in Wasilla, just recently incorporated.
In 1976 there were 2,180 primary residences in the
study area with an average of 3.1 persons per
household. On lots ranging in size from less than an
acre to more than 40 acres, the 2,180 residences oc-
4. Existing Programs
Settlemen.t Lana
cupied 7,266 acres of land in 1976. In accordance
with the projected population shown in Table 3.2, it
was estimated that by 2000, 18 thousand acres of
additional land will be required for residential
development in the "without capital" case and 55
thousand additional acres in the "with capital" case
(Table 4.5).
There were 1 ,333 recreational or "second" dwell-
ings in the subbasin in 1980. It was estimated that
456 acres will be diverted to this type of use by 1985
and 1,090 additional acres by 2000 (Table 4.5).
For land devoted to commercial use, it is estimated
that by 2000, 145 acres will be required in the
"without" case and 723 in the "with" case (Table 4.5).
Land sites capable of supporting residential, recrea-
tional, and commercial uses were identified in the
computerized capability analysis discussed earlier.
Five different settlement "models" were developed
using soils data and spatial criteria. The five settle-
ment models included commercial/light industrial,
remote subdivision, large lot residential,
moderate/high density residential, and low density
remote residential land use types. The resulting
maps are shown in Figures 4.8 through 4.12.
Table 4.5 Projected Settlement
Land Requirements, 1980-85 and 1980-2000,
Willow Subbasin
Projected Land Requirements
1980-85 1980-2000
without• with• without• with•
-·································· acres --------·------------------········
Primary
residences 3,648 16,295 17,458 53,098
Secondary
residences 486 1,576 486 1,576
Commercial
property 34 144 145 723
TOTAL 4,168 18,015 18,089 55,397
1 Projections made pending proposed capital move (Table 3.2).
Source: data compiled by Land and Resource Planning Section,
Division of Research and Development, Alaska Department of
Natural Resources.
55
-------------------
~· ~De
\
"· \ '1.-~.
~· ~~
'~ M-..
~· ~"'
\~
~·
-o.,
o<l'
~
~
\<(_,.
~·
<(--
~
/
\ -o..,
0 !)..;
oo'
o<l'
~
~· / '19:~ < ~ ~ ~-\sW ~' v ~) ) )) ~~~jo o)j «-
' .· ; ~ ~ '· ) I ~<o ) v. -~ -.. ··'" . \~
'\)
/
~ "· ,co
~· "\I I ' -I ,; / .
~· -~ } ~
~"'\ 00 ~· "'\ ")
-... -' n•-... •• ,.-' -•' • ·--""' '. -' . . -. --. . . ,,_
co'i f vv
J )
';[ 0 0' ~ ~t·· iol•' or .l's \i _9'{<#\ 0 ;-n 'v · 0 qo ~ ~/)
-r-.. n.. -~e(\ \)
D High
J C) \)0
"i::J
<J \ ~
""' "'
()
..
~ .
-:>
~
0 -:..
r
\_
u)
...: (
/,/ \
o\<:> '0,
ro' "o
0-s:'/
D Moderate
a lJ cs
D ~ {) n D Low
-. .
\
t9'
fr ,_, D Very low e~ 0 G01 ~e ~ \P n -
\.,.' D ole oe ~ oscs'~'~;~
~o'
"o J~ olc?o~
f (
~
a
FIGURE .4.8
CAPABILITY FOR
COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDU STRIAL
WILLOW SUBBASIN
ALASKA
JUNE 1982
SCA LE 1·250 ,000
---
• , .
10 M I LES
>o' " <;.0 0
/'
"' ;:: a; -'? (;;
>-.c u ;:: (;; Ol 0 0 I 2 _J >
1 1 0 1
.o
" ~
" " 0
::E
DOD 0
.....
0 .....
w
C)l-
o::Z
<(w
.... ::e co..
wO
V) ....
V)w w> uw uc
<( .....
Ill::<(
0
LL
..... z
>-cw ..... --_.V)
cow
<(Ill::
0..
<(
u
z
N
00
~
>-"" <{
::J
"" "' ~
~ w
~
~
s
§
~
~
" ~
(\J
0')
;~
(\J
I 2:'
i ,.._
.
~·
w
~. > "'' w · en ,
Z l gr
~I
0::' ~I 81
=· 0 ' w
W ·
~: .....
::>' u ' a:! "' <I
lS '
>-' z l ~I
Sl ~I
~·
«-D<
~· "'\ ~
'Oo
~· «-~
~· «-<a
"\~ «-
'\
'~ M:..l
~· «-~
,<o
0
~· «-\
-o.,
0()'
"/
/,/\
o'<, '0 ro' ~"' 00 ,.,/
X, «--\
~
~
~
/
\
0 0..:,
"'
'O,o
0()'
"':.-
-High
D Moderate
~ -
D Low
-Verylow
'0 0
00 ,.,/
FIGURE 4 .11
CAPABILITY FOR MODERATE/HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WILLOW SUBBASIN
ALASKA
JUNE 1982
.0 5 10 MILES
SCALE 1·250,000
;
.,.,
0 'i.o 0
/'
Q) -;;;
Q;
u
0
::2
3:
0
--'
3:
0
>-Q;
>
01 1 8
N 0
co ~ ~
lJ.J z .. :::> s; ....,
----------------------------------------------
Flooding
There is little information available concerning
flooding within the subbasin other than newspaper
accounts and interviews, however, the SCS
estimated that there are approximately 44,000 acres
of land within the 1 00-year flood plain . Damaging
floods occurred within the subbasin in 1938, 1942,
1955,1959,1964,1969,1971, 1975,and 1979.
Historically, there has not been a lot of flooding
damage. This can be attributed primarily to the low
population (less than four persons per square mile),
the lack of available private land for development ,
and the lack of pressure for development within the·
area.
The following flood damage information was iden·
tified from historical records:
1. In 1938, an ice jam caused overtopping of the
railroad on Willow Creek.
2. In 1955, the railroad at Willow Creek was dam-
aged by a flood resulting from heavy ra infall.
3. In 1959, portions of Fishhook Road were washed
out by Wasilla Creek.
4. In 1964, Willow Creek flooded as a result of an ice
jam.
4. Existing Programs
Flooding
5 . In 1971, the Alaska Railroad bed at Houston was
undermined causing derailment of 13 cars . The
bridge crossing the Little Susitna River was washed
out closing a section of the Hatcher Pass Road.
Damage also occurred to residences.
6. In 1975, ice, log jams, and glaciation caused
flooding on Willow Creek. Five homes were flooded
near Hatcher Pass Road .
7. In 1979, flooding similar to 1975 occurred with
more homes being damaged.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has completed
an Expanded Flood Plain Information Study for
Willow, Alaska. The Corps has identified existing
average annual damage for Willow Creek as
$625,700 with damages for the 1 percent chance
storm (commonly called the 1 00-year flood)
estimated at $1,233,100. They have projected
potential future possible damages with no con-
straints on development in excess of 4 million
dollars. It is expected that the National Flood In-
surance Program (NFIP) and the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough Flood Plain Management Ordinance will
curtail most of the future development in flood
plains. However, it should be noted that develop-
ment in the watersheds may cause increased runoff
There are approximately 44,000 acres of land within the 1 OO·year flood plain.
67
68
4. Existing Progi"ams
Erosion and Sediment
resulting in larger flood peaks and increased
damages even if no more development were to oc-
cur in the flood plain.
The other subbasin flood plains experience minor
damage except for the road and railroad on the Lit-
tle Susitna River. Both the State of Alaska and the
borough have accepted the provisions set forth in
the NFIP. The NFIP was established under the Na-
tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Federal
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, the latter of which
requires essentially compulsory participation
through two provisions. The first, Section 102.(a),
requires that all federally funded construction in
flood hazard areas be insured while the second,
Section 102.(b), forbids all federally supervised,
approved, regulated or insured banking Institutions
from providing mortgae loans on flood hazard area
properties, unless flood insurance is acquired for
that property.
With participation being essentially compulsory,
comes the land use management provisions which
must be adopted by each community. These provi-
sions require communities to:
1. Insure that all new construction is designed to
minimize flood loss.
2. Require all new construction or substantial im-
provements to have the first floor (including base-
ment) at or above the 100-year flood level and all
utilities be flood-proofed.
The NFIP, however, is expected to do little in reduc-
ing future highway and railroad damages. Transpor-
tation networks are often found in and adjacent to
flood plain lands due to construction cost considera-
tions. Even when flood damages are added to con-
struction and operation and maintenance costs, it is
still usually less expensive to build on flat flood .
plains than on upland terrain.
Erosion and Sediment
Soil erosion results from the action of moving
water, wind, gravity, frost, or a combination of these
forces on the land. The main concerns in the region
are wind and water activated erosion and their by-
products, dust and sediment. In addition, natural or
geologic erosion should be differentiated from ac-
celerated (or manmade) erosion.
"Natural or geologic erosion is a continuing pro-
cess and will go on into the future regardless of
anything man can do. Quickening of the pace of
erosion, owing to changes wrought by man, has
produced definitely abnormal conditions. Ac-
celerated erosion, an abnormal and undesirable
process, was started by man's activities and is
subject to his controJ."Io
Sheet, rill, gully, stream and roadbank erosion oc-
cur in the region; but, in general, the erosion rate is
low compared to most other areas of the United
States.
Soil erosion has not yet become a widespread prob-
lem in the Willow Subbasin because of the following:
1. Generally the land is covered with dense vegeta-
tion.
2. Most development has been in scattered, relative-
ly small areas on nearly levelland.II
3. Most of the disturbed soil has a residue of organic
matter which stabilizes the soil against both wind
and water erosion.
4. Most rainfall is gentle, resulting in minimal
runoff.
Turbidity in the streams results from glacial melt or
natural erosion. Currently, accelerated erosion is a
minor factor in stream sedimentation within the
study area, compared to the total stream sediment
load in the basin from natural factors. However, with
topsoil quite shallow in many areas, erosion could
turn a high potential farming operation into a failure
within a few years, even though resulting sedimenta-
tion may not create a significant off-site problem.
See Figure 4.13 for soil erosion potential.
Seasonal winds in the spring carry large amounts of
airborne dust particles through the study area. This
dust originates from the outwash plains of the
Matanuska and Knik Rivers lying to the east of the
Willow Subbasin. While the dust is a nuisance it
does not represent a significant problem which is
just as well since field trials by the SCS to stabilize
the outwashes have been unsuccessful.
10 North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Coor-
dinating Committee, North Atlantic Regional
Water Resources Study, Appendix Q, Erosion
and Sedimentation, May 1972, p. Q-3.
11 Less than 10 percent of the subbasin's total land
area has been disturbed.
).
~·
~I)<
'Oo
-<_.
"'~·
~· ~'J
~~(o
'\~
~
'~ M~
~· ~";)
-<-,co
~·
~·
~\
-o.,
o(j'
"'/
/,/\
o\<;, '0
tO' or:"' 00
.P_...
'{,.· ~\
~
~
~
/
\
0 0..;
'<>'-
'0"'
o6'
"',..
-0-6 TONS /ACRE/YEAR
-7-13 TONS/ACRE /YEAR
-14-27 TON S/ACRE /YEAR
-28-41 TO N S/ACR E/YEAR
~
D Over 41 T ONS/ACRE /YEAR
........
'0
0
00
.P_...
FIGURE4.13
SOIL EROSION POTENTIAL
SUSITNA RIVER BASIN
WILLOW SUBBASIN
ALASKA
JUNE 1982
SCA LE U50.000
10 MILES
Recreation
Recreation sites are currently the most highly uti-
l!:?ed of the basin's resources. Tables 4.6 and 4. 7 il-
lustrate the present demand and user day values for
eight popular recreational activities in the area by
location of demand origin. Table 4.8, a composite of
the first two tables, presents the existing total value
of the recreation resource for the selected activities.
Since only eight activities and four demand loca-
tions were analyzed, the total recreation value of
over 2. 7 million dollars is very conservative and at
best represents only the minimum annual worth of
the subbasin's recreation resources.
More importantly, this value will increase as
Alaska's population grows. If transportation costs
relative to disposable income were to remain con-
stant through the year 2025, recreation value would
increase directly with growth. With the current
energy shortage facing our state and nation
however, this is not likely to be the case. It is the
opinion of many recreation planners that use will
decline as costs increase, but the percentage use
decline will be less than the percentage cost in-
crease. Economists commonly refer to this demand
situation as "inelastic." The most conservative
population projections for the areas of recreational
use by point of origin are found in the preceding
tables. These indicate that overall demand for
recreation in the subbasin will increase substantially
by the year 2000. Table 4.9 presents these projected
user-day demand figures.
4. Existing Programs
Recreation
Table 4. 7 User-Day Values• (Dollars),
Willow Subbasin
User Origin
Within
Willi ow Outside
Activity Subbasin Anchorage Fairbanks Alaska
Freshwater fishing 1.95 6.80 28.17 68.13
Developed camping 1.59 5.55 22.99 87.85
Hiking 1.20 4.18 17.32 64.21
Picnicking/
sightseeing 1.20 4.18 17.32 63.00
Waterfowl hunting 2.39 8.35 34.60 74.31
Big game hunting 3.13 10.95 45.37 347.09
Canoeing 3.13 10.95 45.37 76.94
Cross-country
skiing 1.49 5.20 21.54 67.12
1 Values "within Alaska" were calculated using the Travel Cost Method
while values "outside Alaska'' were derived using the same method,
but adding special fees, i.e., rentals, game tags, etc.
Table 4.6 Existing User-Day1 Demand, Willow Subbasin
User Origin
Within
Activity Willow Outside Grand
Subbasin Anchorage Fairbanks Total Alaska Total
Freshwater 21,975 23,506 3,967 49,448 4,152 53,600
fishing
Developed 2,068 1,343 3,899 7,310 4,479 11,789
camping
Hiking 8,668 9,758 2,128 20,554 469 21,023
Picnicking/ 29,544 58,786 4,795 93,125 10,821 103,946
sightseeing
Waterfowl 2,535 1,975 533 5,043 126 5,169
hunting
Big game 5,343 7,501 2,211 15,055 376 15,431
hunting
Canoeing 1,500 2,054 533 4,087 93 4,180
Cross-country 3,123 1,659 4,782 109 4,891
skiing
TOTAL 74,756 106,582 18,066 199,404 20,625 220,029
I Participation by one person in an activity during part or all of any one day. Per capita use figures used in calculating demand were taken from the 1970
State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.
71
Table 4.8 Existing Annual Recreation Resource Values, Willow Subbasin
Dollar Value to Residents From:
Within
Activity Willow Outside Grand
Subbasin Anchorage Fairbanks Alaska Total
Freshwater 42,850 159,840 111,750 282,880 597,320
fishing
Developed 3,290 7,450 89,640 393,480 493,860
camping
Hiking 10,400 40,790 36,860 30,110 118,160
Picnicking/ 35,450 245,730 83,050 681,720 1,045,950
sightseeing
Waterfowl 6,060 16,490 18,440 9,360 50,350
hunting
Big game 16,720 82,140 100,310 130,510 329,680
hunting
Canoeing 4,700 22,490 24,180 7,160 58,530
Cross.country 4,650 8,630 7,320 20,600
skiing
TOTAL 124,120 583,560 464,230 1,542,540 2,714,450
Table 4.9 Year 2000 User Day 1 Demand (without new Capital Site), Willow Subbasin
User Origin
Within
Activity Willow Alaska Outside Grand
Subbasin Anchorage Fairbanks Total Alaska Total
Freshwater 106,359 49,598 8,291 164,248 5,107 169,355
fishing
Developed 10,009 2,833 8,149 20,991 5,509 26,500
camping
Hiking 41,953 20,589 4,448 66,990 577 67,567
Picnicking/ 142,993 124,038 10,022 277,053 13,310 290,363
sightseeing
Waterfowl 12,269. 4,167 1,114 17,!)50 155 17,705
hunting
Big game 25,860 15,827 4,621 46,308 462 46,770
hunting
Canoeing 7,260 4,334 1,114 12,708 114 12,822
Cross-country 15,115 3,500 18,615 134 18,749
skiing
·TOTAL 361,818 224,886 37,759 624,463 25,368 649,831
' Participation by one person in an activity during part or all of any one day.
72
F ish a n d Wildlife
Assessm ent o f e xi s ti ng and futu re fish and wildlife
resources in the area cons idered three integrated
factors: 1) existi n g fish and wildlife populations
(e.g ., species divers ity, abundance, and
dist ribution); 2 ) h ab it at conditions which support
e x isting fi sh a n d wil d life populations and provide
the basis for thei r cont inuation and enhancement ;
and 3) value of present and potentia l fish and
wild li fe resources to current and future human
users.
1. Fish and Wildlife Populations.
The abundance, variety , and distribution of fish and
wildlife species in an area is largely a product of
previous and existing physical conditions such as
vegetation, soils , topography, climate , water
availability , etc., and cultural conditions, that is ,
human activities affecting fish , wildlife , and their
habitats . In addition, interactions within and be·
tween fish and wildlife species (e.g., competition,
predation, etc.) affe c t t heir populations . The Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G 1980) has
identified 41 mammal species, 156 bird species ,
and 26 species of fishes believed to be present
within the Willow Subbasin at some time during the
year (see Appendi x B). A lthough the subbasin
represents less t han 0.3% of the land area in Alaska,
approx imately 42 % of the State's species of birds,
50 % of its terrestrial mammal species, and 50% of
its fr eshwater and anadromous fish species are
represented in the area.
Existin~ habitat s within the Willow Subbasin sup-
port a diversity of fish and wildlife species.
Subbas in species can be grouped into three
categories for discussion: 1) threatened and en·
dangered species; 2) game species ; and 3) nongame
species. Though a r bitrary, these categories general·
ly reflect particular management activities.
No threatened or endangered species have been
reported in the Willow Subbasin. As a result, none of
4 . Existi ng Programs
Fish and Wildlife
the federally leg islated restrictions (P .L. 93-205)
dealing with threatened and endangered species are
currently applicable in the area .
Many species are hunted, trapped, or fished by
recreational, commercial , and subsistence users in
the Willow Subbasin . Waterfowl and gamebird
species are numerous including 28 species of ducks
and geese and 4 species of gamebirds . The Susitna
Flats and Palmer Hay Flats are among the most
popular waterfowling areas in Alaska 12 • Eight
species of Alaskan big game (black bear , brown
bear, wolf, wolver ine, caribou , dall sheep, moose,
and mounta in goat) may be hunted in the subbasin,
as well as many species of fur bearers and small mam·
mals13• Three species of sport fish (rainbow trout ,
Dolly Varden , and Arctic grayling) and five species
of Pacific salmon (pink , chinook, coho , sockeye and
chum) are among the fish harvested in subbasin
lakes and streams. In addit ion, Beluga whales and
harbor seals occur in the estuarine waters of Cook
Inlet adjacent to the study area. Taking either of
these two species is restricted under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-522). E x-
isting information on subbasin species ranges from
general life history data on most species to local
specific data on some game species actively man.
aged by the ADF&G .
2. Habitat Conditions.
All environmental conditions with which an
organism or population interacts in its search for
food, water , shelter , and reproductive opportunities
is called its "habitat." Hab itat component s such as
climate , vegetation, soils, hydrology, landform,
land use , and geology were e xamined during this
study and are discussed elsewhere in this report.
Habitats are typically classified in terms of plant
communities , physcial fe atures , or both . For exam·
12 Timm , D. E. and D. Sellers. 1979. Annual report
of survey and inventory act ivities , waterfowl.
Volume Z. Fed. Aid in Wildlife Restoration Pro·
ject W-1711 , Job No. 10 .0 ADF&G. Anchorage.
29pp.
13 Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G).
1973. Alaska's wildl ife and hab itat , vo lume I.
ADF&G . Juneau . 44 pp . +maps .
ADF&G . 1976a. A fish and wildlife resource in·
ventory of the Cook Inlet , Kodiak areas , volume
1: wildlife. ADF&G. Juneau . 251 pp .
ADF&G. 1978c. Alaska's wildlife and habitat ,
volume II. ADF&G. Juneau 74 pp . +maps.
73
4. Existing Programs
Fish and Wildlife
pie, thirteen subbasin wetland habitat types were
identified and mapped on the basis of both soil
drainage and vegetation. Wetland types are describ-
ed and mapped in the next section of this report.
Plant communities provide particularly useful
habitat categories because they respond to, and
therefore integrate, all environmental and human
influences affecting an area. Six general vegetation-
based habitat types were identified: coniferous
forests, deciduous forests, mixed coniferous-
deciduous forests, shrub land, grasslands, and tun-
dras. These general vegetation types encompass a
high diversity of plant communities which provide a
variety of specific habitats. Plant communities cor-
responding to each general vegetation-habitat type
are presented in Table 4.10 and mapped in Figures
3.9 and 3.10.
Biologists agree that habitat conditions are
dynamic. As a result, mapped vegetation com-
n:mnities and physical features represent only the
present condition. The structure and composition of
plant communities change over time progressing
through several stages until a climax plant com-
munity develops or until a disturbance, such as fire
or human activity, interrupts the succession.
Because there is not much data on subbasin species-
habitat interactions available, it is not possible to
evaluate the suitability of all habitats for each
species. However, the suitability of habitats for five
species14 has been evaluated using ADF&G data
and habitat evaluation procedures (HEP) developed
by the USF&WS (1980). Habitat suitability maps
produced during the HEP analyses can be compared
with other mapped land-use suitabilities such as set-
tlement and forestry. These five evaluations are
described under separate cover in the "Fish and
Wildlife Technical Appendix." Results of these
suitability evaluations are summarized in Table
4.11. In addition, general vegetation-type habitats
utilized by rpammals have been identified in
Appendix B.
The future of fish and wildlife resources will be
determined largely by land ownership and land use
decisions. Maintenance and human use of fish and
wildlife resources have already been legislatively
recognized as the priority land uses on four areas of
state !and in the subbasin: Goose Bay, Palmer
Hayflats and Susitna Flats State Game Refuges: and
Nancy Lake State Recreation Area. State law also
protects anadromous fish habitats by requiring per-
mits for many uses of anadromous fish streams and
lakes (A.S. 16), and recognizes the need to maintain
aquatic and riparian habitats (H.B. 118). Fish and
wildlife areas protected through state legislation are
14 Moose, snowshoe hare, willow ptarmigan,
spruce grouse, and red squirrel.
Table 4.10 General Vegetation Types and Associated Plant Communities, Willow Subbasin
74
General
Vegetation
Types•
A) Coniferous
Forests
B) Mixed
Forests
C) Deciduous
Forests
D) Shrublands
E) Grasslands
F) Tundra
TOTAL
Plant Community Types
white spruce communities
black spruce communities
communities of paper birch, aspen,
and/or cottonwood with white spruce
and/or black svruce
cottonwood communities
tall shrub communities:
alder, alder-willow
low shrub communities; willow-resin
birch, shrub tundra
communities of tall grass, midgrass,
and/or sedge-grass, (also grassland
and sphagnum bog wetlands)
herbaceous tundra, sedge-grass
tundra, mat and cushion tundra
No. of Plant Communities
Distinguished During Total
Vegetation Mapping Acreages
4 32,580
3 139,430
5 276,010
5 3,390
2 49,670
2 12,730
3 194,580
3 145,150
27 853,540
1 Ge"neral vegetation types are defined in Appendix B. Wetlands are not included in general vegetation types, but are discussed in part h, page 90.
Table 4.11 Suitability of Willow Subbasin for Selected Wildlife Species
Total Acres of
Potentially Percent of Subbasin
Species Habitat Function Suitable Habitat Potentially Suitable
moose winter range 519,270 54
(food and cover)
spring, summer, fall 808,600 83
food
spring, summer, fall 613,610 63
cover
snowshoe hare food and/or cover 491,620 51
red squirrel food and/or cover 415,700 43
spruce grouse winter range 415,700 43
(food and cover)
spring, summer, fall 377,050. 39
food
spring, summer, fall 415,700 43
cover
willow ptarmigan winter range 288,200 30
(food and cover)
spring, summer, iaii 225,930 23
food
spring, summer, fall 235,510 24
cover
Table 4.12 Legislatively Protected Areas in the Willow Subbasin
Approximate
Designations Acreage or Miles
Goose Bay 13,262 acres
State Game Refuge
Palmer Hayflats 21,840 acres
State Game Refuge
Susitna Flats 1,950 acres
State Game Refuge
Nancy Lake 19,400 acres
State Recreation Area
Anadromous Fish Not available
Streams
outlined in Table 4.12.1n addition, a variety of
federal laws protect subbasin wildlife and habitats,
and ensures that fish and wildlife resources be con-
sidered in private or public water-related
developments, as well as other uses of public
resources (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act,
42 U.S. C. 4321 et. Seq.; Fish andWildlife Coordina-
tion Act, 16 U.S. C. 661 et. seq.; Clean Water Act, 33
U.S. C. 1251 et. seq.; and River and Harbor Act of
1899,33 U.S.C. 403 et. seq.).
Four habitat categories are particularly significant
for maintenance of fish and wildlife resources: 1)
habitats utilized by a large abundance or variety of
Year Purpose
Established Protect & Perpetuate
1975 waterfowl habitat
1975 waterfowl habitat
1976 waterfowl and big game
habitat
1966 recreational opportunities
1968 spawning, incubation,
(with subsequent rearing, passage, and
revisions) overwintering habitats of
anadromous fishes
species (e.g., open forests, ecotones and riparian
corridors), 2) habitats crucial to the survival of one
or more species (e.g., shrublands which support
ptarmigan, coniferous forests which support spruce
grouse and marten), 3) habitats which are especially
sensitive to degradation (e.g., tundra, fragile
wetlands), and 4) habitats with limited availability in
the subbasin (e.g., open forests, tundra). Areas sup-
porting these four habitat categories can be in-
tegrated with HEP suitability maps (Figures 4.14
and 4.15) and with existing legislatively-designated
fish and wildlife habitat lands to produce fish and
wildlife suitability maps.
75
76
4. Existing Programs
Fish and Wildlife
3. Value of Fish and Wildlife Resources to Human
Users.
Value to the public constitutes the third considera-
tion in assessing existing and future fish and wildlife
resources. Public use and attitudes largely deter-
mine: 1) value and therefore management, of a par-
ticular species, 2) species distributions and popula-
tion levels, and 3) the degree to which fish and
wildlife considerations are incorporated into par-
ticular land-use decisions. Two sources of informa-
tion indicate public use and value of subbasin fish
and wildlife resources: 1) ADF&G records and 2)
studies of public attitudes.
Human Use
ADF&G records indicate that over 40 percent of
Alaska's licensed hunters and trappers, and over 55
percent of its licensed sport fishermen, reside within
or in close proximity to the Willow Subba~in. In
1979, over 23,600 hunters imd trappers, and over
66,100 sport anglers, were licensed in Anchorage.
Another 3,530 hunters and trappers, and 7,390
recreational anglers were licensed in the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The ADF&G collects
several types of data on consumptive human uses of
fish and wildlife. In general, consumptive recrea-
tional15 use of fisheries resources is measured in
angler days, recreational harvests, and catch per
unit of effort. Selected sport fish data available for
streams are presented in Appendix B. Available data
on consumptive human uses of game resources con-
sists primarily of user days, harvests, and numbers
of applications for selected permit hunts. Tables 4.13
and 4.14 present game use data for selected species.
(The Willow Subbasin covers parts of Game
Management Subunits, 14A and 148. As a result,
separation of subbasin specific data is difficult in
some cases.) The data which is available indicates
that sport fish and big game resources are very
heavily used. (Tables 4.15, 4.16, 4.17).
Public Attitudes
Public attitudes towards fish and wildlife in the
United States and Alaska have recently been in-
vestigated by Kellert (1979)16 . These data indicate
that Alaskans are interested in the outdoors, con-
cerned about the environment, and considerably
knowledgeable about wildlife. Alaskans indicated
high disapproval of development adversely affect-
ing wildlife populations. Kellert's findings further in-
dicated that Alaskans interest in wildlife was not
correlated with any moralistic objection to con-
sumptive wildlife use. His investigation also showed
that the numbers of hunters, fishermen, trappers,
and other consumptive wildlife users in Alaska were
significantly greater than any other region.
15 Subbasin streams and lakes contribute an
undetermined amount to commercial harvests
of anadromous fish in Cook Inlet.
16. Kellert, S.R. 1979. Public attitudes toward
critical wiidlife and natural habitat issues.
(Phase 1 results of a USFWS funded study of
"American attitudes, knowledge and behaviors
toward wildlife and natural habitats," grant
#14, 16-009-77-056.) USFWS. 138 pp.
Table 4.13 Human Use of Moose, Willow Subbasin 1979-1980
No. of Total No. Ave. No. No. Local
Hunters Days Hunted Days/Hunter Residents
Drawing permit 37 155 4.2 Not Determined
hunt -successful
Drawing permit 21 120 5.7
hunt -unsuccessful
Total 58 (64% successful) 275
License hunt -93 399 4.3 91
successful
License hunt -331 1,632 4.9 320
unsuccessful
Total 424 (22% successful) 2,031
Grant Total 482 2,306 4.8
Source: ADF&G records
Local communities include all communities within the Willow Subbasin and communities south from Palmer to Anchorage (inclusive).
Drawing permit hunts ~ antlerless moose hunts.
License permit hunts ~ antlered moose hunts.
%Local
Residents
Not Determined
98
97
Table 4.14 Fall1979 Drawing Permit Applications
#of
Area & Game Permits
Hunt Season Management to be
Species # Dates Unitt Issued
Caribou 503 Aug 20-()nits 13 & 1,300
(either sex) Sep 20 14, except 14C
Moose 910 Sep 1-Matanuska 200
(antlerless) Sep 20 Valley-14A
911 Sep 1-Willow to 100
Sep 20 Talkeetna-14B
913 Jan 23-Willow to 50
Feb 6 Talkeetna
1 The Willow Subbasin encompasses southwest portion of 14B and western half of 14A
Source: ADF&G records.
# Applications
Rec'd
5,600
2,740
667
6,011
Percent
Total Successful
Harvested Hunts
630 48
97 48
22 22
43 86
Table 4.15 Waterfowl Hunter Days and Average Harvest Per Day on Willow Subbasin Refuges,
1971-1976, Calculated from Statewide Waterfowl Hunter Mail Surveys
Refuge 1971
Susitna 3885
Flats
Palmer 3081
Hay Flats
Goose
Bay
TOTAL 6966
Source: Sellers 1979
Refuge
Susitna Flats
Palmer Hay Flats
Goose Bay
NS = not surveyed
Source: Sellers 1979
'7o of State
Waterfowl
Hunter Average
1971-Days Ducks/
Hunter Days 1976 1971-Day/
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Average 1976 Hunter
3798 7060 3763 3112 5280 4473 7.9 2.3
3561 4861 4162 4292 4945 4150 7.3 1.5
984 342 161 601 522 0.9 1.6
7359 12905 8267 7565 10826 9145 16.1
Table 4.16 Willow Subbasin Refuge Duck Harvests 1971-1976
Calculated from Statewide Waterfowl Hunter Mail Surveys
Duck Harvest 1971-1976
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Average
7442 9696 16385 6750 9485 11836 10266
5854 4677 7879 5458 7114 6326 6218
NS NS 2238 287 351 510 846
Average
Geese/
Day/
Hunter
0.05
0.02
0.0
Percent of
State Duck
Harvest
1971-1976
12.6
7.4
0.9
77
78
4. Existing Programs
Wetlands
Table 4.17 Willow Subbasin Refuge Goose Harvests 1971-1976
Calculated from Statewide Waterfowl Hunter Mail Surveys
Percent of
State Goose
Goose Harvest 1971-1976 Harvest
Refuge 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Average 1971-1976
Susitna Flats 669 357 1030 224 173 418 478 3.3
Palmer Hay Flats 45 65 257 112 173 72 121 0.8
Goose Bay NS NS 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
NS = not surveyed
Source: Sellers 1979
Table 4.18 Factors Affecting Use and Value of Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Resources
Factors increasing use of (demand for) fish and wildlife resources Factors decreasing supply of fish and wildlife resources
1. Increases in human population within and in close 1. increases in human population within and In close
proximity to the subbasin. proximity to the subbasin.
2. relative accessibility of subbasin fish and wildlife 2. relative accessibility of subbasin fish and wildlife
resources. resources.
3. proximity of subbasin to major population centers. 3. proximity of subbasin to major population centers.
4. availability of highly sought after species, e.g., moose, 4. destruction and/or degradation of habitats supporting fish
black bear; brown bear, waterfowl, salmon, etc. and wildlife species.
The Willow Subbasin and surrounding areas are uni-
que in providing many opportunities to use and en-
joy fish and wildlife resources on accessible public
lands in close proximity to urban areas. Use and
value of these resources on public subbasin lands
are expected to increase as a result of the following
factors: 1) human population increases in and
around the W-illow Subbasin, 2) increased ac-
cessibility to over half of Alaska's population, 3)
transfer of public land into private ownership, and 4)
increasing travel costs which promote use of fish
and wildlife resources in the subbasin vis-a-vis the
remainder of the state. Factors which will ultimately
affect the value of the wildlife resource are shown in
Table4.18.
Wetlands
Up until the 1960's, wetlands 1 7 were popularly
regarded as "swampy" areas which required
drainage to be usable or were valuable only in terms
of their contributions to waterfowl populations.
However, as understanding and appreciation of en-
vironmental systems evolved throughout the 1960's
and '70's, an increasing variety of wetland values
were generally recognized. It became increasingly
5. transfer of public fish and wildlife lands and associated
access routes to private ownership.
clear, for example, that tidal marshes stablize
shorelines and contribute significantly to the
biomass of adjoining estuaries by providing
bacterially enriched detritus. Estuaries, in turn,
were recognized as among the world's most produc-
tive ecosystems and as essential nursery areas for a
wide variety of organisms including economically
valuable fish and shellfish. Inland wetlands were
seen to provide habitat for many birds, mammals,
and other organisms. They also provide ground
water recharge, flood water storage, and natural
filtration of many water pollutants.
By the mid 1970's, recognition of the importance of
wetlands resulted in Federal legislation to halt their
unwarranted degradation or destruction. The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500) as
amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L.
95-217) and President Carter's Wetlands Protection
and Flood Plain Management Executive Orders
(EO's 11990 and 11988), the National Coastal Zone
Management Program, and the National Flood In-
surance Program are examples. Together they
1 7 Defined later in this section.
~· ~}'
~·
~~.
~· ~~
~· ~(()
'\~
~
,.
M~
~· ~~
-<,.
<:O ~·
~· ~~
~·
~'
-~
o<S'
"'-'
_/./ \
o\<;, '0 ro\. ~""' 00 ,/
X,· ~\
~
Q:-
~"r
~
.. .. .. ..
CJ
~CJ
~~ ~
FIGURE 4.14
0 0..;
'0'
/
\
'0"'
06&
/
Moose (M). Snowshoe hare (SH)
(F=food , C =cover. A=reproduction )
M : spring /summer/fal l F
M : spring/summer/fall F & C
M : year-round F
M : year-ro und C : ma rgin al year-round F
SH : R: year-round F & C
M : year-round F & C
SH : R: yea r-round F & C
M : spring /summer /fal l F & C : marginal winter F & C
SH: margin al A; marginal year-round F & C
M : yea r-round C; marginal year-rou nd F
SH : marginal R; marginal year-rou nd F & C
M : year-round F & C
SH: R: year-round F & C
Water, disturbed, non -vegetated
HEP HABITAT MODEL
WILLOW SUBBASIN
ALASKA
JUNE 1982
10 MILES ~~~~~~~~~~~~
SCALE 1:250,000
I.
I><~
~·
-<.
'?,\
~·
~· ~~
~· ~<o
"'\~
~
/
-<.
,.
M~
~~
~·
~· ~\
-o.,
06' .. ,
s. ~\
~~..._ ~.~~~t··n~~~~r?:r~1~~-~D A .;: . • .A~...'lii .... ·' ' -" ,..,'?..-. -.. ~
~
~
~ .. .. .. ..
0 ,..;
"'' /
\
'0"'
06'
<S,.
Red sq uirre l (RS), Spruce grouse (SG).
Willow ptarm igan (WP)
(F=food , C =cover. R=reproduction)
WP : R: year-round F & C
N ot uti lized by RS . SG or WP
WP : R: winter F & C. marginal summer F & C
WP: R; yea r-round F & C ~~~!~~ -~~a ~~ ·0'--~~~") ,«> ... a:. 0" .. ' . . . ' : .. . .., l.i.':· ~· . . : .. ' ) . '
0 " ~"" . . ~ii ;;., . ,. ~ ... ~rt>'-· ... ·· _ . · ... c=J
------------
/,/\
o,<o '0
tO' ~" 00
,p/
RS and SG: R; year-round F & C
CJ RS : marginal F & C
CJ RS: R; year-round F & C ;
WP: marginal year-round F & C
SG : R; winter F & C ;
margi nal spri ng/summer/fall F
~ CJ -Water. disturbed , non-vegetated
---·--
F IGURE 4 .15
HEP HABITAT MODEL
WILLOW SUBBASIN
ALASKA
JUNE 1982
10 MILES ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SCALE 1:250 ,000
__________ l l _~_n.t::D .A.D_TUt::IU T_I':'Io£:_.&~D U''!U1-TI .I D C-~'-\11-~0 ... ~.C:DU.A.3"..1 t:'\ ... _~.C:D.\U~It:--....,.._ .. ~~-"',.."•"-•·~•"'-"""-'"'"'"' ____ 7~N~2..4J.9.2
I ·
focused national attention on the importance of
wetlands to environmental quality, articulated ana-
tional policy concerning their use and protection ,
and established permit review procedures for many
activities affecting waterways and associated
wet lands.18.
In order to manage wetland use and protection in ac-
cordance with Federal legislation and regulations,
Federal , state , and local agencies have begun to
develop methods for defining , identifying , classify-
ing , and evaluating wetland areas under their
jurisdictions. Results to date include a va r iety of
wetland definitions (see below), a system for classi-
fying the Nation's wetlands 19 ; a National Wetland
Inventory Program (USF&WS in progress); several
methods for assessing relati ve wetland values 20 ;
local , reg ional , and national symposia on wetland
issues; and state efforts to map and develop
management recommendations for wetlands within
their boundaries . The wetlands map developed for
this study (Figure 4 .16) represents a cooperative
Federal-State effort to identify, classify, and map
wetlands in the Willow Subbasin .
Op until the 1960's, wetlands were popularly
regarded as "swampy" areas which required drain -
ing to be developed or were valuable only in terms
of their contributions to waterfowl populations.
Desp ite general interest, defining wetlands to the
satisfaction of all interested parties has proven dif-
ficult. There is no single definition for wetlands,
primarily because of the diversity of wetlands and
because the interface between dryland and wetland
environments is indistinct. The following definition
of wetlands was used in this study:21 "Wetlands are
lands where saturation with water is the dominant
factor determining the nature of soil development
and the types of plant and animal communities liv -
ing in the soil and on its surface. A single feature
that most wetlands share is soil or substrate that is
at least periodically saturated with or covered by
4. Existing Programs
Wetlands
water"22. For purposes of this study, land areas
must fall into one of the following two categories to
be identified and mapped as wetlands:
1) land areas which, at least periodically, support
predominantly hydrophytes 23 and in which the
substrate is predominantly very poorly drained
or undrained hydric soil 24 ; or
2) land areas which are located within an active
flood plain 25 ; regardless of vegetation or soil
conditions,
In accordance with the previous definition , wetlands
in the Willow Subbasin were identified and mapped
by combining data on soil drainage obtained from
SCS, and data on wetland vegetation types provided
by the USF&WS. The two sets of data were combined
because neither set provided sufficient informa-
tion when used individually-wetland vegetation
types were found to occur on well -drained (non-
wetland) soils, while very poorly drained soils did
not always support wetland vegetation types. Areas
containing both a USF&WS wetland vegetation type
and a soil type classified by SCS as very poorly
drained, were identified and mapped as wetlands.
Figure 4.17 presents the vegetation-soil matrix used
to identify subbasin wetlands.
1s Kusler, J.A . 1978. Stre ngt hening state wetland
regulations. USFWS, Office of Biological Serv-
ices, FWS/OBS-78/98. Washington , D .C.
19 Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet , and E .T.
LaRoe . 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States.
USFWS, Office of Biological Services ,
FWS/OBS-79/31. Wash ington , D .C. 103 pp.
20 Reppert, R.T., W . Sigleo , E. Stakhiv , L.
Messman , and C. Meye r;s. 1979. Wetland values·
concepts and methods for wetlands evaluation .
U.S . Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for
Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060 .
109 pp .
21 This definition corresponds closely to the legal
definition of wetlands used by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers during its "404" wetland per-
mit review activities: 'Wetlands' means those
areas that are inundated or saturated by surface
or ground water at a frequency and duration suf-
ficient to support, and that under normal cir-
cumstances do support , a prevalence of vegeta-
tion typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions . Wetlands generally include swamps ,
marshes , bogs, and similar areas ." (33 U.S. C.
323.2(c))
83
4. Existing Programs
Wetlands
Identified wetlands were classified according to the
classification system developed by the USF&WS for
their on-going National Wetlands Inventory Pro-
gram26. Table 4.19 presents the USF&WS wetland
classes corresponding to the various vegetation-soil
and vegetation-flood plain classes displayed in
Figure 4.17. Acreages and percent-of-subbasin en-
compassed by each of these USF&WS wetland
classes are presented in Table 4.20.
Two limitations of the wetland identification and
mapping process used in the subbasin should be
noted. First, the minimum map unit, or smallest
area resolvable on the wetlands map, is 10 acres. As
a result, wetland areas that are less than 10 acres are
not accurately delineated. Wetland areas 5 acres or
larger may be mapped as 1 0-acre wetlands, while
wetlands smaller than 5 acres may not be identified
on the map. Second, on rare occasions, wetlands
may occur on poorly as well as on very poorly drained
soils; a typical example would be the presence of
hydrophytic vegetation in a depressional area with
poorly drained soils. For this reason, poorly drained
depressional landforms were identified and mapped
as "potential wetland inclusions." Field checks of
these areas would be required to determine whether
or not wetland conditions exist.
22 Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T.
LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deep-water habitats of the United States.
USFWS, Office of Biological Services,
FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, D.C. 103 pp.
23 hydrophyte: any plant growing in water or on a
substrate that is periodically deficient in oxygen
as a result of excessive water content.
24 hydric soil: soil that is wet long enough to
periodically produce anaerobic conditions,
thereby influencing the growth of plants.
25 active flood plain: the flood-prone lowlands and
relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal
waters including contiguous wetlands and flood
plain areas of.offshore islands; this will include,
at a minimum, that area subject to a 1 percent or
greater chance of flooding in any given year
(1 00-year flood plain).
:zs Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T.
84
LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deep-~ater habitats of the United States.
USFWS, Office of Biological Services,
FWS/OBS-79/3L Washington, D.C. 103 pp.
~·
~}'
-<,..
'1.-' ~
~· ~~
~· ~·ro
~" ~·
/
-<..
, ..
M~
~· ~~
•
<o
~· ~-.·
~·
~\
-~
o<l'
"'/
''i-•::~111111&.~ 00 ·"
R E.rSOI L-CONSERVATI
-1:/
o\
ro'
\
'0 ~,..,
00
~/
X..· ~\
~
~
~
~-
~
r:..-\ -~
FIGURE 4 .16
/
0 0..;
""
\
--..
'0"'
o<l'
':.-
Non wetlands
Forested needle-leaved evergreen
Forested broad-leaved deciduous
-. Forested mixed .. Scrub/shrub broad-leaved deciduous
CJ Emergent persisten t
1111 Intertidal sc ru b
CJ I ntertidal emergent-grassland .. Intertidal emergent-marsh
CJ Intertidal mudflat
c:=J Lower perennial streambed
,-----.,
litto ral & lim netic
WETLANDS MAP
WILLOW SUBBASIN
ALASKA
JUNE 1982
v J 10 MILES
SCALE USO ,OOO
BASE DATA INTERPRETED MAPS
I SOILS DRAINAGE I
~
SHORT OR TALL WHITE SPRUCE H VERY POORLy DRAINED SHORT CLOSED BLACK SPRUCE
~ FOREST DECIO<IO<IS MIXED FOREST H VERY POORLY DRAINED YOUNG CLOSED COTTONWOOD
MEDIUM AND OLD COTTONWOOD H VERY POORLY DRAINED
SHORT OPEN BLACK SPRUCE H VERY POORLY DRAINED
I POORLY DRAINED
LOW SHRUB ~ WILLOW RESIN BIRCH H POORLY DRAINED H SHR<IBLAND
TALL SHRUB I-ALDER --I VERY POORLY DRAINED ALDER-WILLOW
rl POORLY DRAINED
rl VERY POORLY DRAINED
r-1 SHRUB I-
1-1 HAT AND CUSHION
I VEGETATION 1----I TUNDRA POORLY DRAINED I-
H HERBACEIO<IS ~VERY POORLY DRAINED I-
LJ SEDGE-GRASS j-J
POORLY DRAINED t-'
--I GRASSLAND GRASSLAND
VERY POORLY DRAINED I-
POORLY DRAINED I-
I VERY PCCRL Y DRAINED J--
SPHAGNUM BOG -I FRESHWATER POORLY DRAINED
SPHAGNUM SHRUB BOG
VERY POORLY DRAINED
--l AQUATIC I-POORLY DRAINED
VERY POORLY DRAINED
rl LOW SHRUB
1--rl POORLY DRAINED y SALTWATER I-H GRASSLAND
y TIDAL MARSH I-y VERY POORLY DRAINED
ACTIVE FLOOD PLAINS
GREATER THAN 660 FT.
165 to 660FT.
LESS THAN 165FT.
LAKES GREATER THAN 40 ACRES
LAKES I 0 to 40 ACRES
MUDFLATS
Figure 4.17 Wetland Identification Matrix
-I
WETLAND TYPE
FORESTED NEEDLE-LEAVED EVERGREEN
FORESTED NEEDLE LEAVED EVERGREEN
AND BROAD LEAVED DECIO<IO<IS
SCR<IBISHR(\B NEEDLE LEAVED EVERGREEN
POTENTIAL PALUSTRINE WETLAND
SCR<IBISHR<IB BROAD LEAVED DECID<IO<IS
EMERGENT PERSIST ANT
INTERTIDAL SCR<IB/SHR<IB
BROAD LEAVED DECIO<IO<IS
INTERTIDAL EMERGENT PERSIST ANT
OPPER PERENNIAL
UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM
LOWER PERENNIAL
UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM
LIMNETIC AND LITTORAL
INTERTIDAL CONSOLIDATED SHORE
ANDM<IDFLAT
I
t--
~
I
87
Table 4.19 Classification of Wetlands in the Willow Subbasin
(classification after Cowardin et al. 1979)
System
Palustrine: includes all
nOJitidal wetlands dominated
by trees, shrubs, persistant
emergent mosses or lichens,
and all such wetlands that
occur in tidal areas where
salinity due to ocean-derived
salts is below 0.5 0/00
(parts per thousand); also
includes wetlands lacking
such vegetation, but with all
the following characteristics:
1) size less than 8 ha,
2) absence of an active wave-
formed or bedrock shorellne
feature, 3) water depth in the
deepest part of basin less-than
2m at low water, and salinity
due to ocean-derived salts less
than 0.5 0/00; includes vege-
tated wetlands traditionally
ca!!ed by such names as marsh,
swamp, bog, fen, and prairie;
also includes the small,
shallow, permanent or inter-
mittent water bodies often
called ponds.
Estaurine: includes deep-
water tidal habitats and
adjacent tidal wetlands that
are usually semi-enclosed by
land but liave open, partly
obstructed, or sporadic
access to the open ocean,
and in which ocean water is
at least occasionally diluted
by freshwater runoff from the
land; the salinity may be
periodically increased above
that of the open ocean by
evaporation.
Subsystem Class* Subclass
no
subsystem
Forested: includes areas
in one of three SCS vege-
tation categories:
a) closed forest, in which
tree canopy cover equals
or exceeds 60%; b) open
forest, in which tree
canopy cover equals
25-59%; and c) woodland,
in which tree canopy cover
equals 10-24% (trees are
defined by SCS as "woody
plants having one well-
developed stem and usu-
ally more than 12 ft. in
height.")
Scrub-shrub: includes
areas dominated by woody
vegetation less than
12 ft. taH; spedes
include true shrubs,
young trees, and trees
or shrubs that are small
or stunted because of
environmental conditions;
tree canopy cover is less
than 10%, shrub cover
equals or exceeds 25%
Emergent: includes areas
dominated by erect,rooted,
herbaceous hydrophytes;
this vegetation is present
for most of the growing
season in most years; tree
canopy cover is less than
10%, shrub cover less than
25%
Needle-leaved
evergreen: predominant
woody life form is
needle-leaved
evergreen
Broad-leaved
deciduous: predominant
woody life form is
broad-leaved
deciduous
Needle-leaved ever-
green and Broad-
leaved deciduous:
these two woody life
forms are co-dominant
Needle-leaved
evergreen: predominant
woody life form under
1 2 ft. ta!! is need!e-
leaved evergreen
Broad-leaved
deciduous: predominant
woody life form under
12 ft. tall is broad-
leaved deciduous
Persistent: dominated
by species that normally
remain standing at least
until the beginning of
the next growing season
Intertidal: sub-
strate is exposed
and flooded by
tides; includes the
associated splash
zones
Scrub-shrub: (see
Palustrine, Scrub-
shrub)
Broad-leaved decid-
uous: (see Palustrine,
Scrub-shrub, Broad-
leaved deciduous)
Emergent: (see
Palustrine,
Emergent)
Flat: includes all
wetlands having
three characteris-
tics: ( 1) unconsoli-
dated substrates
with less than 75%
areal cover of stones,
boulders, or bedrock;
(2) less than 30%
areal cover of vegeta-
tion other than
pioneering plants; and
(3) any appropriate
water regime (e.g.
regularly flooded)
Persistent: (see
Palustrine, Emergent,
Persistent)
Mud: the unconsolida-
ted particles smaller
than stones are
predominantly silt
and clay; anaerobic
conditions often exist
below the surface
Dominance
Type
Picea mariana: black
spruce constitutes
the dominant sub-
class species
Populus balsamifera:
cottonwood (balsam
popular) constitutes
the dominant subclass
species
Picea mariana: black
spruce constitutes
the dominant subclass
spedes
Myrica: sweetgale or
other broad-leaved deci-
duous shrubs constitute
the dominant subclass
species
Elymus, Calamagros-
tis: grasses constitute
the dominant subclass
species
Scirpus, Carex, etc.:
emergent persistent
wetlands dominated by
rushes, sedges, or other
forbs
scs
Code
2
3
4
5
6
11
12
13
14
USFWS
Code
PF04
PF01
PF04-
PF01
PSS4
PSS1
PEMl
E2SS1
E2EM1
E2EM1
E2FL3
• SC:S definitions of vegetation classes coincide with Viereck and Dyrness (1980), definitions of non-vegetation classes coincide with Cowardin et. al. (1979),
89
90
Table 4.19 (continued)
System
Riverine; includes all w·et-·
lands and deepwater habitats
contained within a channel,
with two exceptions: (1)
wetlands dominated by trees,
shrubs, persistent emergents,
emergent mosses, or lichens,
and (2) habitats with water
containing ocean-derived
salts in excess of 0.5 0/00;
terminates at the downstream
end where the concentration
of ocean-derived salts in the
water exceeds 0.5 0/00 during
the period of annual average
low flow, or where the
channel enters a lake; term-
inates at the upstream end
where tributary streams
originate, or where the channel
leaves a lake.
Lacustrine: includes
wetlands and deep-water
habitats with all of the
following characteristics:
( 1) situated in a topogra-
phic depression or dammed
river channel; (2) lacking
trees, shrubs, persistent
emergents, emergent mosses
or lichens with greater
than 10% canopy cover; and
(2) total area exceeds 8 ha
(20 acres); similar wetland
habitats totaling less than
8 ha are also included if an
active wave-formed or bedrock
shoreline feature makes up
all or part of the boundary,
or· if the water depth in the
deepest part of the basin
exceeds 2 m (6.6 ft.) at low
water; ocean-derived salinity
is always less than 0.5 0/00
Potential Wetland
hiclusions:
Subsystem Class*
Upper perennial: Unconsolidated
stream gradient is bottom: all wetlands
high and velocity with at least 25%
fast; no tidal cover of particles
influence and some smaller than stones,
water flows and a vegetative
throughout the cover less than 30%
year; substrates
consist of rock,
cobbles, or gravel
with occasional
patches of sand;
natural dissolved
oxygen concentra-
tion is normally
near saturation;
very little flood
plain development
Lower perennial:
gradient is low
and water velocity
is slow; there is
no tidal influence,
and some water flows
throughout the year;
substrate consists main-
ly of sand and mud;
oxygen deficits may
sometimes occur;
floodplain is well-
developed
Unconsolidated
bottom: (see
Riverine, Opper
perennial, Uncon-
solidated bottom)
Subclass
Cobble-gravel: tne un-
consolidated particles
smaller than stones are
predominantly cobble
and gravel, although
finer sediments may be
intermixed
Cobble-gravel:
Dominance
Type
Limnetlc: all deep-
water habitats within
the Lacustrine system;
(in the Willow Sub-
basin, Littoral wet-
land habitats are
included in the
Limnetic Subsystem
because data resolu-
tion does not permit
differentiation of
Unconsolidated
bottom: (see
Riverine, Opper
perennial, Unconsol-
idated bottom)
(see Riverine Opper
perennial, Unconsol-
idated bottom,
Cobble-gravel)
these two Lacustrine
Subsystems)
Wetlands may occur on
poorly as well as on very
poorly drained soils, par-
ticularly in poorly drained
depressional land forms.
For this reason,
poorly drained depres-
sional landforms have
been mapped as Poten-
tial Wetlands Inclusions.
Field-checking is re-
quired to determine if
these areas are wetlands.
scs
.Cod~
21
22
31
USFWS
Code
R30B1
R2{)8
Ll{)Bl
* SCS definitions of vegetation classes coincide with Viereck and Dyrness (1980), definitions of non-vegetation classes coincide with Cowardin et. al. (1979).
'··
Table 4.20 Wetland Types, Willow Subbasin
Forested Needle-leaved Evergreen
Forested Needle-leaved Evergreen and Broad-leaved Deciduous
Scrub-shrub Needle-leaved Evergreen and Broad-leaved Deciduous
Emergent Persistant
Potential Palustrine Wetland Inclusions
Intertidal Scrub-shrub Broad-leaved Deciduous
Intertidal Emergent Persistant (Calimagrostis)
Intertidal Emergent Persistant
Intertidal Unconsolidated Shore Mud Flat
Qpper Perrenial Riverine
Littoral and Limnetic
Non-wetland
·-·---~··----
Acres
21,450
12,370
47,480
106,370
53,250
7,780
8,300
7,290
10,020
136,980
34,940
523,040
969,270
Percent
2.2
1.4
4.9
10.9
5.5
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.0
14.1
3.6
53.9
100.0
91
5. Functional Resource Needs
and Alternative
Programmatic Approaches
5. Functional Resource Needs and
Alternative Programmatic Approaches
Introduction
Two major premises underlie the planning analysis
of the Susitna Cooperative River Basin Study. The
first is that the goods, services, and amenities which
residents derive from the basin's natural resources,
renewable and nonrenewable, can be enhanced.
This infers that opportunities exist for improved
resource utilization. The second major premise is
that certain problems exist or will exist because of
social-environmental interaction. Functional
resource needs, then, represent the extent that op-
portunities may be gained and/or problems
alleviated through public sector policies and
programs.
The vehicles for meeting these needs are the alter-
native plans ("alternatives") which are specifically
designed to address one or more opportunities
and/or problems. These alternatives meet the NED
and EQ objectives in varying degrees. The next sec-
tion discusses those resource problems and oppor-
tunities (needs} evidenced in the resource inventory
and projections analyses. The following section
presents, by functional resource area, the alter-
natives developed to serve the specific needs.
Problems and Opportunities
(Needs)
Resource needs were perceived in six functional
areas: agricultural land, timber land, settlement land,
flood plains, recreation areas, and fish and wildlife
habitat areas. Of course many, and in some cases
all, of these functional areas overlap at any given
land site. However, the functional areas were
separated for analytical and discussion purposes.
Agricultural Land
Land in the Willow Subbasin devoted to crops has
never exceeded more than a few hundred acres (see
Table 4.1). An accelerated demand for settlement
land has precipitated a decline in available
agricultural acreage. Other needs from the NED and
EQ objective standpoints include opportunities for
increased crop commodity production, the preser-
vation of open space, and the amelioration of poten-
tial off-site pollution problems. Table 5.1 details
agricultural land use needs.
Table 5.1 Agricultural Land Use Needs, Willow Subbasin
Primary Objectives
National and State
Economic Development
Environmental Quality
TimberLand
Needs
1. Maintain or enhance the long-term productivity of agricultural land by:
a. Reversing the trend of agricultural land loss estimated at 300 acres per year.
b. Insuring proper land use planning to minimize irreversible commitments on agricultural lands.
c. Moving toward self-sufficiency in Alaskan Agriculture.
2. Increase the output of goods and services by bringing land into production for economically feasible
agricultural enterprises.
Maintain or enhance attributes of the environment by:
1. Locating future agricultural developments to minimize impacts on environmentally sensistive areas.
2. Preserving open land to contribute to an aesthetically pleasing land use mix.
3. Minimizing nonpoint pollution from agricultural sources.
The. Willow Subbasin contains 230 thousand acres
of commercial timber land (Figure 3.9)
However, the local sawmills operate at less-than-full
capacity. Opportunities and problems associated
with enhanced timber production are shown in
Table5.2.
93
5. Resource Needs & Alternatives
Needs
Table 5.2 Timber Land Use Needs, Willow Subbasin
Primary Objectives
National and State
Economic Development
Needs
1. Increase the output of goods and services by:
a. Increasing timber production.
b. Developing wood·base energy resources.
c. lmp~oved management of timber resources.
2. Maintain or enhance the long-term productivity of forest land by setting aside managed public
forests.
Environmental
Quality Maintain or enhance attributes of the environment by:
1. Creating "multiple use" forest lands.
2. Preserving or enhancing wildlife habitat.
3. Controlling erosion and runoff.
Settlement Land
By 2000, the demand for additional settlement land
is· expected to range between .18 and 55 thousand
acres (Table 4.5); This large demand will both pre:
sent opportunities and create significant problems
for the Willow Subbasin land resource. These needs
are summarized in Table 5.3
Table 5.3 Settlement Land Use Needs, Willow Subbasin
94
Primary Objectives
Nationai and State
Economic Development
Needs··
Increase economic efficiency by:
1. Dev.eloping 18 to 55 thousand acres by 2000.
Environmental
Quality
Flood Plains
2. Providing adequate municipal goods and services.
Maintain or enhance attributes of the environment by:
1. Mai~taining landscape aesthetics:.
2. Preventing construction site erosion •.
3. Maintaining water quality.
The interaction between people and floods presents
a significant problem. Where society has encroach·
ed on active flood plains, real costs are en-
countered, both calcuble and incalcuble. Efforts can
be made to reduce these costs in the short-term and
to prevent long-term costs in the future. Table 5.4
shows needs associated with flood plain lands in the
Willow Subbasin.
5. Resource Needs & Alternatives
Needs
Primary Objectives
National and State
Economic Development
Environmental
Quality
Table 5.4 Flood Plain Land use Needs, Willow Subbasin
Needs
1. Reduce floodwater damages to roads and rail roads.
2. Reduce floodwater damages to commercial and residential properties.
1. Reduce threat of loss of life.
2. Enhance natural and aesthetic values.
3. Preserve existing values of natural resources.
4. Minimize pollution created by construction activity in and adjacent to floor plains.
5. Establish greenbelts where necessary to maintain water quality.
Recreation Land
Needs for recreational user days and faciiities are
shown in Table 5.5. These needs are substantial,
resulting in part from the Basin's proximity to the
Anchorage area.
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Divi-
sion of Parks has made an inventory of existing
recreation facilities within the subbasin.
Table 5.5 Recreation Land Use Needs, Willow Subbasin
User Day
Activity Demand
(annual)
Freshwater fishing
Stream 106,694
Lake 62,661
Developed camping 26,500
Hiking 67,567
Picnicking/sightseeing 290,363
Canoeing 12,822
Total
Facility
Demand
135 miles
48 access pts.
1005 units•
113 miles
742 units
21 miles
8 miles
Existing
Facilities
18 access pts.
474 units
76 miles
383 units
113 miles
Cross-country skiing 18,749 19 miles 106 miles
127 miles
Facility
Needs
30 access pts.
531 units
37 miles
359 units
1 Of this total, 184 are associated with single purpose camping while the remaining 821 represent facilities desired by an estimated 33% of those in-
volved in fishing and canoeing.
Fish and wildlife habitat (including wetlands)
The fish and wildlife habitat needs stem largely from
opportunities to avoid future problems (Table 5.6).
While changes in land use will adversely .impact
many species, habitats for other species may actual-
ly improve, particularly when specifically addressed
in resource development and management plans.
----"·----------" --------------"--" -------
95
96
Objective
Environmental
Quality
and/or
National and
State Economic
Development
Environmental
Quality
and/or
National and
State Economic
Development
(continued)
Table 5.6 Fish and Wildlife Needs
Resource Area
1) Fish and wildlife
production and use
lands -e.g. tundra,
riparian corridors,
other wetlands, open
forests, shrublands
2) Existing State Refuges
(e.g., Susitn·a Flats,
Goose Bay, Palmer
Hayllats) and State
Recreation Areas
(e.g., Nancy Lake)
3) Resource development
lands-e.g., forests,
agricultural lands,
mineral lands
4) Moose spring/summer/fall
habitats and winter
habitats
5) Forbearer and/or small
game habitat lands
6) Ecotones (ecological
edges)
7) Wetlands
8) State, Borough and
private lands
·Needs
1 a) Retain an integrated system of state-owned lands for
fish and wildlife production and associated human uses.
1b) Establish (legally, procedurally, etc.) that the mainte-
nance/enhancement of fish and wildlife resources, including
permitted human uses, be the primary managment
objective on these lands.
1 c) Maintain and enhance sports and commercial fisheries.
2) Intergrate location and management of State Refuges and
Recreation Areas into above fish and wildlife production
and use system.
3) Establish (legally, procedurally, etc.) that the mainte-
nance/enhancement of wildlife resources (including per-
mitted associated human uses) be the secondary management
objective on resource development lands; develop formal
procedures for ensuring that appropriate design guide-
lines, best management practices, etc. be incorporated
throughout all phases of resource developments.
4) Delineate habitat management units which can and will be
managed for the primary objectives of (a) maintaining
and enhancing habitat suitability for moose, while
(b) maintaining and enhancing human opportunities· to use
and enjoy moose.
5) Delineate forbearer/small game habitat management units
which can and will be managed for the primary objectives
of a) producing forbearers and other designated small
game while b) maintaining and enhancing human opportunities
·to lise and enjoy these wildlife resources.
6a) Recognize high values of ecological edges (e.g., high
species diversity, uniqueness, etc.).
6b) Develop and institute siti~g and design. criteria as well
as best management practices for developments affecting
ecolo·gical edges.
7) Formulate and institute a wetland management policy or
plan for the Willow Subbasin.
Sa) Institute a State/Borough policy of "clustering" commercial,
industrial, and high density residential developments
8b) Maintain undisturbed "natural" buffers between any of
the following activities/developments and state lands
designated as fish and wildlife production and use lands,
State Refuges, State Recreation Areas, moose habitats,
wetlands, or forbearer/small game habitats.
Activities/Developments
Agriculture/Grazing
Commercial
Forestry
Industrial
Material extraction,
processing, etc.
Mineral extraction,
processing, etc.
Private Recreation Facilities
Residential
Energy
atility (aboveground)
Transportation
Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game
Suggested Natural
Buffer Widths
(modify as data indicate)
400 feet
800 feet
400 feet
800 feet
800 feet
· 800 feet
200 feet
800 feet
800 feet
800 feet
200-800 feet,
depending on type
... ~--·-~-~---~----------~---~--~~-~--~----. -·-----·~~-~---·--------~-------.. -~---~~-~----~-~-~---·---·---~-~-~-
Table 5.6 Fish and Wildlife Needs (continued)
Objective Resource Area
9) Private lands
Alternatives
In this section alternative solutions or plans are
presented by functional resource area. Each alter-
native is designed to alleviate specific problems or
to take advantage of specific opportunities as
outlined in the previous section. Table 5.16 displays
multi-objective alternative accounts.
Alternatives for crop and timber land
Because of their land-intensive production re-
quirements, crop and timber land alternatives were
developed in tandem. Using a computerized
mathematical model developed specifically for the
purpose of incorporating several alternative future
conditions, programs, and policies, the impacts of
four land resource alternatives were estimated.
These include policies of laissez faire, agricultural
land preservation, subbasin self-sufficiency, and full
development of the agricultural and timber
resources. These alternatives are tabulated in
Table 5.16.
Each of these four alternatives result in different
areas and locations of land which are economically
feasible for the establishment of agricultural and/or
timber enterprises. A description of the analysis
used and a map showing the location of the feasible
areas are presented in Appendix C.
Alternatives for settlement land
The most important need in terms of settlement
land is to insure that acreages devoted to this pur-
pose are both economically and environmentally
Needs
Be) Strengthen and expand procedures for involving fish and
wildlife agencies in the initial planning, siting, designing,
construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning
of developments to ensure that currently recommended
guidelines, criteria, best management practices, etc.
are incorporated.
9) Strengthen and expand programs which involve private land·
owners in wildlife planning for their lands and which
provide incentives to private landowners who are willing
to implement habitat maintenance/enhancement activities
or regulated public uses on their lands (maintenance or
enhancement activities to be determined by the ADF&G
working with the landowners).
suitable. The land capability settlement models
developed in this study provide an indication of
those lands physically suited to development.
However, the models do not contain criteria which
restrict settlement in environmentally sensitive
areas, for example, areas identified in the fish and
wildlife models. To determine locations where con-
fiicis do noi exisi, seiiiemeni maps must be maiched
with fish and wildlife and other capability models
to outline conflicts.
The following settlement alternatives have been
developed for this study.
1. Require that all future settlement be restricted to
those areas identified as having "high capability"
on the settlement models.
2. Require that all future settlement be restricted to
those areas identified as having "high capability"
on the settlement models and with priority for
development emanating from existing urban
centers and moving outward as population
growth warrants.
3. Require that all future settlement be restricted to
those areas identified as having "high capability"
on the settlement models, but not
being essential habitat areas.
4. Require that all future settlement be restricted to
those areas identified as having "high capability"
on the settlement models, but not being essen-
tial habitat areas and with priority for develop-
ment emanating from existing urban centers and
moving outward as population growth warrants.
97
5. Resource Needs & Alternatives
Alternatives
5. Require that all future settlement be restricted to
those areas identified as having "high or
moderate capability" on the settlement models,
and with priority for development emanating
from existing urban centers and moving outward
as population growth warrants.
Alternatives for flood plains
These alternatives are arrayed with reference to
both existing problems and future opportunities.
1. For Existing Property:
(a) Flood-proofing structures by raising the floor
elevation of the structure and flood proofing
walls and reinforcing foundations.
(b) Install sewer check valves and manually
removable bulkheads.
{c) Relocate contents to flood free areas and
supply emergency procedures such as sand-
bagging.
(d) Relocation of existing structures to flood free
areas and restoration of flood plain to natural
condition.
(e) Establish flood watch and warning systems.
(f) Require flood insurance on all property
within the flood plain to equalize the flood
hazard risk.
(g) Purchase existing private flood plain lands;
retain public ownership and manage for
nonflood prone uses.
2. For New Construction:
(a) Analyze the long-term cost of inappropriate
construction design.
(b) Use engineering designing criteria to con·
sider flood hazard as related to soils,
geology, hydrology and hydraulics.
(c) Identification of flood hazard areas. Install
water monitoring stations to define flows
necessary for proper design of roads and
railroad culverts and bridges.
98
(d) Implement flood plain management regula-
tions aimed at flood proofing all new and ex-
isting dc:~mageable properties.
(e) Enforcement of the National Flood Insurance
Program required ordinance.
(f) Create an environmental corridor inclusive
of 1 00-year (1 percent chance) flood plain
and appropriate buffer zone; retain existing
state and borough lands in public ownership
to be managed for environmental or recrea-
tional values. · ·
Alternatives for recreational land
A total of 109 potential single purpose recreation
sites were evaluated (Figure 5.1) both on a
benefit/cost basis and for the contribution each
could make toward meeting the needs set forth in
the previous section. Benefits are based on user day
estimates together with recreational values
calculated for this study. Costs include expenditures
for facilities, i.e. campsites, trail clearing, parking,
etc., as well as operatfon, maintenance and replace-
ment of these facilities over a 50 year period. A
standard $2000 per acre was included as a land pur-
chase cost. All costs and benefits are presented on
an average annual 27 basis (Tables 5.7 through 5.11).
Tables 5.12 through 5.15 show four recreational
development alternatives which have been selected
as examples from the previous 109 single purpose
sites. These examples were chosen at random as an
illustration of possible site combinations. The alter-
natives are by no means limited to the four shown,
but may be derived in any combination from those
previously listed sites.
Alternatives for fish and wildlife habitat lands
(including wetlands)
While many problems are evidenced in the
human/wildlife interface the principal alternatives
are couched in terms of avoiding future problems or
taking advantage of preserving or enhancing
habitat. These alternatives are shown in Table 5.16.
2 7 Water Resource Council discount rate of 7-3/8
percent, 50 year evaluation period.
Table 5. 7 Hiking (Need = 37 trail miles)
Potential Approx. Units User Average Average Net Average
Park Park Provided Days Annual Rec. Annual Annual
Name Acreage (miles) Provided Benefits Cost Benefits
(dollars) (dollars) (dollars)
Bench Lake 180 3 1,794 13,150 31,270 -18,120
Sled Trail 30 14 8,372 61,370 23,560 37,810
Hatcher Pass 71,040 66 39,468 289,300 10,871,990 -10,582,690
Rec. Area
Three Beauties 80 24 14,352 105,200 64,570 40,630
Table 5.8 Stream Fishing (Need = 127 stream access miles)
Potential Approx. Units User Average Average Net Average
Park Park Provided Days Annual Rec. Annual Annual
Name Acreage (miles) Provided Benefits Cost Benefits
(dollars) (dollars) (dollars)
Three Mile Lake 10 4 3,160 32,610 10,630 21,980
Little Willow 20 4 3,160 32,610 7,780 24,830
Flathorn Lake 20 2 1,580 16,310 5,410 10,900
Fish Creek (off 60 4 3,160 32,610 13,850 18,760
Flathorn Lake)
Fish Creek-Knik 30 2 1,580 16,310 6,930 9,380
Willow Creek 750 6 4,740 48,920 120,980 -72,060
Canyon
Willow Creek #2 480 6 4,740 48,920 79,990 -31,070
Willow Creek # 1 240 3 2,310 24,460 39,940 -15,480
Little Susitna 160 4 3,160 32,610 30,190 2,420
Access "A"
Little Susitna 320 4 3,160 32,610 53,330 -20,720
Access "B"
99
---------~--
100
Potential
Park
Name
Horseshoe Lake
#1 and #2
Three Mile Lake
Kalmback Lake
Finger Lake
Flat Lake
Kashwitna Lake
Long Lake
Twin Island
Lake #1 and #2
Lake and Trail
Flathorn Lake
Anna Lake
Stephan Lake
Fish Creek (off
Flilthorn Lake)
Prator Lake
Seymour Lake
Bench Lake
Cheri Lake
Sara Lake
Meadow Creek
Stevens Lake
i>lud Lake
Honeybee Lake #1
Honeybee Lake #2
Kelly Lake
Delyndia Lake
Papoose Twins
Low Lake
Wolf Lake
Hourglass Lake
Lake Access "C"
Lucy Lake/
Cottonwood Creek
Lake Access "A"
Three Beauties
Four Lakes
Eastside Lake
Lynx Lake
Twelve Mile Lake
Lake Marion
Loon Lake
Blodgett Lake
Houston Lake
Frog Lake
Lake Lorraine
Seven Mile Lake
Approx.
Park
Ac~eage
25
10
10
7
5
40
40
120
60
20
80
20
60
7
40
180
20
10
960
420
20
10
40
4
40
60
160
30
10
40
320
10
80
160
135
300
1,025
50
10
10
640
40
80
60
Table 5.9 Lake Fishing (Need = · 30 access points)
Units
Provided
(miles)
2
1
User
Days
Provided
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
2,610
1,305
1,305
1,305
·1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1;305
i,305
1,305
. 1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
_Average
Annual Rec.
Benefits
(dollars)
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
26,940
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
13,470
Average
Annual
Cost
(dollars)
12,100
9,820
9,820
9,370
9,060
14,380
14,380
34,820
17,410
11,340
20,450
11,340
17,410
9,370
14,380
35,630
11,340
9,820
154,050
72,070
ii,340
9,820
14,380
8,910
14,380
17,410
32,590
12,860
9,820
14,380
56,880
9,820
20,450
32,590
2,880
53,850
163,920
15,890
9,820
9,820
105,470
14,380
20,450
17,410
Net Average
Annual
Benefits
(dollars)
1,370
3,650
3,650
4,100
4,410
-910
-910
-7,880
-3,940
2,130
-6,980
2,130
-3,940
4,100
-910
-22,160
2,130
3,650
-140,580
~-58,600
2,i30
3,650
-910
4,560
-910
-3,940
19,120
610
3,650
-910
-43,410
3,650
-6,980
-19,120
10,590
-40,380
-150,450
-2,420
3,650
3,650
-92,000
-910
-6,980
-3,940
··. · ..
················· ········.
5usitna Flats
Gamq. R.zfuge
ldit rod
Trail
: I
\·"
..
'
Littl~ Willow C._
Corridor
····.
>t47
>t54
*53
55
•...... ···· ······
·····
:'
Hatcher Pass
.. ····················· ····· ..... ....................
. :
.. /,:··..... . ...... ...
··.. .·· ·. ..·' ... · . ,:
/~:.~.: . .---;..~.:-
: IT]: ..... · ·· ..... \"''• ........... . .....
.. ...... :."' " .... -... ---'=. __ , •• •• !
· . .. ··· ..
·· ..
*23 ' ' ' \
\
D MAJOR RECREATION AREAS
Th ese area s are generally larg e r than 1 township and contain
a variety of re creat ion al opportunities (e.g. th e Little Susitna
River Corridor).
~ RECREATION AREAS
CJ LARG-ER THAN toO ACRES
These areas provide a variety of rec reat ional opportunities
including camping, access to fishing sites, boat launches,
hiking , plane tie ups , etc .
RECREATION AREAS
SMALLER THAN lbO ACRES
* Lake or Stream Access
• Trail Wayside
• Campground * Historic Site
0 Non-State Re cre at io n A rea
TRAILS
87 Tra i ls
LIST OF SITES
Anna Lake . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Bench Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Blodgett Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Cheri Lake . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Delyndia Lake • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 & 32
Eastside Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
Finger Lake • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . 24
Fish Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 52
Fish Creek (off Flathorn Lake) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Fish Creek-Knik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Flat Lake • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . 40 & 41
Flathorn Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Four Lakes . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . 18
Frog Lake . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . 27
Hatcher Pass Rec. Area . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Honeybee Lake# 1 . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • • . . . • . 12
Honeybee Lake #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . 13
Horseshoe Lake# 1 and #2 . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Hourglass Lake • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Houston Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Kalmback Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Kashwitna Lake . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . 2
Kelly Lake . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Lake Access "C" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Lake Access "A" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Lake Lorraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Lake Marion . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Lake and Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Little Susitna Access "A" . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 21
Little Susitna Access "B" . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Little Willow . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . 3
Long Lake . . . • . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Loon Lake . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Low Lake •••...........••...........•. 33
Lucy Lake/Cottonwood C r eek . . . . . . . . • . . . . . 49
Fry-pan Lake . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Meadow Creek . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Mud Lake ....•......................• 38
Papoose Twins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Prater Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 28
Sara Lake . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . • . . . 39
Seven Mile Lake . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Seymour Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Sled Road Trail ................ •. . . . . . . . . 8
Stephan Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . 47
Stevens Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Susitna Crossing-Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Susitna Scenic Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Three Beauties . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Three Mile Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . 48
Twelve Mile Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Twin Island Lake#} and #2 ................ 57
Willow Creek # 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Willow Creek #2 • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Willow Creek Canyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Wolf Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 5.1 Map of Sites
10
Table 5.10 Developed Camping (Need = 531 units)
Potential Approx. Units User Average Average Net Average
Park Park Provided Days Annual Rec. Annual Annual
Name Acreage (miles) Provided Benefits Cost Benefits
(dollars) (dollars) (dollars)
Seymour lake 40 80 11,520 207,010 88,528 118,482
Bench Lake 180 80 11,520 207,010 88,528 118,482
Sara Lake 10 -4 576 10,350 5,640 4,710
Stevens Lake 420 180 25,920 465,780 249,290 216,490
Mud Lake 20 40 5,760 103,510 44,260 59,250
Willow Creek #2 480 60 8,640 155,260 134,720 20,540
Willow Creek # 1 240 100 14,400 258,770 139,080 119,690
Honeybee lake # 1 10 20 2,880 51,750 22,130 29,620
Honeybee lake #2 40 20 2,880 51;750 26,690 25,066
Papoose Twins 60 120 17,280 310,520 132,790 177,730
Wolf lake 30 24 3,456 62,100 29,290 32,810
Three Mile Lake 10 12 1,728 31,050 151,110 ·120,060
Finger Lake 7 4 576 10,350 5,190 5,160
Flat lake 5 8 1,152 20,700 9,010 11,690
little Willow 20 20 2,880 51,750 23,650 28,100
Twin Island 120 -60 8,640 155,260 301,800 -146,540
lake #1 and #2
lake and Trail 60 21 3,024 54,340 30,750 23,590
Flathbrn lake 20 20 2,880 51,750 23,650 28,100
Susitna Crossing-60 120 17,280 310,520 132,790 177,730
(Highway)
Anna Lake 80 60 8,640 i55,260 73,990 81,270
Stephan lake 20 20 2,880 51,750 23,650 28,100
Fish Creek (off 60 80 11,520 207,010 73,990 133,020
Flathorn lake)
Fry-pan lake 300 100 14,400 258,770 148,620 110,150
Twelve Mile lake 1,025 100 14,400 258,770 258,690 80
lake Marion 50 75 10,800 194,080 84,890 109,190
loon lake 10 20 2,880 51,750 22,130 29,620
Houston Lake 640 200 28,8oo 517,540 303,300 214,240
little Susitna 160 100 14,400 258,770 127,360 131,410
Access uA"
Frog Lake 40 40 5,760 103,510 47,300 56,210
lake Lorraine 80 80 11,520 207,010 94,600 112,410
103
--------------------~
Table 5.11 Picnicking (Need = 359 units)
Potential Approx. Units User Average Average Net Average
Park Park Provided Days Annual Rec. Annual Annual
Name Acreage (miles) Provided Benefits Cost Benefits
(dollars) (dollars) (dollars)
Steven~; Lake 420 100 39,100 239,680 124,150 115,530
Willow Creek #2 480 c 75 29;325 179,760 118,160 61,600
Willow Creek # 1 240 125 48,875 299,600 111,920 187,680
Delyndia Lake 40 50 19;550 119,840 36,270 83,570
Low Lake 160 100 39,100 239,680 86,050 153,630
Wolf Lake 30 30 11,730 71,900 23,080 48,820
Hourglass Lake 10 10 3,910 23,970 7,560 16,410
Lak;e Access "C" 40 25 9,775 59,920 21,170 38,750
Horseshoe Lake 25 20 7;820 47,940 15,870 32,070
#1 and#2
Three Mile Lake 10 10 3,910 23,970 7,560 16,410
Kalmback Lake 10 25 9,"(75 59,920 21,170 38,750
Finger Lake 7 5 1,955 11,980 4,080 7,900
Flat Lake 5 10 3,910 23,970 6,800 17,170
Little Willow 20 25 9,775 59,920 18,130 41,790
Long Lake 40 25 9,775 59,920 21,170 38,750
Twin Island 120 50 19,550 119,840 48,410 7l,430
Lake #1 and #2
Lake and Trail 60 35 13,690 83,890 30,250 53,640
Flathorn Lake 20 25 9,775 59,920 18,130 41,790
Anna Lake 80 30 11,730 71,900 30,260 41,640
Willow Creek 750 60 23,460 143,810 150,100 6,290
Canyon
Susitna Scenic 150 100 39,100 239,680 83,160 156,620
Area
Table 5.12 Recreation Alternative No. 1, Willow Subbasin
ACTIVITY UNITS
Camping Plcnlckhig Stream Lake
Hiking (camp-(piCnic Fishing Fishing Net
P~,tential Sites (miles) sites) s!tes) (miles) (ac. pts) Benefits
Willow Creek # 1 100 125 6 $364,760
Willow Creek #2 60 75 3 196,820
Houston Lake 200 219,400
Stevens Lake 180 100 400,950
Delyndia Lake 50 88,730
Cheri Lake 2,130
Lake Access "A" 3,650
Eastside Lake 10,590
Blodgett Lake 3,650
PratorLake 4,100
Kelly Lake 4,650
Fish Creek 2 9,380
Three Beauties 24 2 45,800
Sled Road Trail 14 37,810
TOTALS 38 540 350 11 10 $1,392,330
104
Table 5.13 Recreation Alternative No. 2, Willow Subbasin
ACTIVITY UNITS
Camping Picnicking Stream Lake
Hiking (camp-(picnic Fishing Fishing Net
Potential Sites (miles) sites) sites) (miles) (ac. pts) Benefits
Papoose Twins 120 $182,900
Low Lake 100 158,800
Little Susitna 100 4 158,120
Access "A"
Susitna Crossing 120 177,730
(Highway)
Horseshoe Lake 20 37,240
#1 & #2
Lake Access "C" 25 43,910
Kalmback Lake 25 43,920
Three Beauties 24 45,800
Sled Road Trail 14 37,810
-Fish Creek 2 9,380
Delyndia Lake 50 88,730
Hourglass Lake 10 21,580
TOTALS 38 340 230 6 8 $1,005,920
Table 5.14 Recreation Alternative No. 3, Willow Subbasin
ACTIVITY UNITS
Camping Picnicking Stream Lake
Hiking (camp-(picnic Fishing Fishing Net
Potential Sites (miles) sites) sites) (miles) (ac. pts) Benefits
Prator Lake $4,100
Seymour Lake 80 123,640
Bench Lake 3 80 117,670
Cheri Lake 2,130
Finger Lake 4 5 19,290
Flat Lake 8 10 34,790
Little Willow 20 25 4 100,790
Susitna Scenic Area 100 156,520
Three Beauties 24 45,800
TOTALS 27 192 140 4 7 604,730
Table 5.15 Recreation Alternative No.4, Willow Subbasin
ACTIVITY UNITS
Camping Picnicking Stream Lake
Hiking (camp-(picl!ic Fishing Fishing Net
Potential Sites (miles) sites) sites) (miles) (ac. pts) Benefits
Anna Lake 60 30 140,220
Wolf Lake 24 30 91,350
Lake and Trail 21 35 91,510
Eastside Lake 10,590
Frog Lake 40 61,370
Sled Road Trail 14 37,810
Willow Creek 60 6 35,520
Canyon
Willow Creek # 1 100 125 6 364,760
TOTALS 14 245 280 12 5 $833,130
105
. -----·----------~-··----···-·---·-----~-------------------
106
5. Resource Needs & Alternatives
Alternative Accounts
Alternative Accounts
In Table 5.16, the specific functional resource alter-
natives are shown along with the beneficial and
adverse effects of each of the four objective ac-
counts. These include national economic develop-
ment, environmental quality, regional economic
development, and other social effects. The format
permits a ready reference to compare and contrast
the relative merit of the alternatives presented.
Table 5.16
Alternative
A. Agriculture/Timber Land
1. Maintain "hands ofr'
land use policy.
2. Preserve current
agricultural land.
3. Strive for self·
sufficiency in
production of local
agricultural/timber
products.
Willow Subbasin
Alternative Accounts Display
National Economic
Development (NED)
Beneficial Effects
Minimal public sector
administrative costs.
Tendency toward land
uses exhibiting great-
est short-term private
returns.
Adverse Effects
Pre-emption of future
options for alternative
land uses.
(Jnpatterned development
resulting in inefficient
allocation of publicly
provided goods and
services.
Beneficial Effects
Help ensure continued
production of agricul-
tural commodities.
Maintain stability of
settlement patterns.
Adverse Effects
Cost of preservation
program administration
and enforcement.
Beneficial Effects
Release extra-area
resources for
alternative uses.
Adverse Effects
Decreased demand for
commodities produced
elsewhere.
Increased inefficiency
in national production
of goods and services.
Development cost:
land clearing $16 mil.
road construction $7 mil.
Environmental Quality
(EQ)
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Land use changes under-
taken without regard to
environmental impacts.
Impairment of aesthetic
landscape amenities.
Potential for water
pollution and subsequent
health hazard.
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Maintain "open space."
Continue present ag.
off-site pollution
levels.
Beneflchll or Adverse
Effects
Loss·of 28,000 acres of
wildlife habitat to
agricultural production.
Conversion of 280,000
acres of timber land
from natural state to
multiple use land.
Regional Economic
Development (RED)
Beneficial Effects
Minimal public sector
administrative costs.
Tendency toward land
uses exhibiting great-
est short-term private
returns.
Adverse Effects
Pre-emption of future
options for alternative
land uses.
(Jnpatterned development
resulting in inefficient
allocation of publicly
provided goods and
servicesa
Beneficial Effects
Help ensure continued
production of agricul·
tural commodities.
Maintain stability of
settlement patterns.
Maintains intra-area
employment Ope~Jrtunities.
Tends to stabilize
community economic base.
Adverse Effects
Cost of preservation
program administration
and enforcement.
Beneficial Effects
Slacken dependency on
in-shipped commodities.
Increase intra-area
employment opportunities.
Tends to stabilize
community economic base.
Adverse Effects
Precludes alternative
higher-valued land uses.
Other Social Effects
(OSE)
Beneficial or Adverse .
Effects
Inadequate or poorly
distributed social
overhead capital.
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Deaccelerate change
in area "lifestyle."
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Psychological satisfaction
from the action.
Reduces high unemployment
rate.
Table 5.16 (continued)
National Economic Environmental Quality Regional Economic Other Social Effects
Alternative Development (NED) (EQ) Development (RED) (OSE)
4. Strive for maximum Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse
benefits from Present value of net Effects Enhance area income. Effects
agricultural/timber benefits: $375mil. Loss of 80,000 acres of Psychological satisfaction
production. wildlife habitat to Improve employment from the action.
Enhance GNP. agricultural production. opportunities.
Improve employment Clearcut 220,000 acres Present net benefits Reduces high unemploy-
opportunities. of timber land on a cut-valued at $374 million. ment rate.
and-run basis or 2,750
acres annually on a sus-Tends to stabilize
Adverse Effects tained yield basis. community economic base.
Pre-empt alternative
use of productive Adverse Effects
inputs. Precludes alternative
higher-valued land uses.
Development cost:
land clearing $24mil.
road construction $7mil.
5. Establish priorities Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse
for assistance in Productivity of Effects Productivity of farmland Effects
planning and instal-farmland is maintained. May reduce sedimentation is maintained.
lation of erosion of streams.
control practices on Adverse Effects Adverse Effects
existing and deve-
loping crop and
timber lands.
B. Settlement Land Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse
1. Require that all Costs associated Effects Will create skilled Effects
future settlement with settlement Widely dispersed and semi-skilled Some adjacent land-
be restricted to will be minimized. development may employment oppor-owners may be adverse
those areas iden-occur. tunities associated to the action.
tified as having with residential and
"high capability" May result in signi-commercial construe-Reduced health and
on the settlement ficant loss of essen-tion. safety hazards asso-
models. tial habitat areas. dated with construe-
Adverse Effects Adverse Effects tion on unsuitable
Costs associated Land alteration Local costs associated sites.
with settlement will result. with settlement.
i.e. residential Irreversible and Psychological satis-
construction, land irretrievable commit-faction of bringing
clearning, etc. ment of land for land into private
development. ownership.
2. Require that all Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse
future settlement Costs associated Effects Will create skilled Effects
be restricted to with settlement Development will tend and semi-skilled Some adjacent land-
those areas iden-will be minimized. to be contained in employment oppor-owners may be adverse
tified as having smaller areas. tunities associated to the action.
"high capability" Economics associated with residential and
on the settlement with more concentra-May result in some commercial construe-Reduced health and
models and with ted development. loss of essential tion. safety hazards asso-
priority for deve-habitat areas. ciated with construe-
lopment emanating Adverse Effects Adverse Effects tion on unsuitable sites.
from existing Costs associated Land alteration will Local costs associated
urban centers and with settlement result. with settlement. Psychological satis-
moving outward as i.e. residential faction of bringing
population growth construction, land Irreversible and land into private
warrants. clearing, etc. irretrievable commit-ownership.
ment of land for
development.
3. Require that all Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse
future settlement Costs associated Effects Will create skilled Effects
be restricted to with settlement Widely dispersed deve-and semi-skilled Some adjacent land-
those areas iden-will be minimized lopment may occur. ~-I!!Plo~ment op~or-owners may be adverse
tified as having on available land. tunities. Recreation-to the action.
"high capability" Habitat areas and asso-al, commercial, and
on the settlement dated fish and wildlife subsistence uses Reduced health and
models but not populations will be of fish and wildlife safety hazards asso-
identified as maintained. will be maintained. dated with construe-
essential habitat tion on unsuitable
areas. Adverse Effects Encroachment on wetland Adverse Effects sites.
Costs associated with areas will be minimized. Local costs associated
settlement i.e. residen-with settlement. Psychological satis-
tial construction, land Land alteration will faction of bringing
clearing, etc. result. land into private
ownership.
Some land with develop-Irreversible and irre-
ment potential will be trievable commitment of
reduced in value. land for development.
107
---·------·-·--··---
Table 5.16 (continued)
National Economic Environmental Quality Regional Economic Other Social Effects
Alternative Development (NED) (EQ) Development (RED) (OSE)
Settlement Land (Cont.) Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse
4. Require that all Costs associated with Effects Will create skilled and Effects
future settlement settlement will be Development will tend semi-skilled employment Some adjacent land-
be restricted to minimized on available to be contained in opportunities. For recrea· owners may be adverse
those areas identi-land. smaller areas. tional, commercial, and to the action.
fled "high capability" subsistence uses of fish
on the settlement Tends to minimize loss of and wildlife will be Reduced health and
models, but not essential habitat areas maintained. safety hazards·asso-
identified as and associated fish and elated with construe-
essential habitat Adverse Effects wildlife populations. Adverse Effects tion on unsuitable
areas and Costs associated with Local costs associated sites.
with priority settlement i.e. resi-Land alteration will with settlement.
for development dential construction, result. Psychological satis-
emanating from land clearing, etc. faction of bringing
existing urban Encroachment on wetland land into private
centers and Some land with deve-areas will be minimized. ownership.
moving outward lopment potential will
as population. be reduced in value. Irreversible and irre-
growth warrants. trievable commitment of
land for development.
5. Establish an erosion Beneficial .Effects Beneficial or Adverse Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse
and sediment control Reduces erosion and sedi-Effects Reduction in regional Effects
ordinance in the ment from construction. Reduces erosion on new costs of sediment Will increase the cost
Matanuska-Susitna construction. Tends to control. of developing land.
Borough for urban maintain existing water
development. quality. Adverse Effects
Regional cost of estab-
lishing and maintaining
the program.
c. Flood Plains Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse
1. Greenbelt the 1 00· Prevents increase in Effects Prevents increase in dam-Effects
year (1% chance) damageable properties. Tends to maintain water ageable property. Creates Present landowners may face
flood plain and quality by preventing jobs. Maintains loss of property values due
appropriate safe development close to recreatimiill opportunities, to program. Program will
buffer zone. streams. Maintenance of including riparian trails maintain natural character
Identify and riparian habitat and ior hiking, riding, cross· oi iiood hazard area.
ra.t~in a.vi~t!tlnn species of animals, fish countiy skiing, etc., fish-................................ ~
state and borough and plants. Provides ing areas, boat launch Maintains and assures
flood plain lands passage corridors for sites, etc. recreational opportunities,
in public ownership. upland and riparian wild-including riparian trails
Purchase or lease Adverse Effects life species such as Adverse Effects for hiking, riding, cross-
development rights Initial cost of deve-moose, bear, mink, etc. Flood plain land no longer country skiing, etc.,
on existing private lopment rights. Initial available for development. fishing areas, boat launch
flood plain lands. cost of identification Cost of development rights sites, etc.
of flood plains. Cost ancl_ flood plain identifi-
of operation and man-cation, operation, and·main-
agement of program. tenance cost of program.
2. More effective imple-Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse
mentation of the Prevents increases in Effects Slows increases in damage-Effects
National Flood Insur-damageable properties. Tends to maintain water able property. Creates Tends to decrease property
ance Program. quality by preventing employment opportunities values in flood plain, but
Requires detailed development close to associated with adminis-increase adjacent property
identification of streams. Tends to main-tration of the program. values. Tends to maintain
flood plains and tain riparian habitat by natural character of flood
regulation and Adverse Effects preventing its removal. Adverse Effects hazard areas.
permitting systems. Cost of flood plain (Also maintains fish, Cost of flood plain
identification. Cost rrpanan aito uPfaitd, identification, regulation
of enforcement staff. wildlife species.) and permitting systems.
3. Implement flood-Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse Beneficial Effects Beneficial or Adverse
proofing measures. Reduction in average Effects Reduction in average Effects
Raise elevations of annual flood damages. May adversely effect the annual damages. Creation Reduce health and safety
structures and rein-appearance of some of employment. hazard due to flooding.
force walls. Install existing structures. Landowners will be
closeable valves and Adverse Effects Adverse Effects adverse to some of the
removable bulkheads. Cost of measures and Cost of measures and actions. Creation of
Relocate structures annual operation and annual operation and employment.
and/or contents to maintenance cost. maintenance cost.
flood free areas.
Establish flood
warning systems.
108
Table 5.16 (continued)
Alternative
D. Recreation Land
RECREATION ALTERNA·
TIVE NO.1
Provide recreation
facilities at the
following locations:
Willow Creek No. 1
Willow Creek No. 2
Houston Lake
Stevens Lake
Delyndia Lake
Cheri Lake
Lake Access "A"
Eastside Lake
Blodjett Lake
Prator Lake
Kelly Lake
Fish Creek
Three Beauties
Sled Trail
Provides for the
creation of the
following facilities:
a. 38 hiking trail
miles
b. 540 campsites
c. 350 picnic sites
d. 11 stream fishing
access miles
e. 10 lake fishing
access sites
RECREATION ALTERNA·
TIVE NO.2
Provide recreation
facilities at the
following locations:
Papoose Twins
Low Lake
Little Susitna (A)
Susitna Crossing
Horseshoe Lake 1 & 2
Lake Access "C"
Kalmback
Three Beauties
Sled Trail
Fish Creek
Delyndia Lake
Hourglass Lake
Provides for the
creation of the
following facilities
a. 38 hiking trail
miles
b. 340 campsites
c. 230 picnic sites
d. 6 stream fishing
access miles
e. 8 lake fishing
access sites
National Economic
Development (NED)
Beneficial Effects
Provides an additional
259,074 activity days
or about $2,627,200 in
recreation benefits
annually.
Adverse Effects
Average annual cost
including 0, M, and R
of about $1,234,900.
Beneficial Effects
Provides an additional
176,794 activity days
or about $1,754,300 in
recreation benefits
annually.
Adverse Effects
Average annual cost
including 0, M, and R
of about $748,400.
Environmental Quality
(EQ)
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Provides opportunity
to maintain or in-
crease landscape
quality.
Modifies 2,146 acres
of natural land for
recreation use.
May reduce quality of
wildlife habitat on
approximately 2,146
acres.
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Provides opportunity
to maintain or in-
crease landscape
quality.
Modifies 705 acres
of natural land for
recreation use.
May reduce quality of
wildlife habitat on
approximately 705
acres.
Regional Economic
Development (RED)
Beneficial Effects
Will annually create
18.9 person years of
semi-skilled jobs
directly related to
O&M of the facilities.
Will create approxi-
mately 167,182 activity
days or about $535,900
in recreation benefits
annually to those
within Anchorage,
Alaska and vici.nity.
May attract recreation
oriented firms.
Adverse Effects
Loss of other potential
uses such as timber
harvest on approximately
2,146 acres.
Precludes other types of
development such as resi-
dential and commercial
on the same acreage.
Beneficial Effects
Will annually create
8.0 person years of
semi-skilled jobs
directly related to
O&M of the facilities.
Will create approxi-
mately 116,489 activity
days or about $369,445
in recreation benefits
annually to those
within Anchorage,
Alaska and vicinity.
May attract recreation
oriented firms.
Adverse Effects
Loss of other potential
uses such as timber
harvest on approximately
705 acres.
Precludes other types of
development such as resi-
dential and commercial
on the same acreage.
~~~-----~-------·
Other Social Effects
(OSE)
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Will provide 259,074
activity days of rec-
reation opportunities.
Action would increase
public awareness of
the recreation resource.
Provides for a more
equitable distribution
of recreation resources.
May create a seasonal
population influx.
Psychological satisfac-
tion from the action.
Some landowners may be
adverse to the action.
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Will provide 176,794
activity days of rec-
reation opportunities.
Action would increase
public awareness of
the recreation resource.
Provides for a more
equitable distribution
of recreation resources.
May create a seasonal
population influx.
Psychological satisfac-
tion from the action.
Some landowners may be
adverse to the action.
109
110
Table 5.16 (continued)
Alternative
Recreation Land (Cont.)
RECREATION ALTERNA-
TIVE NO.3
Provide recreation
facilities at the
following locations:
Prator Lake
Seymour Lake
Bench Lake
Cheri Lake
Finger Lake
Flat Lake
Little Willow
Susitna Scenic Area
Three Beauties
Provides· for the
creation of the
following facilities:
a. 27 hiking trail
miles
b. 192 campsites
c. 140 picnic sites
d. 4 stream fishing
access miles
e. 7 lake fishing
access sites
RECREATION ALTERNA-
TIVE NO.4
Provide recreation
facilities at the
following locations:
Anna Lake
Wolf Lake
Lake and Trail
Eastside Lake
Frog Lake
Sled Lake
Willow Creek Canyon
Willow Creek No. 1
Provides for the
creation of the
following facilities:
a. 14 hiking trail
miles
b. 245 campsites
c. 280 picnic sites
d. 12 stream fishing
access miles
e. 5 lake fishing
access sites
E. Fish and Wildlife
1. From existing state-
owned land, establish
an integrated system
of habitats to be used
for fish and wildlife
production and asso-
ciated human use;
National Economic
Development (NED)
Beneficial Effects
Provides an additional
110,829 activity days
or about $1,077,600 in
recreation benefits
annually.
Adverse Effects
Average annual cost
including 0, M, and R
of about $472,900.
Beneficial Effects
Provides an additional
169,137 activity days
or about $1,507,200 in
recreation benefits
annually.
Adverse Effects
Average annual cost
including 0, M, and R
of about $67 4,1 00.
. Beneficial Effects
Will contribute to meet-
ing recreational, educa-
tional and scientific
needs.
Environmental Quality
(EQ)
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Provides opportunity
to maintain or in-
crease landscape
quality.
Modifies 509 acres
of natural land for
recreation use.
May reduce quality of
wildlife habitat on
approximately 509
acres.
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Provides opportunity
to maintain or in-
crease landscape
quality.
Modifies 1,365 acres
of natural land for
recreation use.
May reduce quality of
wildlife habitat on
approximately 1,365
acres.
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Will maintain wildlife
habitats and populations.
Will tend to maintain
water quality. May pre-
serve some environmentally
unique areas.
Regional Economic
Development (RED)
Beneficial Effects
Will annually create
4. 7 person years of
semi-skilled jobs
directly related to
O&M of the facilities.
Will create approxi-
mately 73,332 activity
days or about $233,092
in recreation benefits
annually to those
within Anchorage,
Alaska and vicinity.
May attract recreation
oriented firms.
Adverse Effects
Loss of other potential
uses such as timber
harvest on approximately
509 acres.
Precludes other types of
development such as
residential and commercial
on the same acreage.
Beneficial Effects
Will annually create
6.6 person years of
semi-skilled jobs
directly related to
O&M of the facilities.
Will create approxi-
mately 117,929 activity
days or about $380,855
in recreation benefits
annually to those
within Anchorage,
Alaska and vicinity.
May attract recreation
oriented firms.
Adverse Effects
Loss of other potential
uses such as timber
harvest on approximately
1,365 acres.
Precludes other types of
development such as resi-
dential and commercial
on the same acreage.
Beneficial Effects
Create some jobs. Will
maintain opportunities
for local recreational,
subsistence, and commer-
cial uses of wildlife.
Other Social Effects
(OSE)
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Will provide 110,829
activity days of rec-
reation opportunities.
Action would increase
public awareness of
the recreation resource.
Provides for a more
equitable distribution
of recreation resources.
May create a seasonal
population influx.
Psychological satisfac-
tion from the action.
Some landowners may be
adverse to the action.
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Will provide 169,137
activity days of rec-
reation opportunities.
Action would increase
public awareness of
the recreation resource.
·Provides for a more
equitable distribution
of recreation resources.
May create a seasonal
population influx.
Psychological satisfac-
tion from the action.
Some landowners may be
adverse to the action.
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Landowners will be adverse
to the action.
Table 5.16 (continued)
Alternative
integrate this system
with the Stat_e Refuge
System; develop public
access to areas with
high potential for
fish and wildlife use.
Develop management and
enhancement plans.
This system will en-
hance wetlands, flood
plains, and existing
refuges and recreation
areas.
2. Maintain natural
buffers between wet-
lands, refuges, rec-
reation areas, flood
plains, key habitats,
and development lands.
3. Establish priorities
for assistance in
planning for main-
tenance of fish and
wildiife resources
in siting, designing
and installing
developments.
4. Preserve existing
known wetlands (does
not include flood-
plains) by purchase
of private lands and
incorporation of
existing state,
borough and purcha-
sed wetlands into
the state's refuge
system.
5. Evaluate existing
potential wetlands
for incorporation
into the state's
Refuge System.
National Economic
Development (NED!
Adverse Effects
Annual cost to operate
and maintain.
Beneficial Effects
Will contribute to some
recreational needs
Adverse Effects
Annual cost to operate
and maintain.
Beneficial Effects
Will contribute to
maintaining fish and
wildlife resources.
Adverse Effects
May add to cost of
development.
Beneficial Effects
Will contribute to
meeting recreational
hunting needs and edu-
cational and scientific
needs. Will retain
areas which are capable
of storing flood waters,
will retain ground water
recharge areas.
Adverse Effects
Cost of land and
annual cost of man-
agement of refuges.
Beneficial Effects
Will contribute to
meeting recreational
hunting needs and edu-
cational and scientific
needs. Will retain
areas which are capable
of storing flood waters,
will retain ground water
recharge areas.
Adverse Effects
Cost of land and
annual cost of man-
agement of refuges.
Cost of evaluation
process.
Environmental Quality
(EQ)
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Will tend to maintain
water quality. Will tend
to maintain natural qua-
Iity of areas. Will main-
tain habitats and associa-
ted wildlife species.
Will provide passage cor-
ridors for wildlife species
(e.g., moose, bear, etc.)
moving· through development
areas.
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Will tend to maintain
natural habitats and
associated wildlife
species.
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Will preserve 128,490
acres of existing
natural system. May
preserve some environ-
mentally unique and
natural areas. Will
tend to maintain water
quality. Will help
maintain fish and wild-
life species associated
with wetlands.
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Will preserve part of
30,870 acres of natural
lands. May preserve
some environmentally
unique and natural
areas. Will tend to
maintain water quality.
Will help maintain fish
and wildlife species
associated with wetlands.
Regional Economic
Development (RED)
Adverse Effects
Annual cost to operate
and maintain. Decrease
in buildable land base.
Decrease in tax base.
Beneficial Effects
Will contribute to some
recreational needs.
Adverse Effects
Annual cost to operate and
maintain. Decrease in
buildable land base and
tax base.
Beneficial Effects
Will contribute to
maintaining fish and
wildlife resources.
Adverse Effects
May add to cost of
development.
Beneficial Effects
Will contribute to meet-
ing recreational, edu-
cational and scientific
needs
Adverse Effects
Cost of land. Average
annual cost of mainte-
nance and management.
Decrease in available
private land and
tax base.
Beneficial Effects
Will contribute to meet-
ing rec-reational, edu-
cational and scientific
needs. Will provide
jobs.
Adverse Effects
Cost of land. Average
annual cost of mainte-
nance and management.
Decrease in available
private land and
tax base. Cost of
evaluation process.
Other Social Effects
lOSE\
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Landowners and public
may be adverse to
the action.
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Landowners may be
adverse to the action.
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Some landowners may be
adverse to the action.
Citizens may be adverse
to the reduction of the
land base available for
private use and to loss
of tax base.
Beneficial or Adverse
Effects
Some landowners may be
adverse to the action.
Citizens may be adverse
to the reduction of the
land base available for
private use and to loss
of tax base.
111
6. Programs for
Implementation
of Alternatives
6. Programs For
Implementation of
Alternatives
Introduction
There are many federal, state, and local policies and
programs which are resource or land use oriented.
Several are directly applicable-to the needs and
alternatives identified in Chapter 5. The following
section discusses these programs and the alter-
natives they address. The final section discusses
changes or additions to the programs making them
more suited to Alaska's social and environmental
conditions.
Current Programs
USDA Programs
Resource Conservation and Development Program.
-Under this program the State of Alaska and/or the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough can establish a
Resource Conservation and Development Area
(RC&D) for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) would be the lead
USDA agency for this RC&D Area. The SCS will
assist the RC&D Area executive directors to develop
a coordinated pian for iocai decision-makers with
technicai information and financiai aid for measures
which seek to better utilize, manage, and protect the
area's natural resources. RC&D can provide
technical and financial assistance for flood preven-
tion, erosion and sediment control, public water
based recreation, fish and wildlife development, soil
and water conservation, agriculturally-related pollu-
tion control, and water quality management.
Conservation Operations Program. -This is an
ongoing program of the Soil Conservation Service.
Technical assistance is available through the
Palmer and Wasilla Soil Conservation Subdistricts
for the planning and installation of measures to
develop and conserve natural resources. The field
office is located in Palmer. Assistance is available to
farmers, forest owners, and local communities to
develop erosion and sediment control and resource
conservation measures for developed and develop-
ing land.
Soil Survey Program. -Soil surveys conducted by
the Soil Conservation Service include the mapping,
classification, correlation, and interpretation of
soils according to national standards. Soil mapping
has been completed for the entire Willow Subbasin.
Soil surveys are essential to any development where
land use changes will occur and for transportation
or utilities corridors identification. Soil surveys play
a vital part in planning by:
a. Providing a permanent inventory of the soJI
resources.
b. Providing soil interpretations for various uses to
guide planners at the local, regional, and state
levels in making sound land use decisions for
developing comprehensive plans.
c. Providing data on the location of:
(1) wet and poorly drained soils, steep land,
rocky land and areas with high water tables;
(2) areas suitable for waste disposal;
(3) areas that are suitable for use as residential,
commercial, industrial, agricultural or
school sites.
d. Providing many other soil interpretations that
contribute to planning for a better-quality en-
vironment.
Public Law 83-566. -The Small Watershed and
Flood Prevention Act of 1954 provides technical
and financial assistance to solve water and related
land resource problems. Under PL-566 the Soil Con·
servation Service can assist state or local govern-
ments in the identification of flood plains and in the
development of plans for flood prevention.
Project purposes which may be included in a PL-566
watershed plan include: watershed protection, flood
prevention, agricultural water management, in-
dustrial and municipal water supply, recreation, and
fish and wildlife protection. PL-566 watersheds are
limited to 250,000 acres in size. The program ap-
plies to land and water resource problems which
may be solved by individual landowners on their
own property or broader resource problems which
may require a solution by a group of landowners.
The PL-566 watershed program helps improve the
quality of the natural resource base, the quality of
the environment, and the quality of the standard of
living by:
a. Reducing erosion and sedimentation through the
application of land treatment and structural
practices.
b. Identifying flood hazard areas for flood plain
management measures.
c. Promoting proper land use and management.
d. Improving agricultural water management
practics.
e. Reservoirs intended primarily for flood preven-
113
6, Implementation of Alternatives
Current Programs
tion or agricultural water management may in-
dude recreation, fish and wildlife protection, and
water supply as additional purposes.
f. Reducing flood damages, hazards to life and
health, and the inconvenience caused by
flooding.
Renewable Resources Program. -The Forest and
Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act of
197 4 provides for long-term planning for the
management, protection and utilization of all
renewable resources on forest land. The USDA's
Forest Service and the State of Alaska DNR
cooperatively conduct forestry programs on federal,
state, and privately-owned forest land.
The programs or activities are classified in five
management systems as follows:
a. Recreation System -The goal of this system is to
increase the supply of outdoor recreation oppor-
tunities and services through programs which
emphasize dispersed recreation. Assistance is
given private forest landowners who are in·
terested in helping provide public recreation op-
portunities or in integrating,multiple uses into
their forest management programs. Research is
conducted to strengthen technology and
understanding of recreation demands, trends,
values, and environmental impacts and to qualify
and rank the commodity and am~nity values of
outdoor recreation.
b. Wildlife System -This system provides for in-
creasing both the diversity and numbers of fauna
and the protection of threatened and endangered
species. Technical assistance and financial in-
centives encourage non-industrial private forest
landowners to include habitat protection and
development among their own management ob-
jectives. Research emphasizes habitat identifica-
tion and improvement for endangered species,
and the impact of alternative forest practices on
game and nongame habitats and populations.
c. Timber System -The goal for the timber system
is to increase timber supplies and quality to the
point where benefits are commensurate with
costs. Opportunities to increase timber supply
exist on federal and private holdings as well as on
Alaska state-owned forest areas. The program
provides incentives for private timber land-
owners to grow timber commercially and for im-
proved use of the trees and logs that are
harvested. Major research includes improved
utilization of timber, improving the rates of
timber growth and yield, improving the protec-
tion for forests from wildfire, insects and
diseases and providing better inventory and
114
evaluation of resources.
d. Land and Water System-The land and water
system is an aggregation of many basic steward-
ship and land treatment activities to meet
minimum air and water quality standards. This
system permits control of human-caused erosion
on federal, state and private forest lands through
technical assistance and program support. Im-
portant areas of research include the nature and
extent of nonpoint sources of pollution, improv-
ed logging practices for fragile soils and steep
slopes, and improved efficency of fire prevention
and firefighting operations.
e. Human and Community Development System
-This system is concerned with the relationship
between man and the forest environment. All
renewable resource programs are focused to in-
crease goods and services from forest !and; this
means serving employment, housing, and Other
social needs. Assistance to communities is pro-
vided for urban and community forestry, rural
community fire protection and land use plan-
ning. Conservation education and manpower
training programs are designed to enhance the
knowledge and skills of rural residents.
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) Loans and
Grants. -The FmHA has a number of loan and
grant programs designed to encourage the
economic development of rural areas. Loans are
avaiiabie to assist sponsoring pubiic agencies in
Resource Conservation and Development Areas.
Soil and water loans are designed to aid landowners
in utilizing improved land use techniques. Loans
and grants are available to improve rural water
systems.
Agricultural Conservation Program. -This pro-
gram, administered by the USDA's Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, can provide
cost sharing incentives to landowners to implement
soil and water conservation measures and other
land improvement practices.
Other Federal Programs
National Flood Insurance Program. -The
Matanuska-Susitna Borough is a participant in the
National Flood Insurance Program. Property owners
can purchase low cost flood insurance protection. In
return for this federally-subsidized insurance, the
borough is required to consider flood hazards
before issuing building permits, subdivision ap-
provals, or zoning variances. After detailed
hydrologic and hydraulic studies are made, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) will issue flood zone maps which accurately
delineate the flood hazard area and depth of
flooding. The borough must then require that all
new construction be above the 100·year flood eleva·
tion. Most financial institutions must require that
flood insurance be purchased on any property
within the flood hazard zone on which mortgages
are accepted.
Under this program the Matanuska·Susitna Borough
(1) requires building permits for all new construe·
tion and substantial improvements and (2) reviews
permits to assure that sites are reasonably free from
flooding. For flood prone areas the borough must
require: (1) proper anchoring of structures, (2) the
use of construction materials and methods that will
minimize flood damage, (3) adequate drainage for
new subdivisions, and (4) that new or replacement
utility systems be located and designed to preclude
flood loss.
Land and Water Conservation Fund. -The Land
and Water Conservation Fund administered by the
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service of the
Department of the Interior (or its successor) pro·
vides cost sharing to finance recreation
developments and open space programs.
State of Alaska Programs
Land use regulation. -Land Classification. Alaska
Statutes 38.05.300 and 38.05.325 provide for the
State of Aiaska to classify agricuiturai iands based
on USDA Soil Surveys and to use these surveys in
identifying potential homesite entry lands.
Land Disposal. -Alaska Statutes 38.08 and
38.05.077 establish the homesite entry program
and the remote parcel program which provfde for
the disposal of state lands to eligible individuals.
The director of the Division of Lands, Department of
Natural Resources, shall assess the supply and de·
mand for land based on applications submitted by
persons in the state who are eligible to participate.
Under Alaska Statute 38.05.035 the director of
DNR, Division of Lands may sell land by lottery for
less than its appraised value when, in his judgment,
past scarcity of land suitable for private ownership
in any particular area has resulted in unrealistically
high land prices. The director may also dispose of
an interest in land limited to use for agricultural
purposes by lottery.
Land Disposal. -Alaska Statute 29.18.201 ·The
General Grant Land Determination of Entitlement
for Boroughs and Unified Municipalities is set out in
this section and the acreage is specified. Determina·
tion of Entitlement for cities is specified as 10 per·
cent of the maximum total acres of vacant, unap·
-~-------~--------------------------
6. Implementation of Alternatives
Current Programs
propriated, and unreserved land within the bound·
aries of each city. Determination of Entitlement for
newly incorporated Municipalities is 10 percent of
the total acreage of vacant, unappropriated,
unreserved land within the boundaries of the
municipality on the date of incorporation of the
muniCipality.
Land Selection. -Alaska Statute 38.05.290
established "A Land Act" under which the State of
Alaska can select federal lands based on soil
surveys. Conditions for selection are set forth in the
Statehood Act of 1959.
Agricultural land. -Agricultural Development
·Alaska Statute 03.22.050 established a plant
materials center to research and determine the most
suitable agricultural enterprises for Alaska.
Preferential taxation. -Alaska Statute 29.53.035
provides that "farm lands shall be assessed on the
basis of full and true value for farm use, and shall
not be assessed-as if subdivided or used for some
other nonfarm purpose." Should the farm be dispos·
ed of, the owner will be responsible for paying the
additional taxes for the preceding 2 years and ap-
plicable portion of the current year. This law en-
courages the maintenance of productive
agricultural land and also has the effect of pre-
serving open space. Alaska is one of 32 states that
provides for such assessments.
Agricultural Development. -Alaska Statutes
38.04.020 and 38.05.070 provide for issuing graz-
ing leases, both short and long-term, on certain
lands within the state.
Forest land. -Alaska Statute 41.17.010 establishes
the Forest Resources and Practices Act which pro-
vides for the state to insure the management of
forest resources guarantees perpetual supplies of
renewable resources and provides nonrenewable
resources in a manner consistent with that obliga-
tion and serves the needs of all Alaska for the many
products, benefits, and services obtained from
them.
Fish and wildlife habitat. -Alaska Statute
16.05.255 allows for the Board of Fish and Game to
make regulations it considers advisable in accord-
ance with the Administrative Procedure Act
(AS44 .. 62) tor (1) setting apart game reserve areas,
refuges, and sanctuaries in the waters or on the
lands of the state over which it has jurisdiction, sub-
ject to the approval of the legislature and (2) engag-
ing in biological research, watershed and habitat
improvement, game management, protection,
propagation, and stocking.
115
6. Implementation ofAlternatives
Program Implementation
Cooperative Extension Service. -The Extension
Service is responsible for providing information and
technical assistance regarding resource use to a
large segment of Alaska's population. Types of
assistance range from village gardening and home
economics to commercial farming practices and ad-
vice on reindeer production. Typically, the Exten-
sion Service acts as a bridge between university
basic and applied research results and practical ap-
plications in the field. The Alaska Cooperative Ex-
tension Service is not as heavily oriented toward
commercial agriculture as is the case in the other
states, but is playing a larger role as interest in
agriculture development expands;
Agricultural Experiment Station. -The Experiment
Station, headquartered at the University of Alaska
in Fairbanks with research centers at Fairbanks,
Palmer, and Homer, and experimental farms in Fair-
banks and the Matanuska Valley, conducts
agriculturally-related research in the basic and ap-
plied sciences. The Experiment Station is respon-
sive to research needs and can design programs
emphasizing natural resources needs, uses, and
environmental considerations.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Program
Zoning regulations. -Alaska Statute 29.33.090
contains the basic authority for municipal zoning,
predicated on the traditional police power conceot
of the promotion of health, s~fety, ~orals and ·
general welfare. The act authorizes municipalities to
enact zoning laws designed to lessen congestion in
the streets, to conserve health; to secure safety from
fire, panic, and other dangers; provide adequate
light and air; to prevent overcrowding of land; to
avoid undue concentration of population; to
facilitate the adequate provision of transportation,
water, sewage, schools, parks, and other public re-
quirements; to conserve the value of land and
buildings; to encourage the most appropriate use of
land; and to preserve and increase its amenities.
Zoning may regulate and restrict the size of lots, the
percentage of a lot that may be occupied, the size of
yards, courts and other open spaces, the density of
population, and the location and use of buildings,
structures, and land fo·r trade, industry, agriculture,
residences or other purposes.
Program Summary
A summary of the programs listed in this section is
shown in Table 6.1. Under each program heading
the agency responsible for program implementation
is shown. The applicability of the programs to each
of the resource needs alternatives outlined in
Chapter 5 is also presented.
116
Program Implementation
The programs identified in the previous section are
applicable in varying degrees to implementing the
alternatives outlined in Chapter 5. In general, the
federal programs are nonregulatory; they provide
technical or financial assistance to state, local, and
private resource managers and landowners for the
purpose of more effective land use decisions. State
and local programs are generally directed at regula-
tion of land and water resource use for the purpose
of enhancing public welfare and the quality of the
environment.
The implementation of the alternatives required to
meet the recognized resource needs will require
careful attention and cooperation among the public
agencies involved, particularly those of the State of
Alaska, the major landowner within the Willow
Subbasin.
Table 6.1 Applicability of public resource programs for implementing alternatives
Identified Federal
Alternatives Programs
Resource Land
Conservation Conservation Soil Small Renewable Loans and Agricultural Natldnal and Water
and Operations Survey Watersheds Resources Grants Coqservatlon Flood Conservation
Development PL83·566 Program Program Insurance Fund
scs scs scs scs FS FmHA ASCS HCJD HCRS
A. Agricultural/timber land
1. Maintain "hands off" NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
land use policy.
2. Preserve current lA lA lA NA NA DA DA NA NA
agricultural land.
3. Strive for self· DA DA DA DA DA DA DA NA NA
sufficiency In
production of local
agricultural/timber
products.
4. Strive for maximum DA DA DA DA DA DA DA NA NA
pecuniary benefits
from agricultural/
timber production.
5. Establish priorities for DA DA DA DA DA DA DA NA NA
assistance in planning
and installation of
erosion control practices
on existing and develop·
ing crop and timber lands.
B. Settlement Land
1. Require that all future lA NA DA lA NA NA NA lA NA
settlement be restricted
to those areas identified
as having "high capability"
on the settlement models.
2. Require that all future lA NA DA lA NA NA NA lA NA
settlement be restricted
to those areas identified
as having "high capability"
on the settlement
models and with priority
for development emanating
from existing urban
centers and moving out·
ward as population
growth warrants.
3. Require that all future lA NA DA lA NA NA NA lA NA
settlement be restricted
to those areas identified
as having "high capability"
on the settlement
models but not identified
as essential habitat areas.
DA • directly applicable lA ·indirectly applicable NA • not applicable
117
Table 6.1 Applicability of public resourc~ programs for implementing alternatives
ld!!ntlfied Federal
Alternatives Programs
Resource Land
Conservation Conservation Soil Small Renewable Loans and Agricultural National and Water
and Operations Swvey Watersheds Resources Grants Conservation Flood Conservation
Development PL83-566 Program Program Insurance Fund
scs scs scs scs FS FmHA ASCS HUD HCRS
4. Require that all future lA NA DA lA NA NA NA lA NA
settlement be restricted
to those areas identified
as having "high capability"
on the settlement models,
but not identified as
essential habitat areas
and with priority
for development emanating
from existing urban
centers and moving
outward as population
growth warrants.
5. Establish priorities lA DA DA lA DA NA NA NA NA
for assistance in
planning and installation
of erosion control
practices on existing
and developing
settlement land.
c. Floodplains
1. Greenbelt th~ 1 00-year DA lA lA DA lA NA NA DA NA
(1% chance) flood plain
and appropriate safe
buffer zone. Identify
and retain existing
state and borough
flood plain lands in
public ownership.
Purchase or lease
development rights
on existing private
flood plain lands.
2. More effective imple-DA lA NA DA lA NA NA NA NA
mentation of the National
Flood Insurance Program.
Requires detailed
identification of
flood plains and
regulation and
permitting systems.
3. Implement flood proofing DA lA NA DA NA NA NA DA NA
measures. Raise elevations
of structures and re-
inforce walls. Install
closeable valves and
removeable bulkheads.
Relocate structures and/or
contents to flood-free
areas. Establish flood
warning systems.
DA -directly applicable lA-indirectly applicable NA -not applicable
118
-------·---~-----~-------~--~--~---·-·---------------·-----------------------------------------------------.. ----------------------------------
Table 6.1 Applicability of public resource progra~s for implementing alternatives
Identified Federal
Alternatives Programs
Resource Land
Conservation Conservation sou Small Renewable Loans and Agricultural National and Water
and Operations Survey Watersheds Resources Grants Coilservatlon Flood Conservation
Development PL83-566 Program Program Insurance Fund
scs scs scs scs FS FmHA ASCS HUD HCRS
D. Recreation Land
1-4 Provide recre11tion DA NA lA DA lA NA NA NA DA
facilities as
appropriate.
E. Fish and Wildlife Habitats
1. From existing state-owned lA NA NA lA lA NA NA lA DA
land, establish an
integrated system of
habitats to be used for
fish and wildlife pro-
duction and associated
human use; integrate this
system with the State
Refuge System; develop
public access to areas
with high potential for
fish and wildlife use.
Develop managerilent and
enhancement plans. This
system will enhance
wetlands, flood
plains, and existing
refuges and recreation
areas.
2. Maintain natural buffers DA DA NA lA lA NA NA lA DA
between wetlands, refuges,
recreation areas, flood plains,
key habitats, on the one
hand, and development
lands on the other.
3. Establish priorities DA DA lA DA lA NA DA lA DA
for assistance in
planning for main-
tenance of fish
and wildlife resources
in siting, designing and
installing developments.
4. Preserve existing lA DA DA lA lA NA NA NA DA
known wetlands (does not
include flood plains)
by purchase of private
lands and incorporation
of existing state, borough
and purchased wetlands into
the state's refuge system.
5. Evaluate existing lA DA DA lA lA NA NA NA DA
potential wetlands for
incorporation into the
state's Refuge System.
DA-directly applicable lA-indirectly applicable NA • not applicable
119
Table 6.1 Applicability of public resource programs for implementing alternatives
Identified
Alternatives State and Local Programs
Land !.and Agricultural Preferential Grazing Forest F&W Cooperative Agricultural Borough
Classlfl· Disposal Development Taxation Permits Resources& Reserves& Extension Experiment Zoning
cation Assistance Practices Research Service Station
DNR DNR DNR Dept. DNR DNR ADF&Q U of A U of A M-S
Rev. Borough
A. Agricultural/timber land
l. Maintain "hands off" NA NA NA lA NA NA NA NA NA lA
land use policy.
2. Preserve current lA lA NA DA NA NA NA DA DA DA
agricultural land.
3. Strive for self-DA DA DA lA DA DA lA DA DA DA
sufficiency in
production of local
agricultural/timber
products.
4. Strive for maximum DA DA DA lA DA DA lA DA DA DA
pecuniary benefits
from agricultural/
timber production.
5. Establish priorities for NA NA DA NA NA DA NA DA DA NA
assistance in planning
and installation of
erosion control prac-
tices on existing and
developing crop and
timber lands.
B. Settl(!ment Land
l. Require that all future DA DA NA lA NA NA NA lA NA DA
settlement be restricted
to those areas identified
as having "high capability"
on the settlement models.
2. Require that all future DA DA NA lA NA NA NA lA NA DA
settlement be
restricted to those
areas identified as
having "high capability"
on the settlement
models and with priority
for development
emanating from existing
urban centers and moving
outward as population
growth warrants.
3. Require that all future DA DA NA lA NA NA DA lA NA DA
settlement be restricted
to those areas Identified
as having ''high capability"
on the settlement models
but not identified as
essential habitat areas.
DA -directly applicable lA -indirectly applicable NA -not applicable
120
\
Table 6.1 Applicability of public resource programs for implementing alternatives (continued)
Identified
Alternatives State and Local Programs
Land Land Agricultural Preferential Grazing Forest F&W Cooperative Agricultural Borough
I Classlfl· Disposal Development Taxation Permits Resources & Reserves & Extension Experiment Zoning
cation Assistance Practices Research Service Station
DNR DNR DNR Dept. DNR DNR ADF&G a of A a of A M·S
j Rev. Borough
4. Require that all future DA DA NA lA NA NA DA lA NA DA
settlement be restricted
to those areas identified
as having "high capability"
on the settlement models,
but not identified as
essential habitat areas
and with priority for
development emanating
from existing urban
centers and moving
outward as population
growth warrants~
5. Establish priorities lA lA NA NA NA NA NA lA NA lA
for assistance in
planning and instal·
Iation of erosion
control practices on
existing and deve-
I loping settlement
land.
c. Flood Plains
lt
i 1. Greenbelt the 100-DA DA lA DA NA NA NA lA NA DA
year ( 1 % chance)
~ flood plain and
1: appropriate safe I buffer zone. Identify
and retain existing
state and borough
flood plain lands in
public ownership.
Purchase or lease
development rights
on existing private
flood plain lands.
2. More effective imple· DA DA lA DA NA NA NA lA NA DA
mentation of the
National Flood lnsur·
ance Program. Requires
detailed identification
of flood plains and
regulation and
permitting systems.
3. Implement floodproofing DA DA lA DA NA NA NA lA NA DA
measures. Raise eleva-
tions of structures and
reinforce walls.
Install closeable
valves and removeable
bulkheads. Relocate
structures and/or
contents to flood-free
areas. Establish flood
warning systems.
DA • directly applicable lA • indirectly applicable NA · not applicable
121
,-•~c·--~-~.~--,=~-,--~-··~-~·--·--•----"----------------------~-,. ----------~-. --------~----·------------------------~------------·--------··----·--
Table 6.1 Applicability of public resource programs for implementing alternatives
Identified
Alternatives State and Local Programs
Land Land Agricultural Preferential Grazing Forest F&W Cooperative Agricultural Borough
CJassJO. Disposal Development Taxation Permits Resources & Reserves& Extension Experiment Zoning
cation Assistance Practices Research Service Station
DNR DNR DNR Dept. DNR DNR ADF&Q a of A (J of A M·S
Rev. Borough
D. Recreation Land
1·4 Provide recreation DA DA NA NA NA lA DA NA NA NA
facilities as
appropriate.
E. Fish and Wildlife Habitats
1. From existing state· DA DA NA NA NA NA DA NA NA lA
owned land, establish
an integrated system
of habitats to be used
for fish and wildlife
production and asso·
elated human use;
integrate this system
with the State Refuge
System; develop public
access to areas with
high potential for
fish and wildlife use.
Develop management and
enhancement plans.
This system will en·
hance wetlands, flood·
plains, and existing
refuges and recreation
areas.
2. Maintain natura! buffers DA NA NA NA Nt\ D6a. NA NA lA
between wetlands, refuges,
recreation areas, flood plains,
key habitats, on the one
hand, and development
lands on the other.
3. Establish priorities DA DA lA lA NA NA DA NA NA DA
for assistance in
plannjng for main·
tenance of fish
wildlife resources
in siting, designing
and installing
developments.
4. Preserve existing DA DA NA NA NA NA DA NA NA DA
known wetlands (does
not include flood·
plains) by purchase
of private lands
and incorporation of
existing state, borough
and purchased wetlands
into the state's
refuge system.
5. Evaluate existing DA DA NA NA NA NA DA NA NA DA
potential wetlands for
incorporation into the
state's Refuge System.
DA • directly applicable lA • indirectly applicable NA • not applicable
122
-~----,--~----------------. ---· -·--------------------·------------------------------------------------------------
Appendices
Appendix A
Major Soil Associations
of the Willow Subbasin
This appendix describes the soil associations
depicted in Figure 3.3 of the main report. Soils in·
formation is available in greater detail at the Soil
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Anchorage, Alaska.
At. Rock Outcrop· Dominantly steep to very
steep areas of bedrock in mountains.
A2. Talkeetna-Torpedo Lake Association ·
Dominantly -roiifri9 to very steep, wei I d.-rained
silt Ioains that are shallow to moderately deep
over very gravelly sandy loam; and nearly
level to nilly, poorly drained silt Ioams, on
glacial moraines.
A3. Talkeetna-StariChkof Association ·
Dominantly gently sloping to hilly slopes, well
drained silt Ioams that are shallow to moderately
deep over very gravelly sandy loams on ground
moraines; and nearly level, ·very poorly drained,
-partly decomposed peat in muskegs.
A4. Torpedo Lake-Starichkof Association·
Dominantly nearly le~el to undulating, poorly
drained loams on ground moraines; and nearly
level, very poorly drained, partly decomposed
peat in muskegs.
AS. Mutnala-Starichkof Association •
Dominantly-rolling to~steep, well drained silt
loams that are shallow to moderately deep -
over gravelly sandy loam on lateral moraines;
and nearly level to gently sloping, very poorly
drained, partly decomposed peat in muskegs.
A6. Torpedo Lake· Homestead Association ·
Dominantly gently sloping to strongly-slop-
ing poorly drained silt Ioams that are shaliow
over gravelly silty clay loam, and rolling to
steep, well drained silt loam soils that are very
shallow and shallow over very gravelly sand,
on lateral moraines.
81. Homestead-Knik Association· Dominantly
nearly level to steep, well drained silt loams
that are very shallow and shallow over gravel
and sand;_on high terraces and moraines.
82. Knik-Coal Creek Association· Dominantly
nearly level to steep well drained silt loams
that are shallow over coarse gravelly material
on moraines; and nearly level poorly drained
mucky silt learns along drainageways and
depressions.
83. Doone-Knik Association· Dominantly near-
ly level to undulating well drained silt loams
that are moderately deep to deep over loose
sand and gravel on high terraces; and rolling to
steep weii drained siit ioams that are shaiiow
over coarse gravelly material on moraines.
84. 8odenberg Association · Dominantly nearly
level to moderately steep, well drained silt
loams or very fine sandy loams that are
moderately deep to deep over sand and gravel
on terraces.
8'5. Homestead-Salamatof Association ·
Dominantly nearly level to undulating, well
drained sHfloams thaf are-very shallow to -
shallow over gravelly sand on broad outwash
plains and low moraines; and very poorly
drained coarse peat in muskegs.
86. Naptowne-Salamatof Association ·
Dominantly undulating to moderately steep
wefl drained moderately -deep to shallow over
gravelly sandy loam on glacial moraines; and
very poorly drained coarse peat in muskegs.
87. Rabideaux-Salamatof Association ·
Dominantly undulating sloping to rolling,
welf drained soiis that are sha-llow to very
shallow over loose sand and gravel on terraces;
and nearly level very poorly drained partly
decomposed peat in muskegs.
123
124
Appendix A
Soil Associations
88. Nancy-Homestead Association-Dominant-
ly rolling to steep, well drained silt loams that
are shallow to moderately deep and very
shallow over very gravelly sand on terminal
moraines.
89. Nancy-Kashwitna Association· Dominantly
nearly level to steep, well drained silt loams
that are moderately deep and shallow over
sand or gravelly sand; on terraces and
moraines.
Cl. Salamatof-Moose River Association -
Dominantly nearly level very poorly drained
deep coarse peat in muskegs; and nearly level
poorly drained stratified sandy and silty
sediments bordering muskegs.
C2. Tidal Marsh·Ciunie Association -
Dominantly nearly level and poorly drained
clayey sediments on very poorly drained,
fibrous peats; on tidal plains.
C3. Susitna-Salamatof Association-
Domin~n_!:ly nearly level, \Vel! drained,
stratified fine sandy loams and silt loams that
are deep over sand or gravelly sand on alluvial
plains; and nearly level very poorly drained
fibrous peat in muskegs.
~~--··-----
;;
·~
AppendixB
Wildlife Species of
the Willow Subbasin
Mammals of the Willow Subbasin
(sources: ADF&G 1973, 1978; MacDonald 1980;
Manville and Young 1965, Youngman f975) ·
lnsectivora (small insect-eating mammals)
Masked Shrew
Dusky Shrew
Water Shrew
Pygmy Shrew
Sorex cinereus
Sorex monticolus
Sorex palustris
Sorexhoyi
Chiroptera (bats)
Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus
Lagomorpha (rabbits, hares, pika)
Collared Pika Ochotona col!aris
Snowshoe
(varying hare) Lepus americanus
Rodentia (mammals with two chisel-shaped
incisors in each jaw)
Hoary Marmot
Arctic Ground Squirrel
Red Squirrel
Northern Flying Squirrel
Beaver
Northern Red-backed
Marmota caligata
Spermophilus parryii
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Glaucomys sabrinus
Castor canadensis
Voie Ciethrionomys rutilus
Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus
Tundra Vole Microtus oeconomus
Singing Vole Microtus miurus
Brown Lemming Lemmus sibiricus
Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus
Northern Bog Lemming Synaptomys borealis
Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius
Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum
Norway Rat* Rattus norvegicus
House Mouse* . Mus musculus
* introduced
Cetacea (whales, dolphins, porpoises)
Beluga (white whale} Delphinapterus leucas
Carnivora (carnivorous mammals)
Coyote Canis latrans
Wolf Canis lupus
Red Fox Vulpes vulpes
Black Bear Ursus american us
Brown (grizzly) Bear
Marten
Ermine (short-tailed
_ weasel)
Least Weasel
Mink
Wolverine
River (Land) Otter
Lynx
Harbor Seal
Ursus arctos
Martes americana
Mustela erminea
Mustela nivalis
Mustela vison
Gulogulo
Lutra canadensis
Felis lynx
Phoca vitulina
Artiodactyla (even-toed hoofed mammals)
Moose
Caribou
Mountain Goat
Dall Sheep
Alces alces
Rangifer tarandus
Oreamnos americanus
Ovis dalli ·
Birds of the Willow Subbasin
(source: Anchorage Audubon Society, Inc. 1978;)
Common Loon
Arctic Loon
Red-throated Loon
Red-necked Grebe
Horned Grebe
Great Blue Heron
Whistling Swan
Trumpeter Swan
Canada Goose
Brant
White-fronted Goose*
Snow Goose
Mallard
Gadwall
Pintail
Green-winged Teal
Northern Shoveler
European Wigeon
American Wigeon
Canvasback
Redhead
Ring-necked Duck
Greater Scaup
Lesser Scaup
Common Goldeneye
Barrow's Goldeneye
Bufflehead
Oldsquaw
Harlequin Duck
Common Eider
White-winger Seater
Surf Seater
Black Seater
Common Merganser
Gaviaimmer
Gavia arctica
Gavia stellata
Podiceps grisegena
Podiceps auritus
Andea herodias
Olor columbianus
Olor buccinator
Branta canadensis
Branta bernicla
Anser albifrons
Chen caerulescens
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas strepera
Anasacuta
Anas crecca
Anas clypeata
Anas penelope
Anas americana
Aythya valisineria
Aythya americana
A ythya collaris
Aythya marila
Aythya affinis
Bucephala clangula
Bucephala islandica
Bucephala albeola
Clangula hyemalis
Histrionicus histrionicus
Somateria mollissima
Melanitta deglandi
Melanitta perspicillata
Melanitta nigra
Mergus merganser
* The Tule White-fronted Goose, a subspecies of
the White-fronted Goose, may be nominated for
Inclusion on the endangered species list In the
future (Cannon 1980)
125
AppendixB
Wildlife Species
Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Black-backed Three-toed
Goshawk Accipiter 9entilis Woodpecker
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Northern Three-toed
Picoides arcticus
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Woodpecker Picoides tridactyl us
Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus Ieucocephalus Western Wood Pewee Contopus sordidulus
Marsh Hawk Circus cyaneus Olive-sided Flycatcher Nuttallornis borealis
Osprey Pandion haliaetus Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris
Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Tree Swallow lridoprocne bicolor
Merlin Falco columbarius Bank Swallow Riparia riparia
American Kestrel Falco sparverius Gray Jay Perisoreus Canadensis
Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus Iagopus Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stelleri
Rock Ptarmigan Lagopus mutus Black-billed Magpie Pica pica
Spruce Grouse Canachites canadensis Common Raven Corvus corax
Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis ~lack~c~ped Chickadee Parus atricapillus
Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus Boreal Chickadee Parus hudsonicus
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis
American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica Brown Creeper Certhia familiaris
Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola Dipper Cinclus mexicanus
Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica Wmter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus American Robin Turdus migratorius
Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius
Lesser Ye!!ow!egs Tringa f!avipes Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus
__ S_o1ltar_y_Sandp1p_er Tringasolitaria Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus
Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minim us
126
Wandering Tattler Heteroscelus incanus Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe
Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres Townsend's Solitaire Myadestes townsendi
Northern Phalarope Phalaropus Iobatus Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa
Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Water Pipit Anthus spinoletta
Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus
scolopaceus Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor
Surfbird Aphriza virgata Starling Sturnus vulgaris
Sanderling Calidris alba Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata
Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia
Western Sandpiper Ca!idris mauri Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata
Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendi
Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii BlackpoiiWar~ler . Dendroica striata
Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis
Dunlin Calidris alpina Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla
Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus
Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius Iongicaudus Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus
Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator
Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens Gray-crowned Rosy Finch Leucosticte tephrocotis
Herring-Gulf Larus a-rgentatus Hoary Redpoll Carduelis hornemanni
Mew Gull Larus canus Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea
Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus
Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra
Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera
Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
Hawk Owl Surnia ulula Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis
Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea
Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys
Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus Golden-crowned
Ruf~s_l-l_llf!!.mingbird Selasphorus rufus Sparrow
Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Fox Sparrow
Common Flicker Colaptes auratus Lincoln's Sparrow
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Lapland Longspur
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Snow Bunting
Zonotrichia atricapilla
Passerella iliaca
Melospiza lincolnii
Calcarius lapponicus
Plectrophenax nivalis I
Freshwater Fishes of the
Willow Subbasin
(source: Morrow 1980)
Lampreys
Pacific lamprey
Arctic lamprey
Herring
Pacific herring
Whitefish
Round whitefish
Trouts and Salmon
Rainbow trout/steelhead
Lake trout
Dolly Varden
Pink (Humpback)
salmon
Chinook (King) salmon
Chum (Dog) salmon
Coho (Silver) salmon
Sockeye (Red) salmon
Grayling
Arctic grayling
Smelts
Pond smelt
Surf smelt
Eulachon (Hooligan)
Entosphenus tridentatus
Lampetra japonica
Clupea harengus pallasi
Prosopium cylindraceum
Salmo gairdneri
Salvelinus namaycush
Salvelinus malma
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus keta
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus nerka
Thymallus arcticus
Hypomesus olidus
Hypomesus pretiosus
Thaleichthys pacificus
Pike
Northern pike
Sucker
Longnose sucker
Codfishes
Bur bot
Sticklebacks
Threespine sticklepack
Ninespine stickleback
Sculpins
Slimy sculpin
Coastrange sculpin
Pacific staghorn sculpin
Sharpnose sculpin
Flounder
Starry flounder
AppendixB
Wildlife Species
Esox lucius
Catostomus catostomus
Lota Iota
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Pungitil..is pungitius
Cottus cognatus
Cottus aleuticus
Leptocottus armatus
Clinocottus acuticeps
Platichthys stellatus
127
....
1\)
CIO
SPECIES
Masked or
Common shew
5,6,7
Dusky shrew
5,7,9
Northern
water shrew
5,6,7
Pygmy shrew
5,7
Little brown
bat
5,6
Pika
4,5,6,7
Snowshoe·
hare
1,2* ,3,4,
5,6
FOOD
insectivorous, e.g. isopods,
insects, worms, other small
animals
insectivorous
insectivorous, e.g. searches
along stream bottoms with
flexible snout and sensitive
vibrissae for snails, leeches,
larval invertebrates, and
tiny fish
insectivorous
insects caught in flight
herbivorous, e.g. leaves,
stems, roots; collects and
stores "hay" for winter food
herbivorous
summer-grasses, buds, twigs,
leaves, forbs, berries,
winter-spruce twigs and
needles; tips, bark, and
buds of hardwoods such as
aspen, willow, birch
Table 8.1 Habitats Used For Food, Cover, and/or Reproduction -
Shrews, Bats, Lagomorphs
UNIQUE FEATURES,
COMMENTS
CONIFEROUS
A
MIXED
FORESTS
B
DECIDUOUS
c
variety of habitats where food abundant, including
SHRUBLANDS
D
GRASSLANDS
E
TUNDRA
F
because of carnivorous
habits, this and other
shrews able to adjust
to variety of physio-
graphic habitats
forest floor, wooded areas, open fields, marshy areas, rocky areas, and tundra ----------------------------------------------------------
usually dependent on
running water and
overhead protection;
obtains protection
from the elements by
inhabiting the flood-
plain edge, above
stream, where both
vegetation and shrew
benefit from moderating
influence of running
water (9)
riparian;
close water-repellent
fur keeps skin dry
prefers drier areas than
do most other shrews
utilizes caves, hollow
trees, buildings, mine
shafts, and other cav ..
ities; occurs in
riparian areas
among rockpiles, talus
slopes, normally at high
elevations but also found
near sea level
suitable habitats are
those providing apprco-
priate forage species
and cover densities
especially
common in
moist mixed
forests
moist shaded areas associated with water, e.g. forests,
shrubland ·
riparian zones in forests and woodlllnds
(associated with open water such a:; lakes,
streams, and ponds)
among leaf mold, thickets, ferns, el:c •. in
open coniferous forests; also in grassy
forest clearings, "parkland," and
riparian vegetation
open forests and other areas providling
cover near clearings
spruce
forest (but
dense spruce
climax com-
munities
lack suit-
able brushy
understory)
white spruce-
birch com-
munities
open aspen
and birch
forests with
brushy under-
story (willow
· alder, high-
bush cran-
berry, rose
appear optimum
in Northern
Alaska, adapted
to riparian and
spring communit-
ies of high over-
heacLprotection
supplied by
larger arbores-
cent shrubs
(willow and
alder), and a
relatively
sparse ground .
vegetation of
mosses, lichens,
and grasses (9)
commonly found
in low, wet
meadows
grassy
clearings
rocky areas near grasses, herbs, small
shrubs, and other sources of food
streamside
areas with
'willows pro-
vide gc;>od
habitat
shrub
tundra
riparian
zones in
alpine
meadows
,_.
[IJ
ID
SPECIES
Northern red-
backed vole
5,7,8,9
Meadow vole
5,7
Tundra vole
(Northern vole)
5,9
Singing vole
5,8,9
Muskrat
1,4,5,6,7
Northern bog
lemming
4,5,7
FOOD
herbivorous, (related
species, C. gapperi,
Known to eat fungi,
seeds, bark, insects,
green plant material)
herbivorous, especial-
ly succulent greens
herbivorous, especial-
ly sedges, grasses;
when water freezes in
marshes and protect-
ive layer of snow
accumulates, eats
aquatic plants
usually unavailable
because of water
depth
herbivorous, e.g.
Equlsetum spp., colts-
foot, willow leaves,
lupine, vetch, etc.,
builds forage ("hay")
piles for winter use,
forage piles often
kept in place by being
built around basal
stems of willow or
dwarf birch
primarily herbivorous,
e.g. aquatic plants,
grasses; also some
animal material, e.g.
mussels, shrimp,
small fish; stores
vegetation for winter
food
primarily herbivorous,
e.g. green parts of
low vegetation, sedges,
grasses; probably also
snails, slugs
Table 8.1 Habitats Used For Food, Covell', and/or Reproduction -
Rodents
UNIQUE FEATURES,
COMMENTS
widely distributed
species found in
variety ofhabitats;
in Plateau Province of
Northern Alaska, inhab-
its valley sides below
singing vole and abCive
valley floor habitat of
CONIFEROUS
A
MIXED
FORESTS
B
DECIDUOUS
c
SHRUBLANDS
D
GRASSLANDS
E
TUNDRA
F
in all habitats, but as a general rule associated with plants giving overhead protection·----------------------------------------------
in Northern
Alaska, reaches
greatest density
in dwarf willow,
or overgrown
talus tundra vole (9); "perhaps
most common smalll mammal
in Alaska"(5)
accomplished swimmer
prefers moist or wet
soils on flat terrain
where water levels re:-
main relatively constant;
often collected in same
runways as meadow voles
and brown lemmings,
especially in wet grassy
areas and riparian shrubs
slopes blown free of .snow
in winter not inhabited;
in Northern Alaska, sing-
ing voles replace tundra
voles whenever stream and
overflow channels
stabilized by vegetation
lead into willow
communities
riparian, highest popu-
lations found in broad
flood plains and
deltas of major rivers
and in marshy areas
dotted with small lakes
utilizes bogs, marshe:s,
spring areas
occurs in variety of habitats --------·--------------------------------------------------------------typically in grassy
areas and damp
meadows
mossy muskeg
wet brushy
areas such as
dwarf willow,
dwarf birch, and
alder near edges
of lakes and
streams
common in wet
sedge meadows,
particularly
with drier
ridges, poly-
gons, etc. for
burrows
low shrub, tundra, damp swales, or grassy
areas beyond timberline, especially brushy
tundra with dwarf willows or other vegetation
with similar growth habit; shrub cover must
sphagnum
bogs, upland
tundra
around
lakes and
marshes
be open enough to permit growth of understory
vegetation which provides food; in Brooks
Range, prefers partial to well-drained soils near
running water, and most numerous in habitats
with early sera! vegetation; low wet meadows
seldom used except when bordered by willows
or shrubs of required growth forms
riparian vegetation, primarily assodated with slow quiet water
such as marshes and lakes .................................... ---------------------------------------------------------------------
muskeg and moist wooded habitats occasionally
meadows
wet tundra
sphagnum bogs
~ w
0
SPECIES
Hoary marmot
1,5,6,7,9
Arctic ground
squirre~
1,5,9
Red squirrel
1,2*,4,5,6,7
Northern flying
squirrel
1,5,6,7
_,.,___ __
FOOD
herbivorous, plant
material often gath·
ered some distance from
home dens, including
grasses, flowering
plants, berries, roots,
mosses, lichens
herbivorous, e.g. seeds,
flowers, stems, leaves
(e.g. of dwarf willow,
alder, birch), grasses,
sedges, fungi, mosses,
lichens; forages in a
variety of plant
associations
primarily herbivorous,
e.g. berries, buds,
fungi, seeds (especially
spruce seeds), lichens;
also animal matter, such
as insects and bird
eggs; winter-main
food consists of green
spruce cones cached
in "middens" during
summer and fall, also
caches mushrooms on
tree branches
primarily herbivorous,
e.g. bark, seeds,
fruits; also insects,
bird eggs;
summer-fungi important,
winter-lichen important
Table 8.1 Habitats Used For Food, Cover, and/or Reproduction -
Rodents
MIXED
UNIQUE FEATURES, CONIFEROUS FORESTS DECIDUOUS SHRUBLANDS
COMMENTS
requires rocky outcrops or
talus slopes for shelte1r,
generally near or above
timberline; true
hibernator
hibernates during winter;
tolerant of other small
mammals, e.g. voles, mar·
mots, and may be found
associated with them;
excavates burrows
caches cones in middens
for winter consumption;
middens located in moist
areas, often next to
logs, fallen trees
A B
principally mixed coni·
in mature ferous-deci-
spruce duous fores~s
forests and (especially
aspen domi·
nated decidu·
ous stands)
coniferous and mixed for· ••••••••••
ests, "animal of treetops"
(6)
c D
mature
deciduous
forests pro·
vide marginal
habitats
GRASSLANDS TUNDRA
E F
grasslands and tundra •••••••••••••••••••
near rocky shelter,
commonly occurs at the
base of active talus
where boulders are large
and have accumulated to
a depth sufficient to give
subsurface protection
tundra and short grasslands •••••••••••
on well-drained soils
from sea level to uplands;
optimum conditions for
colonization in Northern
Alaska are: 1) bare soils
surrounded by vegetation
in early xerosere stage
of succession, 2) loose
soils on well-drained
slopes, and 3) vantage
points from which sur-
rounding terrain can be
observed; dwarf shrubs
(willow, alder, birch)
provide cover (9)
~ w
~
SPECIES
BroWill lemming
4,5,9
Meadow jump-
ing mouse
5,7
Porcupine
1,4,5,6,7,9
FOOD
herbivorous,
summer-tender shoots
of grasses and sedges,
particularly on damp
soils,
winter-bark and twigs
of willow and dwarf
birch, other available
vegetation
herbivorous, primarily
grass seeds
herbivorous, favors
salty substances and
evergreen foliage, also
eats aquatic plants,
bark and other vege·
tation;
winter-spruce bark is
primary food, birch
also important
(prefers cambium)
summer-leaves, buds,
shrubs, herbs, and
aquatic plants replace
bark almost entirely;
obtains phosphorus and
calcium from bones,
antlers
Table 8.1 Habitats Used For Food, Cover, ;iJ.Dd/or Reproduction-
Rodents
UNIQUE FEATURES,
COMMENTS
ecological requirements
are precise in Northern
Alaska: "grasses cannot
be too wet, too sparse, or
too dry, and should offer
from 25·40 em of overhead
protection" (9); com-
petition from related
microtines (especially
tundra voles) restricts
distribution
CONIFEROUS
A
MIXIED
FORESTS
B
DECIDUOUS
c
generally at low elevations; ··········Open woods···················· .. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
"partial to water," there·
fore prefers marshy areas,
riparian areas, moist brushy
and grassy areas; hi'bernates
SHRUBLANDS
D
riparian
shrubs
GRASSLANDS
E
moist medium
and tall grass·
lands (short
grasslands pro-
vide marginal
habitats); in
Northern Alaska,
low ridges in
wet meadows
most often
utilized
marshy and grassy areas •••••••• ~ ••••.
also found less frequently
far from heavy timber and in
TUNDRA
F
damp tundra
on coastal
plain
inhabits all wooded areas but
prefers dry open forests,
particularly conifers and aspens tundra beyond treeline ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
.... w
1\J
SPECIES
Coyote
1,2. ,4,5,6,9
Grey wolf
1,2",3,4,5,
6,9
Red Fox
1,4,5,6,9
Black bear
1,3,4,5,
6,9
Table 8.1 Habitats Used For Food, Cover, andf,Dr Reproduction-
Carnivores
FOOD
opportunistic carnivore,
especially small mammals
such as hares, rodents, any
small mammal which can
be captured; also fruits,
birds, carrion
primarily carnivorous,
main food is hoofed
mammals, especially
moose and caribou, also
sheep and goat in south-
central Alaska; also
eats fish, birds, small
mammals, berries, carrion
primarily carnivorous, mice
and voles seem to be pre-
ferred and dominant, also
eats muskrats, squirrels,
hares, birds, .eggs, carrion,
and some plant material such
as fruits, vegetables
opportunistic omnivore, e.g.
animal matter, fish, fruits,
vegetables;
spring-frequently feeds in
moist lowlands where early-
growing green vegetation
is available, also eats
winter kills;
summer-fish, if available
e.g. salmon;
summer/fall-frequently
feeds in alpine areas
where berries are
plentiful
winter-enters den
and becomes torpid
UNIQUE FEATURES,
COMMENTS
interspersion
important
interspersion
important,
particular habitats
utilized in seasonal
pattern
CONIFEROUS
A
MIXED
FORESTS
B
DECIDUOUS
c
SHRUBLANDS
D
GRASSLANDS
E
TUNDRA
F
occurs in wide variety of habitats but prefers open country--------------------------------------------------------------------------
wherever suitable prey are available------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------very adaptable to wide range of habitats which provide suitable food
and cover, but prefers broken country where open patches are inter-
spersed with cover
-------------------------------most often associated with forests and woodlands, but depending on
season, may occur in variety of habitats from sea level to alpine
areas; highest bear densities generally occur in areas having
interspersed vegetation types;
-------------------preferred habitats appear to be semi-open
forested areas with understories composed
of fruit-bearing shrubs and herbs, lush,
grasses, and succulent forbs
-w w
SPECIES
Brown bear
1,2*,3,4,5
6,9
Marten
1,2*,4,5,6
Short-
tailed
weasel
(Ermine)
1,5,6,9
Least
weasel
1,5,6,8,9
FOOD
opportunistic omnivore, e.g.
berries, grasses, sedges,
fishes, roots, animal
flesh, carrion;
spring-roots; grasses and
other early-growing
herbaceous plants make up
bulk of diet, also carrion,
summer-grazes, primarily
on grasses, sedges; also
flowers, pods,
fall-fish and berries
constitute major food items
primarily carnivorous,
depends most on voles
and mice, also hares,
squirrels, pikas, eggs,
carrion, other small
mammals; also plant
materials such as
fruits, vegetables, and
insects; food may be
cached
carnivorous, e.g.
mice, voles, shrews,
hares, birds, and
other vertebrates
carnivorous, e.g.
mice, voles, shrews,
insects
Table 8.1 Habitats Used For Food, Covell', and/or Reproduction-
Carnivores
UNIQUE FEATURES,
COMMENTS
prefers isolation
from human distur·
bance; particular
habitats used in
seasonal pattern
dens in downed timber,
stumps, rock cavities;
reluctant to leave
cover
"on the Arctic Slope,
the ermine is the
ecological equivalent
of the long-tailed
weasel in the western
United States" (9)
"the least weasel on
the Arctic Slope is
the ecological equivalent
of the ermine of the
Boreal regions of the
Western U.S., both
inhabit damp rneadows
supporting microtines"
(9)
CONIFEROUS
A
MIXED
FORESTS
B
DECIDUOUS
c
SHRUBLANDS
D
GRASSLANDS
E
all habitat types utilized········-----.. ················but····--------·-······································ grass communi-
bear habitats in forested areas are
characterized by substantial
meadow, muskeg, sedge flats, or
grassy areas
inhabits coniferous and
mixed coniferous-deciduous
forests, especially mature
closed-canopy forests
close to climax stage
and consisting of high
percentage of conifer-
ous trees
ties appear very
important,
especially during
spring
TUNDRA
F
occurs in most terrestrial habitats, prefers open areas such as open canopy woodlands·--·-·············-·········-··········--·-·····
in Northern Alaska, lives mainly in areas where there is relief such as on slopes of
mountains and hills, in and around rockslides, and along banks of streams and
shores of lakes;
················----------····open woods and bushy areas---·-················---------
(seldom in damp
and wet grass-
sedge meadows)
meadows tundra
..... w
~
SPECIES
Mink
1,2*,4,5,
6,9
Wolverine
1,5,6,9
River
otter
1,2*,4,5,
6,9
Lynx
1,4,5,6,9
Harbar seal
4,5,6,9
FOOD
opportunistic
carnivore, e.g.
mice, voles, musk·
rats, other mammals,
birds, fishes, i·n-
sects, crustaceans,
sea urchins,
molluscs; generally
adjacent to or near
waterways but
abundance of mice,
hares, voles will
encourage inland
movement; generally
forages along riparian
shorelines and
beaches, in or not
far from cover
--
carnivorous, e.g.
marmots, caribou,
sheep, any mammals
which can be captured;
eggs, carrion, also
wasps, berries; caches
prey and carrion
--
carnivorous,
primarily aquatic
prey, e.g. fish, sea
urchins, crustaceans,
insects, molluscs;
also birds, eggs,
mammals (including
mink, beaver, hares,
squirrels); occas-
sionally vegetable
matter; forages in
water and on land
carnivorous, primary
food consists of
snowshoe hares,
eats other small
mammals, birds, wolf
kills, winter kills
primarily pisci-
vorous, also eats
squid, crustaceans,
other marine
organisms
Table 8.1 Habitats Used For Food, Cover, and/or Reproduction-
Carnivores
UNIQUE FEATURES,
COMMENTS
generally associated with
wetland edge, e.g. river-
ine, marine, or estuarine
shorelines; requires den
sites, e.g. rock 'cavities,
tree roots, vacated dens
constructed by other
species, (does not ccm-
struct its own den)
wide-ranging, solitary,
powerful carnivore; may
climb trees, fur retains
less moisture than any
other furbearers'
generally occurs at water-
land interface, requires
open water throughout win-
ter, utilizes water for
foraging, traveling, and
cover; cover also pm-
vided by natural cavities
and excavations of other
animals
distribution and abundance
closely tied to avail-
ability of snowshoe hares;
avoids human habitations
generally marine, also
occurs in protected bays,
rivers, and lakes
CONIFEROUS
A
MIXEll>
FORESTS
8
DECIDUOUS
c
SHRUBLANDS
D
GRASSLANDS
E
TUNDRA
F
occurs in forests, woodlands, shrublands, grass-sedge areas, and marshy tundras ·-·-·-·-·---·----------------------------------------
most commonly near streams, ponds, marshes, or beaches
variety of habitats including forests, brushland, and tundra--------------------------------------------------------------------------
adaptable, occurs in variety of plant communities adjacent to or near fresh or marine water bodies;
may travel long distances overland between river drainages to find suitable winter habitat or food
usually in or near woodlands, fc,rests, shrublands
and swamps where hares are available ----------------------------------------------------
.... w
Ul
SPECIES
Moose
1,2*,3,4,
5,6,9
Caribou
1,2*,3,4,
5,6,9
Mountain
goat
1,3,4,5,6
FOOD
herbivorous, e.g.
browse such as leaves,
twigs, bark, especially
of willow, birch, and
to a lesser degree
aspen, cottonwood,
alder; also cranberry
and other low shrubs,
lichens, terrestrial
and aquatic herbaceous
plants, (sedges,
horsetails, flreweed,
lupine, etc.),
summer-species men-
tioned above, as
available.
fall/winter-browse
constitutes important
winter staple, also
foliose lichens, and
available low shrubs
herbivorous, particu-
larly woody browse
and vegetation such
as leaves, lichens,
grasses, sedges, and
decumbent shrub
vegetation,
summer-shrub birch
leaves, willow leaves
and catkins, grasses,
sedges, mushrooms,
other forbs and
shrubs as available,
fall-switches to
lichens, (especially
fruticose) and dried
sedges,
winter-fruticose
lichens, grasses,
sedges, decumbent
shrub vegetation
herbivorous,
summer-grasses,
sedges, forbs comprise
bulk of diet,
winter-may also
utilize brush, ferns,
conifers
Table 8.1 Habitats Used For Food, Cover, and/or Reproduction -
Hoofed Mammals
UNIQUE FEATURES,
COMMENTS
tends to be migratory,
utilizing combination of
habitats; interspersion
important; marshy areas
provide aquatic vegeta-
tion and may be key
component of high quality
calving habitat; winter
range is critical, snow-
fall affects winter ·range
suitability, closed
canopy forests provide
areas of reduced snow
accumulation
depends on climax vege-
tation, especially
lichens; wide-ranging
movements allow recovery
of slow-growing lichens;
slow-recovery of forage
species necessitates:
1) utilization of very
large areas and 2)
opportunities for un-
restricted movements;
calving area provides
focal point of yearly
wide-ranging migratory
movements and constitutes
a critical habitat area
utilizes alpine and sub-
alpine mountain zones
characterized by rocky
slopes and cliffs
CONIFEROUS
A
MHXED
FORESTS
B
DECIDUOUS
c SHRUBLANDS
D
GRASSLANDS
E
TUNDRA
F
occurs in coniferous, deciduous, mixed coniferous-deciduous forests, low and tall shrublands, ------------------------------------
grasslands, sedge-grass and other tundra; primarily associated with upland shrub and
lowland bog, and seral communities created by fire and glacial or fluvial action;
the upland shrub communities are usually composed of willow along streamsides and birch
in the drier sites; lowland bogs are composed of interspersed black spruce forests, bogs,
shrubs, subclimax hardwood communities, and numerous intermediate stages; greatest
population densities are supported in fire-created seral habitats, usually dominated by
birch, willow, aspen, or a combination of these
timbered areas
used extensive-
ly as winter
range, espe-
cially spruce-
lichen associa-
tions, but
forests are
abandoned as
snow melts on
tundra areas;
snows deeper
than 20 in. or
with an ice
crust over 1.5-
2.5 in. thick
generally make
winter habitats
unsuitable
heavy snows
may force·
goats to lower
timbered eleva-
tions for forage
such as brush,
ferns, conifers;
use of mature
coniferous
forests well
documented but
not well under-
stood
spends much time on tundra and treeless
uplands where sedge-tundra, tussock
tundra, mat and cushion tundra, tall and
low shrub, tall and mid-grass, herbaceous
sedge-grass, and freshwater aquatic
habitats are available; this zone generally
lies between 3,000-5,000 feet in elevation
in southcentral Alaska
----------spring-fall,
utilizes alpine and
subalpine areas
supporting grasses,
sedges, and forbs;
with onset of
snow, moves to
rocky wind-blown
ridges and ledges
where forage remains
available-----------------------------
...
w
0'1
SPECIES
Dall Sheep
1,2*,3,4,
5,6,9
TOTALS:
TAXA
FOOD
herbivorous, e.g.
grasses, forbs,
sedges, low-growing
willows, alpine
shrubs, lichens,
mosses; seeks
out mineral licks,
spring-leaves
windswept wintering
grounds and
utilizes lower
south-facing
slopes where green
plants first
emerge, may be
found in alders
and near upper
limits of timber·
line,
winter-feeds on
grasses, sedges,
lichens, mosses,
available browse
Shrews, bats, and lagomorphs
Rodemts
Carnivores
Hoofed mammals (ungulates)
All taxa combined
Table 8.1 Habitats Used For Food, Cover, and/or Reproduction-
Hoofed Mammals
UNIQUE FEATURES,
COMMENTS
occurs in mountains :pro-
tected from heavy coastal
snowfall by intermediate
ranges; utilizes alpinE!
habitats characterized
by cliffs, deep canyons,
rock outcrops used as
escape terrain;
escape terrain repre-
sents an essential
habitat component;
summer distribution
strongly affected by
mineral licks
TOTAL NO. SPECIIES
7
14
13
4
38
CONIFEROUS
A
in local areas
may range into
timbered
habitats
CONIFEROUS
A
6
9
12
4
31
MIXED
FORESTS
B
MIXED
FORESTS
B
6
9
12
1
28
DECIDUOUS
c
SHRUBLANDS
D
shrublands
(e.g. ~lders)
near upper
limits of
timberline
No. Species in each Habitat Type
DECIDUOUS SHRUBLANDS c D
6 4
8 9
11 11
1 3
26 27
GRASSLANDS
E
TUNDRA
F
utilizes steep grasslands and
tundra communities in alpine
zone (approximately 2,000-
6,000 feet elevation);
winter ranges consist of
wind-blown ridges and slopes
where forage is available
near escape terrain
GRASSLANDS TUNDRA
E F
4 4
11 9
10 9
3 4
28 26
Footnotes for Table 8.1
References
*Reference (2), USF&WS (1980}, provided all or most information.
1 ADF&G. 1973, 1978. Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat, Volumes I and II. ADF&G, Juneau.
2 USF&WS, Division of Ecological Services. 1980. Terrestrial Habitat Evaluation Criteria
Handbook-Alaska. USF&WS, Anchorage.
3 ADF&G. 1976. Alaska Wildlife Management Plans, Draft Proposal. ADF&G, Juneau.
4 ADF&G. various years. Wildlife Notebook Series. ADF&G, Anchorage.
5 Manville, R.H. and S.P. Young. 1965. Distribution of Alaskan Mammals, Circular 211. U.S. Bureau of
Sports Fisheries and Wildlife (USF&WS}, Washington, D.C.
6 Palmer, E.L. and H.S. Fowler. 1975. Fieldbook of Natural History, second edition. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
San Francisco.
7 Kritzman, E.B. 1977. Little Mammals of the Pacific Northwest. Pacific Search Press, Seattle, Washington.
8 Youngman, P.M. 1975. Mammals of the Yukon. National Museum of Natural Science, Ottawa, Canada.
9 Bee, J.W. and E.R. Hall. 1956. Mammals of Northern Alaska on the Arctic Slope. Museum of Natural
History, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Definitions (after L.A. Viereck and C.T. Dyrness. 1980. A Preliminary Classification System for Vegetation of
Alaska. USDA-Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report PNW-106)
A Coniferous forest:
B Mixed coniferous-
deciduous forests:
C Deciduous forest:
D Shrubland:
E Grassland (equivalent
to "Herbaceous vege-
tation" in Viereck and
Dyrness):
F Tundra:
Tree canopy cover at least 10%, over 75% of total tree canopy cover contributed
by conifer species; (includes closed and open white spruce forests, closed and
open black spruce forests, and black or white spruce woodlands; SCS vegetation
mapping units 21, 25, 31, 33, 41, 42, 43);
Tree canopy cover at least 10%, neither coniferous nor deciduous species
dominant, both contribute 25-75% of the total tree canopy cover; (includes
closed and open mixed forests and mixed woodlands; SCS vegetation mapping
units 22, 24, 26, 32, 34);
Tree canopy cover at least 10%, over 75% of total tree canopy cover contributed
by deciduous species; (includes closed and open deciduous forests and
deciduous woodlands of paper birch, cottonwood, and/or aspen; SCS units 27,
28, 29, 35, 36);
Tree canopy cover less than 10%, at least 25% cover contributed by erect to
decumbent (but no matted) woody shrubs 20 em (8 in.) tall or taller; if dominant
shrubs are less than 1.5 m (5 ft.) tall, then not associated with typical tundra
sedges, herbs, and mosses; located adjacent to tree line or in forested regions;
(includes tall shrub and low shrub; SCS units 60, 61, 62, 66 *,also SCS shrub
wetland units 51, 69);
Tree canopy cover less than 10%, shrub cover less than 25%, vegetation
dominated by grass species, primarily Calamagrostis and Elymus, or if
dominated by sedges and forbs, found primarily within forested areas;
(includes tall grass, midgrass, and sedge-grass categories; SCS unit 63, also
grassland and sphagnum wetlands, units 50, 68);
Tree canopy cover less than 10%, vegetation dominated by sedges, herbs,
mosses, and low matted shrubs less than 1.5 m (5 ft.) tall; taller shrubs if present
contribute less than 25% cover; if grasses are dominant, they are typical arctic
species such as Arctagrostis latifolia or Poa arctica; located in areas above or
beyond the limit of trees (includes sedge-grass tundra, herbaceous tundra, shrub
tundra, and mat and cushion tundra; SCS units 64, 65, 66*, and 67};
*SCS unit 66, shrub tundra, mapped as shrubland on some maps in this report.
137
·--------~-----------···------. ···-----~-----------------------·----------
AppendixC
Agricultural/Timber· Alternatives
for the Willow Subbasin
Problems and Objectives
The principal problem relating to any of Alaska's
natural resources is lack of information. This is the
largest single obstacle to coherent planning effort in
resource development, conservation, and preserva-
tion. The Susitna Cooperative River Basin Study
(CRBS) has gathered and processed a large amount
of resource information for a relatively small corner
of the State.ln order to array and analyze these data,
several techniques of interpretation, as reported
elsewhere, were utilized. In this appendix, the
results of an economic analysis of the agricultural
and timber resource potential within the Willow
Subbasin are presented.
Some of the questions addressed by the CRBS study
team are listed:
1. Are productive soil and timber resources
available in sufficient quantities?
2. Is agricultural and/or timber production on a
continuing basis "feasible" from an economic
standpoint?
3. What types of firm enterprise ~ppear likely to be
successful?
4. Can sufficient commodity quantities be produced
to meet export, as well as local demand?
5. Can investment in roads and land clearing result
in positive benefit?
In addressing these questions, several benefit-cost
analyses, utilizing various assumptions of selling
prices, road access to remote areas, and institu-
tional structures, were conducted. The data sources
and premises used in each analysis are presented in
the following section.
Data Sources and Analytical
Structure
Land Base
The CRBS capability/suitability analysis produced
base maps of ihe subbasin deiineaiing six
agricultural productivity classes rated on a good-to-
bad continuum and 39 land cover types including
17 timber types (Figure C.1). The soil surveys, upon
which agricultural capability is based, included
potential crop yields for several crop commodities
under average and improved management condi-
tions (Table C.1 ). For purposes of this study the
three highest-rated agricultural classes were includ-
ed in the agricultural land base. Of the timber types,
two were included in the economic analysis, the
medium and old-aged mixed deciduous forests. The
voiumes reported in the area timher inventory are
shown in Table C.2.
Table C.l Potential crop yield for improved and average management conditions
by agricultural capability class, Willow Subbasin
Barley Oats Potatoes Hay
Capability imp. avg. imp. avg. imp. avg. imp. avg.
Class bu/ac bu/ac cwt/ac. tons/ac.
A 60 54 70 63 270 243 3.50 3.15
B 55 50 65 59 250 225 3.25 2.93
c 45 41 50 45 240 216 3.00 2.70
D 40 36 40 36 230 207 2.50 2.25
E 30 27 35 32 180 162 2.00 1.80
F 25 23 30 27 120 108 1.50 1.35
139
-------·----~---~-------------------------·-
Table C.2 net growing stock volume and stand density
by vegetation class, Willow Subbasin
Volume Density
-cubic feet per acre --number of stems per acre -
Vegetation Class Sawtimber Sawtimber/ Sawtimber Sawtimber/
Poletimber Poletimber
21 -short white spruce, 217.8 388.0 12.8 69.0
closed forest
31 -short white spruce, 47.7 102.9 2.5 18.9
open forest -woodland
41 -short black spruce, 6.6 187.2 0.6 72.6
closed forest
42 -tall black spruce 372.1 830.2 29.0 153.8
22 -young stands, closed 100.6 389.5 6.5 95.9
deciduous forest
24 -medium-aged stands 459.0 1,006.2 28.6 149.9
closed deciduous forest
26 -old stands, closed 891.2 1,654.9 49.0 189.3
deciduous forest
Source: Susitna CRBS vegetation inventory; statistical analysis performed by Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experi-
ment Station, USDA Forest Service, Anchorage.
The three agricuiturai capabiiity classes and two
timber types form the basis for the economic
analysis. Singly or in combination these
agricultural-timber areas form a total of eleven
"land production classes" (LPC's). The agricultural
LPC's were further delineated by size: 80 acres (the
smallest unit considered in the analysis) through
320 acres, 320 through 640 acres, and greater than
640 acres. These site size delineations made possi-
ble an analysis of potential economies of size in
agricultural production.
Using computer-produced grid map overlays of the
agricultural capability classes and the timber types,
aggregations of the LPC's were identified and
delineated. These aggregations-called "land pro-
duction areas" (LPA's)-thus identified the sites
where timber and/or agricultural production ac-
tivities can take place. In the Willow Subbasin 290
separate LPA's were identified ranging in size from
80 acres to 15,780 acres (see map, Figure C.1).
Land Access
The vast majority of the land resource in the sub-
basin remains in its natural state. Some develop-
ment (clearing, construction, etc.) has occurred
along existing roads centered around Wasilla and
the Parks Highway. For production availability in
many LPA' s, the land resources must be transformed,
first by gaining road access to them, and second,
for agricultural production, by clearing the natural
vegetation and readying for seed bed preparation.
Of the 290 LPA's, half are located on or adjacent to
the existing road network and half are remote.
140
To assess ultimate economic feasibility, informa-
tion on the cost of constructing ali-weather roads to
each of the remote LPA's was required. Using
engineering specifications, soils information, and
construction cost estimates, the 1979 cost of
building roads along likely routes to and among the
145 remote LPA's was estimated. Land clearing cost
estimates were based on experience in the Delta
Agricultural Project. Clearing costs were estimated
to be slightly higher than at Delta because tree root
systems tend to be deeper and more extensive in the
Willow Subbasin.
Production Alternatives and Costs
Seven possible types of commodity production were
included in the analysis, four crops and three timber
products. They included barley, oats, potatoes, hay,
saw logs, pulpwood chips, and fuelwood. Production
practices for each commodity were delineated and
costs of production were estimated. These
estimates include both fixed and variable annual
costs for producing the seven ·commodities. For
agricultural production, standard farming practices
using 1979 technology and input prices were used
throughout. For the timber commodities, mechanized
logging practices as found in the Lake States
were assumed.
Tables C.3 and C.4 show the estimated production
costs for the crop and timber commodities. These
costs include a charge for overhead, risk, and
management, varying by farm size. There is no
charge for land or stumpage included in the tables.
------~~-~~~----~-----~~~ ··-------~~------------··------~-·--·----
Table C.3 Estimated costs of crop production per acre and per unit of commodity
produced by land class and farm size, 1979 -Willow Subbasin
Estimated production costs (dollars)
Commodity Unit Per ac_reo of production Per unit produced1
Capability Class A Capability Class B Capability Class c
small2 medium• large• small medium large small medium large small medium large
farms farms farms farms farms farms farms farms farms farms farms farms
Barley bu 224.36 158.54 145.31 4.15 2.94 2.69 4.49 3.17 2.91 5.47 3.87 3.54
Oats bu 224.36 158.54 145.31 3.56 2.52 2.31 3.80 2.69 2.46 4.99 3.52 3.23
Potatoes cwt 589.86 519.98 494.04 2.43 2.14 2.03 2.62 2.31 2.20 2.73 2.41 2.29
Hay ton 204.07 170.27 160.06 64.78 54.05 50.81 69.65 58.11 54.63 75.58 63.06 59.28
1 ·average management. 3 320 -639 acres. Includes 20% overhead, management, and risk.
2 80 · 319 acres. Includes 22% overhead, management, and risk. • more than 640 acres. Includes 18% overhead, management, and risk.
Table C.4 Estimated logging costs per acre and per unit of commodity produced by timber class,
Willow Subbasin
Estimated production costs' (dollars)
Commodity unit Per acre of production Per unit produced
Class 24 Class 26 Class 24 Class 26
logs
chips
fuel wood
mbf
ft'
cord
1 Includes 24% overhead, management, and risk.
Demand Sector
621.56
1,561.25
1,380.10
Commodity selling prices were estimated for both
the domestic and export markets. In general, there
is a strong but limited local market for most
domestic agricultural commodities. B_uyers are in a
sense "held captive" by the shipping costs of out-
side products. Since local production does not yet
satiate local demand, producers enjoy transporta-
tion costs as an added margin of profit. As an exam-
ple, horse owners .exhibit a small but persistent de-
mand for hay. The price (around $130 per ton) is
120 percent higher than in the state of Washington.
This disparity will continue until such time as local
production increases.
This situation does not exist, however, in the saw log
market. Here producers do not have a captive
market; instead they have a captive supply. Local
processing facilities are limited, mainly to the pro-
duction of rough lumber, so iocal sawlog prices are
tied closely to the local unplaned lumber market.
Table C.5 shows the selling prices used in the
889.22
2,179.98
1,796.86
270.83
0.28
109.73
199.56
0.23
86.86
analysis. Domestic crop prices reported by the
Alaska Crop ancflivestock Reporting Service were
"normalized''1 fo-r~ 1979~ Domesik saw log and
fuelwood prices were obtained from local surveys.
Export prices were taken from USDA reports. In
Table C.5, the limits of local demand for the year
2000 are also included. Price/cost comparisons are
shown in Table C.6.
Alternative Analyses
The cost, return, and productivity data described
earlier were used to analyze the agriculture/timber
alternatives developed in Section 5 of this report.
Two of the alternatives are particularly well-suited
for economic analysis: the self-sufficiency alter-
native and the maximum benefit alternative. The re-
maining alternatives require judgemental decisions
not governed by economic choice.
1 Adjusted for short term fluctuations and
anomalies so that the. price reflects the expected
price during a "normal" year.
141
142
Both of these alternatives were analyzed by a com-
puterized mathematical technique called linear pro-
gramming. In the self-sufficiency analysis, the
overall productivity of the Willow Subbasin in terms
of the seven commodities was addressed. This
analysis assessed the cost of meeting various
minimum commodity demand levels. Here, the
physical capability of the land resource and the (an-
nual) cost of producing the seven commodities in
sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of (1)
the projected population of the Willow Subbasin,
and (2) the projected population of the Greater An-
chorage area for the year 2000 were addressed
These population and associated demand figures
are shown in Table C.7.
Table C.5 1979 domestic and export prices and projected domestic commodity needs,
Susitna Cooperative River Basin Study
Domestic Price
Commodity Unit (dollars)
Barley bu 3.41'
Oats bu 2.662
Potatoes cwt 11.61'
Hay ton 130.262
Pulpwood chips ton 0
Saw logs mbf 150.00
Fuelwood
white spruce cord 43.50
black spruce cord 43.50
birch cord· 60.00
cottonwood cord 37.14
aspen cord 41.46
1 Projected demand less projected supply from outside the study area.
• Normalized.
3 Total fuelwood demand estimated at 725,043 million BTU's.
Year 2000 Export
Domestic Needs• Price
(1000 units) (dollars)
0 2.342
1,164.4 0
624.6 0
240.0 0
0 40.922
178.7 400.33
3 0
3 0
3 0
3 0
3 0
Table C.6 Comparison of Crop Prices and Cost of Production
Cost per unit produced 1 (dollars)
Capability Capability Capability Price
Class A Class B Class C (dollars)
small med. large small me d. large small med. large Domes-Export
farms farms farms farms farms farms farms farms farms tic
3 •
Barley bu 4.15 2.94 2.69 4.49 3.17 2.91 5.47 3.87 3.54 3.41 2.34
Oats bu 3.56 2.52 2.31 3.80 2.69 2.46 4.99 3.52 3.23 2.66 0
Potatoes cwts 2.43 2.14 2.03 2.62 2.31 2.20 2.73 2.41 2.29 11.61 0
Hay ton 64.78 54.05 50.81 69.65 58.11 54.68 75.58 63.06 59.28 130.26 0
1 average management.
• 80 · 319 acres. Includes 22% overhead, management, and risk.
3 320 . 639 acres. Includes 20% overhead, management, and risk.
• more than 640 acres. Includes 18% overhead. management, and risk.
• Normalized.
Table C. 7 Projected population and
commodity demands for the year 2000,
Willow Subbasin and Greater Anchorage Area
Year 2000 Needs
Year 2000 Needs Greater
Commodity Unit Willow Subbasin Anchorage Area
(pop. 32,719) (pop. 424,200)
Barley bu 2,286,273• 29,641,401'
Oats bu 90,108 1,168,246
Potatoes cwt 53,168 689,325
Hay ton 19,851 257,362
Saw logs mbf 13,778 178,715
Pulpwood chips ft' 1,855,167 24,054,140
Fuel wood MMBHI's 55,923 725,043
Population source: Alaska Water Study Committee, "Southcentral
Alaska's Economy and Population, 1965-2025: A Case Study and Projec-
tion," Southcentral Alaska Water Resource Study(Level B), February
1979.
Considering the Willow Subbasin to be a closed
economy (at least in the production and consump-
tion of the seven commodities included in this
study) the self-sufficiency analysis considered the
capability of the land resource to annually meet the
needs of the population. It was found that by the
year 2000, the needs of the projected subbasin
population could be met for the agricultural com-
modities but fell short for the required timber com-
modities. It is estimated that there is a shortage of
120,000 acres of timber land required on a susta-ined
yield basis to meet the needs of the subbasin
population in the year 2000. Assuming no new road
construction, the shortfall is 180,000
For the maximum benefit alternative, the potential
of crop and timber land development was approach-
ed from an investment opportunity standpoint. The
question posed was "will the annual stream of net
benefits (returns) over time justify the expense of in-
itial investment in the development of natural
resources?" In addressing this question, a B/C
analysis was conducted which assessed the cost of
road building and land clearing, productivity, pro-
duction costs, and returns.
B/C analysis compares the "present values" of an-
nual returns and costs, including initial startup or in-
vestment costs. Present value is obtained through
discounting using some appropriate interest rate.
The rate used in this analysis was 7 1/8% dis-
counted over a period of 50 years. A necessary (but
not sufficient) condition for federally funded water
resource development investments is that the B/C
ratio is greater than one, that is, net benefits must
be positive.
The important assumptions utilized in the B/C
analysis are, 1) the agriculture/timber enterprises
must pay the entire cost of building roads to the
remote LPA's, 2) clearing cost was $300 per acre, 3)
timber stumpage was $25 per thousand board feet,
and 4) 1979 selling prices were used (Table C.5).
The results of the B/C analysis are shown in Table
C.8. After initial "startup" costs of $48 million in
road construction, land clearing, and timber stum-
page, it was estimated that the present (discounted)
value of net benefits was $374.3 million. The B/C
ratio was estimated at 1.93/1.
Table C.8 Results of the Agricultural/timber Benefit/cost Analysis, Willow Subbasin
;
Present value
of net benefits
$374,282,000
Remote LPA's
In production
total road
number const. cost
68 $7,693,008
1 Annually.
' Initial year only.
B/C
ratio
1.93/1
Commodities produced
commodity ·quantity
potatoes
hay
saw logs
Acres cleared
624,600 cwt'
240,000 tons•
637,439 mbf>
Land in production
by commodity (acres)
2,570
78,200
264,5502
total
clearing
cost
Timber purchased
number
of acres
$24,231,000
number total
of acres stumpage
264,550 $15,937,239
143
144
Summary
Current marketing restrictions and state subsidy for
agricultural development elsewhere in Alaska tend
to make the Willow Subbasin relatively non-
competitive in the production and sale of crop and
timber commodities. The resources exist, but cur-
rent prices indicate only marginal feasibility. There
are two exceptions. The strong local prices for
potatoes and hay indicate that an expansion in the
production of these commodities would prove feasi-
ble, to a point. The saturation point for the local
(Anchorage and vicinity) whole Irish potato is
limited. Increases in potato production without con-
comitant development in processing facilities (and
hearty cooperation by wholesale grocers) would
cause the potato price to decrease rapidly to a level
at or below production costs, a fact of which local
potato producers should be keenly aware. A similar
situation would occur in the local hay market, also
to the dismay of today's local hay producers.
The second exception is the export pulpwood chip
market. The price used in this study (1979 normalized)
was $40.95/ton indicating only very -marginal
feasibility. In the first quarter, 1980, the price of
chips was $83.49/ton, a reflection of an increasing
worldwide shortage of newsprint. Any long-range
timber development plan should carefully consider
the world pulpwood market.
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library & Information Service'
Anchorage Alaska
AG-FPP 3280-82