HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2561D
I
~
0 Fish and Wildlife Resources Element
D for the Susitna Area Planning Study
Dl
Q
0 ~
=M -I Q----
J
D
J
0
Q
0
0
0
0
Q
_o
prepared by
The Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Habitat Division
ACE 1185891
Fish and Wildlife Resources Ele01ent
for the Susitna Area Planning Study
M
0 co
1'-
LO
LO
0
0
0
LO
LO
1'-
M
M
L
r
prepared by
The Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Habitat Division
Anchorage
1984
ARLIS
Alaska Reso~rces Library & Infonnation Services
Library Building, Suite 111
3211 Providence Drive
Anchorage, AK 99508-4614
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
LIST OF TABLES ....••••..........•.....•..•.•....••... ·-............... i i
LIST OF FIGURES ....•..•••...•.•.•.••... ·.•...•......••.•......•.•.•..• vi
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . • • • • . • • . • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • . . . • . • . 1
CHAPTER I. FISH AND WILDLIFE: HUMAN USE AND ECONOMIC VALUE.......... 3
CHAPTER II. FISH AND WILDLIFE SUPPLY .••....•..•.•..•.•.........••••.. 40
CHAPTER III. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (FISH AND WILDLIFE
LAND AND WATER CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS) .•••.....•..•.•.•• 104
Guidelines ...................................................... 181
APPENDICES
A. Susitna Area Plan Human Use and Economic Effects Sport Fishing
B. An Economic Analysis of Moose, Sheep, Bear, and Waterfowl Hunting
in the Susitna Basin
C. Riparian Ecosystems: Resource Values and Conflicts with Emphasis
in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
D. The Use of Moose and other Wild Resources in the Tyonek and Upper
Yentna Areas A Background Report
E. Instream Flow Recommendations Susitna Area Plan
(BOUND SEPARATELY)
DATA SUPPLEMENTS
Harvest Ticket Data Summary (1980)
Summary of Fish and Wildlife Values by Analysis Unit for Portions of
the Talkeetna, Beluga and Upper Susitna Subbasins
MATRIX EVALUATION
ATLAS
i
List of Tables
Table # Title Page
1
2
3
4
5
CHAPTER I. FISH AND WILDLIFE: HUMAN USE AND ECONOMIC VALUE
Numbers of Reporting Moose Hunters, by
Residency and Success in the General Hunts
in the Matanuska-Susitna Planning Area, 1981
Harvest Report Code Units in the Upper
70%, 80%, and 90% Use Categories, Moose
General Hunts, Susitna Planning Area, 1981
Summary of Demand and Success in
Moose Drawing Permit Hunts, 1981
Residence of Hunters in the
Moose Special Permit Hunts, 1981
Modes of Transportation
Used for Moose Hunting, 1981 ••••••••••••• 0 ••• 0 • 0 •••••••••••••
6 Residency of Caribou Hunters
5
6
7
8
9
by User-days in the Nelchina Caribou Hunt, 1981 ...•.••..•...• 10
7 Caribou Game Management Units Important
for Human Use within the Susitna Planning Area ...••.••.•..... 11
8 Modes of Transportation
Used in the Nelchina Caribou Hunt, 1981 ...••.•...••.••••...•• 11
9 Specific Caribou Harvest Report Code Units or
Access Points with the Greatest Amount of Use
(Hunter-days) in the Susitna Planning Area, 1981 .............. 12
10 Caribou Harvest Report Code Unit
Distribution, by Effort, 1981 •.•....•..•••.....•..••....•.••• 13
11 Residency of Sheep Hunters
in the Susitna Planning Area, 1981 ..•.....•.•.•.•..•.••..•.•• 14
12 Sheep Harvest Report Code Units Important
for Human Use in the Susitna Planning Area, 1981 ..•.••..•.••• 15
13 Known Modes of Transportation
for Sheep Hunters in the Susitna Planning Area ...•.•...••••.. 15
14 Number of Black Bears Sealed
per Game Management Unit, 1981 ..•......•..••.••...•.......••• 16
15 Number of Brown Bears Sealed
per Game Management Unit, 1982 ........•.•.....•.•.•.....•.••• 17
i i
Table # Title Page
16 Trapping Licenses Issued to Residents
in or Near the Planning Area, 1982 •..•...••••....••.•.•..... 18
17 Number of Trappers and Mean Trapline Length, 1981 ......•.•.• 19
18 Number of Anima 1 s Trapped, 1981 . . • • • . . . • . • . . • . . . • . • . . . • • • • • . 19
19 Subsistence Use of Fish and Wildlife, 1982 .••.••••••...••••• 20
20 Alaska Sport Fish Harvest
by Species and Drainage, 1981 .......•••.........••.•..••.•.. 21
21 Total Sport Fish Harvest, Susitna Basin, 1977-1981 •...••...• 22
22 Angler-days Fished by Stream, 1977-1981,
and Percent Contribution to Statewide Totals
23 Exvessel Value of Upper Cook Inlet
Commercial Salmon Harvest in Thousands
24
of Dollars, by Species, 1960-1981 ......••.••.•...••.......•. 29
24 1981 Commercial Catch by Period and
Species, Set Gill Nets, General Subdistrict •.•..••.••.••...• 30
25 Commercial Catch of Upper Cook Inlet
Salmon in Numbers of Fish by Species, 1954-1981 31
26 Commercial Salmon Harvest by Area,
Gear Type and Species, Upper Cook Inlet, 1981 •.........•.•.. 32
27 Commercial Salmon Catch, Upper Cook Inlet,
1981-1982, and the Susitna Basin Contribution, 1981
28 Visitors to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough in
1982 and the Nature of Their Visits (from In-flight
32
Survey, Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau) ....•••.... 34
29 Southcentral Alaska Resident Outdoor Recreation Data .•••...• 35
30 Susitna Sports Fishing Salmon Harvest Values, 1981 .......... 38
31 Fish and Game Values, 1981 .....•............................ 38
CHAPTER II. FISH AND WILDLIFE SUPPLY
32 List of Mammals of the Planning Area 42
33 List of Birds of the r·1atanuska Valley ..•......•..•....•.•... 43
34 List of Fishes in the Planning Area Streams •...••..•..•..•.. 45
iii
Table # Title Page
35 Acreages of Cover Types in the Talkeetna
and Beluga Subbasins in the Susitna Planning Area ..•.....•.. 46
36 Bird, Mammal, and Plant Associations
37
in the Susitna Planning Area
A. Conferous Forest ..... -.............................. 47
B. Mixed Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
C. Deciduous Forest ................................... 49
D. Shrub land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
E. Grassland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
F. Alpine Tundra •.•...•..•..•••.•...•••..••..••.•••... 52
G. Tidelands/Marshes/Wetlands . • • . . . • • . . . • • • • . . • . • . . . • . 53
Average Theoretical Existing and
Potential Carrying Capacity of Moose
in the Talkeetna and Beluga Subbasin 54
38 Chinook (King) Salmon Spawning Streams ••••....•.•.•.•••...•• 70
39
40
Sockeye (Red) Salmon Spawning Streams
Coho (Silver) Salmon Spawning Streams
and Lakes ....••.•.•...
.......................
71
72
41 Pink (Humpback) Salmon Spawning Streams ...•••.•..•...•••... 73
42 Chum (Dog) Salmon Spawning Streams .••.••.••••.•..••.•.••••.. 73
43 Habitat-Fish Species-Life Function Matrix,
Susitna Planning Area (Information for
Susitna River, Sloughs, and Side Channels Only) ••.....•.•.•• 82
44 Characteristics of Talkeetna and Beluga Subbasin
Types as Described by Habitat Parameters for Moose Range 87
45 Suitability Index (SI) Values for Moose
Winter Range Habitat Parameters by Vegetation Types ...••.... 88
46 Characteristics of Talkeetna and Beluga Subbasin
Vegetation Types as Described by Habitat Parameters
for Moose Spring/Summer/Fall (S/S/F) Range ......•...•.••.... 89
47 Suitability Index (SI) Values
for Moose, Spring/Summer/Fall (S/S/F)
Range Habitat Parameters by Vegetation Types •.••........•... 90
48 Comparison of Moose Habitat Suitability (HEP),
Existing (ECAP) and Potential (PCAP) Moose Forage
Capability and Species Diversity Ratings for
Vegetation Types Found in the Susitna Study Area .......•.... 95
iv
Table # Title
CHAPTER III. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (FISH AND WILDLIFE
LAND AND WATER CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS)
49 Effects of Normal and High Snow Accumulation ·on the
Availability of Moose Winter Range in 10 Candidate
River Corridors in the Susitna Planning Area ..•..•....••...• 139
50 Maximum Number of Trumpeter Swans
of Cook Inlet Management Units .•...•••.•.....••..•...•••.... 155
51 Maximum Number of Trumpeter Swans,
Susitna Plan Area Plus Kenai ......•••••.•....•..•••..••...•• 156
52 Maximum Number of Trumpeter Swans
in Management Units, Cook Inlet .•.••••••...•••••.....••.•... 157
53 Five Additional Proposed Trumpeter
Swan Areas in the Susitna Planning Area .••..••••••••..•.•••. 159
54 Relationship Between Explosive Charge Weight
in Various Substrates and Distance from a Waterbody ...•.•..• 206
v
List of Figures
Figure # Title
CHAPTER I. FISH AND WILDLIFE: HUMAN USE AND ECONOMIC VALUE
1 Area of Special Permit Moose Hunt . . • . . • • . • • . . . . . • • . • . • . . • • . . 8a
2 Area of the Special Nelchina Permit Caribou hunt ••.••..•.•.• 11a
3 Upper Cook Inlet Management Area . . • • • • . • . . . . . • . • . . . • • • . . • • • . 28
CHAPTER II. FISH AND WILDLIFE SUPPLY
4 Seasonal Distribution of the Nelchina Caribou Herd .•.•...••. 59
5 General Habitat Categories of the
Susitna River-a Conceptual Diagram (from ADF&G 1983) •.•...•• 79
vi
INTRODUCTION
Historical Perspective
Until a few years ago, balance between public need and land capability was a
goal that was only implicitly part of a statewide management policy rather
than being explicitly stated and planned. It was a time when supply
appeared to exceed demand. Because of apparent abundance, there were few
conflicts over the proper uses of land and water resources. Now, during a
period of rapid land use change and accelerated resource development, the
public is becoming more aware of the limited availability of our natural
resources; and diverse demands far exceed supply. Conflict can also be
expected to increase among resource users as well as among local, regional,
state, and national interests over the use of state lands and resources.
Decision-makers must balance the demands of the public against a limited
supply of resources, and land managers must attempt to fulfill their
responsibility to maintain the integrity of natural resources.
Purpose of a Comprehensive Land-Use Plan
The Alaska Departments of Natural Resources (ADNR), Fish and Game (ADF&G),
and the Kenai and Matanuska-Susitna Boroughs are preparing a comprehensive
land-use plan for a study area encompassing the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
and parts of the Kenai Borough. Decision-makers must combine variables,
often difficult to quantify, from several different points of view,
reflecting varied and often conflicting interests. The plan attempts to
represent these viewpoints and arrive at the best decisions for present and
future generations. The plan, in short, addresses the relationship between
demands for resources and the capability of the land to meet those demands.
Goal
The goal of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the purpose of this
Fish and Wildlife Element is sound management of fish and wildlife habitat
capable of perpetuating fish and wildlife resources at levels necessary to
accommodate existing and future demands for their use and enjoyment by
people. These uses can be nonconsumptive as well as consumptive and are of
national and statewide significance. Use of fish and wildlife by Alaskans
and non-residents has constituted the largest major long-term economic and
developmental interest in the state. Alaska's two largest renewable
resource industries, the commercial fishing industry, which boasts the
world's largest multi-species fishery, and the tourism industry are
dependent on the continued well-being of fish and wildlife habitats. These
resources are also essential to the lifestyles of many Alaskan residents.
Scope of this study. More comprehensive characterizations of various uses
of fish and wildlife resources occurring in the study area are presented in
Chapter I of the Element "Fish and Wildlife: Human Use and Economic Value."
Chapter II, "Fish and Wildlife Resource Supply," discusses the abundance and
distribution of fish and wildlife species in the study area and provides an
evaluation of the relative capability of land units to produce these
resources. A "Fish and Wildlife Resource Atlas of the Susitna Basin," a
companion document included in the Element, provides a geographical
-1-
portrayal in map form of fish and wildlife resources, their uses, and their
habitats.
Evolving Habitat Management Problems
One of the basic habitat management problems in Alaska·is that while demands
for use of fish and wildlife increase, the amount of land in public
ownership is decreasing. In some of the· newly established federal
conservation units, wildlife uses such as hunting and trapping have been
curtailed or prohibited, although there is still opportunity for
nonconsumptive use in these areas. Loss or severe restriction of
consumptive uses in large areas of federal domain leads to increasing use of
other areas still open to hunting and trapping.
Land disposals. State and municipal land disposal programs will continue to
place large amounts of land into private control through sale or lease.
This also will reduce the opportunity for public use of fish and wildlife
resources.
Habitat losses. Fish and wtldlife populations and habitats are reduced in
quant1ty and quality as habitats are changed by uses incompatible with them.
Some land use activities can lead to significant loss or relocation of fish.
and wildlife through disturbance, alteration, or destruction of important
habitat. Some habitat loss or alteration is inevitable when development
occurs, and little can be done to prevent it. However, major habitat losses
can sometimes be avoided or minimized by proper planning and execution of
developmental projects.
Importance of the Study Area
In no other region of Alaska do the often competing demands for land and
natural resources intensify to the degree found in the study area. Nearly
three-fourths of the state's population is concentrated in this region.
Their needs for land and resources for settlement, resource development, and
recreation will largely be focused on the Susitna-Beluga basins.
In order to ensure future use and enjoyment of fish and wildlife resources
in the study area, the department recommends that a suitable land and water
base be established to provide for the habitat needs of fish and wildlife
and to extend the opportunities of the public to use and enjoy them. In
addition, an attempt should be made to maintain as much fish and wildlife
habitat as possible in conjunction with any developmental project
undertaken. To accomplish these objectives it is recommended that the state
reserve instream flows .(that is, the amount of water necessary to maintain
and protect aquatic habitats for fish and wildlife resources); classify
lands valuable for wildlife habitat; and, where possible, establish
legislative or administrative special management areas for the purpose of
protecting and enhancing fish and wildlife populations and providing
opportunities for their continued public use. The state should also
maintain or improve public use opportunities by retaining access rights when
lands are leased or sold and, where possible, establish public use corridors
that would perpetuate use of trails and shorelines. Detailed recommendations
for land allocation, public access, and developmental guidelines are
presented in Chapter III, "Resource Management Recommendations."
-2-
CHAPTER I
DEMAND
CHAPTER I. FISH AND WILDLIFE: HUMAN USE AND ECONOMIC VALUE
Introduction
Human use and enjoyment of fish and wildlife has been steadily increasing in
Alaska. This use is often termed 11 demand 11 for fish and wildlife. This
demand is important for Alaskan residents and non-residents alike because
Alaska is one of the few remaining places in the world where fish and
wildlife are abundant and fairly accessible. Likewise, human use and
enjoyment of the state's fish and wildlife resources are important to the
Alaskan economy and essential to lifestyles of many Alaskan residents. In
the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough alone, more than $70 million annually
are contributed by people who directly or indirectly use its fish and
wildlife resources.
The Susitna-Beluga basins contain a variety and abundance of fish and
wildlife resources for which there is substantial human demand. Uses of,
and demands for, fish and wildlife resources are as varied as the
individuals who engage in fish and wildlife-related activities, including
commercial, recreational, and subsistence hunting, fishing, and trapping;
conservation activities; scientific study; photography; nature viewing; and
other such activities. Few of these uses or demands can be adequately
quantified. About some of these activities no information is available, or
there may not be a good method for evaluating the use or its value. As a
result, this chapter deals only with uses of and demands for big game,
furbearers, selected species of commercial and sport fish, and some
nonconsumptive uses of other wildlife. An analysis of economic values,
summarizing the overall contributions of specific user groups, is also in
this chapter. Appendixes A and B discuss, respectively, the contribution of
sport fishing and sport hunting to the economy of the study area.
Chapter I summarizes the human use of fish and wildlife for both consumptive
users (hunters, fishermen, trappers) and nonconsumptive users
(photographers, nature viewers, birdwatchers, school classes, researchers).
It attempts to quantify data on fish and wildlife harvested from the study
area and highlights the more important areas for consumptive and
nonconsumptive human use, emphasizing access. The Department of Fish and
Game compiled information from harvest tickets, hunting licenses,
subsistence use surveys, trapping licenses, creel surveys, bear kill
locations, and sealing forms for bears and furbearers. The department then
estimated the user days and numbers of harvested animals for chum, chinook,
pink, sockeye, and coho salmon, brown and black bears, moose, caribou,
sheep, and furbearers (lynx, wolves, beavers, wolverines, and land otters).
The department has compiled all angler day sport fish information and
commercial fish harvest data and summarized in map and outline forms the
most intensively used areas and important access points such as trails,
stream corridors, and lakes. From the harvest ticket information, the
department identified the areas used by most sheep, caribou, and moose
hunters according to the kind of transportation they used to attain access
to their hunting sites. Information was obtained on nonconsumptive use from
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's 1980 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation (OSFWS 1982).
-3-
Sport Hunting
Moose. Moose are probably the most heavily utilized wildlife species in the
Susitna-Beluga basin planning area. Not only do they occur in large
numbers, but they are also highly visible and accessible for nonconsumptive
and consumptive uses.
The moose taken in the Matanuska-Susitrra Borough make up 41% of
the total moose harvest effort statewide1 • The harvest statistics derive
from two sources: 1) the general hunt harvest ticket information (reported
by harvest code units) and 2) special-permit hunt information. By far the
greatest consumptive use of moose occurs during the general hunts.
There were over 18,100 people in 1981 obtaining harvest tickets for moose in
the Matanuska-Susitna planning area for the general hunts, compared to
44,087 1statewide. Of the former, approximately 12,200, or 67.5%, actually
hunted moose. This means that over 41% of all moose hunters hunted in a
region that constitutes only 4% (the area of the Susitna-Beluga basins) of
the total area of the state. The reason for this imbalance in hunter effort
and land area is twofold: 1) the majority of the state's population live in
or within commuting distance of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and 2) there
is better road and other kinds of inexpensive access to prime hunting areas
in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Other areas of the state are more costly
for Matanuska-Susitna and Anchorage residents to reach and the access modes
are generally not road-based.
Interestingly enough, the proportion of Alaska residents hunting in the
planning area was similar to that of Alaska residents hunting statewide:
96.3% Alaska residents in the planning area and 93.8% Alaska residents
statewide (Table 1). There were 20.2% successful and 79.7% unsuccessful
moose hunters reporting from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough in 1981, which is
similar to the success rate of hunters statewide: 26.0% success. The
majority of hunters came from the Anchorage, Girdwood area (65.3%), with the
next greatest number coming from the Palmer-Skwentna area (23.9%),
indicating that most moose hunters in this highly popular area hunted close
to home. The remainder of the hunters in the planning area came from pther
parts of Alaska (7.1%) or from out of state or foreign countries (3.8%)
(These data are displayed by Harvest Report Code Unit in Data supplement A,
B, and C, Sport Hunting Harvest Ticket Data.).
1Extrapolated estimate based on ratio of hunters reporting and not
reporting statewide.
-4-
TABLE 1. Numbers of Reporting Moose Hunters, by Residency and Success, in 1 the General Hunts in the Matanuska-Susitna Planning Area, 1981
Total Hunters Successful Hunters Unsuccessful Hunters
Residence of Hunter # %1 # %2· # %2
Anchorage-Girdwood 3,298 65.3% . 609 12.0% 2,689 53.2%
Palmer-Skwentna 1,208 23.9% 265 5.2% 943 18.7%
Kenai-Homer 87 1. 7% 20 0.4% 67 1.3%
Kodiak-AK. Peninsula 8 0.2% 2 0.1% 6 0.1%
Cordova-Tok 133 2.6% 19 0.4% 114 2.3%
Fairbanks-Delta 106 2.1% 18 0.4% 88 1. 7%
Southeast 19 0.4% 7 0.1% 12 0.2%
Other Alaskan 5 0.1% 2 0.1% 3 0.1%
Out of state 170 3.4% 72 1.4% 98 1.9%
Foreign 20 0.4% 12 0.2% 8 0.2%
Total Known 5,054 100.0% 1,026 20.3% 4,028 79.7%
~ Adjusted for unknown residency
Percent of total reporting
Certain locations in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough are more heavily utilized
than others by moose hunters. These are usually the more accessible
areas. They are displayed by Harvest Report Code Unit, a tabulating system
created by the Game Division in order to quantify moose statistics (Atlas
Map C2a and Table 2). Atlas Map C2a and Table 2 show areas
supporting most days of use. These areas were also used by the majority of
hunters. The average number of user days (average days per hunter) for a
report code unit overall was 5.4 days per hunter, ranging from a low of 3.6
days to a high of 7.8 days within the top 5% most used areas. The total
number of reported user days (adjusted for unknown units) was 24,785 (User
days are the number of days on which individual hunters hunted for at least
a portion of a day.). Estimated total user-days (for hunters returning
harvest tickets and those that do not) equals 65,880 days of use (12,200
hunters X 5.4 days/hunter).
The use of the land for hunting in the Susitna-Beluga basin is
disproportionate to the size of the area. Seventy percent of the moose
hunting (user days) occurred on 19% of the coding units; 80% occurred on 20%
of the units; and 90% of the hunting occurred on 39% of the units. This
pattern of use generally reflected the relative ease of access to the units.
The Petersville Road-Peters Hills area (Unit 16-1-002) had the highest
reported hunter use, with 3,937 user days, and the Lake Louise/Tyone River
area (Unit 13-10) had the next highest use, with 1,766 user days. The
Little Nelchina/Horn Mountain area (Unit 13-12) was third highest, with
1,202 user days. The Alexander Creek-Mount Susitna area (16-2-012) had
1,185 user days, and the fifth-ranked area in the 70% use category was the
Moose Creek-Montana Peak area, with 1,090 user days.
-5-
TABLE 2. Harvest Report Code Units in the Upper 70%, 80% and 90% Use 1 Categories, Moose General Hunts, Susitna Planning Area, 1981
Harvest Report
Rank Code Unit 2 Description of Area Days 3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
70% Use Category
16 1-002 Petersville Rd/Peters Hills
13-10 Lake Louise/Tyone River
13-12 Little Nelchina River/Horn Mt.
16 2-012 Alexander Creek/Mt. Susitna
14 1-017 Moose Creek/Montana Peak
16 2-004 Yenlo Hills/Willow Mt.
16 2-013 Beluga Lake
16 1-003 Lower Yentna/Lower Susitna
14 2-020 Talkeetna
13 2-127 Maclaren River (south of Denali Highway)
14 1-011 Sutton
14 2-014 South & Middle Forks Montana Creek
14 1-022 Palmer
14 1-024 Knik River
13-14 Oshetna River
14 2-019 Question, Fish, Talkeetna Lake
16 2-017 Tyonek/Chuitna River
16 2-007 Shell Hills
16 2-003 Fairview Mt./Chelatna Lake
80% Use Category
14 1-016 Friday Creek
14 2-009 Caswell Lake
13-13 Anthracite Ridge/Caribou & Boulder Creek
14 1-013 Seventeen Mile Lake
16 2-011 Talachulitna River/Judd Lake
16 1-004 Deshka River/Cache Creek
16 2-006 Rainy Pass/Happy River
14 2-021 Talkeetna River
90% Use Category
13 2-132 Denali Hwy./Clearwater Cr. to Susitna Bridge
14 1-005 Kings River
14 2-011 Sheep Creek
14 1-015 Wolverine Creek
13 2-122 Susitna Lodge/Denali Highway
16 2-001 Midway Lake/West & East Fork Yentna
14 2-008 Kashwitna River
13 5-023 Fog Creek/Susitna River
14 2-023 Sheep River
14 1-001 Chickaloon River
13 2-130 Denali Highway/Clearwater Creek
13 5-044 Seattle Creek
TOTAL
3,937
1,766
1,202
1,185
1,090
1,085
1,080
1,059
892
557
513
472
465
442
402
400
381
366
359
354
352
332
305
293
270
263
240
232
227
224
218
201
186
184
168
168
163
159
153
22,437
~ Total days in the Planning Area = 24,785
Harvest Report Code Units (HRCU's) are related to Game Management Units
(GMU's) in the following way: the first 3 digits of the HRCU indicate its
3 GMU e.g. 16-1-002 = 16-A-002 = GMU 16 A; 13-5-023 = 13-E-023 = GMU 13 E.
Adjusted for unknown HRCU's
-6-
Other areas of importance to the majority of moose hunters (upper 70% of
user days) in the planning area in 1981 were the Yenlo Hills/Beluga Lake
areas (16 B-004, 16 B-013) and locations near road access along the Glenn,
Denali, and Parks highways, areas near Sutton, and a few aircraft-accessible
areas such as Talkeetna Lake, Tyonek, Shell Hills, and Chelatna Lake. Areas
with another 10% and 20% of the user days (bringing the cumulative totals
now to 80% and 90%) are also identified. These areas are depicted on Atlas
Map C2a •
The demand for moose hunting is so high in the planning area that in
addition to the general hunts there are also special lottery and
registration permit hunts for selected areas (Figure 1). Demand for special
lottery hunts is high, with the number of applications exceeding available
permits issued by a factor ranging from 6.9 to 17.2. In 1982, the number of
applications increased an average of 55% from 1981, while the number of
available permits remained at 1981 levels (Table 3). Demand for special
lottery hunts in the area is increasing faster than the borough, Anchorage,
or state populations.
These hunts occur in game management units 16A, 14A, and 14B. The greatest
increase from 1981 to 1982 in the number of permits issued in the drawing
hunts (80%) occurred in area 910 (game management unit 14A), which was just
recently divided into a west and east area. Hunt #913 (game management unit
14B) likewise had a large increase in numbers of applicants, (57% increase).
Area 14A extends roughly from Anchorage north to Willow and east to
Chickaloon and the Chickaloon River. Area 14B extends from Willow to
Talkeetna; Area 16A extends northwest from Talkeetna to Petersville and the
Kahiltna River.
An average of 87% of those who obtained permits in 1981 engaged in hunting.
Approximately 50% of all special permit lottery moose hunters were
successful (Table 3), with the greatest success occurring in Hunt #913 (Game
Management Unit 14B)(98% success). The success ratio in the permit hunts is
higher overall than that in the general hunts. In the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough, this may be because the permit hunts are for cow moose, which are
more abundant by a factor of 4:1. The average(i) number of days hunted by
permit hunters for all areas in the planning area was 5.19 days, which is
similar to the average for the general hunt.
Table 4 displays residence for all hunters in each permit area hunt in 1981.
As in the general hunts, in the lottery hunts the majority of hunters
resided in the Anchorage-Girdwood area (i = 69%), with the Palmer-Skwentna
area contributing the next largest percentage of hunters (i = 25%). For
all other areas of the state and of the "Lower 48" the average contribution
was only 6% of the total permit hunter population, and this percentage is
spread fairly evenly through these areas. As in the general hunts, the
people in these lottery hunts do not travel far for their moose.
-:7-
TABLE 3. Summary of Demand and Success in ~loose Drawing Permit Hunts, 1981 1
Number Number
of of Total Successful Unsuccessful
Hunt# GMU Aeelicants Permits Hunters Hunters Hunters
1981 908 16A 1036 150 121(81%) 28 (23%) 93(77%)
1982 1056
129(91%)4 1981 910 14A 2582 150 67 (52%) 62(48%)
1982
911 2 4658
85(88%)4 1981 14B 720 100 21 (25%) 64(75%)
1982
913 3 660
1981 148 413 50 43(86%) 42 (98%) 1(2%)
1982 649
~ Information from File Data, Game Division
Cow moose hunt 3 Late winter hunt 4 Percentage of respondents
TABLE 4. Residence of Hunters in the Moose Special Permit Hunts, 1981 1
Residence Hunt 908 Hunt 910W Hunt 910E Hunt 911 Hunt 913 Total
Anch.-Girdwood 121(80.1%) 127(64.5%) 128(64.0%) 71(67.6%) 31(62%) 478(68%)
Palmer-Skwentna 20(13.2%) 60(30.5%) 62(31.0%) 28(26.7%) 6(12%) 176(25%)
Kenai-Homer 2 ( 1. 3%) 2 ( 1. 0%) 4 ( 2. 0%) 1 ( 1. 0%) 2( 4%) 11 ( 2%)
Kodiak-AK Pen. 1 ( 1.0%) 2( 1.0%) 3 ( 1%)
Cordova-Tok 1 ( 1.0%) 1 ( 1. 0%) 1 ( 1.0%) 3( 6%) 6 ( 1%)
Fairbanks -Delta 6 ( 4. 0%) 5( 2.5%) 3( 1.5%) 2( 1.9%) 7(14%) 23( 3%)
Southeast 5( 2.5%) 1 ( 1. 0%) 6 ( 1%)
Other Alaskan -1( 2%) 1( 1%)
Out of state 1 ( 1. 0%) 1( 1%)
Total 151 199 200 105 50 705
1Information from File Data, Game Division.
To briefly summarize the modes of transportation, highway vehicles provided
access in the majority of the general hunts in 1981 (41.3%), with airplanes
(22.2%) and off-road vehicles (20.2%) providing the second and third most
used form of access (Table 5). For permit hunts, the highway vehicle was
still most important (56.2%), followed by off-road vehicles (23.1%) and
boats (13%) (Table 5).
-8-
[)til'
.. ",/
FIGURE 1. Area of Special Permit Moose Hunt
-Sa-
TABLE 5. Modes of Transportation Used for Moose Hunting, 1981 1
Transportation Mode
Highway Vehicle
Airplane
Off-Road Vehicle
Boat
Horse
Motor Bike
Snowmachines
Total
General Hunt
Frequency of Use
Number Percent
2,725
1,462
1,333
869
139
66
3
41.3%
22.2%
20.2%
13.2%
2.1%
1.0%
1.0%
1 Based on known modes of transportation 2 Some hunters had multiple modes of transportation
Permit Hunts
Frequency of Use
Number Permit
173
20
71
40
2
2
281
56.2%
6.5%
23.1%
13.0%
0.6%
0.6%
Moose are also important for nonconsumptive uses. Because there are many
roads and other forms of access into the planning area, the public has
excellent opportunities to view or photograph these animals without
traveling very far from home. Access into the area is also important for
field trips by schools and conservation organizations.
Nonconsumptive users of wildlife spent over 900,000 days in 1978 at
photography, nature viewing, etc., and the majority of these users passed
through the Susitna-Beluga basins planning area (Jack Wiles pers. comm.).
Moose are one of the more visible and readily accessible forms of wildlife
for nonconsumptive users and are often seen along the major road systems in
the planning area. As a result, families and tourists alike are able to
come in close contact with Alaskan wildlife relatively close to home or
close to the major urban and cultural center of the state, and they are thus
able to enjoy wildlife at a relatively low cost.
Caribou. Caribou are another wildlife species in the Susitna-Beluga basin
planning area important to consumptive and nonconsumptive users. Bands of
the Nelchina herd are occasionally visible along the Glenn Highway near
Eureka. This large herd is the nearest to a major population center like
Anchorage. The Mulchatna herd of 20,000 animals, whose range extends into a
portion of the planning area, is well over 70 miles from Anchorage, west of
Lake Iliamna and Rainy Pass, and is relatively inaccessible to most people.
Caribou are often considered an Arctic tundra species, and it is valuable to
have a large herd near the major population center and crossroads of Alaska.
The majority of the state's caribou herds are in inaccessible areas that
incur much expense to reach. The Nelchina caribou herd is a highlight to
people who travel the Glenn Highway during the winter and early spring. The
-9-
majority of caribou hunting in the planning area occurs in the special
Nelchina permit hunt area (Figure 2).
There were 6,819 people who applied for 1,300 caribou permits (Game Division
File Data) for the Nelchina hunt in 1981. Of these, an estimated 943
actually hunted. Success for these hunters was 65%, which is similar to the
70% success rate statewide. The caribou hunters in the planning area made
up 23.4% of the reporting statewide caribou hunters and took 15.7% of the
state•s harvested caribou.
The residency distribution of caribou hunters for the Nelchina hunt in 1981
was similar to that of moose hunters in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, with
the majority being Alaskans from the Anchorage-Girdwood, Palmer-Skwentna
regions (Table 6). However, 14.5% of the caribou hunters came from the
Fairbanks -Delta region (versus 2.1% of the moose hunters), indicating that
people travel farther for caribou than for moose, probably because moose are
more available near the major urban population centers. For an additional
description of Nelchina caribou hunting, refer to Appendix B. Any
differences in numbers between these two sections are based on different
interpretations and analyses of the data set.
TABLE 6. Residency of Caribou Hunters 1by User Days in the
Nelchina Caribou Hunt, 1981
No. Hunters Percent No. Days Percent
Anchorage -Girdwood 424 53.1 1,279 45;1
Palmer -Skwentna 156 19.6 615 21.7
Kenai -Homer 18 2.3 56 2.0
Cordova -Tok 37 4.6 132 4.7
Fairbanks -Delta 116 14.5 411 14.5
Southeast 8 1.0 18 1.0
Other Alaska 2 1.0 88 3.1
Out of state 34 4.3 215 7.6
Foreign 3 1.0 24 1.0
Total 798 2,838
1 Does not include deletions of units partially outside the planning area
The Nelchina permit hunt in the planning area is divided into 23 game
management units encompassing an area of over 15,000 square miles. Of these
units, 22% constitute 70% of the user days (Atlas Map C2b; Table 7).
Fifty percent of the use occurs in only three management units, units 13-10,
13-12, and 13-14, which are located near Lake Louise, the Little Nelchina
River, and the Oshetna River, respectively. With the addition of two more
areas, Deadman Creek and Indian/Moose Creek, user days increased to 70% of
the use. Access is gained by aircraft most of the time (31%), followed by
off-road vehicles (28%) and highway vehicles/foot (26%) (Table 8). Other
methods of transportation had relatively low use. The average number of
-10-
., -C)
c
:;J.j
trl
~
:J>
"" ('()
I»
0 ......
..... :r
('()
(/)
'0
('()
(') -· I» -
--' z
0 ('() p; -I (')
:r ....
~
I»
"'0
('()
"" 8 -· .....
(')
I»
"" -· r::r
0 c
::t c
~ .....
user days per hunter spent in a caribou management unit was 3.6, ranging
from a low of 2.8 days to a high of 8.1 days.
TABLE 7. Caribou Game Management 1Units Important for Human Use within the
Susitna Planning Area
Level
of Use Unit
70% 13-10
13-12
13-14
13-21
16-203
80% 13-22
16-101
13-13
90% 13-16
13-202
13-23
13-15
Location
No.
Days
Lake Louise 714
Little Nelchina River 540
Oshetna River 247
Deadman Creek 162
Indian, Moose, and
Johnson Creek 137
Nenana River 122
Dutch and Peters Hills 102
Anthracite Ridge 97
Tsisi Creek/Fog Lake 91
Caribou Pass 64
Maclaren River 62
Clarence Lake, Clear Creek 61
No. X
Hunters Days
201
188
82
58
16
19
15
21
27
18
12
17
3.6
2.9
3.0
2.8
8.6
6.4
6.8
5.0
3.4
3.6
5.3
3.6
1 Corrected for unknown areas 2 Fifty percent of hunting in this unit was in the study area
TABLE 8. Modes of Transportation Used in the Nelchina Caribou Hunt, 1981
1 rp ane
Off-road Vehicle
Highway Vehicle & on foot
Boat
Motor Bike
Horse
Total Known Modes
1 Includes multiple modes
Total No.
of Hunters
3 1°o
276 (28%)
253 (26%)
71 ( 7%)
22 ( 2%)
19 ( 2%)
943
Number of
Successful
Hunters
1 1°o
188 (68%)
110 ( 43%)
44 (62%)
14 (64%)
13 (68%)
614
of transportation
Number of
Unsuccessful
Hunters
88 (32%)
143 (57%)
27 (38%)
8 (36%)
6 (32%)
329
Caribou game management units are large, and user days are not distributed
evenly, because specific access points and hunting areas are used (harvest
report code units). These access points and hunting areas are listed in
Table 9. Code unit numbers are given to each geographical area, although
these areas still are general (e.g., complete drainages and access points)
and may not represent exactly where the hunting took place. Likewise, a
portion of hunters report the wrong unit.
-11-
TABLE 9. Specific Caribou Harvest Report Code Units or Access Points with
the Greatest Amount of Use (hunter days) in the Susitna Planning
Area, 1981
Unit Location No ... Days No. Hunters
70% USE
13-253 Lake Louise 391 106
13-342 Eureka 169 69
13-262 Tyone River 159 46
13-402 Big Oshetna River 111 38
16-203 Happy River/Rainy Pass 97 12
13-191 Nelchina River 87 23
13-260 Tyone Lake 84 24
16-101 Dutch and Peters Hills 72 11
13-531 Coal Creek 68 11
13-420 Clarence Lake 61 17
13-308 Little Nelchina River 59 19
13-524 Butte Lake and Mt. 56 23
13-255 Susitna Lake 55 11
13-273 Gunsight Mountain 53 20
13-385 Little Oshetna River 50 12
13-377 Caribou Creek 50 11
13-320 Kelly Lake 45 5
13-292 Crooked Creek 44 20
13-302 Flat Creek 39 16
13-533 Jay Creek 36 5
13-429 Montana Creek 34 12
13-528 Butte Creek 34 11
80% USE
13-431 Fog Lakes 34 5
13-294 Old Man Creek 27 8
13-369 Sheep Creek 25 2
16-204 Crystal, Emerald, Portage & Muddy Creeks 24 6
13-663 East & Mid Forks Susitna River 24 6
13-509 Seattle Creek 22 6
13-388 Yacko Creek 21 7
13-486 Tsusena Lake 21 3
13-405 Black Lake 20 7
13-498 Broad Pass 20 4
14-259 Sheep River 20 1
90% USE
13-181 Monument Creek & Mt. 19 4
13-532 Coa 1 Creek 18 3
13-523 Brushkana Creek 16 8
13-646 Windy Creek 16 8
16-206 Telequana River & Merrill Pass 15 4
13-361 Hicks Creek 14 5
13-519 Deadman Creek 13 4
13-691 Wells Creek 12 6
13-309 Slide Mt. & Fossil Creek 12 3
13-323 Maxon Lake 12 2
13-392 Curtis Lake 12 5
-12-
TABLE 9. (Continued)
Unit Location No. Days No. Hunters
13-328 Blue Lake -12 1
13-428 Tsisi Creek 11 5
13-318 Buchia Creek 11 3
13-505 Caribou Lake 10 3
13-404 Crater Lake 10 3
13-272 Sheep Mountain 10 1
13-233 Y Lake 10 1
13-558 A 1 phabet Hi 11 s 10 1
Of the 216 units, only 12 (5%) made up 50% of the effort (days); 25 (12%)
made up 70% of the effort; and 17 and 28 constituted 80% and 90% of the
effort, respectively. These figures illustrate that access plays an
important role in hunter distribution (Table 10).
TABLE 10. Caribou Harvest Report Code Unit Distribution, by Effort, 1981 1
Use Category
50%
70%
80%
90%
1 Total of 216 units
Number of Units
12
25
37
60
Percent of Total
5%
12%
17%
28%
The ten units most heavily used are Lake Louise, Eureka, Tyone River, Big
Oshetna River, Happy River/Rainy Pass, Nelchina River, Tyone Lake, Dutch and
Peters hills, Coal Creek, and Clarence Lake.
~· Sheep are the wildlife species in third highest demand for hunting
~e planning area. They also attract many hikers, photographers, and
nature viewers to peaks easily accessible from nearby major population
centers of the state. In the basin, more than 1,170 people were estimated
to have applied for sheep harvest tickets in 1981, and of these 370 actually
hunted sheep. The residency of these hunters was similar to that of moose
and caribou hunters in the planning area, with the exception of out of state
and foreign hunters, who make up 17.6% of the total of sheep hunters (3.8%
for moose, 8.6% for caribou) (Table 11). All sheep hunters spent an average
of 4.6 days and took 146 animals, 16.2% of the sheep killed statewide.
Their overall success was 38.7%, versus 42.4% statewide.
-13-
TABLE 11. Residency of Sheep Hunters in the Susitna Planning Area, 1981 1
Residence
Anchorage-Girdwood
Palmer-Skwentna
Kenai-Homer
Kodiak-Alaska Peninsula
Cordova-Tok
Fairbanks-Delta
Southeast
Other Alaska
Out of state
Foreigners
TOTAL
1 Adjusted for unknown residency
Number of Hunters
195
88
6
0
3
9
4
0
58
7
370
Percent
52.7
23.8
1.6
0
1.0
2.4
1.0
0
15.7
1.9
There are 15 code units, which constitute 70% of the total user days. An
additional four code units bring the total use to 80% of the days (Atlas
Map C2c, Table 12). With an additional eight code units (a total of 27
units), 90% of the use is represented. The majority of these 27 important
units are near road and airstrip access points. The ten locations most
heavily used were Boulder Creek, Chickaloon River, Friday Creek, Pavell
Glacier Area, Caribou Creek, Ship Creek, Honolulu Creek, and Coal Creek
(Table 12). Transportation modes most frequently used in the planning area
were airplanes (41.9%) and highway vehicles (34.3%) (Table 13).
-14-
TABLE 12. Sheep Harvest Report Code Units Important for Human Use in the
Susitna Planning Area, 1981
Use Unit No. No.
Category Code Location Days Hunters
70% USE 13-18 Boulder Creek 162 42
13-19 Boulder-Chickalo-on 123 27
14-28 Friday Creek 108 19
13-25 South Fork Pavell Glacier 91 13
13-15 Caribou Creek 72 16
14-02 Sheep Creek 70 10
14-11 Chickaloon River 65 18
13-02 Honolulu Creek 54 10
13-22 Coal Creek 53 7
13-05 Jay Creek 48 11
13-17 Hicks Creek 47 12
13-26 Nelchina Glacier 44 10
14-30 Wolverine Creek 43 14
13-24 Matanuska Glacier 43 9
16-04 Happy River/Rainy Pass 42 5
80% USE 14-09 Kings Creek 41 9
14-29 Jim Creek 34 8
14-31 Pinnacle Mountain 33 4
16-03 Johnson Creek 32 4
90% USE 14-01 Iron Creek 29 4
16-01 Yentna River 23 6
13-01 Brushkana Creek/Caribou Pass 22 '8
13-14 Horn Mountains 21 6
13-23 Glacier/Monument Creek 20 4
13-20 Talkeetna River 19 6
13-12 Little Oshetna River 19 4
14-07 Jonesville/Moose Creek 5 19
TABLE 13. Known Modes of Transportation for 1 Sheep Hunters in the Susitna Planning Area
~reguenc~ of Use
Mode Number of Hunters Percent Use
Airplane 144 41.9
Highway Vehicle 118 34.3
Off-Road Vehicle 34 9.9
Horse 29 8.4
Boat 15 4.4
Motor Bike 4 1.1
1 Includes multiple modes of transportation
-15-
Black and Brown Bears. Both black and brown bears inhabit the Susitna-
Beluga basins and are eagerly sought after by wildlife photographers, nature
viewers, and sportsmen, who often travel many miles to reach these animals.
Bears are readily seen along the hiking and canoe trails. Many bears,
especially brown bears, are found in more remote, inaccessible areas.
However, people are still attracted to these remote areas to view and to
hunt them.
Black bear tags are issued only to non-residents of the state of Alaska.
Thus it is difficult to determine the number of resident hunters who hunted
bears. Statewide, there were 1,247 tags issued to non-residents, and their
success rate was 18.8% (235 bears harvested). Both resident and
non-resident hunters are required to report and seal bears that are
harvested only if they take the skull and hide. Therefore, the numbers of
bears taken by each group is not known. The success rate of residents, of
course, is not known. Assuming that the success rate in the planning area
is similar to that statewide, we can extrapolate to estimate the total
number of bear hunters, both resident and non-resident, in the area.
In the planning area in 1982, 159 black bears were harvested. Of these, 136
were killed by residents and 23 by non-residents (Table 14). A total of 122
non-residents purchased tags and hunted in the planning area, assuming one
tag per hunter. The resident kill of 136 black bears is a minimum figure,
since residents are not required to seal black bears if they salvage only
the meat. An estimate of the number of residents hunting bears, assuming an
18.8% success rate, is 723.
The department maintains records which show the approximate kill sites for
black bears in the planning area. Most of these sites are near road or
airplane access points. Game management units 13-E (Cantwell Area); 14-A
(Anchorage-Wasilla), and 16-B (Tyonek-Skwentna) had the most black bears
taken.
TABLE 14. Number of Black Bears Sealed per Game Management Unit, 19811
Sub-Unit Total Animals Killed
13-A 12
13-B 3
13-D 5
13-E 20
13 unk 1
14-A 30
14-B 13
14 unk 1
16-A 19
16-B 52
16 unk 3
ota
1 Does not include bears taken in defense of life and property
-16-
Tags are necessary for all hunters of brown bears. Statewide, 813
non-resident and 5,049 resident tags were issued. A total of 811 brown
bears were killed statewide, 435 by non-residents (success rate = 53.5%) and
376 by residents (success rate= 7.4%). The success rate for non-residents
may be higher because many non-residents employ professional guides. In the
planning area, 89 brown bears were harvested, 28 by non-residents, 61 by
residents (Table 15). Assuming the success rate for non-residents and
resident brown bear hunters in the planning area to be the same as the
statewide success rates for non-residents and residents, respectively, there
were an estimated 52 non-resident and 824 resident brown bear hunters in the
planning area in 1982. Game management units 16-B and 13-E accounted for
most brown bears harvested.
TABLE 15. Number of Brown Bears Sealed per Game Management Unit, 1981 1
Sub-Unit Total Animals Killed
13-A . 14
13-B 11
13-D 8
13-E 28
14-A 1
14-B 1
16-A 1
16-B 25
Total 89
1ooes not include bears taken in defense of life and property.
Furbearers. Furbearers is the term given to a variety of unrelated species
pursued by humans for their pelts rather than for their meat. Occasionally,
a furbearer will be eaten; but generally only their pelts are used.
Furbearers in the study area for which data are available are lynx, wolves,
land otters, wolverines, and beavers. They are usually trapped by local
trappers. Therefore, the potential demand for trapping in the planning area
can be extrapolated from the number of trapping licenses issued to people
who live in the communities in the planning area. Table 16 lists the
communities with the number of trapping licenses issued for each.
Table 17 presents the numbers of trappers and mean trapl ine length in
selected locations of the planning area during 1981, and Table 18 gives, by
game management unit, a sample of number of furbearers trapped (File Data,
Statistics Division, ADF&G). The statistics presented are only a minimum of
the number of anima 1 s trapped. Probably many more were trapped but not
recorded.
-17-
TABLE 16. Trapping Licenses Issued to Residents 3 in or near the Planning Area 1982
Communit,l Number of Licenses
Anchorage 3,031
Eagle River 233
Chugiak 111
3,375 1 SUBTOTAL
Palmer 306
Wasi 11 a 246
Willow 55
Talkeetna 56
Trapper Creek 17
Big Lake 10
Sutton 11
Alexander Creek 6
Beluga 3
Cantwe 11 34
Tyonek 7
Gold Creek 1
768 2 SUBTOTAL
Paxson 15
Gakona 43
Glennallen 91
Copper Center 40
SUBTOTAL 189
Kenai 312
Soldotna 393
Sterling 54
SUBTOTAL 759
TOTAL 5,091
1Does not include Indian, Girdwood, Bird Creek
2Does not include McKinley Park
3 Information from File Data, Game Division, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game
-18-
TABLE 17. Numbers of Trappers and Mean Trapline Length., 1981 1
Area
Glennallen, Paxson
Lake Louise
Skwentna
Cantwe 11 , Dena 1 i
Talkeetna, Petersville
Palmer, Wasilla
Game
Management Unit
13-01
16-01
13-05
14-02
14-01
1File Data, Game Division
TABLE 18. Numbers of Animals Trapped, 1981 1
Game Management
Subunit Ltnx Wolf Wolverine
13-01 22 13 12
13-02 6 9 11
13-05 40 18 15
14-01 7 4 5
14-02 0 1 4
16-01 1 7 6
16-02 1 13 39
1File Data, Statistics Division
Subsistence
Number
Trappers
20
8
5
6
9
Mean Length
Trapline Miles
81.6
61.8
35.6
19.2
29.1
River Otter Total Rank
5 52 3
5 31 6
0 73 2
28 44 4
4 9 7
18 32 5
30 83 1
The subsistence life style is important for many residents in the planning
area. This use of resources, for example, is very important to the way of
life of residents of the Tyonek and Upper Yentna areas (Atlas Map C5), as
demonstrated by research conducted by the Division of Subsistence (Fall
et al. 1983). In 1982 and 1983, about 52% of the households in the village
of Tyonek and 82% of the households in the Upper Yentna area participated in
a survey of their uses of fish and wildlife. Some of the results of this
survey are summarized in Table 19.
The available data suggest that salmon are one of the most widely used
resources in both communities. Over 90% of the households in Tyonek
participated in salmon fishing in 1982, similarly 67-78% of the Upper Yentna
households fished for chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon in that same year.
In addition, over 90% of the households in Tyonek harvested moose in the
last five years. In 1982, 83% of the Upper Yentna households harvested
moose. Freshwater fish, eulachon, small game and furbearers were the major
groups harvested by Upper Yentna residents, and chinook salmon and shell
fish appear to have constituted most of the harvest by Tyonek residents in
1982.
-19-
TABLE 19. Subsistence Use of Fish and Wildlife 1982
TYONEK (N=39} UPPER YENTNA (N=38)
SQecies Taken # animals % of households 2 # animals % of households
Chinook (king) salmon 15651 97% 151 67%
Sockeye (red) salmon 2091 94% 470 78%
Pink (humpback) salmon 321 75% 531 44%
Chum (dog) salmon 131 72% 127 22%
Coho (silver) salmon 63 91% 351 75%
Freshwater fish
(except eulachon) N/A 3-50% 1805 14-72%
Eulachon (Hooligan) N/A 34% 5929 36%
Waterfowl N/A 69% 152 42%
Spruce grouse N/A 56% 171 50%
Small game/furbearers N/A 3-53% 1181 11-36%
Moose 15 91% 30 83%
Black Bear 1-3 22% 13 44%
Brown Bear 1 6% 1 11%
Caribou 1 6%
Sheep 1 3%
Shellfish 1056-3300 34% 1481 19%
Harbor seals/
Belukha whales (1 belukha harvested) 21-37%
(3 struck animals)
1 These harvest numbers do not include additional salmon removed from commercial
2 harvest for home consumption.
Percent of households harvesting these species within the last five years
(1978-1982)
Source: Fall, Foster, and Stanek 1983
Sport Fish
Sport fishing is one of the most important recreational activities in the
planning area in terms of numbers of individuals participating, total user
days, and number of fish caught. A total of 225,345 days of fishing were
spent by reporting sport fishermen in 1981 in the planning area, and 218,264
fish were harvested. This constitutes 15.9% of the effort and 17.9% of the
sport fish harvest statewide.
Table 20 displays the sport fish harvest by species and drainage for
1981. The location of these lakes and streams can be found in Atlas Maps B7
and B8. The rivers in the planning area contributed approximately 8%
to the total harvest statewide. From 1977 to 1981, the recreational harvest
in the planning area ranged from 6.0% to 9.3% of the statewide harvest
(Table 21).
-20-
TABLE 20. Alaska Sport Fish Harvest by Species and Drainage, 1981 1 ' 3
Species
East
Glennallen Susitna
Chinook (King)
Imm. Chinook
Sea-run Coho
(silver)
Sockeye (red)
Pink (humpback)
Chum (dog)
Land-locked Coho
Steel head
Rainbow Trout
Lake Trout
Dolly Varden/
87
27
57
27
896
4,675
Arctic Char 858
Arctic Grayling 10,547
Northern Pike
Whitefish
Burbot
Other fish 4
60,881
1,625
6,192
183
881
736
5,817
739
4,742
2,424
287
6,964
287
2,577
10,049
172
268
West
Susitna
3,582
1,466
7,033
1,476
660
317
13,030
297
3,037
5,250
125
211
201
4,550 ( 7.7%)
2,202 (18.5%)
12,850 (10.2%)
2,242 ( 2.8%)
5,402 ( 5.3%)
2,741 (19.5%)
335 ( 0.3%)
27 ( 0.1%)
20,890 (11.7%)
5,259 (28.7%)
6,472 ( 3.4%)
25 ,846 (16. 2%)
125 ( 0.8%)
1,625 (17.6%)
6,575 (45.8%)
652 ( 1.1%)
Total
State
58,997
11,908
125,666
79,823
100,998
14,057
97,224
3,264
178,613
18,316
191,689
159,924
16,536
9,251
14,342
TOTAL 25,174 35,934 35,934 "97,766 ( 8.0%) 1,216,712
CONTRIBUTION
1 Includes a few streams and lakes outside of planning area
2Percentage contribution to statewide fish harvest of each species
3Does not include smelt, halibut, rockfish, clams
4Misidentified fish
-21-
TABLE 21. Total Sport Fish Harvest, Susitna Basin, 1977-1981
Stream or Lake Fished
Glenna 11 en Area
Lake Louise,
Lake Susitna &
Tyone Lake
Other waters x 35%
1977
10,624
10,308
TOTAL 20,932
Eastside Susitna Drainage
Caswell Creek
Montana Creek 8,351
Sunshine Creek
Clear (Chunilna)
Sheep Creek
Others
Creek 4,227
6,464
14,121
TOTAL 33,163
Westside Susitna Drainage
Deshka River
(Kroto Creek)
Lake Creek
Alexander Creek
Polly Creek
Talachulitna River
Chuit River
Theodore River
Lewis River
Other rivers
Shell Lake
Whiskey Lake
Hewitt Lake
Judd Lake
Other lakes
4,225
11 '202
5,667
2,687
1,993
1,309
208
9,391
199
144
171
340
2,070
TOTAL 39,606
1978
8,419
7,914
16,333
25,812
10,430
10,492
20,864
67,598
7 ,630
11,738
9,542
840
1,744
1,187
139
11,332
100
28
129
44
3,439
48,287
1979
8,953
11,909
20,862
1,643
8,564
2,660
5,909
5,203
14,582
38,561
8,929
12,970
4,922
1,484
1,465
861
107
15,078
203
252
191
938
1,972
49,392
TOTAL ALL DRAINAGES
IN STUDY AREA 93,701 132,218 108,815
1980
15,386
9,191
24,577
3,740
14,003
4,567
4,959
8,723
18,348
54,340
13,079
9,903
6,862
4,091
791
998
9
11,581
370
1,308
3,271
52,272
131,189
1981
15,941
9,231
25,172
2,127
7,952
2,759
4,578
3,870
14,598
35,884
8,431
7-,109
5,882
326
987'
2,280
1,351
3,135
36 '110
97,166
Alaskan Total 1,336,237 1,418,361 1,443,244 1,758,245 1,611,585
% of Statewide Total 6.9% 9.3% 7.5% 7.5% 6.0%
-22-
If the total sport fish harvest is looked at over a period of time, it will
be seen that certain rivers and lakes in the planning area consistently
contribute more fish than others (Table 21). Eastside and westside Susitna
drainages appear to contribute equally large percentages, and within these
drainages certain rivers stand out as important contributors. Montana,
Clear, and Sheep creeks in the eastside and the Deshka~ Lake Creek, and
Alexander Creek in the westside are important contributors. The west and
eastside Susitna drainages contribute the largest ave·rage percentage of
fish, approximately 40% each of the planning area and 3% each of the
statewide catch, during the five years of record.
During 1981, the fish contributing the largest percentage of the catch to
the statewide total were burbot (45.8%), lake trout (28.7%), chum salmon
(19.5%), immature chinook salmon (18.5%), and white fish (17.6%).
From 1977 through 1981, streams near Glennallen, the east and west sides of
the Susitna River, and the west side of Cook Inlet supported a total of
92,635 to 123,326 angler-days (Table 22) (Mills 1979-1981). Most Susitna
basin angling effort in the planning area was concentrated on the eastside
Susitna drainage (x = 44.2%). The rivers used most by fishermen in the
Susitna basin are Sheep Creek, the Deshka (Kroto Creek), Alexander Creek,
Montana Creek, Lake Creek, and Clear Creek (Atlas Fig. C4). The number of
angler days in the area increased 18% between 1981 and 1982, which is faster
than ~he human population growth.
Following is a summary of the important sportfish species, their
contribution to the total harvest, and the most popular places where they
are fished.
Chinook (king) salmon. King salmon are one of the most popular species for
sport fishing in Southcentral Alaska. For many years rivers were closed to
sport fishing of this species because of their low stocks. Recently their
populations have increased and they can now be fished.
In the Susitna-Beluga planning area 4,550 adult and 2,202 immature king
salmon were reported caught in 1981, and the majority (74.8%) of these were
taken from the west Susitna drainages. The Deshka River (Kroto Creek) had
the most fish taken (16.2%) out of all other surveyed streams and lakes in
the study area.
King salmon harvest in the Susitna basin in 1981 constituted 9.5% of the
statewide total of king salmon harvest.
Coho (silver) salmon. .Silver salmon are another popular sportfish in the
Susitna basin. Both sea-run and land-locked coho are taken by anglers. The
number of sea-run and land-locked silvers make up 10.2% and 0.3% of the
total statewide harvest of these species, respectively. The majority of
sea-run coho (54.7%) are caught in rivers of west Cook Inlet. Montana Creek
provided a large harvest also (17.6%). The majority of land-locked coho are
caught in the eastside drainages.
-23-
TABLE 22. Angler-days Fished by Stream, 1977-1981, and Percent Contribution
to Statewide Totals
Stream Fished 1977
Lake Louise
Lake Susitna &
Tyone Lake 14,899
Other Waters x 35% 7,746
Glennallen Area Total 22,645
( 1. 9%)
14,268
Caswe 11 Creek
Montana Creek
Sunshine Creek
Clear (Chunilna)
Sheep Creek
Others
Creek 3,163
8,112
12,501
East Side Susitna
Drainage Total
Deshka River
(Kroto Creek)
Lake Creek
Alexander Creek
Polly Creek
Talachulitna River
Chuit River
Theodore River
Lewis River
Other Rivers
Other Lakes
Shell Lake
Whiskey Lake
Hewitt Lake
Judd Lake
West Side Cook Inlet
West Side Susitna
Drainage Total
Total Contribution
38,044
(3.2%)
3,852
6,946
5,991
1,342
1,355
1,037
343
7,269
2,205
566
287
436
317
.31 ,946
(2.7%)
92,635
(7.7%)
1978
13,161
4,667
17,828
( 1. 4%)
25,762
5,040
11,869
14,970
57,641
(4.8%)
9,111
8,767
6,914
732
1,185
905
172
6,011
3,420
302
129
172
151
37,971
(3.0%)
113,440
(8.8%)
Total Alaska 1,197,590 1,285,063
1 M.J. Mills 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1982
2Low year for pink salmon run
-24-
1979
12,199
6,613
18,812
( 1.4%)
3,710
22,621
3,317
5,125
6,728
12,639
54,140
(3.9%)
13,236
13,881
8,284
2,185
1,069
912
31
7,577
1,615
263
189
613
519
50,374
(3.7%)
123,326
(9.0%)
1980
10,539
5,823
16,362
(1.1%)
4,963
19,287
5,208
4,388
8,041
12,216
54,103
(3.6%)
19,364
8,325
6,812
2,542
614
700
43
4,998
2,999
414
29
471
814
48,125
(3.2%)
118,590
(7.9%)
1981
14,397
5,354
19,751
( 1.4%)
3,860
16,657
3,062
3,584
6,936
7,850
41,949
(2.9%)
13,248
6,471
6,892
377
1,378
1,364
899
4,586
. 2 '120
37,335
(2.6%)
99,035
(6.9%)
1,364,729 1,488,962 1,420,172
Sockeye (red) salmon. Sockeye salmon harvested in the planning area make up
2.3% of the total sportfish harvest. The majority of sockeyes (65.8%) are
caught in the west Susitna drainages, and in this area, most are caught in
Lake Creek. In the planning area, their total contribution to the statewide
harvest is only 2.8%.
Pink (humtback) salmon. The eastside Susitna drainages contribute the
majority87.8%) of the pink harvest in the planning area. Montana and
Sheep creeks had the highest catch in 1981, contributing 33.0% and 22.9% of
the pinks in the planning area, respectively.
Chum (dog) salmon. Chum salmon harvest in the planning area constitutes
19.5% of the statewide sportfish catch of this species, and the majority
(88.4%) of these chum are caught in rivers on the eastside Susitna
drainages. The creeks in this area with the largest sportfish harvest are
Sheep (18.3%) and Montana (14.9%) creeks.
Rainbow trout. Rainbow trout constitute the second largest contribution to
numbers of f1sh caught in the planning area. They are second (21.4%) only
to grayling (26.4%) with respect to numbers caught. This harvest makes up
11.7% of the total statewide harvest for rainbows. The majority of these
fish (62.4%) are caught in westside Susitna River tributaries. The stream
contributing the largest catch is the Deshka (17.4%), followed in order by
Lake Creek (13.8%), Alexander Creek (11.0%), and the Theodore River (5.2%).
Lake trout. Lake trout caught in the planning area represent 28.7% of the
statewide harvest for lake trout. The majority were caught in the
Glennallen area (88.9%). Most are found in the Lake Louise, Lake Susitna,
and Tyone Lake areas.
Arctic grayling. The Arctic grayling catch in the planning area contributed
the greatest number of fish to the total sportfish caught in the planning
area in 1981 (25,846 fish). Approximately equal numbers of grayling came
from Glennallen (40.8%) and eastside Susitna (38.9%) drainages. These fish
make up 16.2% of all grayling caught in the state.
Whitefish. The whitefish sportfish catch in the planning area contri~utes
17.6% to the total whitefish catch statewide. All whitefish in this area
are caught in the Glennallen area lake system, and most (94.4%) are caught
in Lake Louise, Lake Susitna, and Tyone Lake.
Burbot. Of all sportfish species caught in the planning area, burbot
contr1bute the most to the statewide catch of any one species. Of all
burbot caught in the state, 45.8% are caught in the planning area, and 43.2%
are caught in Lake Louise, Lake Susitna, and Tyone Lake.
-25-
Commercial Fish
Currently, all five species of Pacific salmon are harvested commercially in
Upper Cook Inlet (UCI). The UCI salmon fishery, although contributing less
than a mean 5% of the statewide harvest, generated an average of $21.8
million annually for the years of record 1977-1982 (range= 15-32 million)
for 599 drift and 747 set net fishermen. Set gill nets accounted for 40% of
the commercial harvest in 1981 (Ruesch 1983). Only set nets are allowed in
the Northern District, which includes the immediate area into which rivers
of the Susitna basin drain.
The General Subdistrict of the Northern District is the only UCI fishing
subdistrict encompassed in the Susitna planning area (Figure 3) and is
divided into three areas. Area 247-30 extends from the Chuitna to the Ivan
River; area 247-41 extends from the Ivan River to a few miles west of Point
McKenzie; and area 247-42 extends from Point McKenzie to the eastern shore
of Knik Arm. The commercial harvest in these three areas in 1981 equaled
16% of the total Upper Cook Inlet commercial salmon harvest (Bruce King,
pers. comm.). However, the compilation of data for the Northern District
only and the General Subdistrict in particular is somewhat misleading
because many fish bound for Susitna basin rivers to spawn are caught in the
Central District of UCI. Presented here are both detailed data for the
Northern District, specifically the General Subdistrict, and also summary
data for all districts.
The five species of salmon in UCI are captured as they migrate to their
river of origin to spawn. The species that generate the most income for the
fishermen are sockeye, followed by chum, pink, and king salmon (Ruesch
1983). The exvessel value of Upper Cook Inlet commercial salmon harvest for
21 years is presented in Table 23. There was a dramatic increase in 1976 in
income due to an increase in the price paid for sockeyes and pinks. Cohos
had a 362% increase in 1974, and chum had a 384% increase in 1972. All
species have remained at or near these higher annual values.
Table 24 presents the 1981 commercial catch by species in the General
District. Based on average prices per species, the total dollar amount
brought in by commercial fishermen in the General District is over $2
million. However, we cannot look at only General District data, as
explained previously. Ninety percent of the chum harvest is attributed to
the drift gill net fleet in the Central District. The majority of these
fish are bound for Northern District streams, especially the Susitna River,
believed to be the foremost contributor to the commercial chum salmon
harvest (Ruesch 1983).
It is a difficult, if not impossible, task at this time to separate out
commercial catches by river of origin. Thus we have used catch in the
Northern District only as an indicator of importance of the UCI commercial
fish catch. These figures underestimate the numbers and value of fish
contributed by the Susitna basin. The total commercial catch in Upper Cook
Inlet for the period 1954-1981 is displayed in Table 25. The catch for
1981, divided into area, gear type, and species, is displayed in Table 26.
Biologists from the Commercial Fish Division have estimated that the
contribution by salmon populations from Susitna basin rivers to the total
UCI catch in 1981 was 56.6%. They also estimate that these rivers
-26-
contribute 90% of the chum catch, 75% of the pink, 75% of the coho catch,
and 30% of the sockeye catch. Table 27 displays the contribution of Susitna
basin rivers to the catch in 1981.
-27-
Figure 3
Upper Cook Inlet Management Area, Adult Anadromous Investigations, 1982
UPPER
COOK INLET
2
CENTRAL
DISTRICT
-28-
Switae ..... Litttes.;._ ··-........ _ ....
NORTHERN DISTRICT
1. General subdistrict
2. Eastern subdistrict
CENTRAL DISTRICT
t Upper subdistrict
2.Lower subdistrict
3.Chinitna subdistrict
4. Western subdistrict
5.Kolgin Is. subdistrict
6. Kustatan subdistrict
TABLE 23. Exvessel Value of Upper Cook Inlet Commercial 1Salmon Harvest
in Thousands of Dollars by Species, 1960-1981
Year King Sockeye Coho Pink Chum Total
1960 140 1,334 307 663 343 2,787
1961 100 1,687 118 16 204 2,125
1962 100 1,683 342 1,274 582 3,981
1963 89 1,388 193 13 236 1,919
1964 20 1,430 451 1,131 646 3,678
1965 50 2,099 109 70 230 2,558
1966 50 2,727 295 823 338 4,233
1967 49 2,135 187 13 202 2,586
1968 30 1,758 515 1,209 843 4,355
1969 70 1,231 109 23 204 1,637
1970 49 1,135 354 387 745 2,670
1971 189 1,102 143 22 316 1,772
1972 179 1,980 224 478 1,214 4;075
1973 97 2,587 255 330 1,449 4,718
1974 194 2,987 923 955 1,583 6,642
1975 68 2,680 847 418 2,747 6,760
1976 269 8,648 837 1,876 1,985 13,615
1977 463 13,292 857 786 5,187 20,585
1978 418 20,592 935 1,332 2,367 25,644
1979 596 7,935 1,853 96 3,944 14,424
1980 455 9,123 1,194 2,634 1,612 15,018
1981 479 11,546 2,435 184 4,218 18,862
1982 831 24,216 3,614 600 5,657 34,918
1 1979-1981; Preliminary data, Annual Management Rept. 1981, UCI
Region II
-29-
TABLE 24. 1981 Commercial Catch by Period and Species, Set Gill Nets,
General Subdistrict
Date King Red Coho Pink Chum
6/26 86 508 2 1 23
6/29 58 1,516 1 9 110
7/03 130 1,192 8 9 23
7/06 109 7,517 333 385 7,351
7/10 65 52,334 4,181 875 1,190
7/12 42 30,990 10,015 1,016 3,181
7/14 53 16,684 5,561 4,305 905
7/17 12 1,998 723 1,054 107
7/19 19 18,061 51,738 9,522 14,367
7/20 14 8,583 12,419 4,660 3,294
7/24 14 3,075 4,452 8,709 568
7/27 7 2,417 6,263 9,211 490
7/29 11 2,250 14,636 2,400 5,173
7/31 4 696 3,052 1,170 876
8/03 8 800 3,210 2,191 3,530
8/07 1 113 1,146 227 226
8/10 1 61 615 197 153
8/14 0 2 112 0 5
8/17 0 1 163 7 98
8/21 0 6 133 3 103
8/31 0 2 29 0 16
Total 634 148,806 118,792 45,951 41,789
-30-
TABLE 25. Commercial Catch of Upper Cook Inlet Salmon in Numbers of Fish by
Species, 1954-1981
Year King Socke~e Coho Pink Chum Total
1954 63,780 1,207,046 321,525 2,189,307 510,068 4,291,726
1955 45,926 1,027,528 170 '777 101,680 248,343 1,594,254
1956 64,977 1,258,789 198,189 1,595,375 782,051 3,899,381
1957 42,158 643,712 125,434 21,228 1,001,470 1,834,002
1958 22,727 477,392 239,765 1,648,548 471,697 2,860,129
1959 32,651 612,676 106,312 12,527 300,319 1,064,485
1960 27,512 923,314 311,461 1 ,411 ,605 659,997 3,333,889
1961 19,737 1,162,303 117,778 34,017 349,628 1,683,463
1962 20,210 1,147,573 350,324 2 '711 ,689 970,582 5,200,378
1963 17,536 942,980 197,140 30,436 387,027 1,575,119
1964 4,531 970,055 452,654 3,231,961 1,079,084 5,738,285
1965 9,741 1,412,350 153,619 23,963 316,444 1,916,117
1966 9,541 1,851,990 289,690 2,006,580 531,825 4,689,626
1967 7,859 1,380,062 177,729 32,229 269,037 1,894,716
1968 4,536 1,104,904 470,450 2,278,197 1,119,114 4,977,201
1969 12,398 692,254 100,952 33,422 269,855 1,108,881
1970 8,348 731,214 275,296 813,895 775,167 2,603,920
1971 19,765 636,303 100,636 35,624 327,029 1,119,357
1972 16,086 879,824 80,933 628,580 630,148 2 ,235 ,571
1973 5,194 670,025 104,420 326,184 667,573 1 '773 ,396
1974 6,596 497,185 200,125 483,730 396,840 1,584,476
1975 4,790 684,818 227,372 336,359 951,796 2,205,135
1976 10,867 1,664,150 208,710 1,256,744 469,807 3,610,278
1977 14,792 2,054,020 192,975 554,184 1,233,733 ·4 ,049 '704
1978 17,302 2,621,667 219,360 1,689,098 571,959 5 '119 ,386
1979 13,738 924,415 265,166 72,982 650,357 1,926,658
1980 13,798 1,573,597 271,418 1,786,430 389,113 4,034,356
1981 12,240 1,439,235 485,148 127,169 833,549 2,897,341
-31-
TABLE 26. Commercial Salmon Harvest by Area, Gear Type and Species
Upper Cook Inlet, 1981
Area Chinook Socke,:te Coho Pink Chum Total
Drift Gi 11 net 2,319 633,145 226,257 53,888 756,848 1,672,457
Set Gi 11 net
Upper Subdistrict 8,359 496,196 36,133 15,659 2,467 558,814
Kalgin Subdistrict 175 33,945 46,173 2,093 2,009 84,395
Western Subdistrict 624 21,739 29,629 939 21,110 74,041
Kustatan Subdistrict 38 3,995 10,804 1,077 455 16,369
Chinitna Subdistrict 0 538 1,784 167 2,887 5,376
Central District
Total 9,196 556,413 124,523 19,935 28,928 738,995
Eastern Subdistrict 91 100,856 15,570 7,374 4,419 128,310
General Subdistrict 634 148,806 118,792 45,951 41,789 355,972
Northern District
Total 725 249,662 134,362 53,325 46,208 484,282
Seine 0 15 6 21 1,565 1,607
Grand Total 12,240 1,439,235 485,148 127,169 833,548 2,895,596
TABLE 27. Commercial Salmon Catch ~pper Cook Inlet, 1981-1982, and the Susitna
Basin Contribution, 1981
Chinook Sockeye Coho Pink Chum Total
1981
Cook Inlet 11,500 1,443,000 494,000 128,000 843,000 2,919,500
Susitna basin unknown 425,000 371,000 96,000 759,000 1,651,000
(29.5%) (75.0%)2 (75.0%)2 (90.0%)2 (56.6%)2
1982
Cook Inlet 21,000 3,237,000 777,000 789,000 1,429,000 6,253,000
1Information from K. Florey, B. Cross, A. Kingsbury
2Estimates
-32-
Nonconsumptive Uses of Fish and Wildlife
Nonconsumptive use of fish and wildlife (e.g., nature viewing, birdwatching,
photography, research, etc.) has been shown to contribute up to 30% of the
total use of fish and wildlife in the southeastern United States. In Alaska
it may be even higher. It is an important activity in-the planning area,
but is not yet quantified as to its percentage contribution. The United
States Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a survey on nonconsumptive use of
fish and wildlife by Alaskans (1982). According to this study, there were
286,500 people (69%) that used wildlife nonconsumptively, and of these
121,900, or 29%, of all Alaskans did not fish or hunt. Overall in Alaska
the percentage contribution to nonconsumptive use was 900,000 user days in
1978 (USFWS 1982).
Many tourists travel to and through the planning area, and 12% of all
visitors who travel through Anchorage travel through the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough, which constitutes a large part of the planning area (pers. comm.,
Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau). During these travels, tourists
often view nature, photograph wildlife, birdwatch, or use recreational
facilities where wildlife are known to be.
In 1981, the total number traveling through the borough was 87,993
(Table 28). These tourists spend money on equipment, services, food, and
lodging. Many Alaskans and borough residents especially are benefitted by
this activity.
-33-
Table 28. Visitors to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough in 1982 and the Nature
of Their Visits (From In-Flight Survey, Anchorage Convention and
Visitors Bureau)
Year Total
Non-Residents
Residents
Spring
Non-Residents
Residents
Summer
Non-Residents
Residents
Fall
Non-Residents
Residents
Winter
Non-Residents
Residents
Anchorage Visitors
733,300
578,500
154,800
84,500
62,600
21,900
387,700
329,200
58,500
173,800
125,700
48,100
87,300
61,200
26,100
Spring -April, May
Summer -June, July, August, September (in part)
-Mat-Su Visitors
87 ,933(12%)
7 ,605(9%)
54,278(14%)
17,380(10%)
8 '730(10%)
Fall September (in part), October, November, December
Winter -January, February, March
Public Attitudes
An extensive outdoor recreation survey conducted in 1979 reported that the
top six activities rated as "favorite" by adults in Southcentral Alaska,
with the exception of "walking and running for pleasure,•• which was third,
were activities that generally take place on public land (Alaska State
Parks). Table 29 summarizes the findings of the survey. Fishing and
camping were "most preferred," followed fourth by hunting, then motorboating
and beachcombing. The top five activities in which adults "preferred to
participate" were usually dependent on public land: fishing, camping,
hunting, motorboating, and hiking. Fishing was the third activity in which
adults "participated most frequently•• (first.and second were driving and
walking/running). The reason most frequently given by people for not
participating in more preferred activities was lack of time (72%).
-34-
TABLE 29. Southcentral Alaska Resident Outdoor Recreation Data
A. Activities in which adults most frequently participate (analysis by
Clark and Johnson)
driving for pleasure
fishing
tent camping
bicycling
target shooting
walking/running for pleasure
audience for outdoor sports
motorboating
cross-country skiing
recreational vehicle camping
B. Activities in which adults would like to participate more often
(analysis by Clark and Johnson)
fishing
hunting
hiking
flying
bicycling
camping (general, tent)
motorboating
alpine skiing
driving for pleasure
recreational vehicle camping
C. Activities rated as favorite by adults (analysis by Alaska Division of
Parks)
fishing
hunting
beachcombing
cross-country skiing
bicycling
tent camping
walking/running for pleasure
motorboating
playing softball/baseball
alpine skiing
NOTE: Based on responses by adults participating in the 1979 Alaska Public
Survey
The Kellert Survey (Kellert 1980) was a study of American attitudes and
behavior towards wildlife and natural habitats. The results of this s.urvey
(of 3,107 Americans, including 350 Alaskans) indicated that the respondents
supported protection of wildlife habitat.
Fifty-seven percent of the people surveyed, for example, disapproved of
building houses on wetlands needed by waterfowl; a significant 51% opposed
(44% approved of) natural resource development in wilderness areas if it
meant much smaller wildlife populations; 60% favored restricting livestock
grazing on public lands to protect vegetation needed by wildlife, despite
higher beef prices. At a more significant level, 76% favored forestry
cutting practices that helped wildlife even if higher lumber prices
resulted, and 66% disapproved of oil development if discovered in
Yellowstone Park if it harmed the park's wildlife. An overwhelming 86% of
the national sample favored restrictions on off-road vehicle use if it
harmed wild animals (moreover, a significant 79% of frequent off-road
vehicle users also supported this restriction).
In Alaska, the most outstanding result was the greater knowledge of,
appreciation for, and protectionist sentiment toward wildlife on the part of
-35-
I
Alaskans as compared to other regions of the country. Most respondents from
this state were strongly inclined toward maintaining healthy and abundant
wildlife populations despite the loss of various material benefits. This
pattern was revealed on the attitude scales as well as on various habitat
protection and endangered species questions. On the other1hand, Alaskans
had quite low moralistic and high dominionistic scores (attitude
scales developed as part of the study) in addition to including far more
hunters, fishermen, and trappers than fo·und in other regions. The
protectionist sentiment of Alaskans, thus, was not related to an ethical
antipathy toward the consumptive use of animals.
11 Considerable appreciation of wildlife, the out-of-doors, and general
interest in animals were found among Alaska, Pacific Coast and the Rocky
Mountain states. Alaska, in fact, had the second highest naturalistic and
lowest negativistic scale scores of all demographic groups in the entire
study. Additionally, Alaskans participated far more often in almost all
consumptive and nonconsumptive wildlife-related activities .....
11 Very significant regional differences also occurred on the knowledge of
animals scale. Alaskans had, by far, the highest scores, ranking only
behind respondents with a graduate education among all demographic groups ...
Specifically, Alaskans expressed far greater willingness than any other
region to forsake a diversity of human benefits in order to protect wildlife
and natural habitats, and this tendency was reflected in both very low
utilitarian and extremely high ecologistic scores --in fact, among the most
exceptional of any demographic group on these two scales. Additionally,
Alaskans, in response to a number of habitat preservation questions,
indicated a definite willingness to render substantial sacrifice to protect
wildlife and natural environments. ·
Economic Valuation Summary
Indicators of wildlife resource value can be associated with the magnitude
of goods and services, employment, or revenues attributable to a
wildlife-related activity. The use and enjoyment of fish and wildlif~
resources in the planning area contribute significant benefits to local and
state residents. Adequate measures of the benefits provided consumers of
these resources can be difficult to obtain, however; commercial fishing,
guiding, taxidermy, air taxi and commercial boat operations, outfitting, or
sale of fur contribute direct benefits in terms of market transactions that
can be quantified. Other important activities such as photography,
sportfishing, viewing, nature study, sport hunting, or subsistence use are
more difficult to evaluate directly because market transactions do not
generally apply, and indirect methods are required to assess them.
1 Attitude scales from Kellert 1982
Moralistic = primary concern for the right and wrong treatment of animals.
Dominionistic = primary interest in the mastery and control over animals,
typically in sporting situations.
Naturalistic= primary interest and affection for wildlife and the outdoors.
Negativistic = avoidance of animals due to fear.
-36-
The following summary of social/economic values resulted from a survey of
available information on fish and wildlife resource use in the planning
area. The information is admittedly incomplete but does demonstrate that
these resources are of considerable economic value. As reported in an
earlier section, the Upper Cook Inlet fishing industry-supports 1,346
fishermen with an average total value to fishermen per year of $2.0 million.
Total expenditures by 1sport fishermen for the planning area for 1980 were
estimated at $29,500,000 (USFWS 1982). Estimates of net economic value
of sport fishing 1980 (Willow not included), using ••willingness to pay" and
"willingness to se11•• methodologies, were $6,750,000 and $15,400,000
respectively. Estimates of net values are discussed in Appendix A. Sport
fishing activities have increased dramatically in the planning area since
1980; an 18% increase in user days was reported between 1981 and 1982.
Estimates of total expenditures by sport hunters in the planning area during
1980 included $5,591,000 by big game hunters, $1,400,000 by small game
hunters, and $664,000 by waterfowl hunters (USFWS 1982). These estimates
included the Willow Subbasin area. Independent estimates of total
expenditures by hunters during 1981 is presented in Appendix B in addition
to a comparison of economic values associated with three important hunting
areas. Expenditures for big game hunting (Willow 1 Subbasin not 1 included)
and waterfowl hunting were respectively $4,239,000 ~nd $1,379,000 .
Most non-residents hunting in the planning area must use guiding services
when they hunt Dall sheep and brown bears in Alaska. A survey from the
Alaska Professional Hunters Association (140 respondents) noted that each
guide averaged 13.5 clients per hunting season, with each client spending an
average of $7,077. This provides a total of $95,550 gross average income
per guide operation. Seventy-five guiding operations were active during
1982 in the study area. Each operation employs an average of 7.3 Alaskans
per year. The average client also spends an additional $2,830 on other
activities or purchases while in the state.
A telephone survey was made of ten of the larger air taxi services that
operate in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. A major portion of their business
consists of air charters within the planning area by hunters, fishermen, and
wildlife photographers. Each of the larger operators grossed in excess of
$300,000 during the 1982 season.
An additional benefit can be estimated in terms of the nutritional
replacement value of wild game and fish harvested by sportsmen. The
following Tables 30 and 31 summarize data used to estimate food replacement
values for moose, caribou, bear, and common sport fish species harvested in
the planning area (John o•Neil, pers. comm.).
1 This figure includes the economic values for the Willow Subbasin, because
those values are not able to be isolated from the rest of the study area
values in the USFWS report.
-37-
Table 30. Susitna Sports Fishing Salmon Harvest Values, 1981
(1) (2) ( 3) (4) (5) (6)
Number Average Average Cleaned Value Total
Harvested Weight 1 Weight 2 Per Pound Harvest
Species ( 1 bs. ) ( 1 bs. ) (Wet Weight)3 Value
[(2)x(4)x(5)]
Chinook 7,579 26.8 21.4 $4.12 $ 668,225
Coho 32,609 6.3 5.0 4.37 712,507
Sockeye 9,912 6.2 5.0 4.27 211,621
Pink 24,870 3.4 2.7 4.31 289,412
Chum 4,892 7.5 6.0 4.52 132,671
Totals 79,862 $2,014,436
~ Statewide Harvest Study, 1981 -Michael J. Mills
Assumed to be approximately 80% of round weight 3 Based on protein cost of 23 selected food items found in 1974 USDA
Yearbook of Agriculture
Table 31. Fish and Game Values, 1981 1
Average 2nd Quarter
Weight 1982 Projected Total
Number Per Percent 2 Projected Harvest
Food Item Harvested Animal Useable Price Base · Va 1 ue
Black Bear 236 150 50 $3.16 $ 55,932
Caribou 920 250 45 4.21 435,755
Moose 2,155 800 55 4.21 3,991,922
Total $4,483,609
1values were based on costs of protein provided from retail prices of 23
specified meats and meat alternatives. Wild game has a protein per unit
weight ratio several times greater than pork or beef.
-38-
LITERATURE CITED
ADNR/Alaska State Parks. 1980. Southcentral Regional Plan. Tech. Rept.
Division of Parks. 153 pp.
Fall, J., D. Foster, and R. Stanek, 1983. The use of moose and other wild
resources in the Tyonek and Upper Y·entna areas, a background report.
Unpubl. Rept., Subsistence Division, ADF&G. Anchorage, AK. 44 pp.
Kellert, S., and J. Berry. 1980. Knowledge, affection and basic attitudes
toward animals in American society. Phase III of: American attitudes,
knowledge and behavior toward wildlife and natural habitats. Tech.
Rept. 167 pp.
Mills, M. 1975. Statewide harvest study. Vol. 20. Federal aid in fish
restoration. SW-1, Sportfish. 112 pp.
Mills, M. 1980. Statewide harvest study. Vol 21. Federal aid in fish
restoration. SW-1. Sport fish. 65 pp.
Mills, M. 1981. Statewide harvest study. Vol. 22. Federal aid in fish
restoration. SW. 1. Sportfish. 78 pp.
Mills, M. 1981. Statewide. harvest study. Vol. 22. Federal aid in fish
restoration and anadromous fish studies. SW-1. Sportfish. 107 pp.
Mills, M. 1982. Statewide harvest study. Vol. 23. Federal aid in fish
restoration and anadromous fish studies. SW-1. Sportfish. 115 pp.
Ruesch, P. 1983. Annual management report, 1981. Upper Cook Inlet Region
II. Commercial Fish Division, ADF&G. Anchorage, AK. 56 pp.
USFWS 1982. National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife associated
recreation. Tech. Rept. 91 pp.
-39-
CHAPTER II
SUPPLY
CHAPTER II. FISH AND WILDLIFE SUPPLY
Overview
This chapter presents a description of the supply of fish and wildlife
resources in the planning area. This supply, or number of animals, is
related to the capability of the land to support them. Generally, the
capability of an area to support selected species must be assessed
indirectly, by examining the quality, abundance, and seasonal distribution
of food, water, cover, breeding environments, winter habitats, and other
necessary elements required by each species. More direct species data (for
example, population size, natality and mortality rates, seasonal movements
and concentrations) can be valuable in determining the suitability of an
area to support a given population, but such data are available for only a
few species and in only a few areas. Moreover, because environments are
always changing, either naturally or as a result of human activities,
current population data may not be a good index of suitability for future
decades. The information in this chapter on supply is based in part on
quantitative and qualitative information on fish and wildlife species
abundance and distribution. It also is based on known wildlife-habitat
associations and the subsequent computer modeling of these associations.
11 Supply 11 refers to the amount of fish and wildlife supported by th~ habitat,
and since populations fluctuate from year to year, 11 Supply 11 for our purposes
represents the overall average numbers of fish and wildlife currently
supported in the planning area.
The planning area supports a variety and abundance of wildlife. One hundred
and fifty-four species of birds, 30 species of freshwater and anadromous
fishes, and 38 mammal species (not including belukha whales and harbor
seals, which occur in Cook Inlet waters) are likely to be regular breeders
or migrants in the study area (Tables 32, 33, and 34). The diversity and
abundance of study area fish and wildlife reflect the variety and
productivity of available habitats that provide food, cover, water, and
reproductive areas for these species. Basin habitats include tidelands,
estuaries, river floodplains, deciduous and coniferous forests and
woodlands, shrublands, grasslands, muskegs, freshwater marshes, and a
variety of tundra plan communities (Atlas Map B15). Table 35 indicates
acreages of 33 plant communities in the Beluga and Talkeetna subbasins
(areas for which such data are available). Table 36 combines vegetation
into 13 categories (plus water and non-vegetated areas) for these two
subbasins plus the upper Susitna. Table 37 lists some of the bird and
mammal species that may occur in 7 particular plant communities. The
modeling descriptions found in Part II of this chapter are based on these
wildlife-habitat relationships.
In this chapter we present, by selected species groups, the habitat
requirements of each, with estimated population numbers. The estimate of
the number of animals living in the planning area and the description of
where they live are based on a variety of sources. Most life history and
ecology information on the various species derive from assessments of some
of the area's populations conducted during coastal zone management projects
and from other assessments, including Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat (ADF&G
1974), Alaska's Fisheries Atlas (ADF&G 1976a), and personal communications ,,
-40-
from researchers. Much ecological information likewise was gleaned from the
Susitna-Hydroelectric studies for a portion of the planning area (ADF&G
1982). All the above information appears in Part I.
The specific associations of habitats and wildlife in the planning area
·generated for this chapter comes from computer modeling. The United States
Soil Conservation Service (USDA-SCS) and United States Forest Service (USFS)
mapped and inventoried the majority of the habitat (vegetation) cover in the
planning area, both by aerial photography and by field assessment. These
data were combined with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS) Habitat Evaluation Procedures to generate models that predicted the
relative values of wildlife habitat. These included good, moderate, and
poor: 1) winter and 2) spring, summer, and fall habitat for moose, the
most wide-ranging visible large mammal in the area. Similar procedures were
used to categorize poorly, moderately, and highly theoretical existing and
enhancible habitats for moose, based upon preliminary information from SCS
forage production and a literature review on moose carrying capacity related
to vegetation type. The "Species Diversity Model 11 addressed species other
than moose, and the SCS-ADF&G "General Habitat Synthesis Model'' addressed
all species and habitat and mapped vegetation with respect to certain
habitat criteria: scarcity of habitat, use of summer and winter habitats by
moose, proximity of riparian zones, and habitats with the greatest number of
wildlife species types (species richness). From all of these mode]s, the
ADF&G was able to construct ·maps of the Talkeetna and Beluga subbasins and
parts of the upper Susitna subbasin, demarcating lands important for fish
and wildlife. This informations appears in Part II and in the Atlas.
-41-
TABLE 32. List of Mammals of the Planning Area
Insectivora
Masked (common) shrew
Dusky shrew
Northern water shrew
Pygmy shrew
Chi rottera
Litt e brown bat
Carnivora
Coyote
Grey wolf
Red fox
Pika
Black bear
Brown bear
Marten
Short-tailed weasel
Least weasel
Mink
Wolverine
Land otter
Lynx
Pinnipedia
Harbor sea 1
Cetacea
Belukha whale
Lagomorpha
Colla red pika
Snowshoe hare
Rodentia
Arctic ground squirrel
Red squirrel
Northern flying squirrel
Hoary marmot
Beaver
Northern red-backed vole
Meadow vole
Tundra (Northern) vole
Singing vole
Northern bog lemming
Brown lemming
Muskrat
Meadow jumping mouse
Porcupine
Artiodactyla
Moose
Caribou
Mountain goat
Dall sheep
-42-
TABLE 33. List of Birds of the Matanuska Valley 1
R = resident S = summer W = winter M = migrant A = accidental E = escapees
Common loon S
Arctic loon S
Red-throated loon
Red-necked grebe S
Fork-tailed storm-petrel A
Great blue heron S
Tundra swan M
Trumpeter swan S
Canada goose M
Greater white-fronted goose M
Snow goose M
Mallard R
Gadwall S
Northern Pintail S
Blue-winged teal M*
Green-winged teal C*
Eurasian wigeon A
American wigeon S
Northern shoveler S
Redhead M
Ring-necked duck M
Canvasback S or M?
Greater scaup S
Lesser scaup S
Common goldeneye S
Barrow's goldeneye S
Bufflehead S
Oldsquaw M
Harlequin duck S
White-winged scoter M
Surf scoter M
Black scoter M*
Hooded merganser A*
Common merganser S
Red-breasted merganser S
Northern goshawk R
Sharp-shinned hawk S
Red-tailed hawk S
(Harlan's hawk S)
Swainson's hawk M
Rough-legged hawk M
Golden eagle R
Bald eagle R
Northern harrier S
Osprey M
Gyrfa 1 con R
Peregrine falcon M
Merlin S
American kestrel S
Spruce grouse R
Willow ptarmigan R
Rock ptarmigan R
White-tailed ptarmigan R
(Bobwhite quail E)
(Ring-necked pheasant E)
Sandhill crane S
Lesser golden plover S
Black-bellied plover M*
Surfbird M*
Hudsonian godwit S*
Semipalmated sandpiper M*
Common snipe S
Long-billed curlew S
Whimbrel M
Upland plover M or S?
Spotted sandpiper S
Solitary sandpiper S
Wandering tattler S
Greater yellowlegs S
Lesser yellowlegs S
Least sandpiper S
Pectoral sandpiper S
Western sandpiper M*
Dunlin M*
Short-billed Dowitcher S*
Long-billed dowitcher M*
Semiplamated dowitcher M*
Red-necked phalarope M?
Long-tailed jaeger S
Glaucous-winged gull S
Herring gull S
Mew gull S
Bonaparte's gull S
-43-
Arctic tern S
Rock dove R
Golden-crowned kinglet S
Ruby crowned kinglet S
TABLE 33. (continued)
R = resident S = summer W = winter M = migrant A = accidental E = escapees
Water pipit S
Rufous hummingbird S
Belted kingfisher S
Northern flicker S
Hairy woodpecker R
Downy woodpecker R
Black-backed woodpecker R?
Three-toed woodpecker R
Alder flycatcher S
Western wood peewee M
Olive-sided flycatcher S*
Horned 1 ark S
Violet-green swallow S
Tree-swa 11 ow S
Bank swa 11 ow S
Cliff swallow S
Gray jay R
Steller's jay A
Black-billed magpie R
Common raven R
Black-capped chickadee R
Boreal chickadee R
Red-breasted nuthatch A
Brown creeper R*
Dipper R
Winter wren R*
American robin S
Varied thrush S
Hermit thrush S
Swainson's thrush S
Gray-cheeked thrush S
Townsend's solitaire S
~Bohemian waxwing R
Northern shrike R
E~ropean starling R
Great horned owl R
Snowy owl A
Northern hawk owl R
Northern pygmy owl A?
Great gray owl R
Short-eared owl M
Boreal owl R
Arctic warbler A
Wilson's warbler S
Blackpoll warbler S
Orange-crowned warbler S
Yellow warbler S
Yellow-rumped warbler S
Blackpoll warbler S
Northern waterthrush S
Rusty blackbird S
Pine grosbeak R
Rosy finch S or R?
Hoary redpoll R
Common redpoll R
Pine siskin R
White-winged crossbill R
Savannah sparrow S
Dark-eyed junco R or S?
Tree sparrow S
White-crowned sparrow S
Golden-crowned sparrow S
Fox sparrow S
Lincoln's sparrow S*
Song sparrow S
Lapland longspur R, S, or M?
Smith's Longspur *
Snow bunting W
1Michael T. Bronson, Matanuska Audubon Society pers. comm., Gabrielson and
Lincoln (1959), Kessel and Gibson (1978), P. Arneson (ADF&G pers. comm.).
2The phylogenetic order has been changed on some of these species (AOU 1983).
-44-
TABLE 34. List of Fishes in the Planning Area Streams 1
1Morrow 1980
Pacific lamprey
Arctic lamprey
Pacific herring
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Sockeye salmon
Kokanee salmon
Pink salmon
Chum salmon
Steel head
Rainbow trout
Lake trout
Dolly Varden
Arctic char
Arctic grayling
Northern pike
Round whitefish
Blackfish
Burbot
Pond smelt
Surf smelt
Euclachon (Hooligan)
Longnose sucker
Three spine stickleback
Nine spine stickleback
Slimy sculpin
Coast range sculpin
Pacific staghorn sculpin
Sharpnose sculpin
Starry flounder
~45-
TABLE 35. Acreages of Cover Types in the Talkeetna and Beluga Subbasins
in the Susitna Planning Area
scs1
VEGETATION TYPE 2 TOTAL ACRES TOTAL ACRES
NO. IN TALKEETNA (%) IN BELUGA (%) TOTAL ACRES (%)
21. Short closed white spruce 3,590 ( 1.0%)3 740 ( 1.0%) 4,330 ( 1. 0%)
22. Young closed mixed deciduous 6,810 ( 1.0%) 20 ( 1.0%) 6,830 ( 1 • 0%)
24. Med. aged closed mixed deciduous 154,450 ( 6.7%) 59,090 ( 4.1%) 213,540 ( s. 7'16)
25. Tall closed white spruce 11,870 ( 0.5%) 13,200 ( 1 .0%) 25,070 ( 1.0%)
26. Old closed mixed deciduous 474,350 (20.5%) 143,950 ( 9.9%) 618,300 (16.4%)
27. Young closed cottonwood 1 ,oso ( 1 .0%) 1,480 ( 1.0%) 2,530 ( 1 .0%)
28. Medium closed cottonwood 3,530 ( 1.0%) 4,220 ( 1.0%) 7,750 ( 1 .0%)
29. Old closed cottonwood 1,300 ( 1.0%) 430 ( 1.0%) 1,730 ( 1. 0%)
31. Short open white spruce 59,450 ( 2.6%) 2,400 ( 1.0%) 61,850 ( 1.6%)
32. Med. aged open mixed deciduous 41,820 ( 1 .8%) 14,920 ( 1.0%) 56,740 ( 1 .5%)
33. Tall open white spruce 7,090 ( 1.0%) 2,810 ( 1. 0%) 9,900 ( 1 .0%)
34. Old open mixed deciduous 15,940 ( 1 .0%) 140,890 ( 9. 7%) 156,830 ( 4.2%)
35. Medium aged open cottonwoods 1 ,210 ( 1 .0%) s,oao ( 1 .0%) 6,290 ( 1 .0%)
36. Old open cottonwoods 530 ( 1.0%) 690 ( 1.0%) 1,220 ( 1.0%)
41. Short closed black spruce 96,860 ( 4.2%) 23,340 ( 1 • 6%) 120,200 ( 3.2%)
42. Tall closed black spruce 41,590 ( 1.8%) 11,670 ( 1 .0%) 53,260 ( 1 .4%)
43. Short open black spruce 5,290 ( 1.0%) 2,860 ( 1 .0%) a, 1so ( 1 .0%)
46. Tall closed hemlock 0 0 460 ( 1.0%) 460 ( 1 .0%)
so. Saltwater grasslands 4,110 ( 1.0%) 9,250 ( 1 .0%) 13,360 ( 1 .0%)
51. Saltwater low shrub 2,510 ( 1 .0%) 1,790 ( 1 .0%) 4,300 ( 1 .0%)
52. Tidal marsh 4,760 ( 1 .0%) 7,900 ( 1 .0%) 12,660 ( 1.0%)
60. Tall shrub alder 487,650 (21.0%) 435,000 (30.0%) 922,650 (24.5%)
61. Tall alder-willow-streamside 135,850 ( 5.9%) 59,420 ( 4.1 %) 195,270 ( 5.2%)
62. Low shrub-willow-resin birch 13,250 ( 1 .0%) 16,280 ( 1.1 %) 29,530 ( 1 • 0%)
63. Grassland 29,130 ( 1 • 3%) 25,650 ( 1 .8%) 54,780 ( 1 .5%)
64. Sedge-grass tundra 4,200 ( 1.0%) 1,940 ( 1.0%) 6,140 ( 1 .0%)
65. Herbaceous tundra 46,600 ( 2.0%) 113,470 ( 7.8%) 160,070 ( 4.2%)
66. Shrub tundra 3,700 ( 1 .0%) 13,770 ( 1 .0%) 17,470 ( 1. 0%)
67. Mat-cushion tundra 13,660 ( 1 .0%) 31,070 ( 2 .1%) 44,730 ( 1 • 2%)
68. Sphagnum bog 51,250 ( 2.2%) 72,140 ( 5.0%) 123,390 ( 3.3%)
69. Sphagnum-shrub bog 472,640 (20.4%) 143,150 ( 9.9%) 615,790 (16.3%)
70. Culturally influenced 6,720 ( 1 .0%) 1,650 ( 1 .0%) 8,370 ( 1 .0%)
80. Mud flats 14,660 ( 1.0%) 20,600 ( 1.4%) 35,160 ( 1.0%)
81. Rock 2,000 ( 1.0%) 17,690 ( 1 .2%) 19,690 ( 1.0%)
82. Snow fields 0 10 ( 1.0%) 210 ( 1.0%)
83. Glacier 0 17,200 ( 1.2%) 17,200 ( 1 .0%)
91. 40 acre lakes 18,380 1.0%) 19,640 ( 1.4%) 38,020 ( 1 .0%)
92. 10-40 acre lakes 9,850 1 .0%) 3,720 ( 1 .0%) 13,570 ( 1 .0%)
96. Streams 165-660 ft. wide 2,930 1.0%) 1,670 ( 1 .0%) 4,600 ( 1 .0%)
97. River > 660 ft. wide 68 2670 3.0%) 8 2960 ( 1 .0%) 77 2 630 ( 2.1%)
TOTAL 2 319 200 450 420 3 769 620
~SCS NO. =code assigned to a cover type by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
3Descriptions of each vegetation type are in the supplement to this chapter.
1% means less than or equal to 1%
-46-
TABLE 36. Bird, Mammal, and Plant Associations in the Susitna Planning Area
A. Coniferous Forest
Great blue heron
Goshawk
Sharp-shinned hawk
Bald eagle
Merlin
Spruce grouse
Willow ptarmigan (?)
Rock ptarmigan (?)
Great horned owl
Northern hawk owl
Boreal owl
Rufous hummingbird
Hairy woodpecker
Downy woodpecker
Olive-sided flycatcher
Tree swallow
Gray jay
Steller's jay
Black-billed magpie
Common raven
Black-capped chickadee
Boreal chickadee
Red-breasted nuthatch
Brown creeper
Masked shrew
Dusky shrew
Northern water shrew
Pigmy shrew
Snowshoe hare
Red squirrel
Northern flying squirrel
Northern red-backed vole
Meadow vole
Tundra vole
Muskrat
Northern bog lemming
Meadow jumping mouse
Porcupine
Coyote
Grey wolf
Red fox
~47-
Winter wren
American robin
Varied thrush
Hermit thrush
Swainson's thrush
Gray-cheeked thrush
Golden-crowned kinglet
Ruby-crowned kinglet
Bohemian waxwing
Orange-crowned warbler
Yellow-rumped warbler
Blackpoll warbler
Wilson's warbler
Pine grosbeak
Common redpo 11
Pine siskin
White-winged crossbill
Savannah sparrow
Dark-eyed junco
White-crowned sparrow
Song sparrow
Black bear
Brown bear
Marten
Short-tailed weasel
Least weasel
Mink
Wolverine
Lynx
Moose
Caribou
TABLE 36. (continued)
B. Mixed Forest
All species of birds found in coniferous and deciduous forests.
Mammals
Masked shrew
Northern Water shrew
Pygmy shrew
Little brown bat
Snowshoe hare
Northern flying squirrel
Red squirrel
Beaver
Northern red-backed vole
Meadow vole
Muskrat
Northern bog lemming
Meadow jumping mouse
Porcupine
Coyote
Grey wolf
Red fox
Black bear
Brown bear
Marten
Short-tailed weasel
Least weasel
Mink
-48-
Wolverine
Land otter
Lynx
Moose
TABLE 36. (continued)
C. Deciduous Forest
Goshawk
Sharp-shinned hawk
Merlin
Spruce grouse
Willow ptarmigan
Great horned owl
Northern hawk owl
Rufous hummingbird
Hairy woodpecker
Downy woodpecker
Tree swallow
Gray jay
Steller• s jay
Black-billed magpie
Black-capped chickadee
Boreal chickadee
Brown creeper
Winter wren
American robin
Varied thrush
Hermit thrush
Swainson's thrush
Gray-cheeked thrush
Ruby-crowned kinglet
Masked shrew
Dusky shrew
Northern water shrew
Pygmy shrew
Little brown bat
Snowshoe hare
Red squirrel
Beaver
Northern red-backed vole
Meadow vole
Muskrat
Northern bog lemming
Meadow jumping mouse
Porcupine
Coyote
Grey wolf
Red fox
Black bear
Brown bear
Short-tailed weasel
Least weasel
Mink
.,-49-
Orange-crowned warbler
Yellow warbler
Yellow-rumped warbler
Blackpoll warbler
Townsend's warbler
Northern waterthrush
Wilson's warbler
Pine grosbeak
Rosy finch
Common redpoll
Pine siskin
Savannah sparrow
White-crowned sparrow
Common raven
Wolverine
Land otter
Lynx
Moose
TABLE 36. (continued)
D. Shrubland
Sharp-shinned hawk
Rough-legged hawk
Northern harrier
Merlin
Spruce grouse
Willow ptarmigan
Rock ptarmigan
Short-eared owl
Rufous hummingbird
Downy woodpecker
Alder flycatcher
Black-billed magpie
Common raven
Black-capped chickadee
Winter wren
American robin
Varied thrush
Hermit thrush
Swainson's thrush
Gray-cheeked thrush
Ruby-crowned kinglet
Bohemian waxwing
Orange-crowned warbler
Yellow warbler
Yellow-rumped warbler
Masked shrew
Dusky shrew
Pika
Snowshoe hare
Beaver
Northern red-backed vole
Meadow vole
Tundra vole
Singing vole
Muskrat
Brown lemming
Coyote
Grey wolf
Red fox
Black bear
Brown bear
.,.50-
Blackpoll warbler
Wilson's warbler
Pine grosbeak
Common redpo 11
Pine siskin
Dark-eyed junco
Tree sparrow
White-crowned sparrow
Golden-crowned sparrow
Fox sparrow
Lincoln's sparrow
Song sparrow
Short-tailed weasel
Least weasel
Mink
Wolverine
Land otter
Lynx
Moose
Caribou
Mountain goat
Da 11 sheep
TABLE 36. (continued)
E. Grasslands
Sharp-shinned hawk
Rough-legged hawk
Northern harrier
Merlin
Spruce grouse
Willow ptarmigan
Rock ptarmigan
Short-eared owl
Rufous hummingbird
Downy woodpecker
Alder flycatcher
Black-billed magpie
Common raven
Black-capped chickadee
Winter wren
American robin
Varied thrush
Hermit thrush
Swainson's thrush
Gray-cheeked thrush
Ruby-crowned kinglet
Bohemian waxwing
Orange-crowned warbler
Yellow warbler
Yellow-rumped warbler
Masked shrew
Northern water shrew
Pygmy shrew
Pika
Hoary marmot
Arctic ground squirrel
Northern red-backed vole
Meadow vole
Tundra vole
Singing vole
Muskrat
Northern bog .1 emmi ng
Brown lemming
Meadow jumping mouse
Porcupine
Coyote
Grey wolf
Red fox
Black bear
Brown bear
Short-tai)ed weasel
-51-
Blackpoll warbler
Wilson's warbler
Pine grosbeak
Common redpoll
Pine siskin
Dark-eyed junco
Tree sparrow
White-crowned sparrow
Golden-crowned sparrow
Fox sparrow
Lincoln's sparrow
Song sparrow
Least weasel
Mink
Wolverine
Land otter
Moose
Caribou
Mountain goat
Da 11 sheep
TABLE 36. (continued)
F. Alpine Tundra
Rough-legged hawk
Northern harrier
Merlin
Willow ptarmigan
White-tailed ptarmigan
Rock ptarmigan
Short-eared owl
Violet-green swallow
Common raven
American robin
Varied thrush
Hermit thrush
Water pipit
Horned lark
Rosy finch
Common redpoll
Savannah sparrow
Tree sparrow
Fox sparrow
Lincoln's sparrow
Lapland longspur
Snow bunting
Masked shrew
Dusky Shrew
Northern water shrew
Pika
Hoary marmot
Arctic ground squirrel
Northern red-backed vole
Tundra vole
Singing vole
Muskrat
Northern bog lemming
Brown lemming
Porcupine
Coyote
Grey wolf
Red fox
Black bear
Brown bear
Short-tailed weasel
Least weasel
Mink
Wolverine
Land otter
Moose
~52-
Caribou
Mountain goat
Da 11 sheep
TABLE 36. (continued)
G. Tidelands/Marshes/Wetlands
Common loon
Arctic loon
Red-throated loon
Red-necked grebe
Horned grebe
Great blue heron
Tundra swan
Trumpeter swan
Canada goose
Brant
Greater White-fronted goose
Snow goose
Mallard
Gadwall
Northern Pintail
Green-winged teal
Blue-winged teal
Northern shoveler
Eurasian wigeon
American wigeon
Canvasback
Redhead
Ring-necked duck
Bufflehead
Greater scaup
Lesser scaup
Common goldeneye
Barrow's goldeneye
Oldsquaw
Harlequin duck
White-winged seater
Surf seater
Black seater
Hooded merganser
Common merganser
Red-breasted merganser
Northern harrier
Harbor sea 1
Red fox
Coyote
Red-backed vole
Water shrew
Bog lemming
Muskrat
Least weasel
Short-tailed weasel
Mink
Land otter
Moose
-53-
Sandhill crane
Semipalmated plover
Lesser golden plover
Black-bellied plover
Hudsonian godwit
Whimbrel
Greater yellowlegs
Lesser yellowlegs
Solitary sandpiper
Spotted sandpiper
Wandering tattler
Ruddy turnstone
Red-necked phalarope
Common snipe
Short-billed dowitcher
Long-billed dowitcher
Surfbird
Sanderling
Semipalmated plover
Western sandpiper
Least sandpiper
Pectoral sandpiper
Dunlin
Glaucous-winged gull
Herring gull
Mew gull
Bonaparte's gull
Arctic tern
PART I. EXISTING FAUNA AND THEIR HABITATS
Mammals
Moose. Some of Alaska's highest density moose populations occur in the
Susitna River valley and in valleys formed by its major tributaries. Moose
populations in this area are thought to ~ccount for 25-50% of the state
total (Reardon 1981). Suitable moose habitat is widespread in the
Susitna-Beluga basins and includes early birch, aspen, and white spruce
woodlands and forests, riparian alder-willow shrublands, high elevation
willow/resin birch shrublands, shrub tundra, and sphagnum-shrub bogs. These
habitats occur in a variety of environments, from alpine mountain slopes to
lowland valleys, and provide habitats for many other forms of wildlife.
Moose are generally found in all areas of suitable plant composition except
steep rocky alpine slopes and, during severe winters, in north-facing deep
snowfall areas. Moose concentration areas are located along river and
stream valleys from alpine areas to the outlets of the waterways. Most
south-facing foothills, lowlands, and mountainous areas at and below
treeline are also important.
Important moose concentration areas within the planning area are the
Sunflower Basin, Yenlo Hills, Kahiltna flats, Petersville Road, Buffalo Mine
area, Moose Creek Bear and Peters creeks, Little Peters Hills, Peters-Dutch
hills, Twentymile Creek, Deshka River, Kroto Slough, Talachulitna River
basin, the lower Susitna basin, Beluga-Susitna mountains, Yentna-Susitna
river delta, Alexander Creek, Susitna River floodplain, Skwentna River
floodplain, Bald Mountain, Matanuska River Valley, Big Bones Ridge,
Oshetna-Nelchina watersheds, Jim/Swan lakes area, Knik River floodplain,
Peter/Purches creeks area, and Deception Creek (Atlas Map B1).
Moose-calving takes place in lowland bogs (Atlas Map B1), beginning in late
May and extending through June. Wet marshy lowlands consisting of open areas
interspersed with dense stands of shrubs and trees are preferred calving
grounds. Important habitats are tidal flats, bogs created by fire or by
flooding by beavers, lowland areas associated with major rivers, and shallow,
partially filled lakes. These aquatic areas are interspersed with elevated
areas with better drainage and with trees 10-60 feet (3.0-18.2 m) tall.
Some important calving areas in Game Management Unit 14 are Nancy Lake,
Palmer Hayflats, Knik River flats, Little Susitna River flats, and areas
along the Little Susitna River. In Game Management Unit 16A, calving
probably occurs along the Tokositna and Kahiltna river flats and in bogs
below Little Peters Hills. In Game Management Unit 16B the calving grounds
are the Susitna flats, Bachatna flats, Fox flats and bogs below 1,000 feet
(305 m) between the Alaska Range and Cook Inlet.
Moose lowland summer habitat occurs throughout the basin. Summer feeding
habitats consist of willow, birch, aspen, spruce, grass, aquatic plants, and
alder plant communities. These communities may occur in widely distributed
stands, isolated patches, or in lar9e concentrated stands. Alpine shrub
areas are also important for summer feeding and for breeding areas. See
Atlas Map B9a for identification of moose summer habitat suitability (HEP
-54-
see Part II) for areas in the Talkeetna, Beluga, and upper Susitna
subbasins.
Winter habitats occur primarily within riparian and wetland zones in the
lowlands, and on south-facing slopes and other upland areas supporting
preferred browse species. Winter habitats used during periods of unusually
high snow accumulation can include young stands of cottonwood and streamside
willow. Moose may become very concentrated in these areas because often
they provide the only available food during severe winter conditions
(D. Bader pers. comm.). Although winter habitat is necessary for supporting
moose through the winter, it can do so effectively only if all moose
populations have attained adequate energy reserves while on summer range.
Winte.r habitat then provides adequate energy sources for body maintenance
during winters of average snowfall. See Atlas Map B9b for an identification
of winter moose habitat suitability in the Talkeetna, Beluga, and Susitna
subbasins. Browse consisting mainly of willow, with the addition of birch,
aspen, cottonwood, and alder, comprises up to 80% of the winter diet.
Moose densities in summer and winter habitat are generally similar, except
during severe, high snowfall winters·, when higher densities occur on the
more restricted winter range as moose become concentrated in areas where
browse remains available. Summer range is considered extremely important
for calf survival and moose reproductive success and for providing-the
nutritional requirements of moose populations in preparation for breeding
and winter survival (see Atlas Map B9a for summer range suitability). The
amount of fat and muscle tissue produced by moose is directly related to the
amount and quality of moose summer habitat available (D. Bader pers. comm.).
High quality and wide distribution of forage are of primary importance in
providing the moose with its nutritional requirements. See Atlas Map B14a
for an identification of theoretical moose-carrying capacity related to
moose browse forage in the Talkeetna, Beluga, and upper Susitna subbasins.
By late summer the moose return to the uplands and remain there until heavy
snows and lack of available food force them back to the lowlands.
The highest moose densities occur where disturbance by fire, flooding, or
timber cutting has kept the vegetation in an early seral form, predomi.nantly
paper birch with willow and aspen. Summer diet, in addition to the above
browse species, includes a variety of terrestrial and herbaceous plants,
sedges, and pondweed occurring in bogs and lakes. Density, height, and
distribution of forage species affect the intensity with which moose will
utilize a particular vegetation type.
Cover is important for moose. In summer they feed in open areas and utilize
the bordering shrub and forest areas for cover. They usually bed down near
cover. Winter cover needs are generally determined by the influence of
climate, food availability, and animal mobility. Mature forest stands with
dense canopies provide cover for escape, relief from deep snow conditions,
and perhaps protection from wind. Suitable winter range is critical, and
its availability is often restricted by snowfall, which can decrease food
accessibility and limit mobility. Moose generally prefer the more open
shrub-dominated areas and sedge meadows in early winter, when snow depth is
minimal, shifting in late winter to closed canopy coniferous and deciduous
habitats, where snow accumulation is less and ground vegetation more visible
than in the shrub and open meadow habitats (Atlas Map B13).
~55-
The majority of moose are migratory and show preferences for traditional
migratory routes to winter and summer ranges. Barriers across or
elimination of traditional ranges could significantly reduce numbers of
moose in an area. Disturbance or destruction of winter range or calving
areas, for example, could result in serious interference with the life
cycles of thousands of moose over a large area.
Numerous reports have documented the Susitna valley as sustaining the
highest moose population in the state (LeResche 1970). Estimates from area
biologists for parts of the study area are 11,000 moose in the summer for
Game Management Units 14, 16A, and 16B. A conservative estimate of the
total population of moose in the planning area, based on annual surveys and
correlation with habitat types, may be as high as 49,000 animals (D. Bader
pers. comm.). Another means of estimating moose is described below and in
Part II, and this estimate yields 17,000 existing and 70,000 potential moose
on the summer range (Table 37).
The number of moose the habitat can support is called its "carrying
capacity," and theoretical estimates for this, shown in Table 37, have been
derived from quantitative and qualitative measurements of their forage
species in the study area (Atlas Maps B14a and Bl4b, Part II).
TABLE 37. Average Theoretical Existing and Potential Carrying 1 Capacity of Moose in the Talkeetna and Beluga Subbasins
Talkeetna Beluga TOTAL
Existing Summer 11,000 6,000 17,000
Existing Winter 2,000 1,000 3,000
Potential Summer 51,000 19,000 70,000
Potential Winter 8,000 3,000 11,000
1Extrapolation from SCS forage production and moose browse requirements
(ADF&G)
Black bear. Black bears are found throughout the planning area. The black
bear 1s a forest species, and its distribution coincides closely with the
distribution of forests. Black bears prefer open forests and mixed habitat
types. Semi-open forest areas composed primarily of fruit-bearing shrubs
and herbs, lush grasses, and succulent forbs are particularly favored.
Black bears avoid expansive open areas (ADF&G 1976b). During spring,
summer, and fall, bear distribution is largely determined by food
availability. Black bears are opportunistic feeders, eating both plant and
animal foods. Upon emergence from winter sleep, they eat mainly new green
vegetation or roots, but bears will eat carrion. Newborn moose are
frequently consumed later in the spring and early summer (late May through
June), although animal food comprises less than 15% of the annual diet
(Hatler 1972). Salmon are often utilized heavily during the spawning
season, and berries are the most important food item in late summer and
fall. To determine what habitats the bears utilize, one must also take into
account what habitats their prey utilize.
-56-
Black bears emerge from their dens in May and migrate to available food
areas in lowlands, to south-facing slopes, and sometimes to local dumps.
Later in the season, bears concentrate on salmon streams, moose calving
grounds, and berry patches, usually below 2,000 feet (610 m).
Black bear populations have been estimated at 2,000 animals in the Mat-Su
Borough, based on annual surveys and population-habitat relationships. This
has been estimated at 10% of Alaska•s black bear population (Reardon 1981).
Important black bear habitats are located along the Susitna and Little
Susitna rivers in spring, and in the Hunter Creek drainage (south of Knik
flats) in August. Other bear concentration areas are depicted on Atlas Map BS.
Brown Bear. Brown bears are relatively common throughout the study area.
Their feeding habits and distribution are generally similar to those of
black bears. However, they are more commonly found at higher elevations
ations than are black bears and in more remote mountainous areas. The
alpine-subalpine zone is important for summer and fall feeding, as well as
for denning. In the spring they also prefer sedge meadows, grass flats, and
potholes and especially south-facing slopes and river valleys. In summer
and fall, they become more ubiquitous. Denning areas are commonly
alder-willow thickets at levels above 1,300 feet (396 m) elevation.
Isolation from human disturbance is important for brown bears. Bear
populations may be markedly reduced where substantial and sustained human
activities occur.
The Knik River flats region is an important area for brown bears, as are the
headwater areas of the Talkeetna, Hayes, Kichatna, Yentna, Oshetna, Susitna,
and Johnson rivers (Atlas Map B4). During the July salmon spawning ·season,
Prairie Creek, which flows from Stephan Lake into the Talkeetna River, has
higher known concentrations of brown bears than any other portion of the
planning area. Specific salmon-spawning slough areas of the Susitna River
between Talkeetna and Devils Canyon are known brown bear concentration
areas, as are the Lewis River, Talachulitna Creek, Fish Lake Creek,
Alexander Creek, and Coal Creek.
The population of brown bears in Game Management Unit 14 is small, probably
less than 100 bears. They are found in moderate-to-high densities in Game
Management Unit 16. The population there is approximately 100 bears in 16A
and 300 bears in 16B. The Talkeetna Mountains have relatively large numbers
of brown bears. Overall in the study area, based on annual surveys and
brown bear-habitat relationships, the population of brown bears is estimated
to be 1,000 (ADF&G 1982), which is approximately 10-20% of the state•s total
population (Reardon 1981).
Caribou. Three caribou herds occur in the planning area: the Nelchina,
Mulchatna, and McKinley herds. Of these, the Nelchina is the largest in the
area. The Nelchina caribou herd ranges through the Talkeetna Mountains,
Jack River Mountains, Watana Hills, and the foothills adjacent to the
Oshetna, Nelchina, Tyone, Maclaren, and Gulkana rivers, and in the uppe.r
Susitna River. This herd calves exclusively on the eastern slopes of the
Talkeetna Mountains. Ninety percent of its calving occurs in the
southeastern region crossed by the Oshetna and Black rivers. Six percent
-57-
occurs in the northernmost region reeding/rutting (north of the Susitna
River and west of the Oshetna River), and 2% in other small areas to the
southwest (Figure 4). Two main areas have been identified --one north of
the Susitna River and one in the Lake Louise -John Lake -Slide Mountain
area (Atlas Map B2).
The Nelchina herd constitutes one of the most significant big game
populations in Southcentral Alaska. There are approximately 24,500 animals
in this herd. This is nearly 3% of all the caribou in the state (ADF&G
1976). The vast majority of the caribou in the study area are associated
with this herd. Other caribou populations frequent the northern and western
edges of the basin. Caribou from the Mulchatna herd range through the
Alaska Range from Chakachamna Lake to Rainy Pass. Portions of the McKinley
Park caribou herd are sometimes found in the Broad Pass -Cantwell area.
Caribou depend largely on climax vegetation for population maintenance.
They utilize coniferous forest, sedge-grass tundra, tussock tundra, mat and
cushion tundra, tall and low shrub, tall and mid-grass, herbaceous
sedge-grass, and freshwater aquatic habitat types.
In summer, caribou consume a wide variety of plants, apparently favoring the
leaves of willow and dwarf birch, grasses, sedges, and succulent plants
(ADF&G 1976b). In the winter they switch to lichens and dried sedges.
Caribou usually inhabit areas at or above timberline in summer.
The calving areas is the focal point of the caribou herd's yearly movements .
. The calving grounds are usually gently sloping hills dominated by herbaceous
vegetation and small shrubs. The Nelchina herd's calving ground lies
between 2,600 and 4,600 feet (792 and 1,400 m) and has primarily shrub
birch, meadow and dwarf heath types. One characteristic of the Nelchina
calving grounds makes it highly suitable for caribou is its lower snow pack
retention relation to other areas of comparable elevation in the region.
Snow depth and hardness of the crust are important factors for winter
habitat suitability for caribou. Likewise, the calving areas are very
important for the maintenance of the caribou populations, and these areas
should be protected from disruption. Developments inhibiting or disrupting
movement to these areas must be avoided. Human presence and activity on the
calving grounds during the calving season can result in abandonment and
subsequent mortality of calves. The key to maintaining a viable caribou
population is to retain very large areas of suitable habitat that allow
unrestricted movement, because caribou often degrade their winter habitat
and must shift to a new winter range each year to maintain stable population
levels (Hemming 1971). ·
Some habitats used by caribou overlap those of Dall sheep, mountain goats,
moose, and bears. During the summer months, caribou occupy high mountainous
slopes where alpine grasses, sedges, and forbs are available. Winds are
important to caribou in reducing insect harassment. During late fall and
winter, caribou occupy and migrate throughout the lake and forested lowland
and foothill areas.
Mountain goats. Mountain goats are rare in the Susitna planning area, which
is at the northern limit of their range. The only known concentrations are
-58-
I
ln
I.D
I
Figure 4. Seasonal distribution of the Nelchina Caribou Herd
Park
Susitna Study Area
_ll ' l~ ., .....
SCALE
_,.....:..._..'-" .......
Caribou . Distribution
( 1980-198 1)
G Range of Caribou Herd
e2\ Caribou Calving Areas
'\() " population calving
• Breeding Areas
(\ Caribou Concentrations '-J In Summer
r· ·\ '\Caribou Concentrations
.j In Early Winter
).... Migration Routes
in the Chugach Mountains and to a les$er extend in the Talkeetna Mountains.
The total goat population in the area is about 300 (D. Bader pers. comm.).
Mountain goats are both grazing and browsing animals. They normally summer
in high alpine meadows where they graze on grasses, herbs and ground-growing
shrubs. As winter advances and the more succulent plant species die, the
mountain goats shift to browsing (ADF&G 1976b).
Most goats migrate from alpine summer ranges to winter ranges at or below
tree line, but some may remain on windswept ledges. Severe winters can have
a detrimental effect on goat populations.
Dall sheep. Dall sheep normally inhabit the mountainous alpine regions of
the planning area, at approximately 2,000-6,000 feet elevations
(610-1,829 m). Habitat is typically steep open grasslands interspersed with
broken cliffs and talus slopes on recently glaciated mountains. Vegetation
consists largely of sedges, bunch grasses, mosses, lichens, and low shrubs
such as blueberry, crowberry, dwarf willow, and birch interspersed with
larger willows and dense alder. In some areas, sheep may range into the
brush or timbered areas.
Short vertical migrations correlated with seasonal food availability are
typical for Dall sheep. In winter they retreat into snow-free areas. These
areas are on upper windblown ridges and steep slopes. With the spring thaw,
sheep move·to the lower slopes, where early green vegetation is available
and then follow the retreating snow 11ne, becoming more dispersed as spring
progresses. Winter food availability is apparently the limiting factor for
Dall sheep populations. The number of lambs born, as well as the number of
lambs surviving to yearling age, are positively correlated with forage
production on winter range.
Cliffs, deep canyons, rock outcroppings, and steep slopes are important to
Dall sheep for escape terrain. The intensity of use of feeding areas is
determined by proximity of escape terrain and preferred bedding sites.
Summer distribution of Dall sheep is strongly influenced by the presence of
mineral licks. Licks satisfy not only a nutritional requirement but also a
social requirement for mixing of ram and ewe bands.
Human disturbance can cause sheep to desert traditional home ranges.
Utilization by sheep of their winter range, lambing areas, and mineral licks
can be affected by intensive recreational use, low flying aircraft, or by
mining or construction activities. There may be future conflicts between
mining claims and traditional sheep mineral licks.
Roads may disrupt sheep habitat. Ih addition to possible disturbances
during construction, roads improve access and thus increase the potential
for other disturbances. In nearly all instances in Alaska where roads have
been built through or near sheep habitat it has been necessary to stop or
closely restrict Dall sheep hunting (Summerfield 1974). Frequent
disturbance when lambs are young may cause ewes to become separated from
lambs, which can result in higher lamb mortalities due to predation.
-60-
Sheep in the planning area number about 6,000 to 8,000 animals, based on
surveys and habitat-population relationships (D. Bader pers. comm.). This
makes up approximately 12-16% of Alaska's sheep population (Reardon 1981).
Important concentrations of sheep are located in the Talkeetna Mountains,
Chugach Mountains, Alaska Range, Watana Hills, Clear Water Mountains, and
Jack River areas (Atlas Map B3).
Furbearers and small game. There are no census data for furbearers in the
planning area. Furbearers such as beavers, muskrats, mink, and river otters
are abundant along stream corridors and around ponds and lakes. Furbearers
may be found in nearly all habitat types, although most species occur in
riparian, wetland, or forested areas. The following 15 species of
furbearers range from moderate to very abundant in the study area: Hoary
marmot, Arctic ground squirrel, red squirrel, northern flying squirrel,
beaver, muskrat, coyote, wolf, red fox, marten, short-tailed weasel, mink,
wolverine, land otter, and lynx.
Snowshoe hares, while not abundant, are ubiquitous in the planning area.
They dwell in coniferous, deciduous, and mixed forests and in tall shrub
habitats, especially those in early successional stages (Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists 1982). They prefer a winter habitat with cover
(dense black spruce or willow-alder thickets) and summer habitat with more
open cover types. Their food includes spruce, willow, alder, and birch.
Their tremendous ·population fluctuations can influence habitat use, with
more marginal habitats being used during pe.riods of high population numbers.
The most important factors affecting habitat suitability are browse
availability and density of cover.
Hoary marmots are usually found above treeline in alpine areas. They are an
ecotone species, sheltering in rocky habitats and foraging in tundra
habitats.
Arctic ground squirrels prefer alpine shrublands and usually avoid
vegetation taller than 8 inches (20 em) that obscures their vision.
Red squirrels are residents of mature coniferous and mixed
coniferous-deciduous forests. Mature deciduous forests provide marginal
habitat during emigration or population expansion, but these forests cannot
support permanent overwintering populations. The seeds of white and black
spruce are the most important components of red squirrels' diet.
Beavers are limited to freshwater aquatic habitats bordered by subclimax
stages of low and tall shrub, deciduous forest, and mixed forest habitats.
They are found from sea level to 4,000 feet (1,219 m). The most productive
beaver habitat is characterized by a dependable water supply with little
fluctuation in stream flow and by willow, aspen, cottonwood, or birch
vegetation. Quality and quantity of food are two of the major factors
determining whether beavers will settle and remain in an area. Their
primary foods include bark, leaves and buds of aspen, willow, cottonwood,
poplar, birch, and alder. However, willow, because of its resiliency to
browsing, is the most reliable food source. Eroding streams and lakes are
highly unsuitable for beavers. Beavers prefer water bodies with shorelines
that are 75% or more vegetated with perennials such as willow and alders.
-61-
Human disturbance along shorelines can render beavers• feeding habitats
unsuitable. Road and railway corridors or land clearings can limit habitat
suitability for beavers.
Beavers are unique in the degree to which their activities modify riparian
habitats. Beaver dams stabilize watersheds, reducing flooding and silting
(ADF&G 1980). Raising of water tables and impoundment of water alters
vegetative cover and provides aquatic and riparian habitat for many species
of wildlife. Although some species of fish benefit by increased production
of fish food and rearing areas for young fish, dams often create serious
barriers to migrating anadromous fish.
In the absence of human disturbance, wolves can be expected to occupy all
habitat types that support their primary prey of moose and caribou. They
also occupy habitats where other prey species such as microtine rodents,
ground squirrels, marmots, beavers, and snowshoe hares are found. Dens are
usually placed near open water. Drainage channels, lakes, and game trails,
as well as roads and railways, are important travel corridors for wolves,
especially in winter when snow depth can limit mobility.
Human settlement is generally detrimental to wolf populations. It can often
disrupt normal wolf behavior, because wolves are attracted to garbage and/or
hand-outs and may become malnourished or remain longer in an area than they
normally would. Wolves can also contract diseases and parasitic infections
from domestic canids, and this not only injures the wolf but also could
render the fur unsuitable.
It has been suggested (Chapman 1977) that human activity be restricted to a
minimum of 1.5 miles (2.4 km) from established wolf dens and rendezvous
sites. These areas should be closed to human activity four to five weeks
prior to whelping (early April -October). The wolf population in the
planning area has been estimated at 800 (D. Bader pers. comm.).
Red foxes are found from 1,000 feet to 3,500 feet elevation (305-1,067 m),
although they generally range between 2,200 and 3,100 (671-945 m) elevation
(Terrestrial Environmental Specialists 1982). The arctic ground squirrel is
their principal food in spring and summer; other preferred prey include
ptarmigans, muskrats, and marmots. Red foxes often hunt around lakes and
riparian areas. They often den in the alpine habitat between 1,000 and
approximately 1,160 feet, and they are often near large lakes (Hobgood
1983).
Martens are one of the more economically important furbearers in the study
area. They are dependent on a well-developed understory and prefer mature
coniferous and mixed deciduous forests below 3,000 feet (914 m). Because of
this dependence they are particularly susceptible to forest fires and
clear-cut logging practices. Cover for martens is best in dense climax
spruce forests with greater than 30% cover. In summer and fall, open areas
are also used. Enhanced habitat that has been logged or burned is good for
martens, who frequently used downed timber or stumps for cover and as
nesting areas during their reproductive period (Koehler and Hornocker 1977).
Martens often use red squirrel middens as resting sites, especially in
winter (Buskirk 1982).
-62-
Short-tailed weasels occupy a variety of habitat types, from low elevation
riparian zones to elevations over 4,500 feet (1,372 m). They prefer open
black and white spruce forests and medium-height birch-shrub communities.
Mink are most commonly found near streams, ponds, marshes, beaches, or
muskegs, and their diet reflects the variety of prey species available
there. Mink are opportunistic feeders and eat a variety of prey, including
small rodents, fish, and aquatic invertebrates. Mink summer along rivers,
streams, and in upland muskegs and often spend time in the winter along
narrow beach zones.
Mink generally travel along the edges of lakes, ponds, sloughs, and rivers.
Mink will travel overland from one slough system to another if the systems
are close to one another.
Disturbance by heavy machinery decreases the population of mink within an
area (Burns 1964). This disturbance can cause compression of the ground,
producing cavities that fill with water and subsequently constitute a
barrier to these burrowing animals. Disturbance next to a lake or stream
bank is highly disruptive to mink habitat. Heavy equipment should be used
only during the winter, and all use should avoid shorelines wherever
possible. Habitat suitability for mink is dependent on the relative
proportion of riparian habitat. Winter food is probably the primary
limiting factor in noncoastal areas.
Land otters generally occur at the interface between water bodies and
vegetation edges. Because they are adaptable, otters occur in almost every
vegetation type and at elevations up to 400 feet (122 m) and occasionally as
high as 2,500 feet (762 m). They have been found in the following
habitats: coniferous, deciduous, and mixed forests; low and tall shrub
communities; tall grass areas; saltwater and freshwater areas; and in shrub,
tussock, and sedge-grass tundra (Konkel et al. 1980). Land otters sometimes
range away from water. They have been observed to travel long distances
between river drainages, often four to five miles, although they will travel
over 12 miles to find suitable access to water. During high hare
populations, land otters are seen further away from lakes and rivers .. Otter
food includes a variety of fish (salmonids, halibut, sculpins), marine
invertebrates (crustaceans, urchins, crabs, shellfish) and seabirds, frogs,
and small mammals. Land otters often hunt and travel along the marine shore
zone, lake shores, and riparian corridors. The amount of oxygen in these
water bodies indirectly affects the otters by influencing the abundance of
food sources (aquatic plants) of their prey.
Lynx have a limited distribution in the planning area. They are primarily
residents of the northern boreal forest where they feed primarily on
snowshoe hares. Lynx are, in fact, largely dependent on snowshoe hares. As
snowshoe hare densities decline, lynx home range increases; home range
overlap declines; lynx population densities decline; and long distance
dispersal increases (Ward 1983). Lynx may prey on red foxes when hare
populations are low. Lynx occasionally occur on the tundra beyond the
treeline, and in years of severe food shortages individuals may venture far
out onto the tundra in search of hares, lemmings, and ptarmigan (ADF&G
1980).
-:-63-
Birds
The planning area supports a rich variety of avifauna. A diversity of
habitats ranging from saltwater marshes to alpine tundra provides a myriad
of nesting and foraging areas. One hundred and fifty-four species have been
identified in the study area, including migrants, residents, visitors,
accidentals, and escapees. Table 33 lists all species occurring in the
Matanuska Valley and their known status (M. Bronson pers. comm.). Species
noted as year-round or summer residents are known to breed in the planning
area and are more susceptible to year-round development in their breeding
habitats than birds that migrate through twice a year or arrive
accidentally, out of their usual range. The latter species, however, can be
very important in generating money for the local economy, as did a Ross's
gull in Massachusetts a few years ago. Up to 10,000 people thronged the
shoreline to observe this rare bird, producing thousands of dollars for the
local economy (Massachusetts Audubon Society pers. comm.).
Waterfowl
Waterfowl populations are most abundant along Cook Inlet coastal marshes.
During spring and fall migrations, the number of waterfowl may ran~e from
50,000 to 100,000 birds. Although inland lakes and wetlands have fewer
birds per square mile than do coastal areas, the total number of birds
inhabiting inland environments may equal and even exceed coastal population
numbers because of the large areas involved (Terrestrial Environmental
Specialists 1982). Tundra and trumpeter swans, tule, white-fronted, Canada,
and snow geese are some of the more numerous waterfowl in the area ..
Trumpeter swans. Trumpeter swan summer habitat is widespread throughout the
planning area. Swans nest along marshy lakes, where they also raise their
broods. Breeding swans molt in the vicinity of the nesting territory, and
young pre-breeders concentrate in flocks on large shallow lakes. Concealing
vegetation and food must be present. Suitable breeding habitat consists of
stable shallow water with no marked seasonal fluctuations, or marshes and
sloughs not subject to an obvious current. Emergent and floating mat
vegetation are important, and these generally occur in smaller lakes, where
erosive wave action and currents do not occur. A recent study in the
planning area found 80% of swan nesting areas to be lakes less than 35 acres
(141,645 m2 ) (Terrestrial Environmental Specialists 1982). These studies
found a close association between trumpeter swans and beavers; nearly 75% of
the trumpeter swan nesting ponds had water levels regulated through beaver
action. The shorelines of many trumpeter swan lakes are devoid of
closely-surrounding timber. Lakes suitable for nesting by more than one
pair are not common. Only the largest lakes contain more than one breeding
pair.
Nests are usually built near shore or near small islets on the larger lakes.
Muskrat houses and beaver lodges sometimes are used as nest sites. The
greatest factor in cygnet mortality is their forced rapid movement from one
water body to another because of human intrusion (Terrestrial Environmental
Specialists 1982). Banko (1960) and Hansen et. al. (1971) recommend that
-64-
human disturbance during the brood season be kept to a m1n1mum. Areas known
to support trumpeter swan nesting are depicted on Atlas Maps B6 and C6.
Canada geese. Canada geese breed in association with herbaceous sedge-grass
and aquatic habitats. Except during brooding and molting, when aquatic
vegetation is utilized more extensively, geese are primarily grazers
preferring sedges and grasses including fescue and carex spp. This general
grassland habitat seems to be the factor determining where the geese are
found (Williams 1967). Cultivated fields, aquatic habitats, marshes, seeps,
wet meadows, mud flats, and upland banks and high beaches are preferred.
Feeding areas are usually near habitats that provide suitable resting,
escape, and breeding locations. Geese always remain relatively close to
fresh water. For breeding pairs, this is up to 16 miles (26 km) from the
nest site. Canada geese utilize water bodies ranging from deep oligotrophic
lakes, rivers, ponds, and potholes to temporary lakes.
Cover is important in the prenesting and nesting seasons when goslings and
adults are flightless. Open water is also necessary for escape. Sand bars
and peninsulas are used as refuges, during migration, and slough banks,
islands, etc., are favorite nesting places. Dense bottomland vegetation is
seldom used (Williams 1967). Geese need ample bank roosting and resting
areas and prefer level or sloped shorelines at least approximately 330 feet
(100 m) long. Prime breeding habitat consists of extensive areas nf shallow
open water, with an abundance of aquatic foods growing throughout the
littoral zone, or waterbodies that are fringed with emergent or meadow
plants. Likewise, marshes or wet meadows and lakes with islands near wet
meadows or grain-producing areas are preferred. Isolation is needed to
raise young most successfully, Muskrat lodges provide 76% of all nest sites
(Terrestrial Environmental Specialists 1982). Muskrats also aid geese by
retarding dense emergent growth and by providing the important ·
"interspersion" or edge effect.
After hatching, broods move to riparian habitats consisting of gently
sloping shorelines free from boat traffic or with escape cover and with
abundant plant food such as semi-aquatic plants or pasture grasses. Other
kinds of escape cover besides emergents or meadows are weedy river banks,
isolated sand bars, and islands. Sites chosen are usually close to open
water deep enough for diving. Human harassment can increase brood desertion
and decrease production (Michelson 1975).
Raptors
Goshawks. The northern goshawk is a resident of the forested region of the
planning area. It prefers to nest in coniferous and mixed forests but also
utilizes shrub thicket, marsh, tidal flat, and beach habitats. The goshawk
preys primarily on snowshoe hares, ptarmigans, grouse, and red squirrels,
and thus is found in habitats where these species live.
Goshawks may hunt regularly over 1! miles (2.0 km) from their nests, which
occur in the coniferous, deciduous, or mixed forests. The majority of nests
are usually found in paper birch of 7.5-20 inch (19-51 em) Diameter Breast
Height (DBH). These trees tend to have large forks, required for stability
for nesting platforms. In other states and, we assume, also in Alaska,
-65-
goshawk nests are often built within 500 feet (152 m) of water. Goshawks
demonstrate a high fidelity to nest sites from year to year, and the
defended area around the nest is 328-646 feet (100-200 m) in diameter
(Terrestrial Environmental Specialists 1982). Breeding densities are one
pair per 16-144 mi 2 (41.4-373 km 2 ). Goshawk nests are often placed near
tracks, dirt roads, edges of meadow, and other clearings. They frequently
hunt in ecotones along timberline, watercourses, tidal sloughs, and inlets
(Terrestrial Environmental Specialists 1982).
Deforestation destroys the suitability of an area for goshawk nesting until
the trees can regenerate to a size adequate to support a nest. Nesting
goshawks will be disturbed when humans approach within half a mile (0.8 km)
of the nest (Beebe and Webster 1964). Jones (1979) recommended that in
areas that will be developed, riparian habitats and adjacent lands up to
1,312 feet (400 m) on either side should be left undisturbed. Likewise
there should be a 1,640 feet (500 m) radius left undisturbed around the
nest. Important areas for goshawks are shown in Atlas Map B6.
Bald eagles. Bald eagles prefer to nest and perch close to open water in
large trees offering them the cover of overhead and surrounding vegetation.
Bald eagles eat fish, waterfowl, or seabirds and are therefore restricted to
nesting near water bodies. In the planning area, bald eagles usually select
old growth timber in which to construct their nests and prefer talJ spruce
trees, although nests have also been found in cottonwoods growing adjacent
to rivers and lakes.
Most breeding bald eagles prefer isolation from other nesting bald eagles.
Territories range in size from 28 to 112 acres (0.11-0.45 km 2 ), averaging
57 acres (0.23 km 2 ). The average distance between nest sites have been
found to be 1.1-4 miles in other parts of Alaska (Robards and King 1966,
Robards and Hodges 1976).
Bald eagles prefer various degrees of isolation from humans. They are
vulnerable to disturbance during egg laying, incubation, and the hatchling
stages (Mathisen 1968). Human invasion of a nest during incubation causes
abandonment of the eggs and disturbance of the nest during the hatchl i.ng
stage may result in a relocation of the nest during the next breeding
season. Various degrees of tolerance of disturbance by humans have been
reported. Juneman (1973) observed that disturbance from logging within
0.75-0.8 mile (1.2-1.3 km) caused abandonment of the nest site. Stalmaster
and Newman (1978) found that the following kinds of disturbance, which can
be applied to eagles in all seasons were beyond the tolerance limits of
wintering eagles: high recreational use, heavily traversed roads along a
river without a vegetation buffer, alteration of habitat by human
development, and human activity close enough to make eagles fly. Time of
disturbance may be critical, with less effect or less abandonment occurring
during the hatchling stage than during other stages of the breeding cycle.
A buffer zone of trees should be left around the nest tree, so that if the
adjacent area is logged there will be a windbreak. Large tall trees must
also be left, if an area is logged, in order to support nests and to provide
potential nest and perching trees. Known important areas for bald eagles in
the planning area are shown in Atlas Map B6.
-66-
Gyrfalcons. Gyrfalcons are not common residents of the planning area.
Their distribution is closely associated with the occurrence of cliffs and
bluffs and open landscapes. They usually occur in foothills, tundra, and in
Arctic-alpine areas during the breeding season. The Talkeetna and Chugach
mountains are important areas for gyrfalcons, and their nest sites in the
planning area are also shown in Atlas Map B6.
Gyrfalcons eat seabirds, gulls, and small mammals, and their distribution is
closely tied to distribution of their prey. In interior areas, gyrfalcons
eat ptarmigan, grouse, and small mammals such as lemmings and red
squirrels. Ptarmigan seem to be the most important prey species. Since
ptarmigan are associated with willow communities, the majority of gyrfalcon
sitings have been near willow communities. Cade and White (1976) suggest
that the distance from the nest the gyrfalcon travels in order to obtain
food may exceed ten miles.
Gyrfalcon eyries are usually located on cliff faces and rock outcroppings.
They also use cliffs as winter roosts and plucking platforms, preferring
areas where snowfall is not dense. Gyrfalcons typically use old stick nests
of other birds, usually ravens, and thus ravens can be considered an
important factor for gyrfalcon nesting.
The effects of human disturbance are variable. Human disturbance within a
few hundred meters of eyries can cause abandonment (Cade 1960). Airplanes
flying over nests should maintain altitudes greater than 300 feet (91.4 m),
for even at these altitudes gyrfalcons will assume a stress posture (Platt
1976).
Habitat suitability for gyrfalcons can be determined from habitat
suitability of their prey within a certain radius of nest sites.
Peregrine falcons. Peregrine falcons prefer nest sites offering protective
cover. Their cliff nests will often have an overhang of a dense shrub
thicket. They hunt in various habitats, including open areas within the
boreal forest zone, above muskegs, and over large watercourses. Rivers are
of particular importance for peregrines. They provide open country in the
boreal forest and in some areas provide cliffs for nesting. Rivers create
habitat, such as gravel bars and willow stands, required by some of the
peregrines' more important prey species.
Peregrines can be disturbed by human activity. The direct interference by
humans in some areas of their range has hastened the decline of populations
already weakened by other detrimental factors (Haugh 1976). The idea that
falcons will move away from di.sturbing factors is erroneous (Haugh 1976).
They usually will not move to areas in which they historically have not
occurred. Thus the major rivers that form a "core" for regional populations
take on added importance for the survival of these species. White and Cade
(1975) recommend that certain river corridors be given special consideration
as falcon habitat and be designated "birds of prey areas," following the
example of the Snake River Birds of Prey Area in Idaho, established a few
years ago by order of the secretary of the interior.
Any disturbance during the sensitive period of egg-laying and incubation
should be prevented. Once the eggs have hatched, the birds can tolerate
-67-
considerably more activity around their nests without adverse effects (White
and Cade 1975). Peregrines traditionally use the same nest sites year after
year and apparently do not seek new nesting habitat even if the traditional
site is threatened. Projects like road or bridge construction, gravel
removal, or pipeline or powerline installation should be avoided near
nesting sites. ·
Upland Birds
S~ruce grouse. The spruce grouse inhabits the late successional stage of
t e boreal coniferous and mixed forests. They prefer upland habitats with
30-90% of the forest stand composed of black and white spruce. Understories
in preferred white spruce-birch habitats are usually grasses, blueberry,
cranberry, and Seirea sp. In black spruce, understories are blueberry,
cranberry, and l1chen. Blueberry and cranberry bushes are indicators of
good habitat because they provide spring, summer and fall foods; they also
provide display areas for males and cover for broods and nests (Ellison and
Weeden 1968).
During winter, habitats they usually avoid are open spruce-birch stands with
trees 65-95 feet (20-30 m) apart, and sometimes dense black spruce. Most
nests are at the base of spruce trees, but once the clutches hatch~ the
broods frequent stands predominated by birch and dense ground cover of
blueberry or other low ground cover.
In the fall, birds of all age and sex classes are attracted to places with
grit at +he bases of uprooted trees, along lake shores, stream banks, and
gravel roads.
White spruce needles are the preferred food items in the winter, although
grouse will also eat black spruce needles. As the snow recedes, spruce
needles are taken in decreasing amounts, while blueberry and cranberries are
eaten more. These berries make up the majority of their diet until fall,
when they commence relying on spruce needles again.
Willow ptarmigan. Willow ptarmigan occur throughout the planning area in
shrublands and shrubby openings in coniferous forests at or below
timberline. In the winter, the females remain below timberline, while the
males stay at or above timberline. Burns, river courses, and disturbed
areas provide their preferred shrubby areas below timberline. They may,
during the winter, roost in small clearings within dense thickets. They
also occupy the shrubby interface between woods and tundra.
Summer habitat consists of shrubby tundra at the upper edge of timber in
widely scattered trees or below timberline in treeless areas. The shrubs in
these preferred areas are three to eight feet (0.9-2.4 m) high, with a
ground cover of grasses, sedges, and mosses. The thick cover of willow
often offers escape from goshawks and other predators. Ptarmigan prefer
moist areas. Older flying broods prefer tall dense stands of willow or
birch along stream or shrub-sedge tundra banks for escape cover.
During the breeding season, willow ptarmigan prefer mesic mature communities
of the lower alpine zone or low-arctic tundra. They nest on the ground on
-:-68-
hummocky or slightly sloping ground. Their nests are often along river
banks, gullies, roadside ditches, or under isolated tundra conifers. Shrubs
around the nesting sites are normally three to six feet (0.9-1.8 m) high,
alternating with open vegetation less than one foot (0.3 m) tall, with high
species diversity.
Ptarmigan avoid dry savannahs on level tablelands and plateaus (Weeden
1960). They also avoid dense brush and ~et shrubless marshes or wet tundra
areas devoid of taller shrubs.
Other Species
Sandhill cranes. The lesser sandhill cranes roost in wetlands, gravel
beaches and sand-covered or alkali beaches, often on peninsulas and islands.
They prefer shallow water in sedge grass and rush communities and often
flock in grain fields and pastures up to a third of a mile from their
roosting sites.
Preferred nesting habitats of cranes are grassy flats with dry knolls, on
mounds in wet marsh tundra, raised mounds in meadows, isthmuses between
ponds, low wet islands, slough banks, islands in marshes, or dry islands in
ponds. Nests are in dry, well-drained areas but near to standing water.
Cranes spend much time along slough banks where vegetation is often taller
than adults.
Sandhill cranes are opportunistic feeders, subsisting on croberry
salmonberry, microtine rodents, small fish, flying insects, and snails. In
late summer they become more herbivorous, preferring crowberries.
-69-
Fish
Fish are one of the more important resources in the planning area. An
estimated 5.7 million salmon alone were produced in 1981 in the streams and
rivers of the area. There are many suitable habitats for migration,
spawning, and rearing of chinook, pink, sockeye, coho, and chum salmon,
steelhead, grayling, rainbow trout, and Dolly Varden.
Tables 38 through 42 list the important spawning streams for five species of
salmon. Most of these streams and lakes are located in the Susitna lowlands
(Atlas Map B7). For a general description of the distribution of resident
freshwater fish species in the planning area, see Atlas Map B8.
TABLE 38. Chinook (King) Salmon Spawning Streams
Little Susitna
Wi 11 ow Creek
Deception Creek
Moose Creek
Granite Creek
Chickaloon River
Theodore River
Lewis River
Alexander Creek
Fish Creek
(off the Susitna River)
Deshka River (Kroto Creek)
Trapper Creek
Little Willow Creek
Talachulitna River
Kichatna River
Nakochna River
Happy River near Rainy Pass
Yentna near Youngstown Bend
Donkey Creek
near Youngstown Bend
Home Creek
Canyon Creek
Sunflower Creek
Cache Creek
Peters Creek south of
Petersville near Peters Hills
East Fork Chistochina
Bunco Creek
Lake Creek
-70-
Twentymile Creek
Creek near Burro Lake
Byers Creek
Troublesome Creek
Whiskers Creek
Sunshine Creek
North Fork Kashwitna
Sheep Creek
North, Middle, South, and
main stem Montana Creek ·
Chunilpack Creek
Creek near Sherman
Indian River
Portage Creek off Devils Canyon
Prairie Creek
Lower Mendeltna
Lower Tolsona Creek
Middle Fork Gulkana
Hungry Hollow Creek
Gulkana River
Lower Twelvemile River
Lower Sinona Creek
Lower Indian Creek near
Indian River
Lower Ashley Creek
Goose Creek
Middle and East Forks of
Chulitna River
Honolulu Creek
TABLE 39. Sockeye (Red) Salmon Spawning Streams and Lakes
Nancy Lake
Meadow Creek
Wasilla Lake
Cottonwood Lake
Lower Sucker Lake
Fish Lake
Alexander Lake
Shell Lake
Shell Creek
Hewitt Lake
Hewitt Creek
Camp Creek
Sunflower Creek
Upper Deshka (near Kroto Lake)
Upper Moose Creek (near Scotty Lake)
Byers Lake
Fish Creek (Big Lake)
Birch Creek
Chelatna Lake
Coffee Creek, Cripple Creek
Larson Lake
Mendeltna Creek
Keg Creek
Link Lake
Middle Fork of the Gulkana River (near Twelvemile)
Eagle Creek
Big Lake
Herkimer Lake
Corcoran Lake
Lilly Lake
Blodget Lake
Mama Bear Lake
Papa Bear Lake
Sockeye Lake
Redshirt Lake
Fish Creek (off the Susitna River)
":'71-
TABLE 40. Coho (Silver) Salmon Spawning Streams
Little Susitna
Fish Creek (Big Lake)
Granite Creek
Wasilla Creek
Meadow Creek
Little Willow Creek
Jim Creek
Alexander Creek
Lower Sucker Creek
Fish Creek (off Susitna River)
Trapper Creek
Creeks north of Willow Mountain
Middle and Upper Camp Creek (near Collinsville)
Sunflower Creek
Peters Creek (near Little Peters Hills)
Lower Deshka (near Parker Lake)
Moose Creek
Rabideaux Creek
Lower Trapper Creek
Lower Whiskers Creek
Lower Troublesome Creek
Sunshine.Creek
Birch Creek
North Fork Kashwitna
Chunilna Creek
Creek near Sherman
Upper Indian Creek
Portage Creek
Cottonwood Creek
Question Creek
Birch Creek
~72-
TABLE 41. Pink (Humpback) Salmon Spawning Streams
Fish Creek (off the Susitna River)
Little Susitna
Alexander Creek
Deshka River (Kroto Creek)
Lake Creek
Shell Creek
Cache Creek
Montana Creek
Birch Creek
Sheep Creek
Chunilna Creek
Creeks near Shannon
Gold Creek
Goose Creek
Little Willow Creek
Kashwitna River
Sunshine Creek
Deception Creek
Byers Creek
Troublesome Creek
TABLE 42. Chum (Dog) Salmon Spawning Streams
Little Susitna
Kashwitna
Wasi 11 a Creek
Tributaries of the Skwentna
Lake Creek
Delta Islands to Caswell on the Susitna River
Susitna River (Trapper Lake to Curry)
Lower Troublesome Creek
Byers Creek
Talkeetna River
Birch Creek
Montana Creek
Goose Creek
Middle of Sheep Creek
Middle of the Talkeetna River
Lower to middle Chunilna Creek
Creeks near Sherman
Wi 11 ow Creek
Little Willow Creek
Knik River
Matanuska River
-73-
In addition to these salmon species, eight other important species of
freshwater game fish can be found in the study area: landlocked coho,
rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, lake trout, grayling, northern pike, burbot,
and whitefish. Nongame fish species present in Susitna basin rivers are
blackfish, pond and smurf smelt eulachon (hooligan), longnose sucker, three
and nine spine stickleback, slimy, coast range, Pacific staghorn, and sharp
nose sculpin, starry flounder, Pacific and Arctic lampreys, and Pacific
herring.
Freshwater systems to which salmon return and in which resident fish live
are critical to the maintenance of their populations. Salmon and other
species utilize freshwater habitat for migration, spawning, and rearing of
young. Disturbances that degrade habitat, water quality, water flow, or
fish migration routes may adversely affect population numbers of salmon or
other species in the disturbed area, or of those that migrate beyond the
disturbed area. Overstory vegetation along streams is very important to
keep streams cool. Silt and low oxygen are detrimental to all young
alevins. During incubation, substantial mortality of the embryos may occur
due to disturbances from fluctuating flows, dewatering, freezing,
suffocation, and microbial infestation.
Coho (silver) salmon. Coho salmon usually enter their natal streams during.
periods when the water temperature begins to drop, from midsummer to early
winter. They usually spawn at the head of riffle areas in narrow side
channels and tributaries of mainstream rivers (Morrow 1980, Mclean et al.
1977). Preferred substrate diameters range from 0.75 to 10.0 em,
temperatures from 4.4 to 9.0°C, and water velocities from 0.1 to 1.0 m/s
(Smith 1973, Bell 1973). Conditions outside this range severely reduce egg
survivability. Fry emerge in May or June, although some have been observed
as early as March and as late as July. Juvenile fish establish territories
in slow-moving water along stream margins, in ponds and lakes, in pools
behind logs or boulders, and in backwater sloughs, and generally they avoid
riffles. In late fall, juvenile coho salmon inhabiting widely distributed
summer rearing areas (often small and intermittent ponds, sloughs and
tributaries), migrate to larger lakes and streams, where ice and water
conditions are more favorable for winter survival. Juveniles may remain in
freshwater systems from one to three years. They feed mainly on terrestrial
insects and often swim near the shore and along stream banks.
Pink (humpback) salmon. Pink salmon occupy a wide range of habitats and
tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions, depending on the time of
year and the stage of their life cycle. They move from the sea into streams
from late June to September. They often enter short coastal streams and
sometimes spawn in tidal areas. Their eggs and alevins are more eu~haline
than other species of salmon.
Preferred spawning habitats are found at depths of at least six inches, with
current velocities of 0.7-5.6 feet (2.1-1.7 m), and where the substrate is
0.5-4 inches (1.2-10.1 em) in diameter, although pink salmon are so
adaptable they can spawn over fractured bedrock with no gravel. Spawning
usually takes place when the temperature is declining after reaching the
summer maximum. However, temperatures greater than 4.5°C are necessary for
initial development. If spawning habitat is destroyed and adults are forced
-74-
into more crowded situations in order to spawn, they may dig up previously
spawned eggs in the process of building their own redd.
Eggs hatch from December through February. Fry emerge from the gravel in
the spring. The fry then migrate to sea, usually at night. During the day,
they require streamside vegetative cover or overhanging stream banks along
the migration path.
Sockeye (red) salmon. Adult sockeye salmon return to their natal streams
and lakes during the summer and fall from July to October, sometimes as late
as December. The majority of the spawning occurs in streams that connect
with lakes and along lake shorelines. Hatching occurs mid-winter to early
spring, and the young emerge from April to June. Fry usually go to sea
after one or two years in a lake. Once in the lake they hug the shoreline,
feeding on insect larvae and water fleas. They later move offshore and feed
on zooplankton consisting predominately of copepods and cladocerans.
The adults prefer a spawning substrate of gravel between 0.5 and 4 inches
(1.3-10.2 em) in diameter, water velocities between 8.3 and 38 in/s (21 and
101 cm/s) and water temperatures between 4.4 and 10.0°C. If water flow
drops below critical levels, egg and alevin mortality becomes high. Silt
deposition is also detrimental to productivity.
-
Sockeye salmon are unique among salmon in their dependence on lakes. The
growth of fry in these lakes is correlated with water temperature and an
abundant food supply (Nelson 1964, Narver 1968, Rogers 1973).
Chinook (king) salmon. Adult chinook salmon enter their natal rivers as
early as May in Susitna basin streams, but most appear in June and July.
Those that enter earliest are usually those that travel farthest. Spawning
takes place from July to early September. ·
Preferred spawning locations for chinook have water depths ranging from 10
to 80 inches (25-150 em), stream flow velocities from 1.0 to 4.9 ft/s
(0.3-1.5 m/s), and temperatures from 4.4 to 18°C (Major et al. 1978). They
prefer greater than 55% medium to fine gravel, with less than 8% silt .and
sand. Water flow must remain above critical levels or high egg and alevin
mortality will result. They are very sensitive to low oxygen content.
Young fry prefer cool clear streams. Warm shallow lakes are generally
unsuitable rearing habitat. Juvenile chinook usually remain in freshwater
systems for a year, although it is possible for some to remain as long as
three years. Juveniles feed on insect larvae and terrestrial insects that
fall into streams and rivers. Thus the maintenance of healthy streamside
vegetation is necessary for the growth and survival of the salmon.
In British Columbia, 78% of the chinook salmon migrate to sea as fry while
the remainder overwinter in freshwater streams. The same pattern may be
true of some Susitna basin chinook. Some chinook young feed and migrate
downstream gradually, rather than living in distinct reaches of the river
for extended periods of time. Spring chinooks from upper reaches of the
larger rivers exhibit the more familiar year-long freshwater rearing stage.
The young shift to faster, deeper water as they mature. They often
-75-
overwinter in larger streams with temperatures ranging from 4.4 to 5.5°C.
Cover, especially large rocks, is important fish.
Chum (dog) salmon. Chum salmon are typically fall spawners, with the
greatest spawning activity occurring in August and September. Spawning
usually occurs over gravel 0.8 to 1.2 inches (2.0-3.0 em) in diameter,
although chums are known to pick even bedrock as a substrate. They
sometimes use sites in springs and ground-water seepages that may prevent
the redds from freezing. Water temperatures range from 0 to 14°C; water
depths are 2 to 48 inches (5.0-122 em); and stream flows range from 12.1 to
15.7 yd 3/sec (9.3-12 m3jsec) at spawning sites (ADF&G 1982).
As soon as the alevins make their way up through the gravel, they begin to
migrate. The young can tolerate temperatures up to 23.8°C but are the least
resistant of all Pacific salmon to exposure to high temperatures.
·Arctic grayling. The Arctic grayling is abundant in the planning area.
Grayling spawn early in the spring immediately after breakup and begin to
congregate at the mouths of clear water tributaries in April, and in May
they start upstream through channels cut in the ice by surface runoff.
Spawning takes place from mid-May to June.
Grayling distribution and abundance in a selected section of the Susitna
River (ADF&G 19082) appeared to be closely associated with surface water
temperatures. As water temperatures in the tributaries increased in the
spring, increased numbers of grayling were observed migrating upstream into
areas with pool-type habitats. Many fish remained in these pools for
rearing during the summer months. As surface water temperatures began to
decrease in the late summer and fall, lower numbers of fish were observed in
these habitats and many were seen migrating downstream. The main downstream
migration occurs in mid-September, and they overwinter in deep water. A few
fish stay in the major clear-water streams and apparently overwinter in the
deeper pools (Schallock 1966).
During the research studies conducted in 1981 by ADF&G, some limited
conclusions were reached about Arctic grayling -habitat relationships in
the upper Susitna River. Grayling movements in and out of streams were
influenced by water temperature; grayling were more abundant in habitats
with streamflow velocities below 2.0 ft/sec (0.6 m/sec); channels with large
deep pools and/or cutbanks appeared to provide optimal habitat; availability
of spawning substrate did not appear to limit grayling abundance and
distribution significantly.
Dolly Varden/Arctic char. Dolly Varden and Arctic char are found in
planning area drainages. They are both members of the char family and will
be discussed together. They are found in clear and glacial rivers and
lakes, and in brackish deltas and lagoons (Mclean and Delaney 1978). They
overwinter in lakes, deep river pools, and spring-fed streams.
There are resident and anadromous char. Little is known about the life
history of resident char. Anadromous char live in freshwater for two to
five years before beginning their annual fall migration between marine
summer feeding areas and freshwater fall spawning and overwintering areas.
Seaward migrations commence around the time of breakup. All char spawn
-76-
between the end of July and the beginning of December, with most activity in
September and October. Water temperatures between 5.5° and 6.5°C are
preferred, although char can spawn between 3° and 13°C. Spawning usually
occurs over gravel shoals in lakes but sometimes in quiet pools in streams
close to a lake. Juveniles consume insects and small crustaceans.
Rainbow trout and steelhead. There are two life history forms of rainbow
trout: stream and lake dwelling fish, which can inhabit rivers or streams
on a year-round basis or which can move between lakes and streams; and
ocean-run rainbows (steelhead), which spend part of their lives in
freshwater systems and part in marine systems.
Some stream-dwelling rainbow populations move only limited distances within
a river or stream, overwintering in deep river holes, in sloughs and side
channels, often in lower stretches of rivers with slow to moderate velocity
(ADF&G 1976). Some populations do not remain in open leads and probably use
ice as cover. After ice breakup, the trout disperse throughout the river
system, usually moving upstream. Juvenile rainbows generally inhabit
slow-moving water under tangled roots and along the edge of gravel bars.
Adult rainbows prefer riffle areas with gravel substrates and a moderate
stream flow and are often found in areas with an upward percolation of
water.
-
Other rainbow populations have highly variable migratory patterns related to
stream flow and the availability of food. Usually, these adults overwinter
in lakes, spawn in rivers and streams during spring, and return to the lakes
during summer and fall, although some may remain in the rivers. Juveniles
from these populations may move into the lakes during their first year of
life, although they are known to remain in rivers till four or five years of
age. Juveniles and adults are found inswift, shallow, gravel-bottomed
stretches of streams and rivers, feeding on salmon carcasses and eggs.
The rainbow trout is basically a spring spawner, with the majority breeding
between mid-April and late June. Spawning takes place in deep-water
tributaries and sidechannels, usually in a riffle above a pool, and at
temperatures between 10° and 13°C, although they have been known to spawn at
temperatures as low as 5.5°C and as high as 17°C.
Survival of eggs is directly related to the velocity of water passage
through the redd and the amount of dissolved oxygen in their water. Wood
fibers in the water, (e.g. from logging) do not affect egg survival but have
adverse effects on the growth and survival of young fish (Kramer and Smith
1965).
Movement of young rainbows seems to be associated with water temperature.
In cold water (less than 13°C), the young are carried downstream, because
they remain in the water column, whereas if the temperature is warmer, they
remain on the bottom and stay in one reach of the stream. Temperature and
population density appear to be major factors affecting growth (Black 1953,
Murai and Andrews 1972).
Steelhead undertake the most extensive movements of all Alaskan trout
species. After one to four years of stream life they migrate downstream in
-77-
the spring and summer and enter the sea. They may stay in marine waters a
few months to four years before returning to their natal streams to spawn.
Freshwater habitat is critical to rainbow trout. The egg/fry stages of
development are sensitive to habitat destruction or disturbance. A
reduction in stream flow may decrease the area of suitable spawning habitat
by reducing water depth over, and access to spawning areas. It may also
increase the deposition of fine sediments, which in turn reduces the
intragravel water flow critical to the survival of incubating eggs and
alevins. An increase in winter stream flow during the critical period of
egg and alevin development may wash away spawning gravels and crush the eggs
and alevins. A reduction in streamflow may reduce riffle areas that are
important in producing the invertebrate diet of the rainbow. The
elimination of natural flooding (e.g. by dam construction) can eliminate the
important periodic flushing of fine sediments out of spawning gravels. Any
disturbance that degrades rainbow or steelhead spawning, rearing, or feeding
habitat, degrades water quality, or blocks fish migration routes, may
adversely affect population levels of rainbow and steelhead that inhabit the
disturbed system.
For a summary of fish vegetation requirements, refer to Appendix C.
Fish-habitat relationships. Like terrestrial animals, aquatic antmals such
as fish can be associated with specific habitat types. Presented here is a
preliminary Aquatic Habitat Classification System, based in part on research
by the members of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project (e.g. ADF&G 1981, 1982,
1983).
Habitat needs of fish vary with season of the year, and with stage of life
cycle. The main life stages of fish consist of: upstream migration of
adults, spawning, incubation, juvenile rearing, and seaward migration of
smolt. It would be beneficial, for land use planning decisions, to be able
to correlate fish species and their life stages with certain definable
habitat types. The ADF&G's Susitna Hydroelectric research team has
described seven major aquatic habitats that are utilized by particular fish
species during one or more of their life stages. These habitat categories
were originally described for the Susitna River and its tributaries, but
they are general enough to be applicable throughout the planning area.
The seven aquatic habitats are described below, and six will be discussed
later in terms of use by individual fish species (the Susitna Hydro team has
not yet addressed lake use by fish). Pictorial examples of these habitats
are displayed in Figure 5.
1. Mainstem habitat consists of those portions of a main river that
normally convey stream flow throughout the year. Both single and
multiple channel reaches are included in this habitat category.
Groundwater and tributary inflow appear to be inconsequential
contributors to the overall characteristics of mainstem habitat.
Mainstem habitat is typically characterized by high water velocities
and well armored streambeds. Substrates generally consist of boulder
and cobble size materials with interstitial spaces filled with a
groutlike mixture of small gravels and glacial sands. Suspended
sediment concentrations and turbidity are high during summer due to the
-78-
I
""'-!
~
I
Figure 5.
·. -··~. . \ : ·· .... ·: · ........ J .. ······. . ·: ........ ···~ :'
General habitat categories of the Susitna River -
a conceptual diagram (from ADF&G 1983)
·· .. """.· · .. ··: '· . .. .
·• .......... "!·· .·
.·: ... . . . .. .. · .··· .·: ......... . . . . .. :: ·. ·:; .. . ::.·:·· .......... :·, .. .. . . . .. ... . . . . . . : :·· .... . . . . . . . . . . -~· . . . . . :·.·. ·= .... ·,... . . -:·.· ::-.. · .... , ... . . : .... ::~-
/
l
I
.,;;/"'I . . ...-,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
influence of glacial melt-water. Streamflows recede in early fall and
the mainstem clears appreciably in October. An ice cover forms on the
river in late November or December.
Side channel habitat consists of those portions of a river that
normally convey streamflow during the open water season but become
appreciably dewatered during periods of low flow. Side channel habitat
may exist either in well defined overflow channels, or in poorly
defined water courses flowing through partially submerged gravel bars
and islands along the margins of the mainstem river. Side channel
streambed elevations are typically lower than the mean monthly water
surface elevations of most mainstem rivers observed during June, July,
and August. Side channel habitats are characterized by shallower
depths, lower velocities and smaller streambed materials than the
adjacent habitat of the mainstem river.
Side slough habitat is located in spring fed overflow channels between
the edge of the floodplain and the mainstem and side channels of a
river and is usually separated from the mainstem and side channels by
well vegetated bars. An exposed alluvial berm often separates the head
of the slough from mainstem or side channel flows. The controlling
streambed/streambank elevations at the upstream end of the side sloughs
are slightly less than the water surface elevations of the mean monthly
flows of the mainstem Susitna River observed for June, July, and
August. At intermediate and low flow periods, the side sloughs convey
clear water from small tributaries and/or upwelling groundwater. These
clear water inflows are essential contributors to the existence of this
habitat type. The water surface elevation of the mainstem river
generally causes a backwater to extend well up into the slough from its
lower end. Even though this substantial backwater exists, the sloughs
function hydraulically very much like small stream systems and several
hundred feet of the slough channel often conveys water independent of
mainstem backwater effects. At high flows the water surface elevation
of the mainstem river is sufficient to overtop the upper end of the
slough. Surface water temperatures in the side sloughs during summer
months are principally a function of air temperature, solar radiation,
and the temperature of the local runoff.
Upland slouah habitat differs from side slough habitat in that the
upstream en of the slough is not interconnected with the surface
waters of the mainstem river or its side channels at higher flows.
Tributary habitat consists of the full complement of hydraulic and
morphologic conditions that occur in the tributaries. Their seasonal
streamflow, sediment, and thermal regimes reflect the integration of
the hydrology, geology, and climate of the tributary drainage. The
physical attributes of tributary habitat are not dependent on mainstem
conditions.
Tributary mouth habitat is characterized by the downstream portion of
the tributary where a) the discharge of the mainstem river influences
fish access into the tributary and b) the clear water of the tributary
extends as a plume into the turbid waters of the mainstem river.
-80-
7. Lake habitat consists of various lentic environments that occur within
the river basin drainage. These habitats range from small, shallow
isolated lakes on the tundra, to larger, deeper lakes which connect to
the mainstem rivers through well-defined tributary systems. The lakes
receive their water from springs, surface runoff, and/or tributaries.
"Available habitat" for a species is defined as the area capable of
providing direct life support for that particular species (USFWS 1981).
Available habitat also includes terrestrial area surrounding described
fish habitats. This can be very important to particular fish species.
Brna (pers. comm.) has noted (for at least the Kenai River) that
aquatic habitats with adjacent wetlands produced more fish than did
those without. Wetlands adjacent to waterbodies affect conditions in
adjoining rearing habitats. Wetlands may provide: inorganic and
organic nutrients, insect drift (fish prey), and detritus on which
insects feed. Thus, the wetland surface area bordering a stream should
be included in the category of "available habitat" in any aquatic
modeling system. Platts (1979) also emphasizes the need to integrate
terrestrial ecosystem models and aquatic system models. Suggestions
for habitat parameters describing these ecosystems are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
After identifying which aquatic habitats are used by particular fish
species and life stages, approaches similar to those presented by the
USFWS Instream Flow Group (Bouce 1982) or a modification of Habitat
Evaluation Procedures (HEP), (Terrell et al. 1982), can be used to
identify the physical and chemical variables which limit or support the
utilization of these habitats (refer to ADF&G 1980b for an evaluation
of HEP and fish). These approaches are similar in concept to the
H.E. Procedures developed for moose, described later in this r~port,
and would identify the suitability of a habitat, for a specific species
and life stage, with a relative "Suitability Rating."
The range of physical habitat parameters suitable for each fish species
addressed in this section, has already been described earlier in this
report. Relative capabilities of six of the seven habitats for fish
have been suggested, in descriptive form, by the Susitna Hydroelectric
research team (ADF&G 1983). Table 43 depicts these relative
capabilities of six habitats for five salmonid species, and three
important life functions (migration, spawning, rearing). The
descriptive values of the various habitats have been translated into a
numerical index.
Habitat Suitability models for fish, such as the one suggested, could
be used in conjunction with other models (such as fish carrying
capacity), with matrix evaluations, or with general descriptions of
preferred habitat. Combining such techniques can improve the
reliability, applicability, or flexibility of analyses performed.
Once fish species are assigned to one of the seven general habitats,
then more specific fish-habitat relationships can be attempted.
Correlating fish species with the specific habitats they use, and
developing and using Habitat Suitability Index values, however, require
a clear understanding of the habitat requirements of fish species being
-81-
TABLE 43. Habitat Type -Fish Species-Life Function Matrix, Susitna Planning Area 1
(Information for Susitna River, Sloughs and Side Channels Only)
Chinook Coho Socke~e Chum
M s R2 M s R M s R M s R M
1. Mainstem
Habitat 1.0 0 0.5 1 .o 0.3 0.5 1 .o 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.5 1 .o
2. Side Channel
Habitat 1.0 0 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0
3. Side Slough
Habitat 0 0 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.3
4. Upland Slough
Habitat 0 0 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.3
5. Tributary
Habitat 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 o.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
6. Tributary Mouth
Habitat 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
1Following are suitability index values of the habitat, derived from ADF&G
( 1983). This interpretation gives the highest suggested value to a given
habitat.
1 .o = totally dependent
0.8 heavy use
0.5 = moderate use
0.3 rare or little use
0 = no use
2M = Migration
S = Spawning and incubation
R = Rearing juveniles, 1st year
3outmigrating -not rearing
Pink
s 03
0 1.0
0 1.0
0.3 0.3
0.3 0.3
0.8 1.0
0.8 1.0
evaluated. Where detailed knowledge is lacking on the specific habitat
requirements of each fish species of interest, species guilds can be
substituted for individual species when determining suitability ratings. In
this approach, certain well-studied fish species become representative of a
group of species with similar ecological requirements, but about which less
is known.
For more detailed analysis of a specific area, stream, or reach of stream
variables such as: substrate, water velocity, turbidity, temperature,
cover, etc. may be placed in a matrix comparing needs of different fish
species. Examples of such matrices can be found in Terrel et al. (1982).
Such detailed matrices for a specific habitat, then could be used to
classify fish species into guilds and/or to establish more specific fish -
habitat relationships. By identifying important habitat parameters, and
subsequently associating fish species with these parameters, possible
limiting factors to fish populations (e.g. instream flow) could also be
described. This identification and association could then help in
population management and in resource allocation.
-82-
PART II. Modeling of Wildlife-Habitat Relationships
This part of the supply chapter describes general relationships between
habitats and wildlife that can be used to identify various categories of
wildlife lands. Because it is impossible to sample every hectare to
determine the abundance and distributions of important species, the
consideration of wildlife-habitat relationships in conjunction with mapped
distributions of vegetative cover types represents a useful alternative
approach to determining general wildlife distributions. This understanding
is needed to represent wildlife management and public use interests during
the land allocation negotiation phase of the Susitna area planning process.
As part of the state-federal Cooperative Susitna River Basin Study, the
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation and Forest
Services, mapped 33 different cover types plus unvegetated areas for acreage
in the Talkeetna, Beluga, and upper Susitna subbasins (USDA 1983). This
mapping procedure used aerial photography and subsequent field inventories.
Procedures used and data collected are summarized in USDA (1983).
The Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) was then contracted to
develop an automated Geographic Information System (GIS) using Susitna River
basin data. This GIS represents the culmination of a resource inventory and
analysis effort that involved the detailed mapping and field survey of soil
and forest resources in the area. All available river basin data were
rectified, cross-compared, and composited by ESRI before being entered into
the automated GIS. Related area phenomena such as geology, landform, slope,
soils, and vegetation were cr.oss-compared and composited on a single map
overlay by a process termed 11 Integrated Terrain Unit Mapping ... This process
imparted a higher level of spatial resolution, accuracy, and consistency to
the mapped data than was generally inherent in the diverse source miterials.
The terrain unit map was composed of individual units (polygons), each of
which encompassed a set of homogeneous environmental characteristics. The
numerous data planes represented on the map were individually entered into
the automated GIS so that they could be disaggregated for subsequent
analysis. Once automated, the mapped data were put in an easily retrievable
form. ESRI subsequently employed the GIS during a systematic assessment of
environmental opportunities and constraints in the basin and in a structured
evaluation of the capability and suitability of basin lands for selected
uses. The processing system has been installed on a computer in Alaska
that, in the future, can serve both as a structure for the efficient storage
and retrieval of environmental data for the area and as a context for its
logical and systematic application to land planning and management
functions. Development of the GIS is outlined in ESRI (1982).
The computerized data bank was subsequently used to evaluate and assess
environmental conditions in the region in relation to certain potential
uses. A series of theoretical models was constructed to assess the natural
opportunities and constraints in the region and to evaluate the capability
and suitability of land for select uses. These models are discussed below.
Because all fish and wildlife species preferentially use habitats in which
their needs for food, cover, water, and space can most readily be met, and
because these preferred habitats can be generally described in terms of
plant community structure and composition, hydrologic conditions, elevation,
-83-
aspect, etc., a method was sought by which the automated environmental data
base could be used to identify basin habitats potentially suitable for
wildlife species of interest. The methods selected for wildlife suitability
mapping consisted of 1) the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) developed
by the USFWS in consultation with a variety of state and federal agencies
and academic institutes (USFWS 1980); 2) a summary analysis of moose
carrying capacity, using moose forage values (SCS and ADF&G File Data);
3) the Species Diversity Model; and 4) the General Habitat Synthesis Model.
Estimates of the relative productive capabilities of habitats for moose
(Models 1 & 2) served as the basis for evaluating various land ownership/use
alternatives for the Talkeetna, Beluga, and upper Susitna subbasins. In
addition, a model which provided maintenance and enhancement of moose
production potential, as well as protection of important riparian lands, was
prepared (Model 4). This system of lands was then compared with available
distribution and abundance data for Dall sheep, moose, black bears, brown
bears, waterfowl, and raptors and with the results of the species diversity
model (Model 3) to determine if the habitat needs of other wildlife species
(other than moose and fish species) were being accommodated. Where
necessary, modifications were made to protect specific habitat requirements
of other species, e.g. tundra areas, wetlands, etc. The resulting depiction
represents the needs of a diverse community of fish and wildlife species.
Moose Model
The moose is not only important to humans; it is also one of the more
wide-ranging species in the planning area. Therefore, an important
objective was to identify habitat suitability for moose. Because moose
range so widely, determining habitat suitability for them necessarily
involved assessing a large percentage of land in the planning area. ·
Moreover, in as much as many other species of wildlife live in habitats
moose occupy, determining preferred habitat for moose serves to determine
the preferred habitats for many other species as well. The United States
Fish and Wildlife Service•s Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP 1980) was
employed to make some of these determinations. HEP is a method that can be
used to document the relative quality and quantity of available habitat for
selected wildlife species.
HEP was first applied to the Willow Subbasin, where habitats potentially
having high, medium, and low suitability for moose, red squirrel, snowshoe
hare, willow ptarmigan, and/or spruce grouse were computer-mapped on the
basis of vegetation data. These wildlife suitability maps were then used
during development of the Willow Subbasin Land Use Plan (see USDA 1981,
USDA 1983, and ADNR et al. 1982). At about the same time, a HEP analysis
was also conducted during the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (USFWS
1980). These initial HEP analyses were revised as experience with the
procedures improved and as additional environmental data became available.
The following description of HEP modeling is based on the most recent HEP
analysis of moose habitat conducted in the Talkeetna, Beluga, and upper
Susitna subbasins of the Susitna planning area. In addition to using HEP,
the ADF&G conducted an alternative analysis of habitat suitability for
moose, again based on USDA-SCS vegetation data (Regelin pers. comm.). This
independent analysis follows the description of HEP. For explanations and
justifications of HEP•s use in other studies, see USDA (1983), Konkel et al.
~84-
(1979), ADF&G (1980), and USFWS (1978). Basic assumptions underlying HEP
analysis are that
1. a definable relationship exists between wildlife species and their
living space, and
2. that this relationship for a selected species can be described by
a relative index.
The reliability of this procedure is dependent on the habitat biologist's
ability to describe accurately and specifically wildlife-habitat
relationships for particular species. The relative value of different
habitats for a species (Suitability Index) can be indicated by assigning a
value of 1.0 to the optimal set of habitat conditions (i.e., conditions
characterizing areas with the highest carrying capacity of the particular
wildlife species), and comparing all other areas to this standard.
Suitability Indices are intended to approximate an expert's assessment of
long-term habitat carrying capacity (Chuck Soloman pers. comm.).
Various environmental data were used to assess the habitat suitability of
different areas for moose for both the winter and the spring/summer/fall
seasons. Combinations of six variables were considered for each of the two
g.eneral seasons: 1) winter and 2) spring/summer/fall. Formulas_for
combining variables were determined by known vegetation -moose
relationships. The definitions of the ~ariables follow:
v1 = Deciduous browse quality as indicated by species and percent of
total available browse.
v2 = Deciduous browse quantity as indicated by total available browse
of Salix, Betula, and Alnus species.
v3 = Availability of cover as indicated by canopy type and percentage
of tall shrub cover.
v4 = Presence of Vaccinium-vitis idaea (VAVI) according to percentage
of cover: a = 5%, b = 1 to 5%, c = 1%.
Each mapped vegetation type was assigned a relative suitability rating between
0 and 1.0 for each cover type according to equations of the above variables for
each general season. High suitability was indicated by values greater or equal
to 0.8, medium suitability by values from 0.4 to 0.7, low suitability by values
greater than 0 to 0.3, and unsuitable habitat by zero. In the winter,
availability of cover was considered very important because of the protection
from snow build-up it provides. The presence of Vaccinium was also considered
important in winter because this species provides moose winter browse (Atlas
Map B9b). The suitability formula determined for moose winter range is
SI (winter) = 2(V1) + V2 + V3 + V4
4
(Table 2). Once each cover type was rated for winter suitability, a
computer-generated map was developed from the suitability values for each
-85-
vegetation type displaying four categories of moose winter habitat: high,
medium, low, and no suitability (Figure 14).
A similar process was undertaken to map categories for moose
spring/summer/fall range (tables 3 and 4). However, instead of variables v3 and v4 , two new variables were substituted:
v5 =Availability of cover as indicated by canopy type or distance to
forest and to all shrub cover types.
v6 = Total annual forb production.
These variables were combined, using a different suitability function to
determine spring/summer/fall range:
SI (S/S/F) = 2 (Vl) + V2 + V5 + V6
5
Again, a relative index between 0 and 1.0 was obtained, and four classes of
suitability were determined: high = 0.8; medium= 0.4-0.7; low= 0 to
0.3; unsuitable = 0.
Computer-generated maps portraying categories of moose spring/summer/fall
range are shown in Atlas Map B9a. From these two 11 Moose Model 11 maps, the
department can determine which lands in the planning area are most important
for moose (see Chapter III, Resource Allocations).
-86-
TABLE 44. Characteristics of Talkeetna and Beluga Subbasin Vegetation Types
as Described by Habitat Parameters for Moose Range
Habitat Parameters
v1 v2 v3 v4
scs Browse Species Production Canopy Type VAVI Cover
Vegetation Type (percent total) lbs/acre Cover Class Class
21 Al (100) 548 cl CF c
22 Al( 92)Sa( 8) 696 cl OF a
24 Al( 77)Sa(13) 320 · cl MF a
BP ( 10)
25 Sa(lOO) 188 cl CF a
26 A 1( 94) B P ( 4) 403 cl MF b
Sa( 2)
27 Al( 71)Sa(29) 473 cl OF c
28 Al (100) 127** cl OF c
29 Al (100) 247 cl MF c
31 Sa/Bn* 393 op CF a
32 Sa/ (100) 456 op MF c
33 Al( 72)Sa(28) 924 op MF - c
34 Sa( 58)A1(42) 377 op MF c
35 Al (100) 31 op OF c
36 A 1 (100) 552 op MF c
41 Al(100) 40 cl CF a
42 BP(lOO) 48 cl CF a
43 A1(100) 40 op CF b
60 A1(100) 1,082 TS c
61 Sa( 82)A1(18) 2,628 TS c
Classifications are based on SCS/FS vegetation data for the Talkeetna
subbasin.
* not measured in plot of pure type, but mentioned as being heavily
browsed in area, present in heterogeneous plot.
** based on heterogeneous type, one plot.
Abbreviations:
VAVI = Vaccinium vitis-idaea
Al = Alnus spp.
Sa = Salix spp.
BP = Betula papyrifera
BN = Betula nana
CF = coniferous forest
OF = deciduous forest
MF = mixed coniferous-deciduous forest
TS = tall shrub
cl = closed
op = open
~87-
TABLE 45. Suitability Index (SI) Values for Moose Winter Range Habitat
Parameters by Vegetation Type
Habitat Parameters scs
v1 v2 v3 v4 Winter
Vegetation T,lee Range
21 0.2 0.8 0.8 0 .5
22 0.3 1.0 0.8 0.06 .7
24 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.06 .9
25 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.06 .9
26 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.03 .6
27 0.7 0.8 0.8 0 .8
28 0.2 0.6 0.8 0 .5
29 0.2 0.6 1.0 0 .5
31 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.06 .8
32 0.9 0.8 0.4 0 .8
33 0.7 1.0 0.4 0 .7
34 0.7 0.8 0.6 0 .7
35 0.2 0.2 0.6 0 .3
36 0.2 0.8 0.6 0 .5
41 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.06 .4
42 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.06 .7
43 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.03 .3
60 0.2 1.0 0.4 0 .5
61 0.9 1.0 0.4 0 .8
See Table 44 for definitions and vegetation characteristics on which these
SI values are based. Classifications are based on SCS/FS vegetatirin data
for the Talkeetna Subbasin.
~88-
TABLE 46. Characteristics of Talkeetna and Beluga Subbasin Vegetation Types
as Described by Habitat Parameters for Moose Spring/Summer/Fall
(S/S/F) Range
Habitat Parameters
scs vl v2 v5 v6
Vegetation Browse Species Production S/S/F Forbs
Type (percent total) lbs/acre Cover 1 bs/acre
21 Al(lOO) 428 cl CF 291
22 A l( 94) Sa ( 4) 636 cl DF 106
Be(2)
24 Al(60)Sa(23) 205 cl MF 71
Bp(l6)
25 Sa(54)BN(46) 47 cl CF 143
26 A 1 ( 83) B P (14) 147 cl MF 68
Sa(3)
27 Al(50)Sa(50) 310 cl DF 22
28 Al (86)Sa(l4) 598 cl DF 40
29 Al(lOO) 247 cl MF 96
31 BN(lOO) 360 op CF 64
32 Sa (100) 313 op MF 214-
33 A1(70)BN(27) 105 op CF 370
Sa(3)
34 A1(99)BN(l) 122 op MF 121
35 Al (100) 56 op DF 132
36 A 1 (100) 237 op MF 18
41 Al(lOO)BN(4) 19 cl CF
42 0 0 cl CF 14
43 Al (100) 23 op CF 19
50 0 0 TG 0
51 0 0 LS 0
52 0 0 HSG 0
60 Al (100) 649 TS 38
61 Sa(79)A1(21) 560 TS 234
62 Sa(74)BN(26) 323 LS 121
63 BP(lOO) 3 TG 381
64 0 0 SGT 21
65 BN(57)Sa(43) 134 HT 14
66 BN(65)A1(3l)Sa(4) 103 ST 38
67 0 0 MCT 13
68 0 0 HSG 0
69 BN(90)Sa(5) 111 LS 12
A1(5)
Abbreviations:
c1 = closed VAVI = Vaccinium Vitis-idaea
op = open Al =Alnus spp.
TS =tall shrub Sa = '5alTX spp.
TG =tall grass BP =Betula papyrifera
LS = low shrub BN =Betula nana
DF = deciduous forest SGT = sedge-grass tundra
CF = coniferous forest HSG = herbaceous sedge-grass
MF = mixed coniferous deciduous forest MCT = mat and cushion tundra
ST = shrub tundra
-89-
TABLE 47. Suitability Index (SI) Values for Moose Spring/Summer/Fall
(S/S/F) Range Habitat Parameters by Vegetation Type
Habitat Parameters
scs vl v2 v5 v6 Spring/
Vegetation Summer/Fa 11
Type Range
21 0.2 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.6
22 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6
24 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.8
25 0.7 0.2 1.0 0.8 0.7
26 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.6
27 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.7
28 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.4* 0.7
29 0.2 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.5
31 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.7
32 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9
33 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.7
34 0.2 0.6 1.0 0.6 -0.5
35 0.2 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.5
36 0.2 0.6 1.0 0.1 0.4
41 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.3
42 0 0 1.0 0.1 0.2
43 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.3
50 0 0 0 0 0
51 0 0 0 0 0
52 0 0 0 0 0
60 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.2 0.5
61 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9
62 0.8 0.8 0 0.6 0.6
63 0.8 0.1 0 1.0 0.5
64 0 0 0 0.2 0.1
65 0.8 0.6 0 0.4 0.5
66 0.6 0.6 0 0.4 0.4
67 0 0 0 0.1 0.1
68 0 0 0 0 0
69 0.6 0.6 0 0.4 0.4
*Estimated from one plot in heterogeneous type
See Table 46 for definitions and vegetation characteristics on which these
SI values are based. Classifications are based on SCS/FS vegetation data
for the Talkeetna Subbasin.
Non-forest and non-tall shrub types greater than 440 yards from cover are
not S/S/F range.
-90-
The Bradley Lake version of the Moose Habitat Suitability model was modified
one step further by D. Bader by defining vegetation types 27 and 61 as the
major components of high-valued critical moose winter range (D. Bader
pers. obs. 1971). This version was applied to the Talkeetna-Beluga
subbasins of the Susitna planning area (Atlas Map B9b).
CARRYING CAPACITY MODELS
Habitat ratings obtained by methods like HEP are designed to reflect the
relative carrying capacities of different areas; i.e., highly suitable
habitats theoretically have higher carrying capacity for wildlife species
than do less suitable habitats. Calculating theoretical carrying capacities
(K) directly from theoretical vegetation nutritive values is an alternative
approach to HEP SI ratings and can also be used to evaluate habitats. In
order to evaluate habitat for wildlife in this way, Wayne Regelin, ADF&G,
Fairbanks, provided information from the literature on moose carrying
capacity by vegetation type, and the Habitat Division, Region II assembled a
"Moose Carrying Capacity Model."
Theoretical moose "K" were calculated for mapped vegetation types
for 1) existing summer range 2) .existing winter range and 3) vegetation
types that could be "enhanced for moose" in both the summer and winter
ranges. Enhancement here is defined as altering the existing habitat,
usually be logging or fire, to produce an earlier seral stage containing
better moose browse and theoretically producing subsequent increases in the
moose population. The "K" per mi 2 per vegetation type was determined by
ADF&G, using cover types, forage production (annual and total available)
collected in the SCS/FS studies (1978-1980), and using known moose forage
consumption rates and vegetation potential enhancement factors (W. Regelin
pers. comm.). These carrying capacity models, which depict the theoretical
number of moose per mi 2 in different vegetation types were printed on
computer-generated maps aggregating areas into high, medium, and low
categories. Atlas Maps B13 and B14 illustrate the results of this analysis.
Table 48 summarizes the carrying capacity/cover type relationships used in
the model and compares it to the HEP and species diversity models.
Regelin (pers. comm.) noted that where small (< 4 mi 2 ) areas are enhanced,
moose may become so numerous that their intense browsing activities prevent
regenerating browse species from becoming established and productive. He
suggested that to prevent this, enhancement projects should be located where
at least 50% of the vegetation within a 4 mi 2 area (1,280 acres) could be
enhanced. On the basis of this recommendation, the habitat enhancement "K"
model was modified by incorporating a 1,200 acre minimum for enhancement of
areas supporting >50% enhancible vegetation; areas smaller than 1,200 acres
were not considered feasible to enhance. The resulting model Atlas Map B14)
illustrates habitats in which enhancement is potentially feasible according
to model standards. (This procedure, however, is still in the theoretical
stages).
For the carrying capacity model to function correctly, certain assumptions
have to be met:
1. Preliminary annual forage production for each vegetation type as
calculated from SCS/FS field data collected in the Talkeetna and
-91-
Beluga subbasins is reasonably accurate and is adequate to
calculate the theoretical carrying capacity of each vegetation
type.
2. Vegetation types 27 and 61 represent the major components of
critical moose winter range (D. Bader pers. comm.).
3. Vegetation types 27, 28, and 29 have high potential for
enhancement of carrying capacities.
4. Estimates of moose forage consumption rates and vegetation type
enhancement potentials, calculated by Wayne Regelin, based on
studies conducted in the Kenai, are reasonable representations of
moose consumption and forage production rates in comparable
vegetation types found in the Susitna basin.
Even though the moose carrying capacity and enhancement models do not
incorporate environmental or physiographic constraints such as snow fall,
slope, or aspect, on moose range suitability, they accurately reflect the
distribution of vegetation used as summer and winter range, as well as
theoretical and potential carrying capacities.
Furthermore, each category of cover type encompasses a range of
environmental conditions affecting the quality and quantity of plants within
it, and these conditions change from year to year. As a result, vegetative
data collected in the field can provide only a rough indication of plant
species composition and productivity of a particular cover type. Forage
production rates per vegetation cover type are therefore rough estimates at
best. The cover types with the highest carrying capacities in the Susitna
planning area are alder-willow (type 61), open young white spruce
forests (31), open older white spruce forests (33), closed older white
spruce forests (25), medium-aged stands of mixed-deciduous forest (24), and
all ages of stands of cottonwood (27, 28, 29). Moose per square mile in
these vegetation types theoretically can range from 6.7 to 18 moose in the
summer and from 1 to 3.1 moose in the winter (Table 45). The 11 enhancement 11
program could increase the moose per mi2 in summer and winter to 27-48-and
4.5-7.2 respectively. Given the much higher carrying capacity ratio of
summer to winter range in the planning area, availability of winter range is
considered a major limiting factor for moose populations. However, before
11 enhancement•• for moose is conducted over a wide geographic area, certain
repercussions (long-term loss of nutrients, decrease in populations of other
species) must be considered (Casey and Kein 1983, Bock and Bock 1983).
-92-
Species Diversity Model
Ecological diversity (diversity of plants, animals, etc.) is generally
considered an important component of ecological stability.* If ecological
stability is considered an important objective, diversity should be
encouraged. Furthermore, because many ecological relationships among animal
species and among them and their habitat components are not known or clearly
understood, it is best to take a conservative approach when planning land
developments and to maintain as much of the original ecology as possible.
At this point, we do not fully know the degree to which all living organisms
are interdependent nor to what extent living organisms are regulated by
their physical environment. We do know that in much of the rest of the
United States and the world irreversible losses of species and habitat are
occurring, usually with unknown effects on future environments and the
humans depending on them.
McNaughton (1977) concluded that 1) increased complexity (diversity)
stabilized certain ecosystem properties and that 2) more precisely, as an
example, a large mammalian herbivore (e.g. moose) changed the total given
plant biomass less in more diverse than in less diverse plots. Thus it
follows that productivity would be greater in areas with greater species
diversity. Clearly, then, the Species Diversity Model is directly related
to the Key, or Indicator, Species Approach such as HEP and the carrying
capacity models.
The reduction of species diversity is, in the long run, detrimental to
humans, because by reducing this diversity, humans may be wasting some of
their most valuable natural resources, on which they are dependent for food,
oxygen, medicines, energy, building materials, and other countless benefits.
Many plants and animals now in existence may have as yet undiscover~d
benefits for the human race, and it is important that these species be
maintained. Individually, other species• interrelationships are not known,
single species or combinations of species could prove important in the
future. They could 1) control the structure and functioning of their
community 2) aid in human nutrition 3) provide medicines for humans (Hoose
1981) or 4) possess undiscovered characteristics valuable to humans.
The Wildlife Species Diversity Model was prepared using the concepts of the
USFs•s Wildlife-Habitat Relationships Program and the accepted ideas of many
planners and scientists today of emphasizing ecological diversity (Council
on Environmental Quality 1980). To determine diversity values for each
cover type, species• experts conferred, reviewed various literature, and
came up with a list of bird and mammal species that occupied each of the
identified 33 vegetative cover types in the planning area. Habitats meeting
food, cover, and reproductive needs of a greater number of species were
assumed to have a greater wildlife Value.
*A stable ecosystem is defined as follows: The ecosystem will remain in
its present state, and if perturbed it will return to its original state.
-93-
The number of bird and mammal species potentially inhabiting each general
cover type (habitat) in the planning area were then identified (see the
computer printout in the Appendix), and cover types were then grouped with
respect to high (67-91 spp), medium (38-61 spp), and low (1-31 spp) species
diversity.* These habitat categories are displayed in the Atlas Map 811.
The relationships of the HEP, carrying capacity, and species diversity
models are shown in Table 48.
Habitat Scarcity Submodel
The relative scarcity of different habitats (vegetation types) was assessed by
examining how much the acreage of each mapped vegetation type was above or
below an ''equitable" share. This equitable share was determined by dividing
the number of plant communities used in the analysis of wildlife species
diversity into the total vegetated acres of the subbasin(s) being considered (a
generalized chi-square analysis). For example, in the combined
Talkeetna/Beluga subbasin (considered as a unit because of the environmental
similarities between these two adjacent subbasins), 15 vegetation types
occupied 3,555,120 acres. If each vegetation type were allotted an equal share
of this vegetated area, each would occupy approximately 237,000 acres or 6.7%
of the total (3,555,120 + 15 or 100% + 15).
General Habitat Synthesis Model
In order to construct a summary map depicting the lands most suitable for
fish and wildlife resources, in addition to the moose models and the Species
Diversity Model, the ADF&G wante~ a general management plan for wildlife,
not just for game species, that would include both the species diversity
concept and the "key species" concept.
Similar general management plans for fish and wildlife have been developed
by other agencies. The United States Forest Service (USFS), for example,
has produced a Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program that develops a
conceptual framework that will enable managers to 1) consider the needs of
all vertebrate species (ecological diversity approach) 2) emphasize the
management of particular wildlife species when desired (key species .
approach) and 3) identify habitats that require special attention (habitat
approach).
These objectives emanated from strong ~ublic interest in all wildlife
species, not just game species. The U FS has emphasized that habitat types
supporting the highest species diversity should be considered for wildlife
allocation, especially if they are limited in size (i.e., if they are
scarce).
The USFS has emphasized species diversity because it ensures that 1) the
biological and physical variety of natural ecosystems is maintained and
2) the viability of populations is directly related to species diversity
over the long term (Thomas 1979, Patrick 1978, Siderits and Radtke
*Diversity is here defined as species' richness of total number of selected
species.
.-94-
Table 48. Comparison of Moose Habitat Suitability (HEP), Existing (ECAP) and Potential (PCAP)
Moose Forage Capability and Species Diversity Ratings for Vegetation Types
Veg
Type
Found in the Susitna Study Area
Description
21* short stands white spruce 30', associ-
REP
Summer Winter
ated with alder, grass, open mixed Med. Med.
22 young deciduous mixed birch
plus aspen, no spruce Med. Med.
24 same as 22; medium age some spruce
40-100 year age
25* tall stands white spruce 30',
mixed with old birch
26 old age decadent birch,
dominant spruce
27 young stands cottonwood interspersed
with willow & alder (0-40 year age)
28* medium age riverine,
alder, devils club
29* old stands cottonwood 100 years old,
some willow
31* short stands white spruce higher
elevation mixed with alder, grass
32* medium age mixed deciduous
and white spruce, birch aspen
33* tall white spruce, riparian
with alder, willow, grass
34 open old stands mixed deciduous
and young spruce
35* cottonwood medium age
treeline above spruce, pocketed
36 old cottonwood, riparian with
birch, spruce, alder, grass
41* short black spruce, 30' wet, cold
sites with birch of poor quality
42* tall black spruce 30' good sites,
sometimes birch very scattered
High High
Med. High
Med. Med.
Med. High
Med. Med.
Med. Med.
Med. High
High High
Med. Med.
Med. Med.
Med. Low
Med. Med.
Low Med.
Low Med.
-95-
ECAP
Summer Winter
Low Low
Med. Med.
High High
High High
Med. Med.
Med. High
No No
No No
High High
Low Low
High High
Med. Med,
Med. Med.
Low Low
Low Low
Low Low
P AP
Summer Winter
Med. Med.
Med. Med.
High High
High High
High High
High -·No
High High
High High
High High
Med. Med.
High High
Med. Med.
Med. Med.
Low Low
No No
Med. Low
Spec1es
Diversity
Med.
Med.
Med.
Med.
Med.
Med.
High
High
High
High
High
High
Med.
High
Med.
Med.
TABLE 48. (continued)
43* short black spruce found in bogs,
15'. very poor form Low Low Low Low Low Low Med.
46 hemlock, tall, 30' found
as stringes, 1 imited Low Low Med. Low Low Low High
so grasslands, tidal, Elymus,
shoreline No No Low Low Low Low High
51 Myrica, low shrub tidal flats,
wet No Low Med. Low Med. Low Med.
52 tidal marsh with sedge,
shallow lakes No No Med, Low Low Low High
60 alder with grass ferns forbs,
devils club Med. Med. Low Low Low Low Low
61 a 1 der-wi 11 ow, riparian
young cottonwood High High High High High High High
62 willow-resin birch
draws at higher elevation Med. Med. High Med. High Med. Med.
63 calamogrostis
grass lands Med. Low Low Low Low Low Low
64 sedge grass tundra No No Low No No No· Med.
65 herbaceous tundra Med. No Low No No No Low
66 shrub tundra, dominated by dwarf
Arctic birch; grasses & forbs Med. Low Med. Low Low Low Low
67 mat-cushion tundra Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
68 sphagnum bog No Low Low Low Low Low Med.
69 sphagnum shrub bog,
some willow Med. No Low No Low No Med.
70 culturally disturbed ----------Unknown------------
80 mud flats ----------No value-----------
81 rock ----------No value-----------
82 snow field ----------No value-----------
-96-
TABLE 48. (continued)
83 glacier ----------No value-----------
91 lakes greater than 40 acres ----------Unknown------------
92 lakes 10-40 acres ----------Unknown-------------
96 streams 165 feet wide -------Unknown/No value------
97 wide rivers -------Unknown/No value------
1977). Patten (1978) and Thomas (1979) expanded the traditional concepts of
big game habitat relationships to embrace all species, and they emphasized
the importance of integrating sound management of featured species (often
big game) with the diversity approach to habitat management. In addition,
they recommended maintenance of "special" habitats, such as riparian
corridors or snags, that are important either for a variety of species or
for a certain important species. Moreover, they emphasized that all
successional stages are important for wildlife, especially the earJy and
late stages and that large, dense monoculture imposed on a habitat is the
most detrimental for wildlife (Thomas 1979). Through the General Habitat
Synthesis Model, the ADF&G attempted to demarcate a variety of habitats that
would, over time, maintain existing habitat diversity and thus a faunal
diversity. The General Habitat Synthesis Model was developed cooperatively
with the USDA-SCS.
Three categories of habitats for the General Habitat Synthesis Model were of
particular concern to biologists involved with planning. The first
consisted of habitats used by a large variety (high diversity) of species.
Examples include riparian corridors, open mixed forests, and estuarine
areas. Such areas make disproportionately large contributions to the full
spectrum of wildlife resources currently found in the basin. The second and
third categories consisted of habitats that are ''scarce" in the basin and
habitats that are particularly susceptible to degradation. It was assumed
that species associated with "scarce" or "sensitive'' habitats, particularly
species narrowly dependent on them, could be disproportionately affected by
land-use changes. For species using "scarce" habitats (such as upland
willow-resin birch shrublands, shrub tundra, riparian cottonwood forests,
etc.), few or no alternative sources of food, cover, and reproductive
requirements would be available once the limited habitat areas they required
were significantly altered. For species using "sensitive'' habitats (such as
streams, selected wetlands, mat and cushion tundra, etc.), land uses
occurring in and outside such habitats, even at relatively great distances
in some cases, could readily change conditions such as water quality, water
flows, nutrient inputs, and sediment regimes on which these fish and
wildlife species depend. On the assumption that planners could find it
useful and meaningful to know which areas supported many kinds of wildlife
and which were relatively scarce habitats, a model was developed to produce
a map showing the$e habitat categories. The submodel of scarcity developed
to map each category is presented in sections be 1 ow. "Sensitive" habitats
-97-
were later identified during the process of assigning management categories
to demarcated fish and wildlife lands (Lehner pers. comm.).
The following account of the General Habitat Synthesis Model is from USDA
(1983). The General Habitat Synthesis Model represented an integration of
essentially two submodels: 1) the wildlife species diversity and 2) the
habitat scarcity submodels. In addition, considerations of stream and river
corridors and of moose habitat requirements (HEP moose model and
enhancibility models) were also incorporated. To this, the department added
information on known critical habitats of other big game species (caribou,
Dall sheep, mountain goats, black and brown bears) and other species of
interest (waterfowl, raptors), along with information on prime hunting and
fishing areas. Thus, all areas important for fish and wildlife information
were integrated into one map.
The computer maps produced from this model depicted "core" habitat areas
that, on the basis of model and other criteria, were considered most highly
suitable for a wide variety of valuable fish and wildlife resources. These
core areas became the skeleton of the fish and wildlife "element" map, a map
showing a system of basin lands that, if properly managed, would be highly
suitable for maintaining area fish and wildlife and associated human uses.
This synthesis of all models then became the Fish and Wildlife Element Map
(Atlas Map C5). A summary of management of these habitat lands from the
Element Map can be found in the chapter on Resource Management.
-98-
LITERATURE CITED
ADF&G. 1974. Alaska's wildlife and habitat. Anchorage. 143 pp.
ADF&G. 1976a. Alaska's fisheries atlas. Vols. I & II. Anchorage.
ADF&G. 1976b. Fish and wildlife resource inventory. Vol. I. Anchorage.
ADF&G. 1979. Recommendations for minimizing the impacts of hydrocarbon
development on the fish, wildlife and aquatic plant resources of lower
Cook Inlet. Vol. 1. Prepared by C.J. Hamilton, S.J. Starr. MCHM
Prepared for Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs, Coastal
Energy Impact Program. NOAA, USDC.
ADF&G. 1980. Alaska wildlife management plans for Southcentral Alaska.
291 pp.
ADF&G. 1981. P. Ruesch, ed., Annual management report, commercial fish,
upper Cook Inlet region II.
ADF&G. 1982. Susitna hydro aquatic studies. Phase II.
Vol. 4. Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Studies.
Basic Data Report.
Anchorage.
ADF&G. 1983. Susitna hydro aquatic studies. Phase II. Rept. Vol. 1:
Summarization of Vols. 2, 3, 4. (Parts I & II) and Vol. 5. 106 pp.
ADNR. 1982. Land use issues and preliminary resource inventory.
Anchorage.
Banko, W. 1960. The trumpeter swan. North America Fauna 63. 214 pp.
Beebe, F.L., and H. Webster. 1964. North American falconry and hunting.
Denver. Co. 198 pp.
Behnke. R. 1977.
development.
Fish faunal changes associated with land-use and water
Great Plains--Rocky Mountain Geo. J. 6(2):133-136.
Bell, M. 1973.
biological
Army Corps
chapters.
Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and
criteria. Fisheries Engineering Research Program. U.S.
of Engineers, North Pacific Division. Portland, Oregon. 34
Black, E.G. 1963. Upper lethal terms of some British Columbia fresh water
fishes. Fisheries Res. Board of Canada. 10(4):196-210.
Bock, C. and J. Bock. 1983. Responses of birds and deer mice to prescribed
burning in ponderosa pine. J. Wildl. Manage. 47(3):836-340.
Buckirk, S.W. 1982. Susitna hydro project furbearer studies. Phase I.
Rept.
Burns, J.J. 1964. The ecology, economy, and management of mink in the
Yukon Delta Alaska. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Alaska.
-99-
Cade, T. 1960. Ecology of the peregrine and gyrfalcon populations in
Alaska. Univ. Calif. Publ. 001. 63:151-290.
Cade, T., and C. White. 1976. Alaska's falcons: the issue of survival.
The Living Wilderness. 39(132):35-47.
Chapman, D. 1977. Food and space as regulators of salmonid populations in
streams. Amer. Nat. 100:345-357.
Coady, J.W. 1974. Influence of snow on behavior of moose. Naturaliste
Can. 101:417-436.
Council of Environmental Quality. 1980. Eleventh Annual Report M.S. Gov't
Printing Office, Wash. D.C.
Delaney, K., and K. Hepler. 1983. Inventory and cataloging of sportfish
and sportfish waters of western Prince William Sound, lower Susitna
River, northern Cook Inlet drainages. Am. Rept. of Progress. 1982-
1983, 23 (G-J-H). 25 pp.
Ellison, L., and R. Weeden. 1968. Game bird report. Fed. Aid Wildl.
Restoration Proj.: W-13-4-2 and -3. Work Plan B.
ESRI. 1982. Final Report. Computerized geographic information system:
Talkeetna and Beluga subbasins, Susitna River basin. Alaska.
Fall, J., D. Foster, and R. Stanek. 1983. The use of moose and other wild
resources in the Tyonek and Upper Yentna areas, a background report.
ADF&G, Anchorage. 44 pp.
Gabrielson, I., and F. Lincoln. 1959. The birds of Alaska. Stackpole Co.
and Wildl. Manage. Inst. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Hansen, H.P., Shepherd, J. King, and W. Troyer. 1971. The trumpeter swan
in Alaska. Wildl. Monogr. 26.
Hatler, D. 1972. Food habits of black bears in interior Alaska. Can.
Field Nat. 186(1) 17-31.
Haugh, J. 1976. Tanana River of Alaska. Pages 228-273 in: Fufe, R., S.
Temple, and T. Cade, eds. The 1975 North American peregrine falcon
survey. Can. Field Nat. 90.
Hemming, J. 1971. The distribution and movement patterns of caribou in
Alaska. ADF&G Wildl. Tech. Bull. #1.
Hobgood, T.W. 1983. Susitna hydro project: furbearer studies Phase I
Rept. Terrestrial Environmental Specialists.
Jones, S. 1979. The accipiter: goshawk, Cooper's hawk. Habitat management
series for unique and endangered species. Rept. HI7 USDI BLM, Denver.
Jueneman, G.B. 1973. Habitat evaluation of selected Bald Eagle nest sites
on the Chippewa National Forest. M.S. Thesis. University of
Minnesota-St.Paul. 170 pp. (in USFWS 1980).
-100-
Kessel, B., and D. Gibson. 1978. Status and distribution of Alaska birds.
Studies in Avian Biol. #1.
Koehler, G., and M. Hornocker. 1977. Fire effects on marten habitat in the
Selway-Bitteroot wilderness. J. Wildl. Mgt. 41:500-505.
Konkel, G. 1980. Terrestrial habitat evaluation criteria handbook:
Alaska. USFWS. Anchorage. 596 pp.
Le Resche, R. 1970. Moose report. ADF&G. Fed Aid Proj. #W-17-2.
Mathisen, J.E. 1968. Effects of human disturbance on nesting bald eagles.
J. Wildl. Mgt. 32(1):1-6.
Mclean, R., W. Bucher, and B. Cross. 1977. A compilation of fish and
wildlife resources information for the State of Alaska. Vol. 3-
Commercial Fisheries. Compiled by ADF&G under contract to Alaska
Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission. 606 pp.
Mclean, R., and K. Delaney. 1977.
of Western and Arctic Alaska.
34 pp.
A fish and wildlife resource inventory
Vol. 2-Fisheries. ADF&G, Anchorage.
McNaughton, S.J. 1977. Species diversity. Amer. Nat.
Meehan, D. 1958. The forest ecosystem of Southeast Alaska. 4. Wildl.
Habitats. Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-16. USDA, USFS, Pac. N.W. Range Expt.
Sta. Portland, Ore.
Michelson, P. 1975. Breeding biology of cackling goose and associated
species on the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta, Alaska. Wildl. Monog. 45:1-35.
Morrow, J. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest
Publishing Co. Anchorage. 248 pp.
Narver, D. 1968. Pelagic ecology and carrying capacity of sockeye salmon
in the Chignik Lakes, Alaska. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. of Washington,
Seattle. 309 pp. In ADF&G, 1981, Freshwater habitat relationships-
threespine stickleback.
Nelson, J. 1975. Blending wildlife needs in forest management systems.
Trans. N. Amer. Wild. and Nat. Res. Conf. 40:186-192.
Patrick, R., ed. 1978. Diversity. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
Stroudsburg, Pa. 432 pp.
Patton, D. 1978. Run Wild: a storage and retrieval system for wildlife
habitat information. USDA, USFS, Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-51. Rocky M.
For. and Range Expt. Sta. Fort Collins, Co.
Platt, J. 1975. Gyrfalcon nest site selection and water activity in the
Western Canadian Arctic. Can. Field Nat. 90:338-345.
Platts, W. 1980. Vegetation requirements for fisheries habitat. USFS
Intermountain Forest and Range Expt. Station. Boise, Id.
-101-
Reardon, J., ed. 1981. Alaska Mammals. Alaska Geographic. Vol.8, #2.
Robards, F., and J. Hodges. 1976. Bald eagle nests in Southeast Alaska
Prog. Rept. USDA, USFWS. 27 pp.
Robards, F., and J. King. 1966. Nesting and productivity of bald eagles in
Southeast Alaska. USDA, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildl. 14 pp.
Rogers, D. 1972. Alaska salmon studies: the study of red salmon in the
Nushagak District. Periodic Rept. #4. USDC. 142 pp.
Ruesch, P.H. 1983. Annual management report. Upper Cook Inlet, Region II.
Comm. Fish, ADF&G. 56 pp.
Siderits, K., and R. Radtke. 1977. Enhancing forest wildlife habitat
through diversity. Trans. No. Amer. Wild. and Nat. Res. Conf.
42:425-433.
Smith, A. 1973. Development and application of spawning velocity and depth
criteria for Oregon salmonids. Trans. American Fisheries Society.
102(2):312-316.
Stalmaster and Newman.
to human activity.
1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles
USFWS Unpubl. Rept.
Summerfield, B. 1974. Population dynamics and seasonal movement patterns
of Dall sheep in the Atigun Canyon area, Brooks Range, Alaska. M.S.
Thesis, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists. 1982. Susitna hydroelectric
project. Environmental Studies. Phase I Report.
Thomas, J.W., ed. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue
Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA, USFS, Agr. Hdbk. #553.
USDA. 1981. Willow subbasin of Susitna River basin studies. Soil Conserv.
Service. 144 pp.
USDA. 1983. Susitna River basin studies. Soil Conser. Service (in prep.)
USFS. 1980.
Region.
Wildlife habitat relationships.
Denver, Co.
USDA, USFS, Rocky Mtn.
USFWS. 1976. Habitat evaluation procedures. Division of Ecological
Services. Wash. DC. 30 pp.
USFWS. 1980a. Ecological Services Manual-Implementation of Habitat
Evaluation Procedures. Release #3-80. Division of Ecological
Services. Wash. DC. Unnumbered.
USFWS. 1980b. National survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife -
associated recreation for Alaska.
-102-
Weeden, R. 1960. The ecology and distribution of ptarmigan in western
North America. Ph.D. Diss. 247 pp. Univ. BC, Vancouver, Can. In
Thomas, J., Wildlife habitats in managed forests--the Blue Mountains of
Oregon and Washington. USDA USFS Agri. Hdbk. #553 1979.
White, C., and T. Cade. 1975. Raptor studies along the proposed Susitna
powerline corridors, oil pipeline and in the Yukon and Colville Amer.
Mus. of Nat. Hist. Unpubl. Rept.
Williams, C.S. 1967. Honker van Nostrand Co., Inc. Canada. 179 pp.
-103-
CHAPTER Ill
RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER III. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (FISH AND WILDLIFE LAND AND WATER
CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS)
The Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) is mandated to uphold the state•s
commitment for the protection, management, conservation, and restoration of
the fish and wildlife of Alaska. It must protect and maintain, the fish,
wildlife and plant resources of the state, and if possible, allow for the
expansion of population numbers or improvement of habitat, (AS 16.05.010,
16.05.020[2]). In order to meet these obligations to the state, the general
goal of the ADF&G is to maintain in public ownership as much land and water
as is necessary to accomplish these goals in the Susitna planning area.
Three specific management goals have been identified for the Susitna
planning area 1) maintain a land and water habitat base large enough to
support present fish and wildlife populations, 2) ensure access to public
lands and waters, and 3) mitigate losses of fish, wildlife, and their
habitats.
The management and protection of fish and wildlife resources and related
public use opportunities in the planning area require both short and long
term management practices. Short term management practices proposed by the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) are the classification of
lands into the following categories: habitat, recreation, forestry,
watershed, and resource management. These classifications provide habitat
protection as primary use and will have secondary uses mitigated through
guidelines such as those proposed by ADF&G. The resource management
classification is a compromise designation created when two or more resource
values exist in a given area and no decision can be made to determine a
primary use for that area. Land classifications may be changed, at some
future date, by amendment of the area plan, or in some cases through
administrative actions. However, most classifications should be determined
in the planning process and would result in permanent long-term land use
designation.
Long-term management practices for habitat protection are available through
executive order by the governor to create wildlife reserves under
AS 38.04.070 and through legislative designation of areas meriting spe·cial
management, i.e., state game refuges, critical habitat areas, sanctuaries,
game ranges, recreation areas, and/or other public land designations under
AS 16.20, AS 41.15 and AS 41.20.
Management Categories for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Lands
Management assignments or categories of tHe "Habitat Lands•• are described
below. They are displayed in Atlas Map C5, the Fish and Wildlife Element
Map. Briefly, all class A designations on existing state lands are
considered 11 Fish and Wildlife Lands," and merit state retention and
management for long-term public use. Class B lands are considered
multiple-use lands, and fish and wildlife on these lands are of secondary
importance.
Class A-1, 11 Single use" fish and wildlife lands. The maintenance and
enhancement of fish and wildlife resources constitute the overriding
-104-
management objective on Class A-1 lands. These lands support valued
biological resources that are likely to be disturbed or disrupted by any
human activity. As a result, few if any "non-wildlife" activities are
permitted on these lands, and even recreation may have to be severely
curtailed, at least seasonally. All A-1 lands should remain in public
ownership and be managed jointly by the ADF&G and the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources (ADNR).
In general, A-1 lands had to be specifically identified by local biologists
because A-1 resources cannot usually be distinguished during vegetation
cover-typing, habitat modeling, or other environmental mapping. As a
result, A-1 lands will generally consist of specific sites within areas
otherwise mapped and categorized as A-2 or A-3. Where disturbance is likely
only at a particular time of year, the period of sensitivity will also be
specified. Examples of potential A-1 lands include trumpeter swan nesting
areas, peregrine falcon nesting sites, and caribou calving grounds. (A-1
lands in many cases may be analogous to areas of "high sensitivity," as
identified in ADF&G 1979.)
Class A-2, "multiple use'' fish and wildlife lands -conservative
mana~ement. The maintenance and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources
and uman uses of these resources constitute the overriding management
objectives on Class A-2 lands. A-2 lands support valued biological
resources not abundant in the planning area (e.g., riparian communities or
moose winter range) and/or are moderately susceptible to disturbance by
human activities (e.g., vegetation communities, such as tundra, with
relatively slow replacement rates). Because of the relative scarcity and
sensitivity of A~2 lands, non-wildlife uses other than recreation will be
permitted only after careful site-specific review and after the state
determines that such uses will not affect the ability of A-2 lands to
produce the fish and wildlife resources. Plans for siting, designing,
implementing, monitoring, etc., non-wildlife uses should be approved in
consultation with ADF&G before such uses can be implemented. Many A-2 lands
were identified during vegetation cover-typing and habitat modeling, but,
given the current state of knowledge, other A-2 lands, such as sheep
wintering areas, may be specifically delineated as the information is
available. The department recommends that A-2 lands remain in public
ownership. Secondary uses allowed on A-2 lands could include forestry, oil
and gas development, outdoor recreation, and mining.
In the Talkeetna-Beluga subbasins, examples of A-2 lands include
scarce and very-scarce 1 vegetation communiti-es that support high wildlife
species diversity; very scarce vegetation communities that support moderate
wildlife species diversity; riparian communities; open mixed forests (these
are not abundant and support very high wildlife species diversity); and
selected tundra communities. This category encompasses many areas of highly
suitable moose winter and spring/summer/fall range.
1 See the Habitat Scarcity Model for definitions.
-105-
Class A-3, 11 multiple use 11 fish and wildlife lands -more liberal management.
The maintenance and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources and human
uses of these resources constitute the overriding management objectives on
Class A-3 lands. A-3 lands support valued biological resources that are
relatively abundant (e.g., closed coniferous and mixed deciduous forests or
moose summer range) and which are relatively resilient to human activities.
In many cases, A-3 lands constitute areas where habitat enhancement
could be effectively undertaken. Non-wildlife uses, including disposals or
recreational cabins, could be permitted when the state determines that these
uses will not significantly diminish the ability of A-3 lands to produce the
fish and wildlife resources or related uses. Plans for non-wildlife uses
should be reviewed and approved in consultation with ADF&G before being
undertaken. With the exception of selection of some limited recreational
disposals, A-3 lands should remain in public ownership and be managed to
provide for wildlife, forestry and public recreation benefits.
In the Talkeetna-Beluga subbasins, examples of A-3 lands include closed
coniferous forests, closed mixed forests, muskegs, and alder shrublands.
Many of these areas are highly suitable for moose habitat enhancement.
Class A-4, lands enhancible to A-2 or A-3 category. The enhancement of
lands to increase moose habitat constitutes the overriding management
objective on Class A-4 lands. A-4 lands at present are only minimally
valuable for moose, but with logging or burning they could support
vegetation types preferred by moose. The increase of moose populations on
these lands theoretically could be as much as two to six times their present
carrying capacity. Areas with high potential for moose habitat enhancement
usually have high forestry values. Selective cutting of certain tree
species and age classes can directly benefit moose by increasing forage
production of preferred browse species.
Class B, 11 multiple-use 11 lands. The maintenance and enhancement of fish and
wildlife resources and human uses of these resources constitute secondary
management objectives on Class B lands. These lands are generally available
for various disposal programs. Non-wildlife uses should be implemented in
accordance with management guidelines, siting and design criteria, etc.,
that will minimize negative impacts of such uses on fish and wildlife
resources occurring on Class B lands.
Management guidelines have been developed for all management assignments
whether or not those lands are owned by the state. These guidelines are
addressed in the third part of this chapter and include discussions on
agricultural activities, mineral extraction, energy exploration and
development, timber harvest, recreation, commercial, residential, and other
potential uses of state lands and resources.
The ADNR Statewide Plan, 1983, addresses statewide resource management
policies. These policies include goals and objectives for wildlife habitat
and public use. The following sections discuss in detail the specific goals
and objectives for wildlife and fish resources with recommended management
designations for lands in the planning area.
-106-
Goal I. Maintain a Land and Water Base Large Enough to Support Present Fish
and Wildlife Populations
The state should maintain in public ownership suitable land and water areas
in order to provide for the habitat needs of fish and wildlife.
Because Southcentral Alaska's economy and recreational opportunities are
strongly influenced by the availability of fish and wildlife resources, the
maintenance of healthy populations of these animals on public lands is an
important priority for land management. In 1980, more than 1,650,000
user-days of effort were spent enjoying hunting and fishing and other
outdoor recreational activities on public lands in the planning area. Of
this, more than 700,000 user-days were spent hunting and sport fishing, and
950,000 user-days were spent recreating (ADNR 1983). In 1981, the
approximate harvests in the planning area were: 1,184 moose, 614 caribou,
159 black bears, 89 brown bears, 146 sheep, 218,264 fish and untold numbers
of small game and furbearing animals (Chapter Ir). More than 1.65 million
salmon harvested in the commercial fishery from upper Cook Inlet waters
probably originate in Susitna area streams (Table 27).
The purpose of the first two objectives of Goal #1 is to address Fish and
Game management goals through classification. Objective 3 proposes
permanent, long-term protection, through legislative and/or administrative
action, for those areas identified as most important for fish and wildlife
production, public use (hunting, fishing, trapping, and outdoor recreation),
and related revenue generation.
Objective 1 -Reserve Instream Flows
Reserve the amount of water necessary to maintain and protect aquatic
habitats for fish and wildlife uses according to the provisions of AS 46.15.
a. Reserve water for habitat purposes. Quantify the amount of water required
to maintain and protect fish and wildlife habitats pursuant to AS 46.15.145,
and then apply to the ADNR for reservation of this amount.
b. Nominate the streams listed in Table 1, Appendix E for further instream flow
study to determine the sufficient flows necessary to maintain or enhance
historical levels of fish and wildlife production and to maintain related
public use values.
Selection Process. Streams were defined as important for fish if combined
escapements were greater than 1,000 for sockeye, coho, pink, and chum salmon
or greater than 500 for chinook salmon (Appendix A, Atlas Map C3). Each
identified waterbody in Table 1 meets these criteria.
Sufficient instream flows (ISF) need to be maintained to protect
subsistence, commercial, and sport fishing, and to protect riparian
habitats. Refer to Appendix E for an in-depth discussion of instream flow.
c. Adopt instream flow guidelines (see Part 3 of this Chapter), which
minimize impacts on fish and wildlife resources by appropriations of
-107-
water for other uses. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has
proposed ISF selection guidelines for this purpose. A thorough
discussion of these guidelines can be found in Appendix E.
Objective 2 -Classify and Manage Habitats
Classify and manage important habitat lands for the purpose of maintaining
and enhancing fish and wildlife production and existing populations. There
are five ways the department has proposed to classify lands. The department
has classified all lands in the planning area with the aid of computer
simulation modeling, and with input by species experts.
The department has, for the past 18 months, gathered and summarized
available information on fish and wildlife: habitat relationships,
abundance and distribution, and human use in the Susitna planning area.
This information is available in the Appendices and in the three Data
Supplements. In addition, a map atlas displays all fish, wildlife, and
human use values. This information has helped the department to identify
the most important lands for both short term and long term habitat
management.
a. Sensitive and scarce habitats. The department has identified and
classified as A-1 or A-2 w1ldlife habitat areas needed for important
life stages of selected species, e.g. species with low populations or
those species which are especially vulnerable to impacts. Various
selection criteria for these classifications include: all high-quality
moose winter range, major caribou calving areas, trumpeter swan nesting
lakes, waterfowl nesting concentration and migration staging areas,
eagle nesting sites, sheep winter range, moose calving areas, and
concentrations of bear feeding areas. Other criteria include all
riparian lands and submerged lands necessary to support: important and
diverse·wildlife, anadromous and resident fish spawning, rearing, over
wintering areas, and fish and wildlife migration corridors.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game identified only the high-value
areas for selected animal species and human uses depicted by: the
moose habitat suitability (Atlas Map B9a) and the existing carrying
capacity models (Atlas Map B14a); the fish and wildlife habitat matrix
evaluations (Data Supplement C); and the important anadromous fish
streams discussed in Chapter II, and identified on Atlas Maps B7, B8,
and C3.
These particular habitats and production areas are important because
the loss of any would cause serious losses to numbers of species and
populations in the area.
All areas designated A-1 and A-2 on the Fish and Wildlife Element Map
(Atlas Map C5) meet Objective 2 and represent areas proposed for
wildlife habitat classification. The management objectives on these
lands have already been described.
-108-
b. Productive habitat lands. The department has identified and classified
as wildlife habitat all high-valued spring/summer/fall range for moose,
caribou and sheep. The ADF&G identified only the high-valued, and no
more than 80% of the moderately-valued, spring/summer/fall range
depicted in the existing carrying capacity and moose habitat
suitability computer models (Atlas Maps B9a, and B14a.) and wildlife
matrix evaluations (Data Supplement C). Moderately-valued habitats
adjoining highly-valued habitats were considered to be more important
than those which did not, unless the latter contained high densities or
high numbers of selected species.
High quality summer range is necessary for successful reproduction by
large ungulate species i.e. moose, sheep, caribou. A decrease in the
amount of summer range for these species could result in reduction of
annual reproductive success and ultimately of population size. If
populations decline, there will be fewer opportunities to use and enjoy
these wildlife resources. There will probably be more competition
among user groups and, for example, more stringent restrictions on
hunting. Habitats identified for classification as wildlife habitat
(spring/summer/fall range) represent a land base capable of maintaining
approximately 50%-80% of the existing populations of moose, caribou and
sheep in this region (D. Bader·pers. comm.).
Areas designated as A-3 on the Fish and Wildlife Element Map (Atlas Map
C5) meet Objective 2 and represent areas proposed for wildlife habitat
classification.
c. Wildlife enhancement. The department has identified specific areas
(A-4 Wildlife Habitat Lands) where habitat manipulation through
controlled burning, water control or other measures is feasible and
beneficial to improve habitat for moose. These land designations were
limited to land units determined to have high enhancement potential in
the moose habitat enhancement suitability model and potential forage
production capability model as illustrated in Atlas Maps 810 and B14b.
Existing moose populations and related use opportunities cannot be
maintained unless large areas having high potential for increased
forage production are enhanced and managed for moose production. This
is necessary to compensate for the ongoing reduction of moose range
occurring through the continuing transfer of public wildlife production
lands into private ownership. Recent high moose population levels are
the result of past habitat modifications via minimal fire suppression
(J. Faro pers. comm.). Without enhancement by selective forest
practices and/or forest fires to open up new early successional
browsing areas for moose, the available preferred moose habitat will
decrease due to successional changes.
All areas designated A-4 on the fish and wildlife element map (Atlas
Map C5) meet objective 2 and represent areas for habitat
classification.
-109-
d. Consumptive resource use lands. The department has identified heavily
used areas for trapping, hunting, or fishing. The department
considered important for retention only those areas which contribute
the upper 70% of hunting use, and those areas known to have the highest
trapping and fishing values. In addition, most important access
corridors and local community use areas were identified for public
retention (Atlas Maps C1, C2a, C2b, C2c, C3, and C4).
The demand to use fish and wildlife resources within the Susitna
planning area is currently high and rapidly increasing. Tourism has
been identified by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough as a major industry
with fish and wildlife related uses contributing significant economic
benefits. There are no substitute areas available to replace existing
public use areas. Reasonable access is limited or unavailable to other
areas having wildlife resources. Capital expenditures have not been
available to develop useable access to more remote recreational use
areas. Displacement of the rapidly increased demand for outdoor
recreation to areas more remote, will directly conflict with rural and
subsistence lifestyles which depend heavily on fish and wildlife
resources.
Many rural community residents use and depend on resources available
adjacent to their communities, and their demand for fish and wildlife,
is increasing. No substitute hunting, trapping, and fishing areas are
available near most communities.
e. Non-consumptive resource use lands. The ADF&G will identify areas
which are especially suited for non-consumptive uses of fish and
wildlife resources.
The department has identified two areas specifically for this purpose.
The first area is commonly referred to as the Sheep Mountain Closed
Area located near Eureka; the other area is referred to as Bird Island
and is located on Lake Louise.
Criteria used for selection were: prior non-consumptive use primarily,
available access, and a high potential for viewing and photographing
fish and wildlife. Recommended management policies for these areas
include 1) there should be some measure of control over access to
reduce the disturbance fish, wildlife, and habitat and 2) designated
viewing areas should have the concurrence of the Alaska Board of Fish
and/or the Alaska Board of Game. Under this selection, Bird Island may
be totally closed to hunting and trapping. Sheep Mountain, as
currently provided for by the Board of Game, will have hunting and/or
trapping closures on Dall sheep and mountain goats, but not on small
game and fur animals.
The Sheep Mountain Closed Area provides habitat for the only sheep
population visible from the road system within the entire upper Susitna
and Nelchina basin. Several local lodges along the Glenn Highway have
based their businesses on the sheep's visibility, and they have
-110-
provided telescopes and rooms with a view of the animals. Bus tours
now make special efforts to highlight sheep viewing and photography at
Sheep Mountain as one of Alaska•s featured resource attractions. Local
residents and a portion of the tourism trade are supportive in
maintaining the Sheep Mountain Closed Area in public ownership. The
Board of Game has supported the 11 Closed to sheep and goat hunting 11
designation for more than 12 years. At the same time, the Board has
allowed small game hunting and trapping. Other popular uses of the
area include cross country skiing, mountain climbing and berry picking.
Bird Island is unique in that it supports the northernmost known colony
of double-crested cormorants in North America and is the largest known
herring gull colony in Interior Alaska. Islands are almost exclusively
used for nesting by double-crested cormorants and herring gulls because
they are free from mammalian predators. Not all islands are suitable
as nesting sites for these species, and if Bird Island is unavailable
for nesting, the cormorants and gulls will probably not find suitable
replacement nest sites in the vicinity.
The greatest threat to the birds of Bird Island is human disturbance.
Double-crested cormorants have suffered serious population declines
throughout much of their range. Visits to the island during the
critical egg-laying, incubation and chick-rearing periods are a source
of disturbance and could result in population decline. If the Island•s
land status changed and it became a private recreational site with a
cabin, the birds would abandon this traditional nest site.
These areas are illustrated on Atlas Maps C5 and C6 and represent areas
proposed for habitat classification.
Objective 3 -Establish Special Use Areas
Establish and manage special Fish and Wildlife Use Areas legislatively,
administratively and/or by municipal ordinance for the purpose of protecting
and enhancing fish and wildlife populations and providing opportunities for
their continued public use.
Permanent protection is needed to maintain these selected areas in state
ownership because they are the principal public use and/or fish and wildlife
production lands within the planning area, and are readily accessible to the
people of this region. Their close proximity to large population centers
gives people at most economic levels an opportunity to use and enjoy fish
and wildlife resources. The level of use and production of fish and
wildlife in these areas cannot be equalled by other locations within the
Susitna planning area or elsewhere in Alaska (D. Bader pers. comm.). Loss
of these lands would severely reduce not only local and regional revenues
generated by tourism but also food-gathering and recreational opportunities
within the entire planning area. The department calls these areas the
11 priority fish and wildlife lands.11 These areas are illustrated on Atlas
Map C6.
-111-
The "priority lands" include the following:
habitats supporting one or more important life stages of one or
more selected high-use species, or populations (e.g. nesting,
calving, spawning areas);
areas having a present or historically high abundance of fish and
wildlife species which are used and enjoyed by the public;
special corridors of land, waterways, and trails supporting
extensive public recreation, including hunting, fishing, trapping,
and viewing of fish and wildlife;
areas needing protection to preserve the distribution and
abundance of areas where large numbers of birds or mammals
congregate, or areas where rare or unusual species are located;
habitats needing protection and/or restoration to propagate fish
and wildlife species that are now or may in the future be
threatened or endangered.
Areas meriting special designations which include many of the above values
are presented and discussed in terms of two general categories: 1) riverine
and riparian areas, which are important not only for fish but also for
wildlife (forage, migration corridors, species diversity, etc.) and
2) large upland habitat lands containing a diversity of wildlife species and
also key wildlife species.
A. Riverine and Riparian Areas (Areas 1-10 on Map C6)
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game proposes the designation "State
Recreational River Corridor" for selected rivers with high biological and
recreational values. High biological values include: high numbers of fish
and wildlife, high species diversity, and high species productivity. Other
values used as selection criteria include high economic values, potential
water storage, and maintenance of water quality for people and animals using
these corridors.
Riparian lands, more than other lands, are known to be valuable for fish and
wildlife. For a more detailed description of these values, refer to
Appendix C.
The department has identified selected river corridors where lands and
waters have high production of fish and wildlife, and which support
extensive public use. The disposal of these corridors into private
ownership and their subsequent development may at some future time limit
numbers of animals dependent on them.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has identified 10 river corridors
meriting legislative consideration for special management designation.
These areas are discussed separately below.
-112-
The department considered all river and waterway areas supporting large
populations of sport and/or commercially important fish (including
anadromous fish and resident fish), and having high sport fishing values and
adequate access, (Atlas Maps B7, B8, C3). The department reviewed Statewide
Harvest Studies, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration and Anadromous Fish Studies
(see Chapter I), and public use patterns to determine important river
corridors (Atlas Maps C1, C2a, C2b, C2c).
In order to be selected, the river corridor had to be highly productive for
both fish and wildlife, highly sensitive to surface uses and/or have scarce
vegetation or animals within the corridor. High diversity of animal species
was also an important selection criterion. The habitat, plant, and animal
values had to have regional, state-wide, and/or national importance in order
for the river corridor to be selected. Of the hundreds of rivers and
streams occurring in the planning area, twenty-seven were initially selected
for consideration. From this list, ten rivers were finally selected for
proposed legislative designation.
These special management corridors also had to provide one or more elements
crucial to the life cycle of one or more fish or wildlife species whose
abundance, unique character, quality, or productivity has great public
value. River corridors selected could be used either for an entire life
cycle of a species or for particular stages of a species' cycle (breeding,
nesting, rearing, feeding, migratory concentration, overwintering etc.). In
most instances, designated species may be harvested within the special
management area. Another consideration was that the potential for
alterations to or destruction of the habitat due to incompatible land uses
would appreciably decrease the likelihood that the fish or wildlife
populations could be perpetuated. Following are the river corridor
nominations:
1-Deshka River. This designation includes a one mile corridor on Moose
and Kroto creeks and the Deshka River, and a one-half mile corridor on
Trapper Creek from Trapper Lake to Moose Creek, the unnamed lake and
creek located in Section 1, T. 24 N., R. 7 W., Seward Meridian and the
creek originating in Section 29, T. 21 N., R. 6 W. heading north and
west to Section 33, T. 23 N., R. 7 W., Seward Meridian. The size of
this corridor is approximately 126,474 acres.
Justification: This system supports large numbers of chinook, pink and
coho salmon, rainbow trout, Arctic grayling and Dolly Varden. The
Deshka River has the highest number of chinook (king) salmon spawning,
production and harvest of any stream in the Susitna planning area. The
average escapement for the 1976-1982 period was 25,870 fish (Delaney
and Hepler 1983); the highest estimated escapement (39,642) occurred in
1977. Coho and even-year pink salmon escapement has been estimated to
be as high as 11,000, and 500,000 fish, respectively (Delaney pers.
comm.; King pers. comm.). The Deshka River is also important for its
large rainbow trout and Arctic grayling populations; however no
population estimates are available.
-113-
There are diverse recreational opportunities in this area. The upper
portion of the river corridor (Moose Creek) is accessible from the
Petersville and Oilwell roads via automobile, trails and nonmotorized
boats. Float fishing, hunting and camping are the most popular public
uses in this area. These uses become more frequent along the middle
and lower portions of the corridor because access to these areas is
also available by power boat and aircraft. Areas adjacent to this
corridor are heavily used by moose hunters traveling on 3-wheeled ATV's
transported into the corridor by power boat.
Sport fishing is the dominant use throughout the entire corridor with
most of the activity occurring in the lower portion of the corridor.
Sport fishing accounted for more than 19,300 user-days in.1980 (Table
22) and 18,391 user-days in 1982 (Mills 1983). More than one-half of
this effort was expended fishing for chinook (king) salmon providing an
average harvest of 3,018 fish for the period 1979-1982 (Delaney and
Hep 1 er 1982).
The Deshka River has historically been the most important producer of
chinook salmon in upper Cook Inlet (UCI). During the 1980 season 55%
(4,080) of the total UCI harvest and 16.2% of the statewide harvest was
from the Deshka River (Kubik 1980, Chapter I). In addition, more than
32% of all the UCI rainbow trout and 17.4% of all rainbow caught in
west side Susitna River drainages in 1980 were caught in the Deshka
River (Mills 1981b). More than 13,000 fish of all kinds were caught in
the Deshka that year as well (Chapter I).
In 1980, more than 72% of the Deshka River fishing effort came from
Anchorage anglers (Appendix A). The amount of money spent to travel to
this river by the large number of recreational users of the Deshka
represents a considerable economic investment and extensive public
interest in the resource. The economic questionnaire sent to the
Willow Creek anglers in 1980 (ADF&G 1980) asked the question: What is
the smallest dollar amount you would accept to give up your rights to
fish pink salmon (This is called "willingness to sell")? The average
amount reported was $140.46 per day (Appendix A). Most fishermen would
agree that fishing for chinook or rainbow trout has a higher dollar
value than fishing for pink salmon. The above fishing-day dollar value
derived for pink salmon and applied to all species harvested in the
Deshka River yields a minimum of $2,583,199.80, representing anglers'
willingness to sell their sport fishing opportunities.
The Kenai Peninsula rivers are considered some of the most important
sport fishing stream in Southcentral Alaska. For comparison, the
Deshka River, in 1982, provided 56% more sport fishing effort than did
the Ninilchik, and 51% more than did Deep Creek (Mills 1982).
The Deshka River pink and coho salmon probably contribute significantly
to the upper Cook Inlet commercial salmon gillnet fishery (B. King
pers. comm.). However, the net worth cannot be determined.
-114-
Wildlife population numbers and game harvest information are not
available for the Deshka corridor. However, the upper and lower
portions of the corridor are located within moose harvest report code
units having the first and eighth highest hunting effort within the
Susitna planning area (Peters Hills and Trapper Lake, Chapter I).
Separate radio telemetry studies conducted by the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game on moose distribution near Trapper Lake and Peters/Dutch
Hills indicate high concentrations along and within the corridor.
Evaluations of moose habitat suitability and forage production
capability (Chapter II, Part 2 and Atlas Maps B9a, B9b, B14a) indicate
that 80% of the spring, summer, fall and winter habitat within the
corridor is rated as high and/or moderate.
In comparison to the popular Kenai peninsula streams, the D,eshka River
in 1982 provided 56% more sportfishing effort than did the Ninilchik
and 51% more than Deep Creek (Mills 1982).
Moose winter range availability based on estimated snow fall .
accumulation (Atlas Map 813) indicates that approximately 75% of the
corridor•s moose habitat would be available during winters of normal
snow accumulation. Approximately 60% of the corridor•s moose habitat
would be available during high show accumulation (severe) winters which
occur once in every ten years.
The number of wildlife species (species richness) in the corridor, as
represented by the wildlife diversity model (Atlas Map Bll), indicates
that approximately 25% of the area is rated as high (67 to 91 ~pecies
present). The balance of the corridor has a moderate rating (38 to 61
animal species). Public access which includes fishing, hunting and
camping activities, has already been reduced as a result of the state•s
open-to-entry and remote staking land disposal programs along Moose
Creek and the Deshka River. Because fish and wildlife values and
public use of the resources along the Deshka River are some of the
highest in the Susitna planning area, this corridor should be
permanently protected from further disposal and retained in public
ownership.
2-Lake Creek. This designation includes a one mile corridor on Lake
Creek, from Chelatna Lake to the Yentna River, Sunflower, and Camp
creeks and a one-half mile corridor on Home, Mills, Yenlo creeks, the
unnamed creek flowing from sections 25 and 35, T. 25 N., R. 11 W.
(north of Willow Mountain). Shovel Lake and the trail connecting the
lake to Lake Creek are included in the corridor. The unnamed lake in
Section 23, T. 24 N., R. 10 W., Seward Meridian, and the trail
connecting the lake to Lake Creek are also included in the corridor.
This corridor is composed of approximately 62,718 acres.
Justification. The Lake Creek system annually ranks as one of the top
five streams in the Susitna planning area in terms of fish and wildlife
production and harvest. Large runs of spawning chinook (11,000), coho
-115-
(4,000), sockeye (23,000), and pink salmon (500,000) have occurred
(Delaney pers. comm.). Lake Creek is famous for its large rainbow
trout and Arctic grayling; however, no long-term population estimates
are available.
Lake Creek is highly rated for its float trip opportunities. It
combines Class II and III water with excellent clearwater sport
fishing. The entire stream, from its beginning at Chelatna Lake to its
confluence with the Yentna River, is floatable, although most floaters
take out at Shovel Lake. Access to the upper reaches of Lake Creek is
exclusively by aircraft at Chelatna Lake, then by raft to the creek.
The lower two miles of the creek, where most of the chinook fishing
occurs, can be reached by power river boat from the Yentna River and by
trails from Bulchitna Lake (Delaney pers. comm.).
Sport fishing accounted for more than 8,325 user-days in 1980
(Table 22) and 8,649 user-days in 1982 (Mills 1983). In 1982, more
than 3,657 user days (43%) were expended fishing for chinook salmon
providing a harvest of 1,474 fish; more than 55% of the total fishing
effort on Lake Creek was expended fishing for rainbow trout, Arctic
grayling and coho salmon. More than 28% of the total rainbow trout and
24% of the total Arctic grayling caught in west side Susitna River
drainages in 1982 were caught in Lake Creek (Delaney and Hepler 1983;
Mills 1983).
In 1980, more than 75% of the Lake Creek sport fishing effort came from
Anchorage anglers (Appendix A). The amount of money spent to travel to
this river by the large number of recreational users of Lake Creek
represents a considerable economic investment and extensive public
interest in the resource. The analysis of the questionnaire mentioned
previously (ADF&G 1980) determined the average "willingness to sell"
one pink salmon was $140.46 (Appendix A). Most fishermen would agree
that fishing for chinook, rainbow trout, Arctic grayling, or coho
salmon would have a higher dollar value than fishing for pink salmon.
The above fishing-day dollar value derived for pink salmon, and applied
to all species harvested from Lake Creek yields, at a minimum,
$1,214,838.00, representing the total anglers• willingness to sell
their sport fishing opportunities.
More than 26% of the total rainbow trout and 30% of the total Arctic
grayling caught in west side Susitna River drainages in 1982 were
caught in Lake Creek (Mills 1982).
The Lake Creek pink, sockeye, and coho salmon probably contributes
significantly to the upper Cook Inlet commercial salmon gillnet fishery
(B. King pers. comm.). However, the net worth is not determinable.
Wildlife population numbers and game harvest information are not
available for this corridor. However, since the headwaters and lateral
tributaries of the corridor are located in areas historically surveyed
for moose, some estimates can be made. It has been estimated that
-116-
approximately 2,000 moose occur in and around the corridor (Bader
1982). Trophy hunting for moose, black bears and brown bears is known
to occur in this general area also.
Evaluations of moose habitat suitability and forage production
capability (Chapter II, Part 2 and Atlas Maps B9a, B9b, B14a) indicate
that 30% to 40% of the spring, summer, fall and winter habitat within
the corridor is rated as high and/or moderate. Moose winter range
availability based on estimated snow accumulation (Atlas Map B13)
indicates that only 20-25% of the corridor's moose habitat would be
available during winters of normal snow accumulation. Theoretically,
none of the moose winter range within the corridor would be available
during severe winters of high snow accumulation occurring once in every
ten years. However, south facing slopes and windswept ridges and
troughs along the corridor retain less snow than other areas and would
provide some winter range and relief under severe conditions.
Sunflower Basin moose are believed to migrate to the Kahiltna River,
Peters Creek, Peters Hills area during severe winters (Bader pers.
comm. ) .
The number of wildlife species (species richness) in the corridor,
ranges from 38 to 91 species per vegetation type. The wildlife
diversity model (Atlas Map B11) indicates that nearly equal amounts of
high, moderate and low valued habitats occur.
One of the major conflicts on Lake Creek is between miners and
recreationists. Siltation from placer mining activities located on
lateral tributaries, specifically Twin Creek (McKay pers. comm.;
Delaney pers. comm.), tends to pollute Lake Creek. The siltation
problem caused by poor mining practices may reduce fish numbers or may
decrease the aesthetic water quality, and thus may limit fishing,
floating, camping, and other related recreational opportunities.
Mining activities also occur on Home, Mills, Sunflower, and Camp.
creeks. Poor compliance with water quality standards by any one of
the existing or future mining operators could jeopardize water-related
public recreation.
Fishermen floating Lake Creek may be faced with access conflicts across
or near mining claims located on tratlitional camp sites at the
confluence of Lake Creek and Sunflower, Camp, Home and unnamed creeks.
One of the major aircraft pick up points for rafters (Shovel Lake
trail) could be unavailable for public use because of conflicts with
private property owners. The major access trail from Bulchitna Lake to
the most heavily used lower two miles of Lake Creek possibly crosses
private land. Public use on lands disposed as past open-to-entry
parcels, land trades, and on manufacture sites, is restricted on parts
of the mouth of Lake Creek at present (Delaney pers. comm.).
Because Lake Creek is one of the most important recreational corridors
in the Susitna planning area, and due to the fact that public access
and recreational opportunities have already been adversely affected by
-117-
m1n1ng and land disposal activities, the Lake Creek corridor should be
set aside to protect fish and wildlife resources and public use for
present and future generations.
3-Talachulitna River. This designation includes a one mile corridor on
the Talachulitna River, Talachulitna Creek, Judd Lake, and a one-half
mile corridor on Thursday, Friday, Saturday creeks and the creeks from
Hiline and Trinity lakes, and the unnamed creek flowing from Section 6,
T. 17 N., R. 12 W., Seward Meridian. The size of this corridor is
approximately 81,036 acres.
Justification. The Talachulitna River system annually ranks as one of
the top five streams in the Susitna planning area in terms of fish and
wildlife production. Large runs of spawning chinook (10,000), pink
(500,000), sockeye (26,000), chum (10,000) and coho (4,000) salmon have
been known to occur (King pers. comm.; Delaney pers. comm.). The
Talachulitna is famous in southcentral Alaska for its large rainbow
trout, abundant Dolly Varden and Arctic grayling; however, no
population estimates are available.
The Talachulitna, a pristine, clear water stream, is renowned for its
fishing opportunities. It receives special consideration from the
Alaska Board of Fisheries, which instructs the department to manage the
Talachulitna as a 11 catch and release 11 trophy rainbow trout fishery.
This fishery is one-of-a-kind within the Susitna planning area. Even
though active sport fishing exists for each salmon species, access and
distance from Anchorage limits public use to mostly those people
looking for a high quality float fishing experience. Sport fishing on
Judd Lake and the Talachulitna accounted for 3,356 user-days in 1980
(Table 23). More than half of this effort was expended fishing for
rainbow trout and Arctic grayling. More than 21% of all the Arctic
grayling caught in west side Susitna River drainages in 1980 were
caught in the Talachulitna system (Mills 1981b).
In 1980, more than 63% of the Talachulitna sport fishing effort came
from Anchorage anglers; 21% of the effort was from non-residents
(Appendix A). The amount of money spent to travel to this river by the
large number of recreational users of the Talachulitna represents a
considerable economic investment and extensive public interest in the
resource. Refer to the economic analysis and the public•s 11 Willingness
to sell 11 or dollar value of one pink salmon fishing day ($140.46,
Appendix A). The above fishing-day value derived for pink salmon, and
applied to all species harvested from the Talachulitna, yields at a
minimum, $471,383.00, representing the total anglers• willingness to
sell their sport fishing opportunities.
The Talachulitna River pink, sockeye, chum and coho production probably
contributes significantly to the upper Cook Inlet commercial salmon
gill net fishery (B. King pers. comm.). However, the net worth is not
determinable.
-118-
Wildlife population numbers are not available for the Talachulitna
corridor. However it has been estimated that approximately 2,500 moose
occur in and around the corridor (Bader 1982). Trophy hunting for
moose, black bears and brown bears is also known to occur in this
general area.
Most of the moose hunting in this general area occurs within the
proposed Talachulitna River corridor. This corridor is located
completely within one harvest report code unit (16-02-011). In 1981,
approximately 293 user-days were reported by moose hunters in this area
(Table 2). This amounted to more than 51 hunters harvesting 16 moose
(Data Supplement A). However, for every hunter reporting, there are
2.63 hunters not reporting their moose harvest tickets (Chapter I).
Based on this information it is estimated that 134 hunters expended 770
user-days to harvest 42 moose. (Table 2 includes proportional
adjustments in the statistical figures to compensate for reported
effort from unspecified areas within the Susitna planning area.) The
economic activity and value associated with moose hunting within this
corridor in 1981 includes an estimated total expenditure of$ 31,758 by
hunters and $77,800 as the value for moose meat (Appendix B).
Evaluations of moose habitat suitability and forage production
capability (Atlas Maps B9a, B9b, B14a) indicate that nearly equal
amounts of high, moderate and low valued habitats occur~ Moose winter
range availability based on estimated snow accumulation (Atlas Map B13)
indicates that, theoretically, none of the moose habitat would be
available during normal snow accumulation or during severe winters of
high snow accumulation occurring once in every ten years. However,
south facing slopes, windswept ridges and troughs along the corridor
retain less snow than other areas and thus provides some relief under
these conditions.
The migrational direction of moose occupying this area is unknown.
However, it is believed that certain segments of this moose
subpopulation move to the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge and the
Susitna and Skwentna River floodplains (Bader pers. comm.).
The number of wildlife species, or wildlife richness, of the corridor
ranges from 1 to 91 species per vegetation type. The wildlife
diversity model (Atlas Map Bll) indicates that approximately 45% of the
habitat within the corridor has a high diversity of animals (67 to 91
species), 45% of the habitat has a moderate diversity of animals (36 to
61 species), and 10% of the habitat has a low diversity of animals (1
to 31 species).
Very few conflicts currently exist within the proposed Talachulitna
River corridor. Existing private lands are ljmited to a few
open-to-entry parcels along the upper stretches of the river and near
the mouth; one private commercial lodge is located at Judd Lake and at
least three others are located on the lower one mile of the river.
Lodges provide accommodations and support for more than 60% of the
-119-
recreational activities occurring on the Talachulitna (Delaney pers.
comm.).
Long term protection is needed to maintain the extensive fish and
wildlife resources and recreational opportunities for public use in the
Talachulitna corridor.
4-Alexander Creek. This designation includes a one mile corridor on
Alexander Creek from the Susitna River to Alexander Lake, lower Sucker
Creek to Sucker Lake and Wolverine Creek; and a one-half mile corridor
on Granite, Pierce and Trail creeks. Alexander Lake is included in the
corridor. The size of this corridor is approximately 27,078 acres.
Land ownership within the Alexander Creek corridor includes
Matanuska-Susitna Borough lands along the lower eight to ten miles of
the creek, scattered open-to-entry parcels and private commercial
recreational (lodge) property on Alexander Lake.
Justification. The Alexander Creek system annually ranks as one of the
top five streams in the Susitna planning area in terms of fish and
wildlife production and harvest. Large runs of spawning chinook
(10,000), pink (250,000 even year), sockeye (5,000) and coho (5,000)
have occurred (Delaney pers. comm.; Hepler pers. comm.) .. Alexander
Creek is well known for its abundant rainbow trout and Arctic grayling;
however no long-term population estimates are available.
Alexander Creek has good float trip opportunities for all kind~ of
recreation, including hunting and fishing. The entire system is
floatable from Alexander Lake to its confluence with the Susitna River.
The lower twenty-five (25) miles are accessible to power boats coming
from Anchorage and/or Susitna Landing.
Sport fishing on Alexander Creek accounted for more than 10,748
user-days in 1982 (Mills 1983). More than 44% of the total fishing
effort on Alexander Creek was expended fishing for chinook salmon
providing a harvest of 1,474 fish (Delaney and Hepler 1982); more than
55% of the total fishing effort was expended fishing for rainbow trout,
Arctic grayling and coho salmon. Approximately 21% of the total
rainbow trout and 24% of the total Arctic grayling caught in west side
Susitna River drainages in 1982 were caught in Alexander Creek; an
estimated 9,600 fish of all kinds were caught in Alexander Creek in
1982 (Mills 1983).
In 1980, more than 71% of the Alexander Creek fishing effort came from
Anchorage anglers (Appendix A). The amount of money spent to travel to
this river by the large number of recreational users of Alexander Creek
represents a considerable economic investment and extensive public
interest in the resource. The economic analysis conducted on the
Willow Creek sport fishery (ADF&G 1980) found the 11 Willingness to sell 11
or dollar value of one pink salmon fishing day to represent economic
importance of that fishery (Appendix A). The fishing-day value derived
-120-
for pink salmon from the Willow Creek study, when applied to all
species harvested from Alexander Creek, indicates that, at a minimum,
$1,509,660. represents the net market value of fishermen's willingness
to sell their sport fishing opportunities in 1982.
The Ninilchik River and Deep Creek on the Kenai Peninsula are good
examples of some of the most heavily used recreational fishing streams
in Southcentral Alaska (Bader pers. comm.). In comparison, the fishing
effort (angler-days) on Alexander Creek (10,748), even though access is
limited to boat and aircraft, was nearly equal to that of Ninilchik
River (11,806 days) and Deep Creek (12,149 days) in 1982 (Mills 1983).
Alexander Creek has the potential to provide recreational opportunities
equal to or greater than those in the Ninilchik River, Deep Creek and
even Anchor River combined because it has more fishable stream miles,
in addition to a much higher escapement of chinook, coho, and other
fish (two to four times larger than that on the Anchor and Ninilchik
rivers or Deep Creek), (Delaney and Hepler 1983; Hammerstrom and Larson
1983).
Alexander Creek's pink, sockeye, and coho salmon contribute
significantly to the upper Cook Inlet commercial salmon gillnet fishery
(B. King pers. comm.). However, the net worth is not determinable.
Wildlife population numbers and game harvest information are not
directly available for the Alexander River corridor. However, the
department suspects that major portions of the Mount Susitna moose
subpopulation (estimated in size to range from 3,000 to 5,000 animals),
winter within the corridor (Bader 1982). Hunting for moose, black and
brown bears commonly occurs along Alexander Creek. Trapping for
coyotes, martins, mink, wolverines and beavers by local and other
residents is common as well.
The harvest and user-day statistics for moose in the Alexander Creek
corridor can be derived from the statistics available from the moose
harvest report code unit# 16-02-012 (Mount Susitna/Alexander Creek).
It is the fourth most intensively hunted moose harvest report code unit
in the Susitna planning area. This unit includes Mount Susitna as well
as the Alexander Creek corridor and accounts for more than 1,185
user-days reported. However, for every hunter reporting, there are
2.63 not reporting their moose harvest tickets. Based on this
information, it is estimated that 3,116 user-days occurred in this unit
in 1981. Other statistics indicate that moose hunters using boats
accounted for 32.8% of the user-days and these hunters probably used
Alexander Creek.
The economic value associated with moose hunting in the Alexander Creek
corridor in 1981 includes an estimated total expenditure of $44,793 by
hunters for travel, equipment, etc., and $131,520 as the replacement
protein value of moose meat (Appendix B; Table 31).
-121-
Moose habitat suitability and forage production capability evaluations
(Atlas Maps B9a, B9b, B14a) indicate that more than 90% of the spring,
summer, fall and winter habitat within the corridor is rated as high
and/or moderate value for moose.
Availability of moose winter range, based on estimated snow
accumulation (Atlas Map B13), indicates that all of the moose habitat
in the corr.idor would be available during winters of normal snow
accumulation. Theoretically, none of this habitat would be available
during severe winters of high snow accumulation occurring once in every
ten years. Under these conditions, moose that don't migrate to the
Susitna River flood plain would be placed under serious physiological
stress and could starve to death.
The number of wildlife species (species diversity, or species richness)
occurring in the corridor ranges from 38 to 91 species per vegetation
type. The majority of the habitat in the Alexander Creek corridor is
rated as either high or moderate for wildlife diversity (Atlas Map B11,
and Chapter II Part 2).
Potential conflicts in the Alexander Creek corridor include those
between interests of habitat protection and coal mining. There is a
moderate probability that mineable coal will be available in this
corridor.
Public access and recreational opportunities along the Alexander Creek
corridor have already been adversely affected by public land
allocations for past municipal entitlement and state land disposal
programs. Because fish and wildlife values and public use of these
resources are some of the highest in the Susitna planning area, this
corridor should be permanently protected from further disposal and
retained in public ownership.
5-Montana Creek. This includes a one mile corridor on Montana Creek, and
its South, Middle and North Forks. The size of this corridor is
approximately 125,698 acres.
Justification. Montana Creek is a popular sport fishing stream within
the Susitna planning area (Mills 1983). Over 14,000 fish were caught
there in 1980, and almost 26,000 angler-days were spent there in 1978
(Chapter I). Spawning runs of chinook (1,400) chum (1,500) and pink
salmon (10,000 to 50,000) are believed to have occurred (D. Watsjold
pers. comm.). Montana Creek is well known for its abundant rainbow
trout; however no population estimates are available. Anglers at the
mouth of Montana Creek intercept many fish bound for upper Susitna
waters. More than 30% of the total coho, 24% of the total pink salmon
and 29% of the total rainbow trout caught in east side Susitna River
drainages in 1982 were caught in Montana Creek (Mills 1982).
Access to the most popular salmon fishing areas on Montana Creek is
below the Parks Highway. Until recently, public use has occurred
-122-
com~letely on privately owned land. Access to fishing on Montana Creek
has been blocked in the past by private individuals. As a result of
this, the Department of Fish and Game and Division of Parks acquired
$400,000 to purchase and develop property along Montana Creek for
public sport fishing access.
In the easily accessible fishing spots close to the roads, during the
chinook open season, one can often find two and three tiers of.
fishermen, standing shoulder to shoulder, bank fishing on a typical
summer weekend. The use on Montana Creek is high, but the catch is low
(e.g. 897 user-days for chinook, and 85 fish caught), (Bentz 1983).
More than 30% of the total coho, 24% of the total pink salmon and 29%
of the total rainbow trout caught in east side Susitna River drainages
in 1982 were caught in Montana Creek. In 1980, more than 68% of the
Montana Creek sport fishing effort came from Anchorage anglers
(Appendix A). The economic analysis conducted on the Willow Creek
sport fishery (ADF&G 1980) used "willingness to sell" or dollar value
of one pink salmon fishing day to represent economic importance
(Appendix A). The fishing-day value derived for pink salmon from the
Willow Creek study, when applied to all species harvested from Montana
Creek indicates that, at a minimum, an estimate of $3,320,047
represents the net market value of fishermen's willingness to sell
their sport fishing opportunities in 1982.
The Anchor River is the third most popular river on the Kenai Peninsula
(Mills 1982). In comparison, fishing effort on Montana Creek, in 1982
(23,645), was nearly equal to the effort expended on the Anchor River
in that year (24,709). In comparison to other rivers on the Kenai,
Montana Creek provided 95% more sport fishing effort than Deep Creek
and over 100% more than did the Ninilchik River in 1982.
Pink salmon production from Montana Creek contributes significantly to
the upper Cook Inlet commercial salmon gillnet fishery (B. King pers.
comm.). However, the net worth is not determinable.
Wildlife population numbers are not available for the Montana Creek
corridor. However, the department believes that the corridor provides
habitat for large numbers of moose. It is suspected that Montana Creek
corridor is an important part of the moose range occurring on the
western slopes of the Talkeetna Mountains for the 5,000 to 6,000 moose,
estimated there (Bader 1982). It is possible that approximately 800 to
1,000 moose occupy the Montana Creek corridor.
The Montana Creek corridor makes up the major portion of the moose
harvest report code unit #14-02-014. In 1981, this unit accounted for
an estimated 472 user-days reported (Chapter I). However, for every
hunter reporting, there are 2.63 not reporting their moose harvest
tickets. Based on this information, it is estimated that 1,241
user-days occurred in this unit in 1981. Based on department
estimates, approximately 153 hunters harvested 24 moose (Data
Supplement A). Most of this effort occurred within the Montana Creek
-123-
corridor, which is the twelfth highest hunting effort of any single
reporting unit in the Susitna planning area (Table 2). The economic
value associated with moose hunting in the Montana Creek harvest report
code unit in 1981 includes an estimated total net expenditure of
$36,261 by hunters for travel, equipment, etc. and $44,457 as the
replacement protein value of moose meat (Appendix B; Table 31).
In addition to hunting for food, trophy hunting for moose, and black
and brown bears is known to occur throughout the corridor, but
especially in the upper portions, because better visibility and access
exist there (D. Bader pers. comm.). Large numbers of moose located in
the riparian habitat attract hunters to trails accessing the lower
reaches, and to bush airstrips accessing alpine areas.
Suitability and forage production capability evaluations of moose
habitat (Atlas Maps B9a, B9b, B14a) indicate that more than 50% of the
corridor is highly rated for spring, summer, fall and winter habitat.
Much of this is located along the riparian areas in the lower and
middle portion of the corridor. The balance of the corridor is of
moderate value. The model of moose winter range availability based on
estimated snow accumulation (Atlas Map B13) indicates that,
theoretically, approximately 58% of the moose habitat within the
corridor would be available during years of normal snow accumulation.
Approximately 24% of the moose habitat would be available during severe
winters of high snow accumulation which occur once in every ten years.
However, south facing slopes, windswept ridges, and troughs along the
alpine portions of the corridor retain less snow than other areas and
thus provide some relief under severe and normal snow accumulations.
The migrational corridors of moose occupying this general area have
been examined as a result of Susitna Hydroelectric downstream big game
studies (Modafferi pers. comm.). These studies generally indicated
that, under winter conditions, portions of this moose subpopulation
move to the floodplain and adjacent upland habitats along the Susitna
River. Other segments of the subpopulation utilize habitats within the
corridor.
The number of wildlife species (species diversity or richness)
occurring in the corridor ranges from 38 to 91 species per vegetation
type. The majority of the habitat in the Montana Creek corridor was
rated as approximately 70% high and 30% moderate for wildlife
diversity. Long term protection is needed to maintain the important
values associated with this diversity.
6-Chunilna Creek (Clear Creek). This designation includes a one mile
corridor on its main stem to its headwaters including the creeks from
Sockeye, and Mama Bear, Papa Bear lakes; a one-half mile corridor on
the creeks from the unnamed lakes located in Section 33, T. 30 N.,
R. 2 W., and Section 23, T. 30 N., R. 3 W., Seward Meridian; on the
north and middle forks of Chunilna Creek, and the unnamed creek located
in Section 33, T. 28 N., R. 3 W., Seward Meridian. The size of this
corridor is approximately 68,076 acres.
-124-
Justification. Chunilna Creek ranks as one of the more important fish
and wildlife systems in the Susitna planning area in terms of
production and harvest. Large runs of spawning chinook (2,000), pink
(up to 250,000 in even-year), sockeye (5,000 to 10,000), coho (2,500),
and chum (7,500) salmon have been known to occur (King pers. comm.;
Watsjold pers. comm.). This creek is also well known for its abundant
rainbow trout, Arctic grayling and Dolly Varden; however no population
estimates of these species are available.
Chunilna Creek is highly rated as a sport fishing stream by fishermen
using power boats and now by residents of recently established Chase I
and II communities (D. Bader pers. comm.). Access to this corridor is
primarily by the Alaska Railroad, local roads, and power boat up the
creek.
Chunilna Creek has more than twenty miles of fishable stream and large
populations of a variety of fish species. With the advent of recent
and proposed road constructiqn for the Chase I, II, and III state
subdivisions, the potential is high for sport fishing effort to exceed
that in many other streams in the Susitna planning area or on the Kenai
Peninsula. This creek system has an estimated potential to provide as
much as 50,000 user-days of sport fishing.
Sport fishing on this stream accounted for approximately 5,125 user
days in 1978 (Chapter I). A five year average yields 4,260 user-days
of fishing effort (Chapter I). More than 47% of the total fishing
effort on Chunilna Creek in 1982 was expended fishing for chinook
salmon providing a harvest of 792 fish (Delaney and Hepler 1982). In
1983, more than 2,800 user-days were expended fishing for chinook
salmon providing a harvest of 1,000 fish (Hepler 1983). The 1983 total
number of angler days (sport fishing effort) for Chunilna Creek is not
yet available. However, during the past four years (1979-82) the
average chinook fishing effort in Chunilna accounted for 30% of the
total sport fishing effort in the state (Delaney and Hepler 1982).
Based on this average, it is estimated that approximately 9330 total
user-days of effort was expended in 1983. In 1982, more than 26% of
the total Dolly Varden caught in east side Susitna River drainages were
caught in Chunilna Creek (Mills 1982); approximately 10,430 fish of all
kind were caught in Chunilna Creek in 1978.
In 1980, more than 59% of the sport fishing effort on the Chunilna came
from Anchorage anglers (Appendix A). The amount of money spent to
travel to this creek by the large number of recreational users of the
Chunilna represents a considerable economic investment and extensive
public interest in the resource. The economic analysis conducted on
the Willow Creek sport fishery (ADF&G 1980) used "willingness to sell"
or dollar value of one pink salmon fishing day to represent economic
importance (Appendix A). The above fishing-day dollar value derived
for pink salmon and applied to all species harvested from Chunilna
Creek yields a minimum of $1,310,491, representing anglers' willingness
to sell their sport fishing opportunities.
-125-
Chunilna Creek•s sockeye, pink, coho and chum salmon production
probably contributes significantly to the upper cook Inlet commercial
salmon gillnet fishery (B. King pers. comm.), however, the net worth is
undeterminable.
The most prominent conflict on Chunilna Creek is associated with water
pollution from extensive placer mining activities located on the main
channel and lateral tributaries. The siltation problem caused by poor
mining practices has resulted in poor fishing at times when the
normally clear stream becomes turbid. Conflict over access has
occurred within the corridor near the headwaters where most mining
activities are located.
Wildlife population numbers are not available for the Chunilna Creek
corridor. However, the department suspects that 400 to 500 moose
occupy the general area (Bader 1982). Consumptive uses along this
corridor include hunting for moose, black and brown bears, and trapping.
for mink, marten, wolverines, beavers and coyotes.
Suitability and forage production capability evaluations of moose
habitat (Atlas Maps B9a, B9b, B14a) indicate that approximately 25% to
30% of the corridor is highly rated for spring, summer, fall, and
winter habitat. Much of this habitat is located along the riparian
areas in the lower and alpine portions of the corridor. The number of
wildlife species (species diversity or richness) occurring in the
corridor ranges from 61 to 91 species per vegetation type over much of
the area. This means the corridor has mainly high rated habitat (90%)
for total number of species, and thus is probably quite productive and
stable.
Moose winter range availability based on estimated snow accumulation
(Atlas Map B13) indicates that, theoretically, approximately 5% of the
moose habitat in the corridor would be available during years of normal
snow accumulation. Very little moose habitat would be available during
severe winters of high snow accumulation which occur once in every ten
years. However, south facing slopes, windswept ridges, and troughs
along the creek and alpine portions of the corridor retain less snow
than other areas and thus provide some relief during severe winter
conditions.
The exact migrational corridors of moose occupying this general area
are not known. However, it is estimated that certain segments of this
moose subpopulation move to the Susitna and Talkeetna River floodplains
(Modafferi pers. comm.).
Extensive open-to-entry privately owned parcels and state subdivisions
are scattered throughout the Chunilna corridor area. Trespass and
conflicts on resource use have occurred in the past (D. Bader pers.
comm.). Extensive placer gold claims exist throughout the system, the
presence of which may cause future conflict with public recreational
use within the corridor.
-126-
Long term protection is needed to maintain the extensive fish and
wildlife resources and public uses remaining on public lands in this
corridor.
7-Peters Creek. This designation includes a one mile corridor on Peters,
Martin, Big, String, South Fork, Lunch Gulch, Sand, and Black creeks,
and the unnamed creeks located in sections 12 and 22, T. 27 N.,
R. 9 W., and Section 29, T. 28 N., R. 9 W., and Section 6, T. 29 N.,
R. 8 W., Seward Meridian. The size of this corridor is approximately
54,060 acres.
Justification. The Peters Creek watershed ranks as one of the more
important fish and wildlife production and harvest systems in the
Susitna planning area. It is believed to be the fifth most important
west side Susitna river for chinook salmon production (K. Hepler pers.
comm.). No population estimates are available, however, for resident
fish species. Peters Creek supports large numbers of spawning chinook
(6,000), coho (2,000), and pink (11,000) salmon (Delaney pers. comm.;
Hepler pers. comm). Peters Creek is also becoming well known for its
rainbow trout, Arctic grayling and Dolly Varden.
The Peters Creek system is readily accessible by road and trail. ATV
trails extend from the bridge at Peters Creek to Shulin Lake and to the
Kahiltna River/Peters Creek confluence, and cross country to the
Kahiltna River flats. The entire length {approximately 36 miles) of
this creek is floatable and is crystal clear, except near placer mining
operations.
Prior to 1983, most of the sport fishing effort was for rainbow trout,
Arctic grayling, and coho salmon (Kubik pers. comm.). This system was
opened in 1983 for the first time in many years to chinook salmon
fishing. On the Peters Creek system, total angler days for all fish
species were 1,000 (Hepler pers. comm.).
The amount of money spent to travel to this creek by the fairly large
numbers of recreational users of Peters Creek represents a considerable
economic investment and an extensive public interest in the resource.
The economic analysis conducted on the Willow Creek sport fishery
(ADF&G 1980) used 11 Willingness to sell 11 or dollar value of one pink
salmon fishing day to represent economic importance {Appendix A).
Applying the above fishing-day value derived for pink salmon to all
fish species harvested from Peters Creek yields a minimum of
$140,460.00, representing anglers• willingness to sell their sport
fishing opportunities. By applying this assessment to the recreational
potential if Peters Creek were made more accessible in the future, the
net projected worth of this system could range from $702,300 to
$1,404,600.
Peters Creek has the potential ability to exceed many high use fishing
streams on the Kenai Peninsula, except the Kenai River in providing
sport fishing recreation. It has 4 to 5 times more fishable stream
-127-
miles; it has more than double the salmon population of Deep Creek,
Ninilchik and Anchor rivers (Delaney and Hepler 1982; Hammerstrom and
Larson 1982); it is floatable, and it has relatively good road access.
This stream has the potential to provide as much as 50 to 100,000
user-days of sport fishing (D. Bader pers. comm.).
Peters Creek salmon production probably contributes fish to the upper
Cook Inlet commercial gillnet fishery (B. King pers. comm.; D. Bader
pers. comm.). However, the net value is not known.
Estimates of moose population numbers range from 3,000 to 5,000 moose
for the larger Peters Creek/Peters Hills upland moose management
nomination area (Bader 1982). The Peters Creek corridor is an
important part of this area and may provide habitat for a thousand or
more moose.
Because of the road access, the Peters Creek watershed is the most
intensively hunted unit for moose within the Susitna planning area.
The Petersville/Peters Creek harvest report code unit for moose
(16-01-002) accounted for an estimated 3,937 reported user-days
(Table 2).
However, for every hunter reporting, there are 2.63 hunters not
reporting their moose harvest tickets (Chapter I). Based on this
information, it is estimated that 10,354 user-days occurred in this
reporting code unit in 1981. This is more than double the effort for
any other single reporting unit in the Susitna planning area. Using
the 5.4 user-day average per hunter (Chapter I) and the 17.5% success
of hunters within this code unit (Data Supplement A), an extrapolation
of approximately 1,917 hunters and 336 moose harvested can be made for
1981. The economic value associated with moose hunting in the
Petersville/Peters Creek reporting unit includes an estimated total
expenditure of $454,329 by hunters on recreational equipment, travel,
etc. and $622,406 as the protein replacement value for moose meat
(Appendix B; Chapter I, Table 31).
Other consumptive activities in this area include hunting for black and
brown bears, and small game, and trapping of various other animals.
However no harvest or population information is available to assess
levels of effort or numbers of animals harvested.
Moose habitat evaluations (Atlas Maps B9a, B9b, B14a) indicate that
more than 80% of the corridor•s vegetation is highly suitable as
spring, summer, and fall habitat. More than 50% of the habitat in the
Peters Creek corridor is rated as having a high forage production
capability.
Moose winter range availability based on estimated snow accumulation
(Atlas Map B13) indicates that none of the moose winter range within
the corridor would be available during winters of normal or severe snow
accumulation. Perhaps some south facing slopes, windswept ridges, and
troughs along the corridor retain less snow than other areas, and would
provide some winter range and relief under normal conditions.
-128-
Some migration corridors for moose in the Peters Creek corridor and
adjacent Petersville areas were located during moose studies in the
lower Susitna Valley (Didrickson and Taylor 1978) and recent Susitna
Hydroelectric big game studies (Modafferi 1982). During both of these
studies the Peters Creek corridor was identified to be important for
,spring, summer, fall and early winter foraging habitat, although most
of the high value winter habitat for moose is located outside of the
corridor boundary (but within the larger Petersville/Peters Creek
upland legislative nominative wildlife area. The corridor was also
identified as an important moose calving area.
The number of wildlife species (species diversity or richness) in the
corridor can include up to 91 species per vegetation type (Chapter II,
Part 2, Atlas Map 811). An analysis of the distribution of wildlife
diversity indicated that approximately equal portions of high,
moderate, and low rated habitats occur in the corridor.
Access to the Peters Creek corridor has not been a problem in the past.
However, a recent state disposal near Peters Creek was located directly
in a major public hunting area. At present, there are some conflicts
between new land owners and hunters.
Placer gold mining claims exist throughout the watershed. Public
access has not yet been denied by miners in the area, although it has
be.en denied in the neighboring Cache Creek drainage north of the Peters
Hills. The flow of sediments from mining activities in Peters Creek
makes the area less attractive for sport fi~hing. In addition~ the
sediment contaminates fish spawning and rearing habitats and the
drinking water of the local residents.
Long term protection is needed for the Peters Creek corridor to protect
the extensive fish and wildlife resources and public recreational uses.
8-Sheep Creek. This designation includes a one mile corridor on Sheep
Creek from its headwaters to its confluence with the Susitna River and
on Goose Creek from the Susitna River to its connection with Sheep
Creek. The size of this corridor is approximately 22,172 acres.
Justification. The Sheep Creek watershed ranks as one of the more
important fish and wildlife production and harvest systems in the
Susitna planning area. It is considered the third most important east
side Susitna River sport fishing stream (Chapter I). Sheep Creek
supports large numbers of spawning chinook (2,000), and pink (50,000 to
100,000) salmon (Bentz 1983; Watsjold pers. comm.). This creek is
known for its rainbow trout, Arctic grayling, pink, red, silver, and
coho salmon. No long-term population estimates are available however
for resident fish species.
Most of the sport fishing for salmon on Sheep and Goose creeks occurs
below the Parks Highway. Very little public access or land is
avail ab 1 e to accommodate pub 1 i c use. No boat access exists to Goose
-129-
Creek. Because of private ownership surrounding most of the area, the
only publicly owned fishing area is immediately below the highway
bridge. Until the recent purchase of five acres at the mouth of Sheep
Creek by the Division of Parks for $30,000, most fishing on this creek
was in trespass on private land. There are several trails and roads to
Goose and Sheep Creek which go through private land, and are often
blocked. The Division of Parks is attempting to acquire additional
funds to purchase more land near Goose and Sheep creeks in an attempt
to provide more public access. The available Matanuska-Susitna Borough
lands located on Sheep and Goose creeks could satisfy a significant
portion of the future demand for sport fishing, camping space and
access.
Sport fishing accounted for almost 12,000 user-days in 1978 and 9,090
user-~ays in 1982 (Chapter I, Mills 1982). A five-year average was
over 8,330 angler days (Table 22). Sheep Creek is ranked as the second
most important chum salmon fishery in the Susitna planning area in 1982
(Mills 1983). More than 26% of the total chum salmon caught in east
side Susitna River drainages were caught at the confluence of Sheep
creek and the Susitna River. More than 16.9% of the total pink salmon
caught in east side Susitna River drainages were caught in Sheep Creek.
More than 10,430 fish of all kinds (including coho salmon, rainbow
trout, Dolly Varden· and Arctic grayling) were caught in Sheep Creek in
1978, with a 5 year average of 6,950. In 1980, more than 77% of this
creek's sport fishing effort came from Anchorage anglers (Appendix A).
The amount of money spent to travel to this stream by the fairly large
number of recreational users of Sheep Creek represents a considerable
economic investment and extensive public interest in the resource. The
economic analysis conducted on the Willow Creek sport fishery (ADF&G
1980) used the public's "willingness to sell," or dollar value of one
pink salmon fishing day, to represent economic importance (Appendix A).
Applying this fishing-day value to all species harvested from Sheep
Creek, yields approximately a minimum of $1,276,781 representing
anglers' willingness to sell their sport fishing opportunities.
Sheep and Goose creeks could provide substantially greater sport
fishing opportunities if more land and access were purchased below the
highway. The level of effort could potentially exceed any stream on
the Kenai peninsula except the Kenai and Russian rivers (D. Bader pers.
comm.) If access and camping sites were acquired, sport fishing effort
could theoretically approach 25,000 to 50,000 user-days.
Wildlife population numbers are not available for the Sheep-Goose Creek
corridor. However, the department suspects that the corridor provides
habitat for large numbers of moose from the western slopes of the
Talkeetna Mountains. It is estimated that the Sheep Creek corridor
probably supports approximately 500 to 1,000 moose (D. Bader pers.
comm.). This corridor is located within the 14-02-011 moose harvest
reporting code unit. In 1981, this reporting unit accounted for an
estimated 224 user-days as reported on harvest tickets returned
-130-
(Chapter I, Table 2). However, for every hunter reporting, there are
2.63 hunters not reporting their harvest tickets (Chapter I). Based on
this information it is estimated that approximately 589 user-days were
spent in this corridor by 107 hunters who theoretically harvested 16
moose in 1981 (Data Supplement A). The economic value associated with
moose hunting in the Sheep Creek area in 1981 includes an estimated
total expenditure of $25,359 on recreational equipment, travel, etc. by
hunters and $29,638 as the replacement protein value for moose meat
{Appendix B; Table 31, and Chapter I).
Other consumptive activities in this area include trophy hunting for
moose and black and brown bears in the upper portions only because of
better access there.
Evaluations of suitability and forage production capability of moose
habitat (Atlas Maps B9a, B9b, B14a) indicate that more than 30% of the
corridor is highly rated spring, summer, fall habitat. More than 50%
of the area is highly rated and 45% is moderately rated for wildlife
diversity (Atlas Map 811). Moose winter range availability based on
estimated snow accumulation (Atlas Map B13b) indicates that,
theoretically, more than 50% of the moose habitat in the corridor would
be available during years of normal snow accumulation. Only 5% to 10%
would be available during severe winters of high snow accumulation
occurring once in every ten years. However, south facing slopes,
windswept ridges and troughs along the alpine portions of the corridor
retain less snow than other areas and thus could possibly provide some
relief under severe and normal snow accumulations. ·
Some migration corridors for moose in the Sheep/Goose Creek corridor
have been studied during the Susitna Hydroelectric big game studies.
These studies indicated that in winter, portions of this moose
subpopulation move to the flood plain and adjacent upland habitat along
the Susitna River, while other segments of the subpopulation utilize
habitats within the corridor.
Conflict exists in the area between the high demand for public use of
fish and wildlife resources and the private ownership of lands
surrounding public waters. The Division of Parks and ADF&G have
recognized this conflict for many years, and they have purchased five
acres of land in the area in an attempt to satisfy the high public
demand. The remaining public lands along Sheep and Goose creeks should
be permanently protected for public use so future buy back situations
can be avoided.
9-Chuitna River. This designation includes a one mile corridor on the
Chuitna River from Cook Inlet to its headwaters, Chuit and Lone creeks;
and a one-half mile corridor on the unnamed tributaries in sections 5,
6 and 13, T. 12 N., R. 12 W., Seward Meridian. The size of this
corridor is approximately 30,394 acres.
-131-
Justification. The Chuitna River watershed is an important fish and
wildlife production and recreational use system in the Susitna planning
area. This river supports large numbers of spawning chinook (7,500),
pink (20,000 even-year), and coho (1,800) salmon (King pers. comm.).
This river is also known for its resident populations of rainbow trout
and Dolly Varden, although no population estimates are available for
these resident species.
Most of the sport fishing on the Chuitna River occurs on its lower two
miles, although the entire river provides excellent sport fishing.
There are three main salmon ftshing areas, and all are accessible.
They are located at 1) the mouth of the river where roads from Tyonek
and the Beluga airstrip converge (accessible via float or wheel planes)
2) the washed out Chuitna River bridge where roads from the Beluga
airstrip and Tyonek converge, and 3) the "upper hole," approximately
seven miles up river where access is by road, trail, and super cub
airstrips on two wide spots on a road paralleling the river. A cable
car also crosses the river at this hole providing access to the other
side. However, the lands on the south side of the river are privately
owned by the Tyonek Village Corporation and are not open to public
fishing. The north side of the river is mainly in public ownership,
and should remain so if public recreational opportunities are to be
maintained.
Sport fishing along the Chuitna accounted for approximately 3,100
user-days in 1983 (Hepler pers. comm.). More than 76% of the effort in
1983, was spent fishing for chinook salmon, providing a harvest of
1,052 fish (Hepler 1983). The Chuitna River ranks as the fourth most
important chinook salmon harvest stream within the Susitna planning
area. In 1983 more than 2,000 fish of all species were caught in the
Chuitna River. More than 72% of the sport fishing effort, in 1980,
came from Anchorage anglers (Appendix A). The amount of money spent to
travel to this river by the fairly large number of recreational users
of the Chuitna represents a considerable economic investment and
extensive public interest in the resource. The economic analysis
conducted on the Willow Creek sport fishery (ADF&G 1980) used the
public's "willingness to sell," or dollar value, of one pink salmon
fishing-day to represent economic importance (Appendix A). The
"willingness to sell" one chinook salmon fishing day is probably much
higher. The above fishing-day dollar value derived from the Willow
Creek study, applied to fishing on the Chuitna River in 1983 yields a
minimum of $435,426 representing anglers' willingness to sell their
sport fishing opportunities.
The Chuitna River has salmon populations two to three times larger than
the Anchor or Ninilchik rivers or Deep Creek on the Kenai Peninsula
(Hammerstrom and Larson 1983; Delaney and Hepler 1983). The Chuitna
has at least twice the fishable river miles as do Kenai Peninsula
rivers, and the area has reasonably good access. Once the road from
Anchorage is constructed to this area, fishing effort may reach as high
as 50,000 user-days (D. Bader pers. comm.).
-132-
Chuitna River salmon production contributes an unknown number of fish
to the upper Cook Inlet commercial and subsistence gillnet fishery.
Wildlife population numbers are not available for the Chuitna corridor.
Population estimates for moose have been suggested at 500 to 800 moose
(D. Bader 1982). The entire Chuitna corridor is located within a moose
harvest report code unit ranked seventeenth highest within the Susitna
planning area with respect to user-days (Chapter I, Table 2; Atlas
Map C2a). As reported on.harvest tickets, 49 moose hunters expended
381 user-days harvesting 10 moose (Chapter I and Data Supplement A).
However, for every hunter reporting, there are 2.63 hunters not
reporting their harvest tickets (Chapter I). Based on this
information, it is estimated that approximately 129 hunters expended
876 user-days to harvest 26 moose in 1981.
Local subsistence users take about 20% of the total moose harvest from
the Chuitna corridor (Foster pers. comm.).
The economic value associated with moose hunting in the Chuitna area
includes an estimated total expenditure of $30,573 by hunters for
travel, recreational equipment, etc. and $48,162 as the protein
replacement value for moose meat (Appendix B; Table 31; Data
Supplement A).
Other consumptive uses in the areas include trophy and subsistence
hunting for moose and black bears. Lone Ridge, Lone Creek and the road
systems constructed during past state timber sales and oil and·gas
development are the most popular areas for these activities (D. Bader
pers. comm.). Subsistence trapping is also an important activity
there.
Evaluations of suitability and forage production capability of moose
habitat (Atlas Maps B9a, B9b, B14a) indicate that nearly the enti.re
corridor is moderately rated as suitable spring, summer, and fall
habitat. More than 25% of the corridor is rated as having a moderate
forage production capability on both summer and winter habitats.
Moose winter range availability based on estimated snow accumulation
(Atlas Map B13) indicates that, theoretically, only 25% of the
corridor's moose habitat would be available during years of normal snow
accumulation. Only 10% of the corridor's habitat would be available
during severe winters of high snow accumulation occurring once in every
ten years.
However, some south facing slopes, windswept ridges, and troughs along
the alpine and canyon portions of the corridor retain less snow than
other areas and thus could possibly provide some relief under severe
and normal snow accumulations.
Some migration corridors for moose in the Chuitna River corridor have
been studied (J. Faro pers. comm.). The findings of these studies
-133-
indicate that many of the moose within the corridor migrate through the
Chuitna watershed. Some winter in the corridor, others winter near
Granite Point. Other segments of this subpopulation have been observed
near Beluga River, Threemile Creek, Chakachatna and McArthur rivers.
The number of wildlife species (species diversity or richness) in the
corridor can include up to 91 species (Chapter II, Part 2; Atlas
Map B11). More than 60% of the habitat has a high diversity of animals
per vegetation type (67 to 91 species); 25% of the habitat has a
moderate diversity (38 to 61 species), and 15% of the habitat has a low
diversity (1 to 31 species) per vegetation type.
Existing conflicts for this area concern private ownership of lands on
the south banks of the Chuitna River and the public demand for more
access and use of the fish and wildlife resources.
Coal development on the upper part of the Chuitna River corridor and
watershed will eliminate all surface fish and wildlife values where
m~n~ng occurs. Public use opportunities will also be eliminated in
m1n1ng areas. Water quality and instream flow requirements for fish
populations may be jeopardized as well in tributaries and mainstem
areas. Even though some mitigation measures may compensate for the
loss of moose habitat, impacts on bear and fish populations and their
habitat as well as public use thereof need to be addressed.
The remaining public lands should be permanently protected for public
use so that buy back situations can be avoided and future public use
can be accommodated.
10-Susitna River corridor. This designation includes the Susitna River's
100 year flood plain, all the riparian upland habitats within three
miles on either side of the main stream from the northern boundary of
the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge to the section line boundary.
between sections 19-24 and 25-30, T. 27 N., R. 5 W., Seward Meridian.
The size of this corridor is approximately 241,370 acres.
Justification. The Susitna River is one of the most important fish
production areas in Southcentral Alaska. The river and its tributaries
are responsible for a large percentage of the commercial salmon catch
for this region of Alaska. Total numbers of salmon returning to the
Susitna River can be estimated by using a percentage of the salmon
bound for the Susitna River which are caught commercially in upper Cook
Inlet. Catch percentages of Susitna bound salmon were developed by the
Commercial Fisheries Division (ADF&G) and the Susitna Hydroelectric
adult anadromous fish investigators (Barrett pers. comm.). Based on
these percentages, the salmon destined for the Susitna River and caught
in the central and northern subdistricts were estimated in 1982 at:
12,240 chinook; 1,439,235 sockeye; 485,148 coho; 127,169 pink; 833,548
chum; for a total of 2,895,596 (Chapter I, Table 26). In 1982 these
figures were: 2,064 chinook; 647,475 sockeye; 388,566 coho; 666,376
pink; 1,214,328 chum; for a total of 2,918,809 salmon. In 1982, the
-134-
Susitna Hydroelectric anadromous fish investigations estimated that
265,200 sockeye, 79,800 coho, 890,500 pink, and 458,200 chum salmon
totalling 1,693,700, representing a minimum Susitna River spawning
escapement (ADF&G 1983). ADF&G's Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries
divisions' stream surveys of areas not covered by the Susitna
Hydroelectric studies, in 1982, accounted for an escapement of 43,468
chinook, 39,500 sockeye, 50,000 coho, 71,000 pink, and 7,500 chum
salmon, totalling approximately 211,468 spawning salmon (King pers.
comm.; Delaney pers. comm.). By combining numbers of spawning fish and
the commercial catch for 1982, an estimated 4,832,977 salmon were
produced in the Susitna River. The salmon harvest and escapement in
1982 for the Susitna River does not include escapement into the Yentna
River system, so the grand total of salmon attributable to the entire
planning area is much greater than the figures presented here.
The fisheries production for the Susitna River compares favorably with
that of the Kenai River. In 1982 (an above average year for the Kenai)
approximately 4.6 million salmon (catch and escapement) were attributed
to the Kenai River (Florey pers. comm.); the Susitna River produced
about 4.8 million salmon.
The Susitna River, in addition, has two populations of Eulachon
(hooligan) numbering in the millions that spawn in the mainstem of the
Susitna from the Kashwitna River downstream (ADF&G 1983). There are
three species of white fish (Bering ciscoe, humpback, and round white
fish), numbering in the thousands, spawning from Talkeetna southward.
Rainbow trout, Arctic grayling and burbot numbering in the thousands
are also found all along the Susitna River.
During the year, and especially during the spring, there are literally
hundreds of millions of salmon smolt/fry in the river feeding. Older
age classes prepare to migrate downstream to Cook Inlet during the
spring, and these fish number in the hundreds of thousands.
On the Susitna River, from Talkeetna down to its confluence with the
Yentna River, there are nine tributaries flowing into the east side and
one flowing into the west side, that contain significant numbers of
fish. These streams alone generally produce more than two million
salmon (Watsjold pers. comm.).
Recreational or sport fishing is an important use of Susitna River
fish. Salmon are harvested by sports fishermen primarily at the
confluence areas of rivers where clear water tributaries flow into the
Susitna River. Salmon tend to congregate at these clear water
confluence areas (Watsjold 1983). The growth of the sport fisheries in
confluence areas as well as in other areas along the Susitna River is
dependant on maintaining these confluence back water areas that attract
a large number of salmon. During high flow periods, (when deep back
water areas are available) the tributary mouths provide ideal resting
or staging areas for all adult fish species as well as rearing areas
for juvenile fish during high flows. At low flows, much of the
-135-
backwater habitat is eliminated. This results in shallower water at
the mouths of tributaries and reduces their attractiveness to fish. If
seasonal flows are reduced significantly, for example by removal of
Susitna River water for agriculture, industry, or private use, a
serious impact on sport fishing would result. Much of the fish harvest
that occurs below Talkeetna takes fish that spawn above Talkeetna.
More than 100,000 user-days of fishing effort occurred on these
confluence fisheries in 1982. At least 50% of this effort took place
within the proposed Susitna River corridor (Watsjold pers. comm.). The
amount of money spent to travel to the Susitna by the large number of
recreational users of the Susitna represents a considerable economic
investment and extensive public interest in the resource. The economic
analysis conducted on the Willow Creek sport fishery (ADF&G 1982)
determined the 11 Willingness to sell,11 or dollar value, of one pink
salmon fishing day was $140.46 (Appendix A). This value for pink
salmon when applied to all species harvested in the Susitna River,
yields a minimum of $7,023,000 representing the anglers' willingness to
sell their sport fishing opportunities.
Access plays a major role in limiting and/or allowing growth of the
recreational fisheries that occur on the Susitna and its tributaries.
Much of the adjacent land is in private ownership. Public land that is
available is generally undeveloped. The only public boat launch
facility is at Talkeetna. The state has recognized this problem and
has initiated a road construction project that will provide access
directly to the Susitna River at the mouth of Willow Creek. This
project which is expected to cost in excess of $5 million will result
in a substantial increase in angler access to the Susitna River and its
tributaries.
The Susitna River is the third or fourth (depending on the particular
year) most important king salmon producing system in Alaska
(D. Watsjold pers. comm.). King salmon are thought to be the most
highly prized sport fish in Alaska, attracting large numbers of anglers
to the limited areas that are opened for fishing. Sport fishing for
king salmon is currently allowed on only five Susitna River tributaries
from Talkeetna to Cook Inlet. There is a possibility that other
streams above Talkeetna and in drainages downstream of and including
the Deshka River might be opened to chinook fishing in the future
(D. Watsjold pers. comm.). With the completion of better access to the
Susitna River near Willow Creek and more liberal chinook salmon
seasons, the Susitna has the potential to surpass any river system in
southcentral Alaska in terms of providing sport fishing opportunities.
The Susitna River has more fishable river miles, has larger populations
of a variety of fish species and provides a greater diversity of
recreational opportunities than any other stream in Southcentral Alaska
(ADF&G 1983; Delaney and Hepler 1983; Hepler and Bentz 1984;
Hammerstrom and Larson 1983).
-136-
Over 20% of the increase in the state angler population base in 1981
occurred in west Cook Inlet -Lower/Susitna drainage areas (D. Watsjold
1983). Record high fishing effort occurred in 1982 in Alaska's waters.
There was an increase in the 1982 angler population base of almost
44,000 anglers. Over 34% of this increase occurred in west Cook Inlet
-Lower Susitna drainage areas. Most of the anglers on the Susitna
River and its main tributaries came from Anchorage.
The Susitna River is also one of the most important river systems in
southcentral Alaska and within the Susitna planning area for
maintenance of moose population numbers and reproductive success
(D. Bader pers. comm.).
Wildlife population numbers and game harvest information are only
available for moose in selected areas along the Susitna. The Alaska
Department of Fish and Game has been conducting investigations on moose
by radio-telemetry and by tagging in the Chuitna River/Beluga/Tyonek,
Peters/Dutch Hills, Lower Susitna River, and Matanuska-Palmer areas
(Didrickson and Taylor 1978; Modafferi 1982; Faro pers. comm.). In
addition to these studies, population censuses have been conducted for
most of Game ~lanagement Unit 16A and in the Tyonek-Beluga Lake portion
of the Susitna lowlands area (Taylor pers. comm.). These
. investigations indicate that moose depend heavily on the stream
terraces, flood plains, and adjacent uplands of the Susitna River
during the winter. These moose originate from subpopulations located
in: 1) the western slopes of the Talkeetna Mountains; 2) the Willow
subbasin including the capital site; 3) the Susitna/Beluga Mountains;
4) the Peters Creek/Peters Hills areas; 5) the Chuitna/Beluga River;
and 6) the Susitna lowlands The department has estimated that 5,000 to
6,000 moose may winter within this corridor during severe winters of
high snow accumulation. Moose winter range availability based on
estimated snow accumulation (Atlas Map B13) indicates that 100% of the
moose habitat in this corridor would be available during winters .of
normal snow accumulation. Likewise, even during severe winters of high
snow accumulation occurring once in every ten years, this corridor
would still be available.
The relative importance of the Susitna River corridor during winter is
best shown in comparison to the other nine river corridors previously
discussed. During winters of normal snow accumulation, at least 44% of
the moose winter range present in all 10 river corridors would not be
available for moose forage. During severe winters of high snow
accumulation that occur once in every ten years, at least 59% of the
moose winter range would not be available. In the latter scenario, of
the remaining (41%) available winter range, the Susitna River corridor
is estimated to provide approximately 68% of the total available winter
habitat for moose (D. Bader pers. comm.). This means that moose from
at least six different summer subpopulations far removed from the
Susitna River corridor depend on the winter range in this corridor for
survival during normal and high snow accumulation years.
-137-
If winter range availability for moose is restricted ·by incompatible
land uses, declines in their populations may result. They could
overbrowse and destroy preferred forage plants resulting in massive
die-offs. Similar die-offs have occurred in other states. Thousands
of deer, elk, and antelope in Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and Idaho starved
during the winter of 1983-84 because inadequate amounts of winter range
were protected and maintained in public ownership (D. Bader pers.
comm.).
-138-
I __,
w
1.0
I
TABLE 49. Effects of Normal and High Snow Accumulation on the Availability
of Moose Winter Range in 10 Candidate River Corridors in the Susitna Planning Area 1
Amount of Available Amount of Available Relative Percent of
Habitat in Years of Habitat in Years of Available Habitat for
Corridor Normal Snow Accumulation High Snow Accumulation All Corridors in Years
Corridor Acreage -Acreage -Acreage of High Snow Accumulation
Deshka River 126,474 75% 94,855 60% 75,884 21.6%
Lake Creek 62,718 20% 12,543 0% 0 0
Talachulitna River 81,036 0% 0 0% 0 0
Alexander Creek 27,078 100% 27,078 0% 0 0
Montana Creek 125,698 58% 72,901 24% 30,167 8.6%
Chunilna Creek 68,076 5% 3,401 0% 0 0
Peters Creek 54,060 2%± = 1,081 0% 0 0
Sheep Creek 22,192 50% 11,096 5% 1,109 1.0%
Chuitna Creek 30,394 25% 7,598 10% 3,039 1.0%
Susitna River 241 370 100% 241 370 100% 241 370 68.6%
Subtotals 100% 839,096 56% 471,922 41% = 351,569 100%
1snow accumulation data derived from Atlas Map 813
The numbers of moose using the Susitna River corridor for shelter and
forage cannot be supported by the active flood plain alone. Lands
capable of high forage production adjacent to the river must also be
set aside specifically to support large numbers of moose. Thus a
three mile corridor has been proposed along the Susitna River in order
to protect forage for moose.
Moose carrying capacity evaluations (Atlas Map B14a) indicate that of
the existing habitat, along the Susitna corridor, approximately 75% of
the winter forage production capability is highly rated, 15% is
moderately rated and 10% has a low rating. Evaluations of the habitat
suitability models show that 75% of the spring, summer, fall, and
winter habitat is highly rated and 25% is moderately rated (Atlas
Maps B9a, B9b).
Moose hunting effort and harvest for this area can be identified by
combining and analyzing nine separate moose harvest report code units
(14-01-045, -064, -065; 14-02-013, -018, -028; 16-01-012; 16-02-012
and 16-10) located within and adjacent to the river corridor (Data
Supplement A; Chapter I, Table 2; Atlas Map C2a). Based on this
information for 1981, approximately 226 hunters spent 1,775 user-days
and harvested 71 moose.
The economic value associated with moose hunting in the Susitna River
·corridor includes an estimated total expenditure of $420,675 by
hunters and $131,520 as replacement protein value for moose meat
(Appendix B; Table 31).
The number of wildlife species (species diversity or richness)
occurring in the corridor ranges from 38 to 91 species per vegetation
type. An evaluation of wildlife diversity (Atlas Map B11) indicates
approximately equal portions of highly and moderately rated habitats.
In summary, the Susitna River corridor is the most important river
within the Susitna planning area with respect to numbers of fish and
wildlife produced, numbers harvested, hunting and fishing effort, and
generation of revenue.
The Susitna River corridor has the potential to provide recreational
opportunities equal to or greater than those on the Kenai River. It
can also provide alternate recreational opportunities to the crowded
public recreation lands on the Kenai Peninsula and elsewhere within
Southcentral Alaska. However, the problems with incompatible land
uses, access, private ownership of valuable public resources which
have occurred on the Kenai Peninsula will soon occur on the Susitna
unless this river and adjoining uplands within the corridor are
retained in long term public ownership.
B. Upland Habitat Areas (Areas A-I on Map C6)
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has identified 9 upland areas
meriting legislative consideration for special management designation.
These areas are proposed for designation into one or more of categories:
critical habitat, game refuge, sanctuary, game range and/or public use area.
-140-
However, specific management designations forthese areas will not be
suggested at this time. Rather, the department intends to solicit public
and agency comments on these proposed areas prior to preparing a more
specific designation proposal.
The department selected priority areas possessing habitat with high to
moderate suitability for large numbers of moose, and for a diversity of
other species (Atlas Maps 89a, 89b, 814a). In general, fish and wildlife in
these areas are relatively more abundant, representing higher concentrations
than found elsewhere in the planning area or the state. In this regard, the
nominated areas have regional, state-wide or national importance. Candidate
areas 1) support at least moderate to high fish and wildlife
production; 2) are able to maintain historical distribution and abundance
of wildlife populations; 3) provide one or more elements important to the
life cycle of a species of major abundance or importance, as well as provide
general habitats for other species representative of the regional
fauna; 4) have concentrations of or a diversity of waterfowl, big game,
shore birds and/or other representative species (Atlas Maps 81, 82, 83, 84,
85, 86, 87, 88, 811; Data Supplements 8 and C).
Public access was also an important consideration. Areas selected had
publicly owned access in a variety of forms and were readily accessed over
dedicated lands and waters (Atlas Maps C1, C5).
Extensive public hunting, trapping, fishing and related outdoor recreation
also currently occur in these proposed areas, and there is a high
probability of increasing use in the future. Nominated areas were selected
from lands within the upper 70% intensity of use (tables 2, 7, 9, 12). The
following sources of information were considered in these nominations:
modes of user access; hunting effort for moose, caribou, and sheep sport
fishing location, access and effort; local community resource use areas,
(Atlas Maps C1, C2a, C2b, C2c, ~3, and C4); harvest ticket data summary for
1980, Data Supplement A; sport fish and game economic reports, (Appendices
A, and B) and subsistence users information (Appendix D).
In addition, habitat within the area that has vegetation with a high and/or
moderate to high enhancement potential should be preserved for wildlife.
This kind of vegetation is quite responsive to manipulation and
11 rehabilitation 11 to increase forage production for moose. This increased
forage may maintain moose populations at higher levels, (Atlas Maps 810 and
814b).
A-Nelchina Public Use Area. This area includes all state lands within
the proposed boundary illustrated on Atlas Map C6; the size of the
proposed area is approximately 2,350,220 acres.
Justification. The primary purpose of this nomination is to protect
and maintain the Nelchina caribou herd and its most important habitat.
The population is now about 25,000 caribou (Su Hydro 1983). This herd
depends on lands within the proposed nominated area for calving, and
spring, summer and fall habitat use. The proposed area is considered
essential for the herd's preservation. One of the most important
features of this particular area is that most of the important calving
grounds are included.
-141-
Historic records for this population are available for the past 180
years. The herd has reached two growth peaks over the last 100 years,
one in the mid-1800's and another in the early 1960's. The herd
declined for about 70 years following the first peak and then
increased at a geometric rate from 1947 to 1962 to approximately
71,000 animals. It began its second recorded decline in 1962 (Hemming
1972), and continued its decline until about 1973 (Bos 1972) when the
population numbers stabilized at about 10,000 animals. The population
has since increased to about 25,000 caribou in 1983 (Pitcher pers.
comm.). This herd has consistently relied on lands within the
proposed nominated area throughout its history for calving, and
spring, summer and fall habitat use. To maintain the caribou at the
highest stable population numbers that the habitat will support, the
Nelchina land base must be maintained.
This area is also the most heavily used caribou hunting area in the
state for urban residents. More than 6,800 people applied for 1,000
caribou hunting permits for the Nelchina hunt in 1981 (Chapter I).
More than 1,650 user-days were expended by 943 hunters to harvest 613
caribou in 1981 (Atlas Map C2b; Data Supplement A). The residency
information for these caribou hunters showed that 53% were from the
Anchorage-Girdwood area, 19.6% were from the Palmer-Skwentna area and
14.5% were from the Fairbanks-Delta area. The remaining 12.8% hunters
came from other areas (Chapter I; Data Supplement A).
Based on cost/hunt estimates (Appendix B) total net expenditures for
caribou hunters in the Nelchina Public use area amounts to
approximately $701,779. The replacement protein value for caribou
meat is approximately $290,332 (Chapter I, Table 31; Appendix B). The
Nelchina Public Use Area also has some of the highest concentrations
of moose, sheep, brown bears, black bears, wolves, wolverines, small
game, and furbearing animals in the Susitna planning area (D. Bader
pers. comm.).
This nomination area is the third most intensively hunted land for
moose within the Susitna planning area. In 1981 a total of 3,662
user-days were reported by 645 hunters in this area. They harvested
134 moose (Atlas Map C2a; Appendix B). However, for every hunter
reporting, there are approximately 2.63 not reporting their moose
harvest tickets (Chapter I). Based on this information, it is
estimated that approximately 1,696 hunters spent 9,631 user-days to
harvest 352 moose within this area in 1981. Sixty percent of the
moose hunters were from the Anchorage area, 18% were from the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough and 18% were from other locations
(Appendix B).
The economic value associated with moose hunting in this area for
1981, includes an estimated total net expenditure of $401,952 by
hunters and $652,044 as the replacement protein value for moose meat
(Appendix B; Chapter I, Table 31).
A moose population census has not been conducted for this particular
area. However, historical spot sampling for moose (composition
-142-
surveys) and density estimates during Susitna Hydro studies indicate
that an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 moose live in this area (D. Bader
1982).
The Nelchina Public Use Area is one of the more important hunting
areas in the state for sheep, especially by urban residents. In 1981,
more than 155 hunters expended 666 user-days to harvest 65 Dall sheep
(Atlas Map C2c; Data Supplement A, Table 12).
Approximately 49% of the sheep hunters came from the Anchorage area,
26% were from the Palmer-Wasilla area, 17% were Alaskan non-residents,
and 8% were from other Alaskan areas (Data Supplement A).
The economic value associated with sheep hunting in this area for
1981, includes an estimated net expenditure of $129,000 by residents
and $260,000 by non-residents totaling $389,000. No protein
replacement value for meat has been estimated (Appendix B).
Although composition counts (spot sampling) for sheep in the Talkeetna
Mountains have indicated a population of approximately 1,700 animals
in 1982, no total population census has ever been conducted for this
area (ADF&G Big Game Data Index files). The department suspects that
the sheep population, however, ranges from 2,000 to 2,500 animals.
No black or brown bear population estimates or harvest figures are
available for the Nelchina area at this time. However, a considerable
amount of guided and non-guided hunting for bears occurs in the
Talkeetna Mountains portion of the Susitna basin. Total cost for bear
hunting in the entire Susitna basin amounted to $1,610,000 in 1982
(Appendix B).
B-Peters Hills-Peters Creek Area. This area includes all state lands
within the proposed boundary illustrated on Atlas Map C6. The size of
this area is approximately 458,290 acres.
Justification. This is one of the most accessible, and for this
reason, probably the most popular, moose hunting locations within the
Susitna planning area. This is a very popular hunting area because
public access over the numerous roads, trails, and streams is readily
available to people from most economic levels and walks of life.
Highway and all terrain vehicles provide most of the access; however,
the area accommodates most other modes of transportation (Atlas
Map C1). In 1981, this area supported nearly two times the moose
hunting effort (3,937 person-days) than did any other single harvest
reporting code unit within the Susitna planning area as reported on
moose harvest tickets (Chapter I, Table 2; Atlas Map C2a). Table 2
includes proportional adjustments in statistical figures to compensate
for reported effort from areas not clearly identified on harvest
report cards within the Susitna planning area.
Approximately 729 hunters harvested 128 moose here in 1981 (Data
Supplement A). However, for every hunter reporting, there are
approximately 2.63 hunters not returning their moose harvest tickets
(Chapter I). Based on this information, it is estimated that as many
-143-
as 1,917 hunters expended 10,354 user-days to harvest 336 moose in
this area in 1981. Residency information for reporting moose hunters
indicates that 78% were from the Anchorage area, 13.5% were from the
Palmer-Wasilla area and 8.5% were from other areas (Appendix B;
Data Supplement B). According to a recent survey (G. Knapp pers.
comm.) the Anchorage Bowl population area will increase over 150% by
the year 2000. Theoretically, then, the demand for moose hunting will
increase at a similar rate.
It is estimated that more than 2,000 moose (not adjusted for
unreported harvest ticket holders) have been harvested from this area
since 1969 (ADF&G data files). During the late fall/early winter
period, the density of this moose population is as high or higher than
any geographic area within the Susitna planning area (Bader 1982).
The economic value associated with moose hunting in this area for 1981
includes an estimated total net expenditure of $454,393 by hunters and
$622,406 as the replacement protein value for moose meat (Appendix B;
Table 31).
Since 1969, moose production in the Petersville area has been high, as
indicated by moose calf:cow ratios ranging from 29:100 to 51:100 with
a mean of 39:100 (ADF&G data files). In 1969 the highest production
of moose in Game Management Unit 16 was 53 calves per 100 cows. This
production occurred in the Petersville Road area (Didrickson 1970).
Even though hunting pressure has been high in this area, the bull:cow
ratio has remained at fairly moderate levels as indicated by the mean
of 29:100 for the period 1969-1982 (ADF&G data files).
Aerial moose surveys in 1967, in the Peters Hills-Kahiltna portion of
the nominated area, yielded 1,121 moose. This area represents less
than 5% of the land area in the (Game Management Unit 16) Petersville,
Sunflower basin, Susitna lowlands, Beluga, Mount Susitna and Alaska
Range subregions. Based on more recent counts (1978) it is estimated
that 3,000 to 5,000 moose occupied the nominated area as year round
residents (Didrickson and Taylor 1978). It is probable that the
Kahiltna winter range portion of the nominated area is shared with
moose populations from the Sunflower basin and possibly from
Mt. Yenlo. This is believed because, densities on the Kahiltna winter
range have exceeded four moose per square mile in some winters
(Didrickson and Taylor 1978).
The Peters Hills-Peter Creek area is suspected to support as much as
28% of the moose utilizing the Susitna lowlands, Petersville,
Sunflower basin, Mt. Susitna, Beluga, Alaska Range, and Denali State
Park planning subregions. Didrickson and Taylor (1978) reported that
virtually all vegetated slopes of the Peters Hills at and above timber
line provide lush summer range for moose, and as fall approached,
pre-rutting groups of 30+ moose were often seen along the south-facing
slopes of Black Creek summit and above Bunco and Swan lakes
(Didrickson and Taylor 1978). Habitat computer modeling supports
Didrickson's observations and illustrates the distribution of highly,
moderately, and low-valued forage vegetation (Atlas Map B14a).
-144-
Chatelain (1951) (in Didrickson and Taylor 1978) concluded that the
single most important limiting factor to moose population growth in
the Susitna River valley was the lack of adequate winter range. Three
important wintering areas for the Peters Hills moose population were
identified by Didrickson and Taylor. They are as follows 1) The
lateral and terminal moraine, at the east side of the Kahiltna
Glacier, from Granite Creek to Cache Creek, 2) the west side of the
Little Peters Hills, and 3) the Tokositna River from Bunco Lake to
Home Lake. Moose densities in these areas have exceeded four moose
per square mile (considered to be high winter concentrations) in some
winters. These areas provide winter habitat for most of the moose
inhabiting the nominated area including the Peters-Dutch hills
(Didrickson and Taylor 1978).
Habitat computer modeling of important winter areas for moose supports
Didrickson and Taylor's winter range identifications. The modeling
revealed that within the nominated area, the existence of high
production winter forage vegetation is limited to Martin, String, Big,
South Fork, Lunch Gulch, Sand and Black creeks, to the winter ranges
identified above (Atlas Map B1), and the area extending from Peters
Creek to Moose Creek.
Moose winter range availability based on estimated snow accumulation
(Atlas Map B13) indicates that approximately 30% and 15% of the moose
winter range within the nominated area would be available during
normal winters and during severe winters respectively. There are some
south facing slopes, windswept ridges, and troughs (i.e. winter ranges
identified by Didrickson and Taylor 1978) that provide habitat and
relief under winter conditions.
The movements of moose within this area have been studied over a
number of years (Didrickson and Taylor 1978, Modefferi 1982). These
studies found that moose in this area do not range widely, remaining
generally in the area. However, some moose from the Sunflower basin
and from the Susitna River are known to winter, summer, breed and
possibly calf here as well.
Highly valued winter moose range exists elsewhere within the Susitna
planning area. For example, land between the western slope of the
Talkeetna Mountains and the Parks Highway is productive winter moose
range, but more of it is already in private ownership, and cannot be
relied on for long term moose management or public hunting. This
situation is complicated by state and borough land disposals.
More than 96,000 acres of wildlife habitat within the Petersville and
Parks Highway planning subregions have already been converted into
private ownership and an additional 169,670 gross acres are proposed
for disposal there. More than 52% of these proposed disposals are
located within the Petersville area (First Round Designations ADNR,
October 1983).
The majority of the highest valued winter habitat located in the
Kahiltna winter range (below Cache Creek) and the winter range between
Peters Creek and Moose Creek are currently proposed for disposal and
-145-
settlement. The department feels that this presents a major land use
conflict, that if not reversed, could seriously affect the success in
maintaining the extensive hunting opportunities and moose population
numbers within this area. As noted previously, about 28% of the moose
population located in the western half of the planning area resides in
the Petersville area. In addition to lost opportunities and a
possible decrease in population numbers, there would also be a
reduction in revenues generated from big game hunting.
The number of wildlife species (species richness) occurring in the
nominated area includes up to 91 species per individual vegetation
type. An evaluation of the wildlife diversity within this area
indicated that approximately 40% of the habitat has a high (67 to 91)
species diversity; about 40% has a moderate (38 to 61) diversity;
about 15% has a low (1 to 31) diversity; and about 5% has zero
wildlife species. These are indicators of the productivity and
stability of wildlife habitats in this area.
Public consumptive uses of the area is extensive and includes hunting
for moose, black and brown bears, and trapping for marten, lynx,
beavers, mink, wolves, and wolverines. S~ruce grouse hunting is also
available, as is ptarmigan hunting in the alpine rock and shrub lands.
Many important streams, including Martin, Peters, Twenty Mile, Bear,
Gate, Kroto, and Moose creeks, are located within and/or are adjacent
to the nominated area and support heavy public use in addition to
highly productive riparian and aquatic habitats for big game,
furbearers, small game, three species of resident, and five species of
anadromous fish (Atlas Maps B7, B8, B12, C3).
A majority of the moose habitat here is rated as having high and/or
moderate winter, spring, summer, and fall suitability and forage
production capability. The forage production potential is rated high
in the eastern and southern portions of this area and would allow
moose habitat enhancement when required to increase moose production
and survival (Atlas Maps B9a, B9b, B10, B14a, B14b). Land disposals
proposed for the area between Peters Creek and Moose Creek would, if
approved, limit habitat enhancement and big game hunting. Because of
the increase in incompatible land uses and the transfer of public
lands into private ownership here and elsewhere in Southcentral
Alaska, forage production remaining on state lands is not expected to
be able to sustain existing moose populations and moose hunting at
present levels, unless areas such as the Peters Creek-Peters Hills
nomination are retained in public ownership.
C-Lower Susitna -Yentna River Delta. This area includes all state
lands within the proposed boundary illustrated on Atlas Map C6. The
size of this area is approximately 833,266 acres.
Justification. It is estimated that up to 5,000 moose may use this
area during the winter (Bos pers comm.). Recent studies on movement
of moose along the Susitna River indicate use of this area by moose
from several high-density populations. These populations include
-146-
animals from the Mt. Susitna-Beluga area and the southwestern flank of
the Talkeetna Mountains from the Little Susitna River to Montana
Creek.
Moose populations in southcentral Alaska are strongly influenced by
the cold and deep snow of winter, and their adult survival and calf
production are directly influenced by availability of browse to carry
them through periods of stress. In the Susitna River drainages, moose
move from higher elevations to riparian habitat and from upstream
areas downstream during the winter. The density of moose found in
important winter habitats reflects the severity of winter stress. The
denser the numbers, usually the more severe the winter. With high
concentrations of moose on the riparian lowlands, competition for
available browse is great. During mild winters, the animals are
usually more dispersed, due to the availability of adjoining areas.
When additional areas are not available for forage, moose can become
stressed and die.
In the Susitna basin, winter habitats available during moderate to
high snow fall periods are generally located in and along the flood
plains of rivers and streams. This type of habitat is relatively
abundant between the lower Susitna and Yentna River deltas. The
vegetation types that make up the winter habitat in this triangle (and
which are the only plants available in severe winters) are relatively
scarce within the Susitna planning area as a whole, representing only
6.2% of all the vegetation present. Reliance on these vegetation
types alone for maintenance of moose populations without the
additional browse in adjacent areas would result in reduced numbers of
moose surviving a stressful winter.
Development of uses that are incompatible with moose in adjacent areas
could force moose to use these scarce riparian habitats regardless of
winter severity. Reductions in the carrying capacity of the winter
range provided in the proposed designation due to overbrowsing could
significantly reduce moose numbers over much of the western half of
the study area.
Availability of moose winter range based on estimated snow
accumulation (Atlas Map 813) indicates that approximately 95% of the
proposed nominated area would be available during winters of normal
snow accumulation and approximately 75% of the proposed area would be
available during winters of high snow accumulation occurring once in
every ten years. Available winter range within the proposed special
management area represents 43% (mild winters) and 32% (severe winters)
of the all available winter range in the planning area west of the
Susitna River.
The habitat suitability analyses show that within this area the
majority of the moose habitat is rated as having high and/or moderate
suitability for winter, spring, summer, and fall. Riparian habitats
have a high forage production capability. The forage production
potential of much of the uplands is also high and could be enhanced to
increase moose production and survival (Atlas Maps B9a, B9b, BlO,
B14a, and B14b).
-147-
Public access is readily available to much of the area by boat and
float or wheeled aircraft. Other modes of transportation are limited.
Even though the area is remote, public use is extensive and includes
hunting of moose, black and brown bears, small game, and trapping for
beavers, mink, marten, wolves and wolverines.
Moose hunting within the proposed area occurs within harvest report
code units which are ranked as fourth, sixth and eighth with respect
to user-days, (Chapter I, Table 2). More than 72% of the hunters
access the nominated area by boat and aircraft. Based on this
information, it is estimated that at least 185 hunters spent
approximately 1,200 user-days harvesting approximately 100 moose in
1981 (Atlas Map C2a; Data Supplement A). However, for every hunter
reporting, 2.63 hunters do not report their moose harvest tickets
(Chapter I). Based on this factor, it is estimated that as many as
486 hunters may have spent 3,156 user-days to harvest 263 moose.
Seventy-nine percent of the moose hunters came from the Anchorage
area, 9% came from the Palmer-Skwentna area, and 12% were from other
areas (Data Supplement A).
The economic value associated with moose hunting in this area for 1981
includes an estimated total net expenditure of $115,182 on
recreational equipment, lodging, etc. by hunters and $487,181 as the
replacement protein value for moose meat {Appendix B; Chapter I,
Table 31).
D-Trumpeter Swan Areas. This includes all state lands within seven
areas identified as D on Atlas Map C6. The total size of these areas
is approximately 297,774 acres.
Justification. There are 6,912 square miles of habitat considered
suitable for trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) nesting in the Cook
Inlet basin including the Kenai Peninsula (King 1983). A total of
1,375 trumpeters were found here in 1980 (King and Conant in King
1983). There are 1,705 square miles tentatively considered critical
to the continuation of the population at the current level. This 25%
of the nesting habitat hosted 68% of the pairs and 74% of the broods
in 1980.
Trumpeter swans, once distributed across much of the continent, did
not survive settlement of the land. By the 1930 1 S they existed only
in a few remote valleys of the Rocky Mountains, in a small area of
wilderness Alberta, and in the unsettled regions of Alaska (Banko
1960, Hansen et al. in King 1983). Vulnerability to pioneer gunners
seems to have been a major cause of the decline of the trumpeter.
Since they are also extremely sensitive to disturbance on their
nesting lakes, reduced productivity could have been a major
contributing factor (King 1983). In 1960, no more than 1,500 swans
were thought to exist in the entire world (Scott 1961).
The Cook Inlet basin, where half the people of Alaska live (212,000 in
the 1980 census) and where the growth potential is large, had 1,375
trumpeters in 1980 or about 16% of the entire world population.
-148-
Because of the newly discovered trumpeter swan population in Alaska as
a result of the detailed 1968 survey, trumpeters were taken off the
Federal Endangered Species List.
In the Susitna area, there is evidence that swans have already been
driven away from many larger lakes where they formerly nested due to
human activity (Timm and Wojeck in King 1983). Without a conscious
effort to provide protected areas for swans, they could be crowded
completely out of the basin as has happened elsewhere.
By dedicating some wetlands where the needs of swans will be given
primary consideration it is possible that trumpeters can continue to
have prime habitat near a civilized area such as Anchorage. The
nomination of this area includes portions of a proposal by the USFWS
and adopted by ADF&G for the Susitna planning area. If the proposal
proves to be inadequate for safeguarding either the needs of people or
swans, adjustments should be made.
It is the intent of this plan to devise a method for ensuring that
trumpeter swans remain a healthy and visible part of the fauna of the
Susitna planning area (and Alaska) in spite of growth ~nd development
by the people there.
1. These nominated areas will provide protection for nesting sites
used by 69-76% of the eligible nesting swans as identified in
1980. The Northwest Section of the Wildlife Society meeting in
Juneau in 1982 and the American Ornithologist's Union meeting in
New York in 1983 recommended 75% be provided protection.
2. The identified areas distribute protected sites in blocks in
various parts of the basin in hopes of encouraging continued use
of suitable habitats in areas where human activity is less
restricted and thereby retain swan distribution for the entire
area.
3. Retaining these areas in public ownership will encourage .
continued growth in the swan population by protecting habitats
with a potential for some growth.
4. The identified areas are swan critical habitats that for the most
part have a low value for human development i.e., boglands.
5. The ADF&G, USFWS and ADNR need to educate the public about the
needs of swans in hopes that they will avoid disturbing swans
during the nesting and rearing period.
6. Resource agencies will need to monitor the swan population to
determine if the plan is succeeding.
7. State and federal agencies should be prepared to increase
restrictions on use of critical habitats if swans decline below
the 1980 population whether the candidate areas are designated as
habitat or not.
-149-
8. State agencies should be prepared to adjust the size and number
of critical habitats as necessary.
9. Public interest groups and resource agencies would be on the
alert to consider nominating the trumpeter swan for inclusion
into either the Threatened and/or Endangered Species List if a
trend occurs indicating a definite decline in the population over
a period of three or more years.
Swan biology. The following discussion was obtained from information
provided by King in 1983. There were some 8,728 trumpeter swans
tallied in North America during the last complete census in 1980
(Weaver in King 1983). The Alaska count found 7,696 and the Cook
Inlet basin count (including the Kenai Peninsula) found 1,375 (16% of
the world population). These two censuses nearly doubled in the
preceding five years since comparable counts in 1975. In spite of the
increase, a shift in population away from larger lakes where
recreation cabins had been built was detected (King and Conant in King
1981).
Alaska swans winter along the Pacific coast in fresh waters that
remain open from the Kenai River to the mouth of the Columbia River.
As more habitat is available toward the southern end of the range,
most trumpeters winter south of Alaska.
They return to the Cook Inlet basin in April staging in the intertidal
marshes mostly along the west side of the Inlet. Nesting birds
proceed to their nesting lakes at the first sign of open water and are
generally incubating their eggs by the time the ice is gone. The
pairs defend a territory around their nest, normally including the
entire lake, from intrusions by any other swans. Normally they
display and issue a vocal warning to swans flying over and no landing
is made. A fight ensues if a landing is made. A similar message
seems to be directed at low flying aircraft. Continual aerial
disturbance like this interferes with the swans normal breeding
behavior.
Swan broods hatch in June or July and the young begin to fly in
mid-September. Families sometimes move overland during the summer
especially if disturbed. Some young are lost during the summer and
some of this loss may result from encounters with large predators
during portages.
Swans do not normally nest until three or more years old. The younger
birds remain in flocks where pairing occurs. New formed pairs
evidently spend one or more summers searching for a suitable unclaimed
nesting territory and hold their claim through the summer returning
directly to it when they are ready to nest the following year. Only a
small percentage of lakes contain a suitable blend of food and
protective cover. If nesting is successful, the same pair might
continue to use the same territory for 20 or more years. Loss of nest
or brood could cause desertion of the territory. Disturbance during
the search period by airplanes landing, boats, the proximity of a
-150-
road, or other activity may cause rejection of what is otherwise a
suitable territory. Thus establishment of human activity within the
territory of a pair of swans that have been successful for a number of
years may not cause that pair to desert, but could prevent
establishment of a new pair at this site when the old pair is gone.
Nest failures of trumpeter swans are common so that in spite of clutch
sizes to nine eggs, trumpeters often fail to replace their losses in
some years. They survive in tenuous balance with their environment
and must have consideration from the impacts of an increasing human
population if they are to survive.
Critical habitats of the Susitna Planning Area (Cook Inlet basin).
The USFWS and ADF&G have identified 15 critical habitat areas that
appear to meet the goal of about 75% of the present trumpeter nesting
territories (tables 1 and 2 in King 1983) and providing a good
geographic spread (Figure 1 in King 1983). Twelve of these areas
occur within the Susitna planning boundary. Seven of these are
depicted in the Atlas (Map C6) and are nominated for legislative
designation, and the other five are at present being negotiated by the
Susitna Planning Team and will appear in the Public Review Draft.
These twelve are described below:
01. Capps Glacier --This is a small area south of Beluga Lake and
below Capps Glacier. This area might have room for a few more
swans especially if the glacier retreats. The potential for
conflicts with recreationists seems low. The size of this area
is approximately 13,178 acres.
02. Kroto Slough --This area is a low bog along Kroto Slough lying
in a triangle between the Yentna and Susitna rivers. Much of it
appears to be subject to regular flooding and unsuitable for
development. The habitat for swans appears particularly
favorable and has the potential to produce 20 or more swans per
year. The size of this area is approximately 17,517 acres.
03. Red Salmon Lake --This area between the Skwentna and Hayes River
and including Trimble River contains the toe of two glaciers.
Except for Red Salmon Lake most of the ponds are too small for
airplane use. As the glaciers retreat and vegetation invasion is
followed by beaver use, more swan habitat could be created and
more swans produced. The size of this area is approximately
30,527 acres.
04. Yentna River --This area below the Kahiltna Glacier is very
similar to the Upper Yentna and may have a potential for
producing more swans. Several airstrips in the area may not pose
a threat to swans. The size of this area is approximately
110,080 acres.
05. Kahiltna --This area below the Kahiltna Glacier is very similar
to the Upper Yentna and may have a potential for producing more
swans. Several airstrips in the area may not pose a threat to
swans. The size of this area is approximately 51,047 acres.
-151-
D6. Tokositna River --This unit has extremely good habitat along the
Tokositna. It is mostly in state and national park status now.
Swan Lake should be protected from further development and
current cabin owners encouraged to avoid scaring swans. The size
of this area is approximately 61,650.
D7. Hidden River--This riverine habitat has a potential for higher
production and a low recreation potential. It is mostly within
Denali State Park. Boating activity on the Chulitna would
probably not pose a threat to swans. The size of this area is
approximately 19,884 acres.
The following five areas are to be negotiated by the planning team and are
not shown in the Susitna Atlas.
D8. Tyone Creek --This area is characterized by numerous lakes and
creeks and has a potential for increased swan production. Float
plane landings will need to be restricted to allow this to occur.
The area is approximately 190,080 acres in size.
D9. Upper Susitna --This relatively small area has a high density of
nesting swans. It is close to the Denali Highway and offers an
opportunity to create some hidden viewing areas for swans in a
natural setting. The area is approximately 36,480 acres in size.
D10. Grayling Lake --This area of numerous lakes had a good
population of nesting swans in 1980 and ~ppears to have potential
for more. Its close proximity to the developing Lake Louise area
will require good management to allow swans and people to both
use this area. It is approximately 131,200 acres in size.
D11. Bell Lake -This unique collection of wetlands on the northeast
side of the Lake Louise area contained numerous swan nest sites
in 1980 and has potential for more. It also will require special
management because of its location near an expanding human
population. This area is approximately 98,560 acres in size.
D12. Y-Lake --This unique collection of small lakes has good
potential for expansion of a healthy nesting population of
trumpeters. It is approximately 83,200 acres in size.
There are five possible strategies for swan conservation. Emphasis on
the first three strategies could preclude the necessity for use of the
last two.
A. Designation of critical trumpeter swan habitats as areas meriting
special management by the Alaska State Legislature.
Much of the land in the twelve critical habitats proposed here is
already in state ownership and should be protected from further
recreational cabin building or other development within the
designated boundaries.
-152-
B. Development of regulations for uses of these habitats.
Regulations -It will not be necessary to stop all human activity
within these twelve areas. Only activities that conflict
directly with swan production will need modification. Some
activities that will need regulation are:
1. Airplane landings -Float plane landings should be
prohibited May 1 to September 10 at nest sites and from
April 1-30 and September 10 to October 1 at staging areas.
No more recreation lots with float plane access should be
sold in swan habitats. After September 10, landings could
be allowed in lakes not occupied by swans. Wheel plane
landings could continue on gravel bars or airstrips at
distances greater than one mile from swan nest sites or
staging areas from May 1 to September 10. Overflight below
1,500 ft should be prohibited.
2. Cross country vehicles should be restricted to designated
areas on all units from April to mid-September. They should
not come within one mile of swan nesting or staging areas.
3. Boating should be confined to major rivers. Airboats should
not be allowed to penetrate lakes or bogs in the habitats
where swans nest or stage.
4. Roads should be constructed well clear (at least a mile) of
known swan territories.
5. Power lines are -a leading cause of swan mortality in many
places and should be limited as much as possible. If power
lines must be built several design features could render
them less destructive. Lines should be built in forested
areas only and kept as close to treetop level as possible.
Wires should be strung on one horizontal plane rather than
in multiple, vertical stacks. All wires should be the same
diameter. Where wires cross rivers or bogs they should be
well marked (as around airports). The power lines from
Tyonek to Anchorage generally conform to these criteria and
even though they cross some high use swan habitat no
conflict has been reported.
6. As swans have moved out of the larger lakes in the Cook
Inlet basin they have taken advantage of the extensive
beaver ponds of the region. Particularly in the units below
glaciers, the beavers are creating swan nesting habitat.
Beavers therefore should be managed for optimum pond
building. This might require limiting or eliminating beaver
trapping in some places.
-153-
C. Public education.
The people who have developed wilderness cabins on the larger
lakes that are suitable for swan use often welcome and value the
presence of swans. These people may be unaware of how their
activity conflicts with swans. In some cases swan have adjusted
and continue to nest on lakes where airplanes regularly service
recreation cabins. If people use care in their activities, it
may be possible to have nesting swans and recreation' use of some
lakes. Some ways that people could try to avoid driving swans
away might be:
1. from May 1 to September 10, airplane landings should be
prohibited within one mile of swan nesting areas from
April 1-30 and September 10 to October 1 at staging areas;
2. use the same landing area and stay at least one mile away
from any swans;
3. never use boats to investigate or photograph swans on the
lake closer than one mile to swans;
4. keep boats and planes at least one mile from the part of the
lake the swans prefer;
5. make every effort to avoid any disturbance of paired swans
possibly investigating the lake for future nesting;
6. do not hunt ducks in the marshy places used by swans for
cover.
If these guidelines are followed some swans may continue to use
larger lakes in spite of some recreational activity. If the
critical habitats continue to produce well, eventually some
spill-over pairs may continue to investigate the larger lakes
used by their ancestors and slowly perhaps develop more tol~rance
for humans.
D. Habitat Improvement.
E. Reintroduction of wild or hand-reared stock to suitable
unoccupied territories.
There is no need to consider D and E above while the Alaskan
trumpeter swan population is maintaining itself and the land use
program for the twelve proposed areas in conjunction with the
aforementioned public education are working to the swans benefit.
If the Alaskan trumpeter swan population falls to the point where
it reaches the threshold warranting listing and protection under
the Federal Threatened and/or Endangered Species laws, habitat
improvement and the possible reintroduction of swans would be two
of many options to consider while developing a recovery plan to
reverse the population status of trumpeter swans.
-154-
TABLE 50. Maximum Number of Trumpeter Swans of Cook Inlet Management Units
No. No. No. Sq. Mi. # Sguare Mi1e Per:
Unit and Area Pairs Broods Swan Habitat Pair Brood Swan
A Redoubt-Trading Bay 83 40 405 526 6 13 1
*B Mount Susitna 11 4 38 113 10 28 3
*C Capps Glacier 8 2 24 21 2 11 1
*D Kroto Slough 7 4 35 26 4 7 1
*E Red Salmon Lake 13 4 49 48 4 12 1
*F Yentna River 28 8 95 172 6 22 2
*G Kahiltna River 20 7 81 83 4 12 1
*H Tokositna River 26 7 102 90 4 13 1
*I Hidden River 8 1 19 31 4 31 2
J Kenai 33 13 125 595 18 28 5
*K Tyone Creek 42 20 199 297 7 15 1
*L Upper Susitna 10 6 138 57 6 10 4
*M Grayling Lake 28 10 160 205 7 21 1
*N Bell Lake 35 14 130 154 4 11 1
*0 Y-Lake 22 9 76 130 6 14 2
Total Units 374 149 1,676 2,548 7 17 2
Total· Cook Inlet
-West Gulkana 529 196 2,260 8,520 16 43 4
Percent on Units 71% 76% 74% 30%
Total Alaska 1,662 683 7,696 29,453 18 43 4
Percent on Units 23% 22% 22% 9%
* Proposed trumpeter swan habitats located within the Susitna planning area
-155-
TABLE 51. Maximum Number of Trumpeter Swans, Susitna Plan Area Plus Kenai
No. No. Flocked & Total No. Sq.
Unit and Area Pairs Young Singles Swans Broods Mi.
Cook Inlet (plus Kenai) 349 434 243 1,375 122 6,912
Susitna Reserves 238 329 170 973 90 1,705
% in Reserves 68 76 70 71 74 25
Susitna 180 242 316 885 74 1,608
Susitna Reserves 137 186 246 703 59 843
% in Reserves 76 77 78 79 80 52
Susitna Plan
(plus Kenai) 529 676 559 2,260 196 8,520
Susitna Plan Reserves
(plus Kenai) 374 515 416 1,676 149 2,548
% in Reserves 71 76 74 74 76 30
.,
-156-
TABLE 52. Maximum Numbers of Trumpeter Swans in Management Units, Cook Inlet
No. No. Flocked Total No. Sq. Mi.
Area and Maes Unit Pairs* Young & Singles Swan* Broods Habitat
Redoubt-Trading Bay A
Kenai C-6 A 7 12 9 35 3 90
Kenai C-7 A 10 18 4 42 5 46
Kenai D-5 A 10 19 8 47 5 67
Kenai D-6 A 33 55 33 154 15 136
Kenai D-7 A 6 12 24 3 25
Tyonek A-5 A 6 13 36 61 4 97
Tyonek A-6 A 11 19 1 42 5 65
Subtotal A 83 148 91 405 40 526
*Mount Susitna B
Tyonek A-3 B 1 3 5 1 15
Tyonek B-2 B 3 2 5 13 1 38
Tyonek B-3 B 7 6 20 2 60
Subtotal B 11 11 5 38 4 113
*Capps Glacier c
Tyonek B-5 c 8 8 24 2 21
*Kroto Slough D
Tyonek C-2 D 7 20 1 35 4 26
*Red Salmon Lake E
Tyonek D-5 E 4
Tyonek D-6 E 13 11 12 49 4. 44
Subtotal E 13 11 12 49 4 48
*Yentna River F
Talkeetna A-4 F 13 8 9 43 2 76
Talkeetna B-4 F 12 17 1 42 6 76
Talkeetna B-5 F 3 4 10 20
Subtotal F 28 25 14 95 8 172
*Kahiltna River G
Talkeetna B-2 G 3 5 1 12 1 10
Talkeetna B-3 G 17 25 10 69 6 73
Subtotal G 20 30 11 81 7 83
-157-
TABLE 52. (continued)
No. No. Flocked Total No. Sq. Mi.
Area and t~aes Unit Pairs* Young & Singles Swan* Broods Habitat
*Tokositna River H
Talkeetna C-1 H 10 6 1 27 2 52
Talkeetna C-2 H 16 22 21 75 5 38
Subtotal H 26 28 22 102 7 90
*Hidden River I
Talkeetna D-1 I 7 3 17 1 28
Talkeetna Mts. D-6 I 1 2 3
Subtotal I 8 3 19 1 31
Kenai J
Tyonek A-1 J 1 1 3 3
Tyonek A-2 J 5 5 6
Kenai C-2 J 1 4 1 7 1 17
Kenai C-3 J 7 4 2 20 1 140
Kenai C-4 J 3 3 9 1 18
Kenai D-1 J 8 17 33 5 121
Kenai D-2 J 9 9 4 31 3 213
Kenai D-3 J 4 8 1 17 2 69
Kenai D-4 J 8
Subtotal J 33 45 14 125 13 595
Cook Inlet/Kenai
GRAND TOTAL 237 329 170 973 90 1,705
* Pairs X 2 +young + flocked and single = Total Swans
* Trumpeter swan areas located within the Susitna planning area
-158-
TABLE 53. Five Additional Proposed Trumpeter Swan Areas in the
Susitna Planning Area
No. No. Flocked Total No. Sq. Mi.
Critical Habitats Pairs Young & Singles Swan Broods Habitat
Tyone Creek
Talkeetna Mts. D-1 41 41 5
II II C-1 22 29 5 78 11 198
II II B-1 7 9 1 24 3 39
Gulkana C-6 13 20 10 56 6 55
Subtota1 42 58 57 199 20 297
Upper Susitna
Healy A-1 7 19 30 63 4 24
II A-2 2 7 11 2 12
Talkeetna Mts. D-1 1 62 64 21
Subtota1 iO 2o 92 I3S 0 57
Grayling Lake
Gulkana A-6 9 6 8 23 2 73
II B-6 19 21 72 137 8 132
Subtota1 28 27 80 1oo 10 205
Bell Lake
Gulkana B-6 5 10 1 21 3 28
II C-6 20 22 13 75 8 74
II C-5 5 4 14 1 26
II B-5 5 9 1 20 2 . 26
Subtota1 35 45 15 130 14 154
Y-Lake
Gulkana C-5 12 19 1 44 5 57
II B-5 10 11 1 32 4 73
Subtotal 22 30 2 76 9 130
Upper Susitna Grand Total 137 186 246 703 59 843
GRAND TOTAL 374 515 416 1,676 149 2,548
-159-
E. Jim-Swan lakes. This area includes all state lands within the boundary
illustrated on Atlas Map C6. The size of this area is approximately
23,341 acres.
Justification. This area is a popular sport hunting and fishing area.
Jim Creek is an important salmon-producing watershed of the Knik River
system (Watsjold pers. comm.). In 1982, more than 2,300 coho, 800
sockeye, 150 chum, and 1,250 Dolly Varden/Arctic char were harvested
from the Knik River and its tributaries including Jim Creek (Mills
1982). Of the 6,653 fishing-days expended and fish harvested on the
Knik River, most are attributed to the Jim Creek system (Mills 1982).
In addition, thousands of swans, ducks, and geese stop here in
September-October during their fall migration.
The amount of money spent to travel to Jim-Swan lakes by the large
number of recreational users represents a sizeable economic benefit.
The economic analysis on the Willow Creek sport fishery (ADF&G 1982)
uses "willingness to sell" or dollar value of one pink salmon fishing
day ($140.46) (Appendix A). This value, when applied to all species
harvested in the Jim Creek area, indicates that, at a minimum, $456,495
is spent as a result of this sport fishery in 1982.
A moose population census has not been conducted for this particular
area. However, moose aerial surveys (composition surveys) have been
conducted in the past. Density estimates of moose derived from these
surveys indicate populations of 200 to 250 moose (D. Bader 1982).
The Jim-Swan lake area is quite accessible, and for this reason is
considered important for moose hunting. In 1981, approximately 69
hunters reported hunting in this area and spent 283 days to harvest 17
moose (Appendix B). However, for every hunter reporting there are 2.63
hunters not reporting their moose harvest tickets (Chapter 1). Based
on this information, it is estimated that as many as 181 hunters spent
744 user-days to harvest 44 moose here in 1981. Fifty-four percent of
these moose hunters were from the Anchorage area, 45% were from the
Palmer-Wasilla area, and 1% were from other areas.
The economic value associated with moose hunting in this area for 1981
includes an estimated total net expenditure of $42,897 by hunters for
recreational equipment, lodging, etc. and $81,505 as the replacement
protein value for moose meat (Appendix B, Table 31).
F. Matanuska Valley Moose Range. This area includes all state lands
within the proposed boundary illustrated on Atlas Map C6. The size of
this area is approximately 150,000 acres.
Justification. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough enacted an ordinance in
1980, zoning 30,000 acres as the Moose Creek Reserve Special Use Area
to preserve public use and allow moose management. This proposed
nomination for the Matanuska moose range would expand that area and
~auld allow moose management on approximately 120,000 additional acres
of state-owned land.
-160-
This area is a readily accessible moose production and harvest area
within the Susitna planning area. Moose population and harvest
information is available. In a 1982 aerial survey, 931 moose were
counted. Based on this information and other moose density estimates
from Susitna basin studies (Bader 1982), population estimates range
from 1,500 to 2,000 moose.
Moose harvest and hunting effort for this area is derived by combining
the statistics for five separate report code units (14-01-007, -009,
-011, -013, and -017). These statistics show that 334 hunters spent
1,579 user-days to harvest 212 moose in 1981 (Appendix B; Data
Supplement A). However, for every hunter reporting, 2.63 hunters do
not report their moose harvest tickets (Chapter I). Based on this
information, it is estimated that as many as 878 hunters spent 4,153
user-days to harvest 558 moose within this area in 1981. Sixty-three
percent of the moose hunters were from the Anchorage area, 34% were
from the Palmer-Wasilla area, and 3% were from other areas (Appendix B;
Data Supplement A).
The economic value associated with moose hunting in this area for 1981
includes an estimated total net expenditure of $208,086 by hunters for
recreational equipment, lodging, etc., and $1,033,639 as the
replacement protein value for moose meat (Appendix B; Chapter I,
Table 31).
One of the main purposes of establishing this area as a moose range is
to reserve ~ land base where the plant browse species can be
manipulated (••enhanced") to return them to an earlier seral stage which
moose prefer. This enhancement technique may increase production of
moose forage. "Habitat enhancement•• was attempted on approxim~tely 875
acres within the original 30,000 acre moose reserve designation in
1983. A draft cooperative management plan between forestry and
wildlife representatives has proposed the rehabilitation of an
additional 3,000 to 5,000 acres per year until the year 2015, by
various timber harvesting practices and chaining (a technique which
knocks down trees by dragging a chain through the forest), (Didri~kson
pers. comm.). Through this type of habitat management, the potential
moose carrying capacity of the habitat in the area may be increased
with a concomitant increase in moose productivity.
The proposed legislation for the Matanuska moose range is a multiple
use designation. It would allow public hunting, fishing, trapping,
timber cutting, coal mining, and other outdoor related activities. The
designation only prevents the disposal of state land into private
ownership.
An important reason for proposing legislative designation is to test
the practice of "habitat enhancement" in order to attempt to increase
population numbers of moose. In addition, a large area of good habitat
for moose will be retained near a major population center.
G. Mount Susitna -Beluga. This area includes all state lands within the
proposed boundary illustrated in Atlas Map C6. The size of this area
is approximately 210,392 acres.
-161-
Justification. This area is one of the important wildlife production
and harvest areas within the Susitna planning area. Large numbers of
moose, brown bears, black bears, wolves, wolverines, numerous small
game, and furbearing animals inhabit the nominated area.
Aerial composition surveys (spot sampling) have been conducted in this
area since 1953 (ADF&G files). In 1971, aerial surveys alone counted
1,139 moose in a portion of the proposed area. Based on this sample
information, and moose density estimates derived as part of this
department's Susitna basin studies (Bader 1982), population estimates
range from 3,000 to 4,000 moose.
Moose harvest and hunting effort for this area is represented by
portions of the moose harvest report code units 16-02-012 and -013.
Hunter access to this area is primarily by airplane. The Data
Supplement A, indicates that approximately 220 hunters reported using
aircraft for the two code units in this area. These hunters spent
1,161 days to harvest 74 moose. However, for every hunter reporting,
2.63 hunters do not report their moose harvest tickets (Chapter I).
Based on this information, it is estimated that approximately 579
hunters spent 3,053 days to harvest 195 moose within the two specified
harvest report code units. Eighty percent of the hunters in this area
were from Anchorage, 5% were from Palmer-Wasilla, 9% were Alaskan
non-residents, and 6% were from other areas (Data Supplement A).
The economic value associated with moose hunting in this area for 1981
includes an estimated total net expenditure of $137,223 by hunters for
recreational equipment and lodging, etc. and $361,218 as the
replacement protein value for moose meat (Appendix B; Chapter I,
Table 31).
Evaluations of habitat suitability for moose, and forage production
(Atlas Maps B9a, B9b, B14a) indicate that approximately 95% of the
habitat in the area is moderately valued for these parameters during
the spring, summer and fa 11 seasons. At 1 east 30% of the winter range
has moderately and highly rated forage production capability.
The number of wildlife species (species diversity or richness)
occurring in this area ranges from 1 to 91 species per vegetation type.
An evaluation of the wildlife diversity of this area (Atlas Map B11),
indicates that 80% of the habitat is highly rated (67 to 91 species per
vegetation type), 15% is moderately rated (36 to 61 species per
vegetation type), and 5% has a low rating (1 to 31 species per
vegetation type). This rating is an indication of environmental
productivity and stability.
Availability of moose winter range based on estimated snow accumulation
(Atlas Map B13) indicates that nearly all of the area's moose winter
range would not be available during normal and/or severe winters.
Moose that don't migrate to the Susitna River corridor or the Susitna
Flats State Game Refuge under high snow accumulation conditions could
starve.
-162-
This area has a very high recreation potential. Moose, black and brown
bears are abundant. The potential for increased forage production in
the eastern lower elevations (20% of the area) is high and suggests
that habitat enhancement could be developed in this area to attempt to
increase moose production and maintain existing populations (Atlas Map
B14b). Access is currently limited to aircraft and air-lifted
all-terrain vehicles. When all weather/season road access is developed
to Beluga, this area will provide greater public use opportunities
comparable to most other areas within the Susitna planning area.
H. Prairie Creek. This nomination includes all lands and waters within
0.25 miles of either side of Prairie Creek beginning at its head waters
at Stephan Lake to its confluence with the Talkeetna River. The size
of this area is approximately 9,299 acres.
Justification. Prairie Creek has the highest density of spawning king
salmon per stream mile of any stream within the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough (Engel pers. comm.). In 1982, chinook salmon escapement was
3,844, but has been as high as 6,513 fish in 1976 (Bentz 1983).
Equally important, is the fact that these salmon support the highest
concentration of brown bears during July and August of any known
location within the Susitna planning area. It is estimated that nearly
40 brown bears from as far away as 100 km are attracted to Prairie
Creek to feed on king salmon (Miller pers. comm.). One bear tagged
(during the Susitna Hydroelectric big game downstream studies) moved
from upper Gold Creek to Prairie Creek to fish for king salmon, even
though chum salmon were available in the Susitna River around the mouth
of Gold Creek, much closer to this bear's regular home range.
Prairie Creek may not have as high a concentration of bears as ·does the
nationally known McNeil River State Game Sanctuary, where as many as 70
bears regularly utilize the McNeil River falls. It nevertheless is the
largest known concentration of feeding brown bears within the Susitna
planning area. The king salmon that spawn in Prairie Creek and the
adjoining upland habitats are critical in supporting possibly 40 bears
during July and August.
In order to maintain the present population of king salmon and the
accompanying populations of brown bears, the stream and its adjoining
uplands should be protected from incompatible land uses. The proposed
area is currently in native ownership. The department recommends that
the plan identify the state's interest in this parcel and propose the
development of cooperative land management agreements with the land
owners or possible trade or purchase to protect the values of this
area.
I. Bird Island (Western Lake Louise). This area includes all uplands in
the SWt of Section 8, T. 6 N., R. 7 W., Copper River Meridian. The
size of this area is approximately 1.97 acres.
Justification. Bird Island is unique because it supports the
northernmost known colony of double-crested cormorants in North
America, and is the largest known herring gull colony in Interior
Alaska. Double-crested cormorants have suffered serious population
-163-
declines throughout much of their range in the lower 48. Islands are
the preferred nesting habitat by double-crested cormorants and herring
gulls, because they are free from mammalian predators. These bird
species require specific habitat parameters for nesting, and not all
islands are suitable. If this particular island is lost to them for
nesting, the birds probably will not find suitable nest sites in the
vicinity, and the breeding population will disperse.
It is important to maintain these breeding populations because many
people in the area do not have a chance to view other seabird colonies
unless they travel hundreds of miles to Homer or to Kodiak (nearest
true oceanic areas for seabirds). The presence of these birds adds to
the quality of peoples• lives aesthetically and educationally. The
greatest threat to the birds of Bird Island is human disturbance.
Human visitation to the island during the critical egg-laying,
incubation and chick-rearing periods would be a source of disturbance
and population decline and should be prohibited.
If the island's land status should change to become a private
recreational site, with a cabin and associated human use, the birds
would abandon this traditional nest site.
Goal II. Ensure Access to Public Lands and Water
The state will ensure access to public lands and waters for the purpose of
promoting and/or enhancing the responsible public use and enjoyment of fish
and wildlife resources.
Retaining the major hunting and fishing trails, river corridors, lake
shores, airstrips, and other access areas in public ownership is a paramount
necessity for maintaining public use opportunities at the levels occurring
today. Additional access considerations are needed to accommodate the
projected increase in use and demand associated with the projected human
population increases for Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough to the
year 2000 (G. Knapp pers. comm.).
Access retained in public ownership protects the people's right to choose
for themselves when, where, and under what circumstances they participate in
outdoor recreation (hunting, hiking, boating, fishing and viewing). Most
Alaskans pursuing recreational interests came to the state because it offers
an abundance of opportunities to enjoy the outdoors. The fact that more
than 1,650,000 recreational user-days, are expended annually in the Susitna
planning area makes this fact vividly apparent. During 1980, more than
69,000 recreational fishermen and 19,000 hunters spent over 700,000 days in
the Susitna planning area. Non-hunting and fishing activities such as RV
and tent camping, picnicking, hiking, snowmobiling, cross country skiing,
boating and driving for pleasure contributed nearly 950,000 additional user
days.
The state should protect the public's access to outdoor resources within the
Susitna planning area. Public retention of use areas and access corridors,
such as trails, waterways, shorelines and airstrips, in state ownership will
reduce conflicts between private landowners and the public. These actions
-164-
are needed to maintain public use at existing levels and to reduce the need
to repurchase (with public funds) access and use rights.
Objective 1 -Maintain or Improve Public Access and Establish a Trail System
Maintain or obtain sufficient rights to lands which the state leases or
sells to protect or improve public access to areas where public use of fish
and wildlife resources exists.
The department recommends that the state retain in public ownership river
and lake shore lands and traditional access routes that are on public lands
or that cross lands that will soon be in private ownership. The ADF&G has
identified these access routes and included trails used for hunting, fishing
and other related outdoor recreational activities. These are identified on
Atlas Maps C1 and C3.
The Susitna planning area has only limited access into most of the area.
Only the existing access routes which support the upper 80% of public use
(Atlas Maps C2a, C2b, and C2c) were considered for retention and
classification. Trail corridors need to be established, in these areas if
no trails are present and all ADF&G guidelines should be followed. Some
popular trails on private lands should be considered for repurchase, or to
have access easements on them. On public lands, sufficient space should be
retained at trail heads and termina to accommodate parking and camping
activities. Special effort should be made to acquire stream corridors and
public boat launch and camping facilities on popular fishing streams and
lakes, where the banks are mainly in private ownership, and little or no
opportunity exists for public use. On public lands and waters, stream
corridors of sufficient width are necessary to protect riparian wildlife
habitat and to allow for public hunting, fishing, camping, parking,' and boat
launching facilities.
Human use of the fish and wildlife resources is directly dependant on
access. Most of the hunting and fishing is concentrated in or near the
areas of access. Thus, in order to maintain hunting, fishing, and related
outdoor recreation at its existing level of 1,650,000 person-days and.to
accommodate any future increase in demand, specific provisions must be made
to retain public ownership of existing and potential access areas within the
Susitna planning area.
Maintaining the existing access, the 80% most used public hunting areas, and
the subsistence areas in public ownership meet this objective (Atlas
Maps C1, C2a, C2b, C2c, C3 and G4).
GOAL III -Mitigate Losses of Fish, Wildlife, and Their Habitats
Where development is to occur, the state will seek to maintain as much
wildlife habitat as is possible in conjunction with any development project
that is undertaken.
The use of public lands and waters for the development of forestry, coal,
minerals, agriculture and ultimately settlement are important issues to many
people, because these same lands are, often times, important fish and
-165-
wildlife production and harvest areas. The availability of state land for
all these purposes has been a concern expressed by many communities and by
thousands of people within and adjacent to the Susitna planning area,
because all these uses are not compatible. Some of the uses can lead to
significant loss of fish and wildlife populations through disturbance,
alteration, or destruction of important habitat.
Some habitat loss or alteration is inevitable when development occurs and
little can be done to prevent it. However, major habitat losses can
sometimes be avoided or minimized by proper planning of development
projects.
Fish and wildlife needs should be considered and mitigated for during
planning and development of land or water resources to avoid or minimize
potential adverse effects on habitats. Planning prior to development can
lead to practical alternatives that reduce harm to fish and wildlife. It is
also important to provide for the restoration or rehabilitation of damaged
habitat where it occurs and to maintain it upon rehabilitation.
Because the development of resources, other than fish and wildlife, and the
settlement of Alaska•s lands are inevitable, a state mitigation policy i~
needed to address the public•s interest and minimize the loss of our fish
and wildlife resources. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has
developed such a policy and is proposing it to ADNR for adoption. This
Mitigation Policy is presented later in· this chapter. Currently no formal
process exists to address mitigation. As a result of this situation the
department has formulated a consultation process for ADNR's consideration
and adoption. This process is discussed further on in this chapter.
Effective mitigation of development of other resources or of settlement on
or adjacent to fish and wildlife habitat and related public use areas
includes the adoption and implementation of best management practices
through development guidelines. ADF&G will provide guidance for minimizing
detrimental impacts to fish and wildlife associated with many land uses by
improving the accessibility of information on existing best management
practices.
This department has developed guidelines for ADNR's consideration and
adoption. General guidelines and guidelines for the development of
agriculture, settlement, forestry, refuges and critical habitats,
transportation and utility corridors, wetlands, buffer zones, riparian areas
and other special fish and wildlife areas are presented later in this
chapter.
The following goal and objective address mitigation in general, this
department's proposed mitigation policy, the consultation process, and the
developmental guidelines.
Objective 1 -Minimize Loss of Habitat
Where possible, avoid the loss of the natural fish and wildlife habitat and
minimize the need for costly human-assisted habitat restoration efforts.
-166-
a. Include fish and wildlife habitat considerations in the early phases of
the planning and design of resource development projects.
This department has presented its concerns regarding ADNR's project
consideration process. Currently no formal consultation process
exists. As a result of this situation, the Department of Fish and Game
is proposing the following consultation process for adoption:
The Consultation Process. Department refers to the Alaska Department
of Natural Resources for the purpose of this consultation process.
Purpose: The results of the consultation process provide a basis for
analysis of the environmental, social and cultural aspects of a
proposed project, and will identify any problems that should be
considered in the department's resource allocation and permitting
procedures. The department will implement the consultation process as
an initial step in compliance with AS 38.05.035. The consultation
process is not viewed as a new or additional administration procedure,
but rather a clarification of the department's interagency coordination
process.
Pre-project consultation: The pre-project consultation process is a
useful initial step in budgeting project related expenditures. The
department might find, after discussions with appropriate agencies,
that the project is wholly or partly infeasible, or otherwise poses
unforeseen economic, social or environmental problems. Pre-project
consultation helps to ensure better applications and expedites the
formal interagency consultation process as required by the plan.
Consultation must be complete and documented. Each project must be a
self-contained document so that the department, other state and local
agencies, and the interested members of the public may fully understand
the proposed project. The information contained in the project
description should be specific, accurate, and sufficiently quantified
to convey a precise picture of the project and its probable effects.
The consultation process is comprised of several steps.
State statutes require the department to consult with other agencies
having responsibility to review projects as part of the department's
resource allocations and permitting procedures. The department begins
by contacting the appropriate agencies and describes in writing the
proposed project and its potential effects to the extent possible. A
list of agencies to be contacted for pre-project consultation will be
identified for each resource management subregion defined in the area
plan. This initial contact will provide an opportunity for agencies to
comment and define any studies that may be needed to identify potential
impacts and to recommend adequate protective and mitigative measures.
The project proposal is prepared following initial agency contacts.
Formal consultation request: The second step in the process occurs
when the department formally requests consultation with agencies. This
request must be made to allow a resource allocation or permit. The
request should be made in writing to facilitate documentation of the
consultation process. At this point, the project is described in
-167-
detail to the agencies, and the information presented includes the
results of any studies performed and responds to the preliminary
comments and recommendations of the agencies. A specific time frame
for preparing and considering agency comments and recommendations for
the project will be determined.
Documentation: The third step of the consultation process is
documentation. The department's response to comments and
recommendations received during the agency review period must be stated
in the finding of facts which result in a best interest determination.
At that time, a copy of the final proposal and the findings and the
best interest determination should be provided to each of the agencies
consulted. Should any agencies with whom the applicant is required to
consult fail to provide written documentation indicating a completed
consultation within the prescribed time, the department may provide a
summary of its attempts to consult and the results of any consultation
that has certain activities or specific project approvals may be
exempted from the consultation process if agreed to by the department
and the agencies with whom consultation is requested~
Section 2-C of this draft addresses the role of planning in minimizing
the loss of habitat as well.
b. Develop siting and design criteria which will minimize wildlife-caused
damages to life and property (in areas where human development
conflicts with fish and wildlife resources).
The ADF&G has developed guidelines regarding the development of
specific resources (e.g. coal). These appear in the guideline section
later in this chapter.
This department, in conjunction with ADNR, developed guidelines for
subdivision design and siting. The results of this effort appear in a
ADNR publication entitled "Design of Residential and Recreational
Subdivisions" and represents a systematic approach to site evaluation
and design for use in Alaskan land disposal programs.
c. Identify and provide greenbelts adequate to protect water quality of
anadromous fish waters, major fishing streams and their tributaries.
The ADF&G has considered the protection of these resources by providing
guidelines for buffer zones associated with the development of various
resources and/or settlement activities. These appear later in the
guideline section of this chapter.
Through careful project design and execution, the spatial and temporal
extent of the impacts of developmental activities can be minimized.
For example, giving attention to the sensitivities of specific fish,
wildlife and habitats, using natural buffers or vegetative screens to
isolate disturbance, and seasonal restrictions on development, can
significantly minimize impact and hasten recovery.
-168-
Objective 2 -Habitat Restoration
When loss of habitat cannot be minimized, it will be necessary to restore or
rehabilitate the habitat that was lost or disturbed to its pre-disturbance
condition (where cost effective).
a. Assess the present and/or potential damage that may occur as a result
of a development project.
The ADF&G has addressed the subject of damage assessment that may be
incurred by development projects in section II 0 of this department's
proposed mitigation policy later in this chapter.
b. Onsite evaluation and monitoring of land and water developments should
be conducted.
The ADF&G considers these issues to be paramount in providing minimum
protection for public resources, minimizing losses and/or assessing
habitat damages. This is addressed in the section on the consultation
process.
c. Rectification of disruptions to habitat should be implemented through
permit, lease, or project stipulations.
The ADF&G considers rectification as the third priority mitigative
approach and is discussed in section II B 2a of this department's
mitigation policy in this chapter.
Objective 3 -Compensation
When plans that call for major state commitments of land and other natural
resources could result in significant, unavoidable loss of fish and wildlife
resources or use opportunities, it is reasonable that other habitat areas
may be dedicated for compensation of resource loss.
The ADF&G has considered the subject of compensation for habitat and related
resource losses in the section of this chapter dealing with proposed
mitigation policy. Compensation, per se, is discussed in Section II B 2c of
the proposed mitigation policy.
-169-
Proposed State Policy
on
Mitigation of Fish and Wildlife Habitat
I. The Need for Policy
Logging, construction, mining, agriculture, settlement and other
developmental activities which use land or water are of great importance to
many Alaskans. When properly pursued, these undertakings can be compatible
with proper management and use of Alaska's valuable fish and wildlife
resources. However, improper practices can lead to significant degradation
of the state's fisheries and wildlife resources and related public use
opportunities by altering or destroying important habitat components.
Development includes a multitude of practices such as road building, bridge
construction, culvert placement, excavation, dredging, clearing, dragging,
dumping, and other activities. All these impart existing land and water,
the very basis of all fish and wildlife habitat. Each development action
requires space, and thereby alters fish and wildlife habitat and compromises
other types of uses. Development activities, when disruptive to fish or
wildlife resources, may, for example, increase erosion or sedimentation,
divert, obstruct, alter, or pollute water flow, aggravate temperature
extremes, alter and destroy populations of animals and vegetation, reduce
food supplies, restrict movement of fish and wildlife, disturb or destroy
spawning, nesting and breeding areas, change adjacent or downstream
habitats, change the capacity of a stream or wetland to store and use storm
or flood waters or reduce public access or use opportunities.
Often, such habitat losses are inevitable and little can be done to prevent
or control them, but often they can, in the public interest, be abated or
"mitigated.'' The overall mitigative goal of the State of Alaska is to
maintain or establish an ecosystem with the developmental project that is as
nearly desirable as the ecosystem that would have been there in the absence
of that project. The decision levels through which a project is rev1ewed -
preventing, minimizing, and replacing ecosystems -is outlined and discussed
in this policy.
The magnitude of the impact of development on fish and wildlife habitat is
dependent on the degree to which development is properly planned and on the
conscientious adherence to practices designed to protect fisheries, wildlife
and public use values. Therefore, it is the primary objective of the state
that fish, wildlife and habitat values be prominently considered by
developers and regulatory agencies prior to land and water allocations, or
issuance of regulatory approvals. Consideration should take place during
the planning and implementation associated with land and water development.
This is necessary to avoid or minimize foreseeable or potential adverse
environmental effects before damage takes place, and early enough to
consider all beneficial alternatives. Similarly, it is imperative to
provide for repair, restoration, or rehabilitation of habitat damage after
it occurs, should it occur at all, as well as to maintain the reconstructed
habitat over time.
These concepts--preventing, minimizing, replacing--when molded into a
working definition of mitigation, will contribute to the sustained
-170-
functioning of aquatic and terrestrial systems, and the continued viability
of fish and wildlife resources, while providing for the other needs of
Alaskans. A mitigation policy, therefore, is essential to guide, not ~flp,
development actions by insuring considerations of alternatives to fUTf1
the sustained yield management precepts of Alaska law.
II. Statement of Policy
A. Definition
The nature of and extent to which mitigation is carried out is left to
the state•s discretion. In considering mitigatory options it is
essential to recognize the differing degrees of stress that may be
placed on natural fish and wildlife habitat. Lightly-stressed aquatic
or terrestrial systems adjust to change, and recovery takes place
through natural processes when the stress is removed. In contrast, a
heavily or overstressed natural system cannot restore itself to
original conditions through natural processes alone. In this case, the
system•s capacity for maintenance and repair has been impeded, and at
this point, humans must provide assistance for the system to be
restored. These differences in recovery potentials dictate different
approaches to implementing mitigation measures.
Accordingly, the state, when defining and administering mitigation
measures, agrees with the definition of mitigation in the Federal
regulations (40 CFR 1508.20) which implements the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Mitigation
includes,~ priority order of implementation:
(1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or
parts of an action;
(2) minimizing impacts by lim1ting the degree or magnitude of the
action or its implementation;
(3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring
the affected environment;
(4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action;
(5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources or environments.
B. Implementation
The state will implement the five forms of mitigation pursuant to its
statutory authorities to manage and regulate the use of land and waters
under its jurisdiction in the following manner:
-171-
1. Mitigation to Avoid or Minimize Habitat Damage
a. Avoidance
The state•s primary approach to mitigation is one of preventive
conservation designed to avoid an ever shrinking base of natural
habitats and costly restoration efforts. It is founded on
preventing adverse, predictable, and irreversible trends or
changes in natural aquatic or terrestrial systems. The objective
is to maintain as much existing natural habitat on state lands as
·possible, even if the relative importance or interrelationships of
living organisms are not fully known. Apart from denying outright
allocations or the issuance of a permit or lease, this may be
accomplished by attaching stipulations or conditions to permits or
leases for proposed developments. Specifically various
developmental activities must be individually tailored to fit the
particular site. Seasonal timing must also be taken into
consideration in order to maintain individuals or groups of fish
and wildlife species that use various habitats in an annual or
seasonal cycle. Mitigation by permit or lease stipulation can be
employed to avoid activities in areas with a high risk of adverse
impact, such as nest sites, winter ranges, or critical habitat.
Development consistent with the objectives for designated areas
can proceed according to the stipulations or conditions. This
fundamental approach provides for beneficial land and water use
programs in natural systems.
b. Minimization
Minimization differs from avoidance in that it is acknowledged
that some habitat damage will occur. The state recognizes that
land and water development projects are mandated by public need,
legislative or constitutional prioritization of land use, or by
pervading economic considerations. It is recognized that
industrial, agricultural and residential development in Alaska
will cause some amount of habitat destruction, and that this.
damage has been accepted by developers and policy makers as the
price of economic benefit. The second priority mitigative
approach to habitat management is to make that loss less severe,
or to minimize foreseeable disruptions to aquatic and terrestrial
systems. The focus of this approach is to maintain habitat
diversity and the capacity of each system to restore itself
naturally from stress or damage, while accommodating other uses of
land and waters. These other uses may reduce species abundance or
diversity to some degree or cause some disturbance to species•
behavior.
Minimal adverse habitat disruption may be achieved by permit or
lease stipulations which limit development actions when and where
necessary, to the extent needed to maximize conservation of fish
and wildlife values. For example, temporal mitigation measures,
which involve adjusting the timing of project activities to reduce
impacts in areas of high risk, can be used to r~strict development
to the seasons when the impact is least, or to reduce the amount
-172-
of time spent in a sensitive area. Habitat may be stressed
temporarily, but recovery can take place through no-cost natural
processes.
2. Mitigation In Lieu of Habitat Damage
a. Rectification
The third priority mitigative approach is to repair, rehabilitate,
or restore abused aquatic or terrestrial systems. Th1s requires
either 1) onsite or post-construction evaluations of water and
land developments after the fact of damage, or 2) estimation,
during the planning stage, of likely environmental damage.
Rectification is less desirable than avoidance or minimization
because, even if restoration is complete, there is a net loss of
fish and wildlife and habitat, resulting from the time lag between
the impact and full replacement. Such time lags may vary from
days to decades. Thus, gains or benefits to be realized from this
form of mitigation are somewhat less than those of full
prevention.
The objective is to restore the same habitats and associated
wildlife as those that were lost, or, to restore the habitat to
pre-disturbance conditions. However, if it is impossible to
restore the habitat by any means (e.g. flooding by a dam) it makes
little sense to devise and implement factors which cannot
alleviate that situation. The simplistic view of maximizing one
kind of habitat at the expense of another should be avoided. The
state recognizes that there will be situations where no
rehabilitation of the loss incurred is possible.
If proper planning occurred, rectification should only be
necessary when the developer has not complied with the plan,
applicable laws, and permit stipulations. Rectification of
disruptions to the habitat may be implemented through permit or
lease stipulations and amendments imposed by a court ordered
penalty. It is likely that the disturbed environment from
completed or partially completed projects can be restored using
the best methods now available. This could result in the recovery
of substantial amounts of project-caused fish and wildlife losses.
b. Preservation and Maintenance Actions
Mitigation should be recognized as a continuing obligation
throughout and during the entire life of the project. The state
recognizes that if mitigation measures are approved but not
instigated and maintained during the life of the project, no
habitat improvement will be realized. If the promise of
mitigation helped justify the project in the first place, and this
mitigation is not implemented, litigation could ensue. The state
believes that costs of mitigation are all normal costs of any land
or water development and must be borne by the developers and
beneficiaries of the project.
-173-
Habitat preservation and maintenance may be imposed through permit
or lease stipulations or their amendments. For example, drainage
structures installed in fish streams should be required to be
maintained properly, and erosion must be corrected when it occurs.
Revegetated areas which are not successful, for whatever reason,
must be revegetated until they have become established. In these
ways, adverse impacts will be reduced or eliminated over time.
A requirement (or permit or lease stipulation) that developers
continue to mitigate by maintenance operations during the life of
the project will ensure that conservation objectives are met and
litigation is avoided. ·
c. Compensation
Whenever an allocation of land and water resources will cause a
reduction or loss of values to the public--losses in terms of fish
and wildlife populations or habitat, recreation opportunities,
access, and other foregone resource use opportunities--the project
sponsor must create or restore an equivalent part of the aquatic
or terrestrial ecosystem to comeensate for the loss. The most
difficult problem encountered w1th this approach is determining
what kind of action is appropriate and how much mitigation is
adequate. The problem can be resolved qualitatively, through
negotiation and quantitatively through the establishment of
evaluation procedures.
It is the state's position that compensation should not involve a
simple payment of dollars, but instead should involve replacement
of lost habitat, populations or recreational opportunities.
Compensation by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environments is the least desirable form of mitigation because it
accepts loss of habitat at the outset and and often cannot result
in total reparation for those losses. When it must be
implemented, however, the preferred form of compensation is .onsite
mitigation; that is, all damage caused by a project should be
replaced within the development site or project area where damage
occurs. The same functions or types of habitat that are lost
should be directly restored, replaced, or compensated. Only
secondarily should compensation by substitution of other lands,
(trade-off of an unavoidable ecological loss for an ecological
improvement elsewhere) be used. Tradeoffs or conversions only
exchange one kind of environment for another, and the latter may
be desirable or not. There are divergent views and interests
between local and more distant users regarding the value of the
"improvement" or development of the endemic ecosystem.
Any type of compensation will be costly, and the values of lost
resources cannot be measured solely through economic cost/benefit
ratios or person-day expenditures. This sort of analysis must be
accompanied by evaluations which measure factors other than human
uses of land, water, and the resources within. The value of the
interdependent biological relationships within an entire ecosystem
-174-
is too often ignored. Since some ecosystems, such as wetlands,
may never be successfully replaced or substituted, it is important
that the land owner, developer, and the various government
agencies work together to salvage such lands to rectify the loss
of the resource values of those areas. The state recognizes,
however, that in some rare cases, the only compensation negotiable
may be prevention of future losses in another or adjacent area.
C. The Role of Planning
Proper mitigation of fish and wildlife habitat losses requires that
land and water use projects be properly designed and planned. This
requires active participation by fish and wildlife experts at the
earliest project conceptualization or design state, before permits or
leases are issued.
Proper area planning, particularly at the management level, will assist
in abating a common cause of fish and wildlife habitat decline
piecemeal habitat losses which are cumulative. Management or area
planning, when it precedes significant land or water use programs, will
allow reduction of the cumulative effects resulting from a variety of
projects. ·
Prior to permit or lease issuance there should be a realistic
assessment of the specific losses which likely will be incurred. The
losses should be identified first in terms of lost resources and
secondly in terms of the uses which may be foregone. This is because
human use and resource productivity do not always correlate. The state
cannot accept analyses which equate low human use figures to low
estimates of losses. Low human use has no bearing on how much fish,
wildlife, or their habitat may have been lost; or how much
productivity, biological diversity or critical processes were impaired.
However, the loss of human use should be a factor that will need to be
mitigated.
Losses of fish and wildlife habitat that cannot be mitigated will.
affect the people who use those resources. Wherever the carrying
capacity of the land or water is reduced, harvest of species by
subsistence, commercial, and recreational users may have to be reduced.
Recreational opportunities to view resources may also decline. As the
population of the State of Alaska increases, competition for fish and
wildlife resources will surely increase. Decreased abundance of these
resources will mean that some resource users will get less of the
resource than they may have had in the past. As more and more habitat
is damaged or lost, the problem of a growing population base and its
pressure on fish and wildlife, will be aggravated.
The impacts of a proposed project and alternatives to it on all the
natural resources affected, therefore, should be assessed ~frly in the
project planning process. The effects of a fish and wildl1 e project
on other resources, such as timber, water, human use, or on fish and
wildlife should be assessed. Alternatives, to building structures
e.g., providing minimum stream flows rather than a hatchery to maintain
a population of fish, to achieve the project objective should be
-175-
required and considered first, because they have the least negative
impact.
Consideration of all natural resources early in the planning process
(plants, animals, ecosystem diversity) should lead to development of
ways to minimize effects on these resources in all phases of project
development. This will reduce the need to later add on the more
costly, conspicuous, and less desirable remedies after the fact of
damage. The specific properties and characteristics of the natural
system which must remain after development should be defined prior to
initial project approval. The developer is then allowed to proceed
with the project under pre-established mitigation measures, which will
guarantee functioning of a natural system and not cause permanent or
costly public harm.
D. Assessment of Damages
The combination of population pressures, diminishing space, energy
needs, and the necessity of considering economic variables in most
decisions have culminated in questions regarding the intrinsic values
of human's surroundings. Attempting to place price tags on an area's
worth, whether in terms of its retention as a natural system or in
terms of its value in an altered condition, is inherently difficult.
The state of the art in valuation of habitats will lag behind the need
to make resource allocation decisions. The state believes that fish
and wildlife habitat should be pr~served unless the expected benefits
of the development is demonstrably "large" relative to loss of fish and
wildlife values. Of course, what is deemed acceptable must be a broad
social decision which necessarily requires assessment of the resource
damage likely to be incurred as a result of the development.
In theory, it would seem a simple matter to observe the impact of a
construction project, determine if fish or wildlife are killed, and
then assess damage. In practice, it is anything but. Damage may be
incremental, and not identifiable without extensive baseline and post-
project data. Mortality may affect juveniles as well as adults.
Damage to habitat or to populations of juveniles may not impact
resource users or be measurable for several years. However, these
effects will be obvious when the particular cohort should have reached
adulthood. Other damages, such as those affecting migratory species or
the "lower" members of a food chain, may be visible but not able to
have a dollar value placed on them. Less tangible aspects of resource
damage include decreased aesthetic worth and decreased ability to
provide a specific wildlife habitat. Finally, in an environment
possessing many, often only partially understood, natural
interrelationships -and impacted by any number of human-related
activities -definitive assessment of precise cause and effect
relationships between development impacts and fish or wildlife
mortalities will be difficult and often impossible.
This problem is intensified by the absence of even rudimentary data at
a large number of site-specific locations. It follows that assessment
of damage will, at best, be a combination of assessment of the partial
-176-
data base available concerning stock levels, seasonal and cyclical
abundance and location, together with a scientific judgement of the
"most likely" result of environmental damage. This is based on a
general understanding of fish and wildlife habitat dependencies and
tolerances.
These types of judgements have put extreme pressure on land and water
managers, and pose unknown risks for fish and wildlife resources. In
such cases, and where the only other alternative is to stand mute and
observe a steady erosion of fish and wildlife values, (uncorrected and
uncompensated for) a judgement decision is necessary.
The state holds that the appropriate standard for measuring damages to
natural resources is the cost which would be reasonably incurred by the
state to restore or rehabilitate the environment in the affected area
to its pre-existing condition, or as close thereto as is feasible
without grossly disproportionate expenditures.
The question is prompted: "At what point do indirect or cumulative
effects become so remote that mitigation should not be required?" It
is from baseline data that the degree of project impact, and hence the
degree of mitigation required, is measured. Because damage estimates
will be based upon scanty or incomplete knowledge, and will often be
probabilistic in nature, it is possible that estimates of ••most likely"
level of damage may, from time to time, vary. It is the Department of
Natural Resource•s belief that in such cases of difference, the onus of
proof to explain any lower estimates must lie with the developer. This
position is based upon the recognition that the developer is the
potential beneficiary of both an early start (relative to time required
for adequate environmental inventory) and of any lower damage estimate
that is put forth.
III. Summary
(1) Mitigation is necessary to guide land and water allocations and
resource development in order to preclude, abate, repair, or indemnify
the adverse effects upon fish, wildlife, their habitat and related uses
resulting from development projects on lands and waters under the
jurisdiction of the State of Alaska.
(2) The state•s authority to approve resource allocations and development
plans on state lands as well as the public trust doctrine asserting the
public•s right to unimpaired fish and wildlife production on public
lands, provide the means and the obligation to compel mitigation
measures.
(3) Differences in recovery potentials due to differing degrees of stress
placed upon fish, wildlife, and their habitat dictate that mitigation
measures be selected accordingly.
(4) Mitigation before the fact of damage is the preferred means, with
avoidance of damage or loss as the primary objective, and minimization
rectification, maintenance, and compensation following in that order.
Each may be implemented through permit or lease stipulations.
-177-
(5) Mitigation measures imposed after the fact of damage or in lieu of
expected damage, may require rectification of damage, maintenance of
corrections over time, or compensation by replacing or substituting
resources or environments.
(6) Rectification, necessary only when the permittee or lessee has not
fulfilled his obligation, may be imposed by stipulation or by court
ordered penalty. Projects may be required to restore environments in
order to recover fish, wildlife, and habitat losses.
(7) Maintenance mitigation actions are project related. The state holds
that maintenance mitigation costs are normal development costs to be
borne by the developer and project beneficiaries. This form of
mitigation may be imposed by permit stipulations or later amendment.
(8) Compensation by providing substitute resources or environments is the
least desirable form of mitigation. When imposed it preferably should
be implemented onsite rather than by "improving" an existing ecosystem
elsewhere. Compensatory mitigation will only be implemented by
negotiating a written agreement with the developer.
(9) Mitigation should be considered at the earliest project
conceptualization or design stage. All impacts should be assessed
early in the project planning process with first consideration given to
nonstructural alternatives to the project objective.
(~0) Fish and wildlife habitat should be preserved unless the public benefit
of the project is demonstrably large. Assessment of damages will be a
decision based in part on existing data bases and in part on "most"
likely judgements.
(11) The burden of proof to justify lower estimates of damage to fish and
wildlife habitat lies with the developer.
Following are the guidelines relating to and affecting the land and water
allocation advocated by the ADF&G.
-178-
LITERATURE CITED
ADF&G. 1979. Recommendations for minimizing the impacts of hydrocarbon
development on the fish, wildlife, and aquatic plant resources of Lower
Cook Inlet. Vol. 1. Prepared by C.J. Hamilton, S.J. Starr, MCHM.
Prepared for Alaska Dept. of Comm. & Reg. Affairs, Coastal Energy
Impact Program. NOAA, USDC.
ADF&G. 1983. Susitna hydro aquatic studies, Phase II Rept., Vol. 1:
Summarization of Vols. 2, 3, 4, Parts I, II; and Vol. 5. 106 pp.
Bader, D. 1982. Relative moose population density estimates for the
Susitna Planning Area. Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game. 7 pp. Draft.
Beck, C. 1981. Susitna area plan land use alternatives, Alaska Dept. of
Natural Resources, Land & Resource Planning. 9 pp.
Bentz, R.W., Jr. 1983. Inventory and cataloging of the sportfish and
sportfish waters in upper Cook Inlet. Annual Rept. of Progress, 1982-
1983, Project F-9-15, 24(G-I-D) 59-104.
Coady, J.W. 1974. Influence of snow on behavior of moose. Naturaliste
Can. 101:417-436.
Delaney, K., and K. Hepler. 1983. Inventory and cataloging of sportfish
and sportfish waters of western Prince William Sound, Lower Susitna
River, Northern Cook Inlet drainages. Annual Rept. of Progress 1982-
1983, 23 (G-I-H), 25 pp.
Derksen. 1983. A management plan for trumpeter swans of the Cook Inlet.
18 pp.
Didrickson, J~ 1970. Moose survey-inventory progress report-1969. In D.E.
McKnight, ed. Annual report of survey-inventory activities, Part I,
Moose, Deer, and Elk, 3, Proj. W-17-2, Fed. Aid Wildl. Restor., Alaska
Dept. of Fish and Game, Juneau. 82 pp.
Didrickson, J. 1973. Moose survey-inventory progress report-1971. In D.E.
McKnight, ed. Annual report of survey-inventory activities, Part I,
Moose, Deer, and Elk, 3, Proj. W-17-4, Fed. Aid Wildl. Restor., Alaska
Dept. of Fish and Game, Juneau. 179 pp.
Didrickson, J.C., and K.P. Taylor. 1978. Lower Susitna Valley moose
population identity study. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game. Fed. Aid
Wildl. Rest. Proj. Final Rept., W-17-8 and 9. Job 1.16R. Juneau. 20
pp.
Hammerstrom, S., and L. Larson. 1983.
fisheries of the Kenai Peninsula.
1983, Proj. F-9-15, 24 (G-II-L).
Evaluation of chinook salmon
Annual Rept. of Progress, 1982-
pp. 36-67.
-179-
Hepler, K. 1984. Chinook salmon population and angler user studies of
Upper Cook Inlet water. Annual Rept. of Progress, 1983-1984,
25(G-II-M) in press.
Kubik, S. 1981. Inventory and cataloging sport fish and sport fish waters
of the lower Susitna River and central Cook Inlet drainages. Annual
Rept. of Progress, 1980-1981, Proj. F-9-13, 22(G-I-H). pp. 68-88.
Modafferi, R.D. 1981. Moose-Downstream. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game.
Susitna Hydroelectric Proj. Phase II. Annual Proj. Rept. Big Game
Studies. Vol. II. 114 pp.
Scott, P. 1961. A colored key to wildfowl of the world. Charles Scribner
Sons, New York, 91 pp.
USFWS. 1980. National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife associated
recreation for Alaska.
Watsjold, D. 1983. Comments on Su-Hydro FERC license application. Alaska
Dept. of Fish and Game. Memorandum. 11 pp.
-180-
GUIDELINES
Introduction
Agricultural activities, mineral extraction, energy exploration and
development, timber harvest, recreation, commercial, residential and other
potential uses of state lands and resources are important to the growth and
well-being of Alaska's economy. However, without proper planning these
activities may significantly decrease the capacity of lands to produce fish
and wildlife resources. Development activities have the potential for
altering or destroying fish and wildlife habitat or directly disturbing
species during critical stages of the life-cycle. Varying degrees, timing
and intensity of activity, siting, design and methods of construction and
operation all interact to increase or decrease the effects on wildlife. By
using available knowledge and the best management practices, adverse effects
can be appreciably reduced or avoided. The amount of damage resulting from
a particular habitat disturbance depends on the development activity and the
characteristics and vulnerabilities of the specific habitat or species
involved.
Land use or resource development plans should protect productive fish and
wildlife core areas and maintain unifying ecological processes. Unifying
processes are the dynamic flows of energy, nutrients and water, as well as
species interactions and ~ssociations (e.g. food webs) which link essential
fish and wildlife use areas and the resources dependent upon them. Attempts
to mitigate activities on lands and waters, that do not consider their
continuous and highly interrelated nature will fail to protect their
capacity to produce fish and wildlife. The scope of a habitat protection
strategy must extend beyond the boundaries of the core area. For example,
if a waterfowl feeding ground is identified within coastal wetlands, simply
not allowing any development or classifying the area as wildlife habitat
while disregarding the importance of the adjacent lands to its continued
function will be of little benefit. The unifying natural processes that
transport and regulate the flow of unpolluted water, nutrients and energy
through the feeding grounds must be maintained in the surrounding area.s as
well. Maintenance does not necessarily mean that the surrounding lands
cannot be used or developed; however, it does mean that the manner in which
the land is used or developed should be designed or planned to accommodate
natural biological and physical processes.This approach not only provides a
viable habitat protection strategy, but in addition provides a positive
approach to uses of all kinds by encouraging utilization of the best
technological methods and will encourage development of improved technology
and engineering.
The following ~uidelines are intended to ensure the continued maintenance of
unifying natural processes that contribute to the abundance and diversity of
Alaska's fish and wildlife resources. In many instances there may be
several technically adequate alternatives that can be applied to minimize
impacts. These guidelines are not intended to restrict alternatives, but
encourage the use of the best management practices available to achieve the
desired goals. In some instances the exclusion of a certain use may be the
best alternative.
-181-
It is recognized that these guidelines may not be applicable in all
situations. Site specific conditions and management objectives should be
reviewed on an individual basis by professional biologists. However, these
guidelines are intended to make development activities more compatible with
existing fish and wildlife resources.
Definition of Terms: The following terms are used throughout this chapter
and are defined as follows:
commercial and industrial: for the purpose of this plan these are all uses
requiring a plan of operation, lease, development plan, miscellaneous
land use permit, contract or Title 11e permit.
compensation: involves replacement of lost habitat, populations or
recreational opportunities. Whenever a project will cause a reduction
or loss of values to the public--losses in terms of fish and wildlife
populations or habitat, recreation opportunities, access, and other
foregone resource use opportunities--the project sponsor must create or
restore an equivalent part of the aquatic or terrestrial ecosystem to
com~ensate for the loss. Refer to Statement of Policy on Mitigation of
Fis and Game Habitat Disruptions. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
March 1982.
consultation: includes 1) specific provisions for interagency review in the
development and consideration of alternative project or management
plans 2) ensure that project or management plans address loss
prevention, compensation and/or enhancement of fish and wildlife and
3) identification of factors to be addressed by the state in
determining the best public interest associated with a project or
management plan. ·
enhancement: means development or improvement of fish and wildlife resource
values for an area beyond that which would occur under natural
conditions.
feasible and erudent: feasible and prudent means consistent with sound
engineer1ng practice and not causing environmental, social, or economic
problems that outweigh the public benefit to be derived from compliance
with the guideline which is modified by the term "feasible and
prudent."
fish: includes all harvested fish species except blackfish and
sticklebacks.
fish habitat: fish habitat means the waters identified in the ADF&G
Anadromous Fish Stream Atlas and those waters which are known to
support resident freshwater fish species.
~: a general statement of intent, usually not quantifiable nor having a
specified date of completion. Goals identify desired long-range
conditions.
guidelines: a definite course of action to be followed by land managers.
-182-
Guidelines range in their level of specificity from simply g1v1ng the
land manager general guidance on how a decision should be made or what
factors are to be considered, to detailed standards that will be
followed when making on-the-ground-decisions.
mitigation: The definition of mitigation promulgated in the federal
regulations (40 CFR 1508.20) which effectuate the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) will be used.
Mitigation includes,~ priority order of implementation:
1. avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action
or parts of an action;
2. minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the
action or its implementation;
3. rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or
restoring the affected environment;
4. reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation
and maintenance operations during the life of the action;
5. compensating for the impact by replacing or providing
substitute resources or environments.
For further information refer to Statement of Policy on Mitigation of
Fish and Game ~abitat Disruptions, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
March 1982.
productive habitat: lands which are important in maintaining optimal levels
of local and/or regional fish and/or wildlife populations by
contributing to important life-history and/or life-sustaining
requirements including but not limited to optimal or favorable spring,
summer, fall or winter range; calving grounds, breeding grounds,
nesting areas, staging areas and migration routes.
public access: the right to enter, travel upon or recreate on lands and
waters which have traditionally been used by the public for such
purposes in order to travel to or participate in hunting, fishing or
other forms of recreation.
riparian ecosystems: includes riparian lands and the associated aquatic
habitat.
riparian lands: are composed of plant communities along rivers and streams
and around lakes, ponds, springs or bogs, whose vegetative structure
and function is primarily determined by influences from the adjacent
aquatic system; including a high water table or overbank flooding.
Along rivers and streams, riparian lands are these which are located
within or adjacent to the boundaries of the active floodplain (100-year
floodplain).
sensitive habitat: a general term describing lands or waters providing a
-183-
supporting optimal or favorable fish and/or wildlife habitat which if
altered or disturbed by development activities could cause a
significant decline in fish and/or wildlife populations.
should: the word 11 Should 11 is used when the plan provides intent but allows
the land manager or permitting agency to use existing procedure to
determine the best methods of achieving the same intent. Where the
word 11 Should 11 is used, no written finding is required by this plan.
wetlands: lands where. saturation with water is the dominant factor
determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and
animal communities living in the soil and on its surface. The single
feature that most wetlands share is soil or substrate that is at least
periodically saturated with or covered by water. Generally, these are
land areas which, at least periodically, support predominantly
hydrophytes and in which the substrate is predominantly very poorly
drained or undrained hydric soil.
wetlands hydrologically important to fish habitat: wetlands adjacent to
fish habitat which store surface runoff and ground water. The
discharge of water from these wetlands is necessary in maintaining and
stabilizing water levels to maintain productivity of fish habitat
during periods of extremely high (floods) or reduced (winter) flow
rates.
will: the word 11 Will 11 is used when the guidance in the plan is definitive
on the issue. Not following the plan in these cases will require an
amendment of the plan.
will, to the extent feasible and prudent: the phrase 11 Will, to the extent
feasible and prudent 11 is used when the land manager or permitting
agency's decision must be consistent with sound engineering practice
and not cause environmental, social, or economic costs that outweigh
the public benefit to be derived from compliance with the guideline
which is modified by the term 11 feasible and prudent.11
A written decision justifying a variation from a guideline modified by
the term 11 feasible and prudent 11 will be necessary.
-184-
Agriculture
Agricultural development, including cropland, pastureland and grazing can
result in the degradation of aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The major
impacts resulting from the conversion of wildlife lands to agricultural
lands are loss and alteration of fish and wildlife habitat, wildlife
depredation on crops or livestock, toxic effects of agricultural chemicals
on fish and wildlife, disease transmission between domestic animals and
wildlife, competition for forage and cover on rangeland and access problems
for wildlife users.
The widely held notion that agriculture benefits wildlife by providing cover
at the edges of fields and through diversity of habitat does not apply to
most modern agriculture. Large fields reduce habitat diversity and create
barriers to wildlife.
Agricultural practices can cause reductions in water quantity and quality by
altering surface runoff patterns, increasing erosion, introducing
fertilizers and pesticides into the aquatic system, and through stream
channelization and draining projects. Sixty-eight percent of the basins in
the United States report water pollution caused by agricultural activities.
Cropland is the greatest single contributor to stream sediment, yielding
four times more sediment to public waters than any other erosion source.
This results in a loss of fish habitat and a subsequent reduction in fish
populations.
Fish habitat is affected by widening and shallowing of streambeds, silt
degradation of spawning and invertebrate food producing areas, and loss of
streamside and instream cover; resulting in increased water temperatures,
increased velocities and decreased terrestrial food input. Livestotk
grazing affects wildlife habitat by eliminating forage plants, changing
height and density of vegetation, reducing plant vigor, altering plant
communities, and changing successional processes. Crop depredation by
wildlife often results in the elimination of wildlife to prevent further
losses. Waterfowl, passerine birds, moose, bears, and small mammals all
depredate crops. When agriculture expands into wildlife habitat depredation
is common.
Agricultural chemicals affect wildlife in many ways, e.g., acute and chronic
toxicity, lowered reproduction, increased disease, and habitat alteration.
If the effects of agriculture on fish and wildlife are to be minimized, the
following land use and management guidelines must be considered in the
location, design, and operation of agricultural and grazing projects. These
guidelines attempt to plan and regulate the development of agricultural
lands to minimize the loss of fish and wildlife habitat and the loss of
other resource values, and to maintain current levels of fish and wildlife
populations.
-185-
Planning Agricultural Development
Land quality and location. Lands classified for agricultural use will
contain a minimum of 50% Class 2 and 3 soils as determined by a detailed
USDA, SCS soil survey. In addition, those areas of suitable soils will be
otherwise suitable for crop production, including but not limited to:
slope, aspect, shading by landforms, and microclimate. Class I and II
wetlands will not be considered suitable.
Agricultural classifications will be reviewed by ADNR in consultation with
ADF&G. At a minimum, the following issues will be addressed: protection of
existing land uses compatible with agriculture; potential depredation of
crops or livestock by wildlife, and an economic review of the value of
wildlife. To the extent feasible and prudent, adequate means will be
provided to minimize the effects of wildlife habitat lost through
improvement of wildlife habitat quality in other areas.
To the extent feasible and prudent, lands classified for agriculture will
have road access and be adjacent to existing agricultural areas.
Interim use of agricultural lands. Lands classified for agricultural use
will be retained in public ownership and managed to protect their
agricultural potential. Habitat enhancement and forestry management will be
allowed, but not any form of development which would preclude future
agricultural use.
Size and layout of farms. Farms should be small (40-160 acres), in order to
maximize habitat diversity. If larger farms are developed for grain and
livestock production (maximum 640 acres), public greenbelts will be reserved
within them to keep field sizes small. These greenbelts will be
interconnected to the extent feasible and prudent to increase habitat
availability. For the same reason, woodlots, headquarters sites, and
undeveloped areas will, to the extent feasible and prudent, be located along
greenbelts or buffer strips. Vegetation suitable for wildlife food and
cover should be allowed to grow between fields and along roadsides.
Forested strips will be left as windbreaks, connected to greenbelts, in
areas subject to wind erosion.
Facilities serving farming areas will, to the extent feasible and prudent,
be centrally located on soils unsuitable for agriculture along primary roads
and where transportation modes connect.
Conservation flans. Conservation plans will be developed and approved by
ADNR in consu tation with ADF&G prior to farm development. The plans will
incorporate soil, water and wildlife conservation practices as developed by
the SCS and ADF&G. Points to be addressed will include, but are not limited
to: retention of wildlife habitat, method of timber salvage, method of
disposal of vegetation material from clearings, width of undisturbed buffer
strips and windbreaks, and identification of woodlots.
Buffers. Along public and navigable waterbodies and waterbodies containing
fish, around wetlands, and for specified fish and wildlife habitats of
endangered or protected species or species sensitive to human disturbance
-186-
buffer of public land will be retained from the ordinary high water mark on
each side of the waterbody to cleared land. See Criteria for Protective
Buffer Zones on State Lands; Riparian land guidelines; wetland guidelines.
Management of lands within buffers will be coordinated with ADF&G, ADEC, and
ADNR, Division of Parks.
Public access throufh agricultural lands. Public access will be preserved
to adjacent public ands and to and along navigable and public waters.
Parcels will, to the extent feasible and prudent, be laid out so that parcel
boundaries follow existing trails and roads. Adjacent landowners should be
consulted. A strip of land a minimum of 100 feet in width will remain
uncleared and in public ownership, to the extent feasible and prudent, along
trails. Section line easements will not be-vacated unless appropriate and
physically useable public access can be relocated, in consultation with
ADNR, Division of Parks, and ADF&G.
The ADF&G should inform hunters that vandalism and trespass often result in
loss of hunting opportunities on private lands, and result in access
conflicts.
Land Clearing
Timber salvage. Marketable timber, including cordwood, sawtimber and house
logs, will be salvaged from lands to be cleared for agricultural or other
purposes. Any method of assuring salvage which does not preclude
reservation of forested areas for buffers, windbreaks and woodlots may be
used. Development plans for large scale agricultural projects will address
timber including: techniques, timing and the effect on the regional
forestry industry. Examples of methods to assure salvage include, but are
not limited to:
1. Inclusion in the agricultural rights disposal contract.
2. Inclusion in the Farm Conservation Plan by:
a. Agricultural rights holder specifies areas to be reserved in
the Farm Conservation Plan. Timber on areas to be cleared is
sold to the highest bidder, and the agricultural rights
holder may match the highest bid.
b. Use of economic incentives: the value of timber on areas to
be cleared will be added to the sale price of the land and
exempted from agricultural loan programs.
c. Sale of timber rights prior to agricultural rights. In this
case areas to be reserved will be laid out in advance by the
state. Non-marketable timber and brush will be utilized or
burned to prevent buildups of spruce beetles.
Use of fire. Cooperative agreements as to the use of fire during clearing
will be made among the Division of Agriculture, Division of Forestry,
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, ADF&G, and other affected agencies. These will
be in accord with regional fire management policies.
-187-
Woodlots. Private woodlots will be managed according to the Forest
Resources and Practices Act.
Construction and Use of Facilities
Location on farm. Headquarter sites and other facilities should be located
on the perimeter of farms and on soils of Class 4 or lower (when present),
to maintain the integrity of lands with soils capable for agriculture.
Storage of hazardous materials. Prior to handling hazardous materials,
plans and procedures will be submitted to ADEC, ADNR, and ADF&G for
approval. Storage, transfer, and handling areas for petroleum products or
hazardous substances should be diked or bermed to contain 110% of the
capacity of the storage facility. Notification of spills will be made
according to federal and state law. It is the policy of the state of Alaska
that there should be no discharge of hazardous substances into or on state
lands or waters. The SCS should inform new owners of agricultural parcels
of the toxicity of urea and of other agricultural chemicals to wildlife.
Fencing. Fences will, to the extent feasible and prudent, be designed to
minimize entanglement of moose. Gates should be used wherever fences cross
section lines or other easemen.ts in order to preserve practical, physically
useable public access.
Conditions under which fencing is recommended to protect fish and wildlife
or their habitat are discussed under the headings of: Water Use and Quality
-Pollution, and Predator Control.
Liquid and solid waste systems, garbage, and trash. Liquid and solid waste
systems should be designed, and garbage and trash should be removed or
disposed of in a manner approved by ADEC, ADNR, and ADF&G.
Emissions. Facilities and equipment should be operated in such a manner as
to avoid or minimize air pollution and ice fog. They will meet applicable
federal, state, and local government emission and performance standards.
Cultivation
Crop residues. When consistent with sound agricultural practices, crop
residues should be left in fields to provide food for wildlife.
Erosion. Cultivation methods requiring little or no plowing are
recommended.
Chemical Use
Pesticides and herbicides. Only non-persistent and immobile types of
pesticides and herbicides registered by the Environmental Protection Agency
pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act will be
used. Application of pesticides and herbicides will be in accordance with
applicable regulations of ADEC and the United States EPA. Each chemical to
be used and constraints on its application will be approved by ADEC, and
ADNR, in consultation with ADF&G, prior to use. Monitoring for biocide
-188-
residues should be performed, and new owners of agricultural parcels should
be informed of the importance of proper use of biocides.
Fertilizers and other chemicals. Application rates should conform to
recommendations by the SCS for specific crops and soils, and application
should be limited to areas in which crops are being grown. Runoff is
discussed under Water Use and Quality -Pollution.
Water Use and Quality
Activities in waterways. All development activities propos~d in
waterbodies, or active floodplains will be reviewed by ADF&G for Title 16
compliance, and by ADEC for 401 certification. All activities proposing the
use of explosives in or adjacent to the above areas will be subject to
review and approval by ADF&G.
Instream flow. The removal of irrigation water from lakes, streams, and
subterranean aquifers may have a severe impact on both aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife species. Alaska Statutes 46.15 and 16.05.870 provide
the necessary authority for reservation of water to maintain fish and
wildlife productivity.
To preclude avoidable conflicts, the effects on fish and wildlife of removal
of water for irrigation purposes will be considered by ADNR, after
consultation with ADF&G, during the planning stage of agricultural
disposals. In areas proposed for large-scale agricultural disposals, to the
extent feasible and prudent, baseline hydrological studies will be performed
by DGGS or USGS. Prior to final approval of water appropriation permits,
ADNR will, in accordance with AS 46.15.080(b)(3), determine whether the
proposed appropriation is in the public interest. The proposed
appropriation may be approved by ADNR if it does not conflict with water use
requirements for fish and wildlife or public recreation unless the
commissioner of ADNR makes a finding that the competing use of water is in
the best public interest and that no feasible and prudent alternative
exists. Notwithstanding this finding, a determination of best public
interest and the approval of water appropriations for irrigation will not be
construed as limiting the authority of ADF&G to request an instream flow
reservation sufficient to protect fish and wildlife habitat, migration and
propagation.
Pollution, including sedimentation and erosion. Agricultural and logging
activities will be conducted so that runoff water is maintained at the
preexisting quality, volume, and rate of flow. Operators will be informed
of and comply with the Water Quality Standards of the state of Alaska as
approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, and with the requirements
of the EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System waste discharge
permit program and Alaska's Waste Disposal Standards. Operations should be
closely regulated and monitored by ADF&G, ADEC, and/or EPA as appropriate to
ensure that erosion, sedimentation and toxic runoff including that from
biocides and thermal pollution do not occur.
Activities performed within the buffer zones around waterbodies should be
conducted so as to minimize vegetation removal and surface disturbance. On
-189-
a site-specific basis, revegetation or facilitation of natural revegetation
by scarification will be performed.
Riparian areas should be protected from damage by livestock through the use
of fences, or provision of alternative sources of water, or salt.
Predator Control
The ADF&G favors the use of nonlethal means of predator control. The most
effective of these is removal of attractants including not classifying lands
for agriculture or not allowing attractive crops to be grown where it is
likely that depredation by wildlife will cause significant conflicts.
Fencing designed so as to minimize entanglement of moose and other wildlife
is recommended for lands where a low potential for conflict exists. The
ADF&G is not responsible for compensating farmers for losses due to
predation. If, contrary to the above recommendation, lands with significant
potential for depredation conflicts are identified for agriculture, the
following guidelines apply:
Depredation of crops. The ADF&G should respond to complaints of crop
depredation and educate farmers on ways to avoid depredation. The ADF&G
will provide technical assistance to farmers considering leasing hunting
rights on their land or allowing regulated public hunting.
Depredation of grain fields by waterfowl is not serious now in Alaska, but
is in other areas, and waterfowl distribution has changed in response to
grain production in other areas. Other than not locating major grain
farming projects near large wetlands, and growing crops not subject to
depredation, the following measures are helpful (from Preston, 1983): grow
early maturing crops; combine without swaths; leave high stubble; cultivate
only after adjacent fields have been harvested; increase hunting pressure.
See: Transportation Guideline
Guideline for Protection of Special Fish and Wildlife Areas -Wetland
Guidelines, Riparian Land Guideline
Criteria for Protective Buffer Zones on State Lands
-190-
Grazing
The ADF&G is o~posed to the classification of lands to allow open-range
livestock graz1ng. Extensive livestock grazing will be at the expense of
big game (as well as other wildlife), as all suitable land is now being
utilized by big game. Unless confined, livestock concentrate in riparian
areas, highly important for fish and wildlife, competing directly with
wildlife for food, cover, or space, and causing erosion through overuse.
Dietary overlaps occur between most big game ungulates and livestock. Even
the best management of ranges for sustained forage production results in
significant changes in vegetation composition. Except for brucellosis
introduced in some areas by imported reindeer, Alaska wildlife has had
little exposure to major livestock pathogens. The potential for severe,
uncontrollable losses of wildlife, particularly Dall sheep, from such
pathogens is high (discussion summarized from Preston 1983). If grazing is
allowed, the following measures could mitigate some of the effects.
Range Management Plans
Range management plans should be designed to maintain or enhance native
species of fish, wildlife and vegetation. Management priority shall be
given to wildlife, fisheries and vegetation. The maximum rate of stocking
or percent utilization of a key forage species should be low enough to
provide a margin of safety during years when forage production is below
average. RMP's should identify the amount of vegetation necessary to
provide adequate watershed protection, maintain or enhance plant vigor and
assure soil stability. The carrying capacity of the rangeland, combining
both wildlife and livestock use, should be determined prior to leasi'ng.
ADNR will consult with ADF&G before approving any grazing operation plan.
Range management plans should recognize the values of riparian lands and the
impacts livestock have on riparian lands. Livestock should be kept a
minimum of 400 feet from waterbodies. This can only be accomplished through
fencing. If fencing conflicts with other wildlife values or if fencing is
not economically feasible a grazing lease or permit should not be issued.
Stock driveways should also be located a minimum of 400 feet from
waterbodies.
Suitable lands. The only non-agricultural lands which will be classified to
allow livestock grazing are those on which native vegetation capable of
supporting livestock is present according to 11 AAC 55.080. The following
lands will not be considered suitable even if capable vegetation occurs:
alpine.and subalpine areas in or near Dall sheep range, and areas with high
grizzly bear populations, river corridors and tributaries supporting or
contributing to the support of anadromous fish populations and/or moose
populations. Grazing leases should not be issued in areas with high
recreational values.
Before any lands are opened to grazing, an economic feasibility study will
be performed including the consideration of losses of livestock to
predators. See improved pasture below for agricultural lands.
-191-
Vegetation manipulation. On non-agricultural lands, native vegetation will
not be replaced by species more suitable for livestock grazing.
Other uses of grazing lands. Public access to ·lands leased for grazing will
not be limited, in order to protect hunting, fishing, trapping and public
recreational opportunities. Attempts by the lessee to limit or prohibit
public access or use of state land under lease, should be grounds for
immediate revocation of the grazing lease or permit. No private property
rights shall be given with grazing leases or permits.
Improved pasture. Lands classified for agriculture with Class 2 or 3 soils
may be leased for development of improved pasture. Agricultural soils used
for pasture should be those of limited extent or otherwise marginal for
production of food crops, located in areas with low potential for predation
problems.
Stockin~ density, domestic species and seasonal limitations. Carrying
capacit1es of lands leased for grazing will be determined at the time of
leasing. Included in this will be sampling of the quality of available
grasses to determine the period of time during which protein levels are high
enough to supply the nutrient requirements of livestock without the latter
competing with moose for browse. Lands will be stocked to ensure
sustainable forage production and minimize disturbance of soils potentially
erodable by wind or water. ADNR will consult with ADF&G during evaluation
of applications for grazing leases or permits, including renewals.
Predation of livestock. Livestock predation, and responses to it, are a
serious concern of ADF&G. As Preston (1983) states, "Large predators and
livestock are incompatible. Legal and/or illegal predator control will
follow livestock losses.'' The amount of predation is a function of·
livestock availability rather than predator density. Predators rapidly
become habituated to taking livestock, so killing of predators is not
effective, short of extirpation.
Predation of livestock in pasturelands (see Agriculture Guidelines).
In the Susitna Planning Area, black bear, grizzly bear, wolf, coyote,
wolverine, lynx, bald eagles, and ravens are expected to cause livestock
losses. It is not sufficient for livestock operators to comply with ADF&G
regulations for salvage of wildlife killed in defense of property; all
measures feasible and prudent will be taken to avoid killing of predators.
As discussed below, ADF&G is opposed to leasing of state lands for grazing
in areas of potential wildlife conflict. If this is done, or in cases in
which livestock are grazed on agricultural lands, these guidelines will
partially mitigate conflicts (from Preston 1983): livestock will not be
allowed to pasture or calve (or lamb) in wooded or brushy areas; livestock
that have died will be located and properly disposed of as rapidly as
possible; grazing will not be allowed in areas with high grizzly
populations; and livestock grazing will be allowed only on an absorbed cost
basis. A record of the lessee's proposed management activities for predator
control should be included in grazing operation plans.
Disease transmission. "If Alaskans do not learn from experiences elsewhere,
or they fail to prevent importation of disease, (then) reduction in numbers
-192-
and/or vigor of some wildlife populations is a certainty" (Preston 1983).
Precautions to minimize the risk of infection of wildlife populations
include:
1. Imported animals must be disease-free. The state veterinarian
will actively support implementation of disease regulations. The
ADF&G and ADEC will enter a cooperative agreement to ensure this,
review grazing permit applications, and exchange information.
2. Surveillance of wildlife populations for exposure to livestock
pathogens should be continued.
3. Dall sheep (like other wild sheep) are particularly vulnerable to
livestock pathogens. Grazing will be prohibited in areas in and
adjacent to Dall sheep range.
4. Susceptible livestock will not be grazed on ranges used by caribou
herds infected with brucellosis.
If grazing leases are issued and these in turn prove to be in conflict with
fish and/or wildlife values as determined by ADF&G, grazing leases should be
modified or revoked if necessary. As stated in the ADNR, draft 1983,
Statewide Natural Resources Plan, ADNR shall enter into consultation with
ADF&G for developing range management plans for all grazing lease or permit
applications. This should include any lease or permit renewals. Leases or
permits should be terminated due to non-use.
See: Transportation Guidelines
Guidelines for Protection of Special Fish and Wildlife Areas -Wetland
Guidelines, Riparian Land Guidelines
Criteria for Protective Buffer Zones on State Land
-193-
Settlement Guidelines
Fish and wildlife are important to the lifestyle and economy of Alaska.
Consequently it is essential that settlements be designed to minimize
adverse impacts on local plant and animal populations and not interfere with
existing public use of fish and wildlife. For all land disposal programs,
fish and wildlife habitat requirements should be influential in the siting
and design of the disposal. Planners must recognize that location, design
and occupant density will affect fish and wildlife populations and the
quality of life of local residents. Siting and design should facilitate
wildlife movement through and around the settlement, avoid human/wildlife
interactions that may lead to conflicts, avoid conflicts between public
users and private landowners, and avoid environmental impacts that adversely
alter habitat to the detriment of fish and wildlife. Designers need to
understand both general principles and guidelines regarding fish and
wildlife habitat protection as well as specific concerns associated with the
site under consideration. Identification of site specific fish and wildlife
concerns requires the assistance of biologists and naturalists familiar with
the site. It is recommended that the Habitat Division of the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game be consulted for assistance in identifying the
values of specific sites for fish and wildlife. The Criteria for Protective
Buffer Zones on State Lands should also be used as a guide when planning
development.
After initial site selection the two most important criteria to be included
in the planning process for settlements are allowing for public open space.
and determination of an optimal density of inhabitants. In addition to
planning for the present, a good design will consider the need for future
growth and expansion of a community. Planning for the future without
needlessly sacrificing existing values requires both foresight and
hindsight. Past disposals should be evaluated to determine how open space
and density have altered the characteristics of the site. No project
feasibility designs should be accepted without adequate public open space
for the specific area under consideration.
If the historical levels of productivity of fish and wildlife populations
and the carrying capacity of their natural habitat is to be maintained and
if the state is to provide for optimum commercial, subsistence, and ---
recreational use of fish and wildlife resources, (FY 83 statewide Natural
Resources Plan) the following guidelines should be incorporated into the
state's land disposal program.
Open Space Design
Publicly owned open space must be included in and around all settlements
including subdivisions, remote parcels and homesteads. The amount of open
space and optimal densities of residents should be evaluated collectively.
Open space should be adjusted to meet the needs of a particular population,
species or habitat in order to best maintain existing or historical levels
of use. In determining the amount of open space and optimal number of
residents, the following concerns should be evaluated:
1. The ~pecific habitat requirements of and existing populations of
fish and wildlife in the area.
-194-
2. The amount and diversity of available habitats and the presence of
any unique or scarce habitats.
3. The status of the species occupying those habitats, especially the
presence of any rare, threatened, endangered or sensitive species
and the tolerance of these species to disturbance caused by human
activities.
4. The identification of limiting habitats which can control
population size and productivity such as moose winter range,
calving grounds, caribou migration routes, waterfowl and raptor
nesting areas.
5. Existing hunting, fishing, trapping and other recreational and
subsistence use, including previous settlement in the area and the
demand for fish and game and firewood.
6. The available water supply with consideration for previous
appropriations in the watershed.
Open space may be designated as corridors (migration, recreation, wildlife
etc.), greenbelts, trails, common areas, buffer strips, public use areas
etc. Open spaces must be incorporated into site design according to the
aforementioned considerations and the following guidelines:
1. Provide for interconnecting wildlife/recreation corridors through
the settlement. Consider juxtaposition of habitats, adjacent land
use and access to adjacent lands and design open space system to
link habitats, connect the open space system with undeveloped
areas adjacent to the site and provide ample access. Provide as
many corridors as possible through the site. Corridors should
approximate a dendritic pattern with primary, secondary and
tertiary pathways. Primary corridors should be of sufficient
width (minimum 1,000 feet) to provide for freedom of movement by
large mammals and minimize disturbance to landowners from
recreationists. Corridors (through settlements) should allow for
unrestricted movements of big game animals along historical.
Secondary and tertiary corridors should be a minimum of 200 feet
and 100 feet wide, respectively.
2. Traditional public access routes should not be transferred to
private ownership and access corridors should be wide enough to
prevent conflicts between public users and private landowners.
3. If existing or historical populations of fish and wildlife are
high relative to other sites within the study area, then the
number of disposals in the area (i.e. densities) should be kept to
a minimum and open space should be maximized.
4. If highly sensitive, limiting or unique habitats exist, then
disposals should be confined to the periphery of these areas with
an ample buffer strip of sufficient distance (as determined in
consultation with ADF&G) to negate detrimental effects on the
specie(s) in question from human activity. Buffer strips should
-195-
be measured from the edge of the habitat (see Guidelines for
Protection of Special Fish and Wildlife Areas and Criteria for
Protective Buffer Zones on State Lands). Open space corridors
should provide unrestricted wildlife access to and from these
areas.
5. A sufficient water supply should be present that even in dry years
will accommodate the potential human population in a settlement
without depleting the instream-flow needs of fish and wildlife or
the needs of downstream human users (see Instream Flow Guidelines
Appendix E).
6. Public lands within the 100-year floodplain should remain in
public ownership except where a regulatory floodway and regulatory
flood fr1nge have been identified through detailed hydrologic
studies. When such studies have been done, disposals of public
lands within the flood fringe may occur if outside of the 200 foot
buffer zone. Disposals within the flood fringe should be for low
density development, for example, private recreational residences,
rather than urban density subdivisions. In drainages where the
100-year floodplain has not been identified, the best available
information will be used to determine a flood hazard zone to
remain in public ownership (see Guidelines for Protection of
Special Fish and Wildlife Areas -Riparian Lands and Criteria for
Protective Buffer Zones on State Lands).
7. Within and adjacent to lands designated for settlement, retain
lands in the open space system not suitable for development
because of topography, landform or potential natural hazard.
These include floodplains, steep slopes (greater than 15%)·,
avalanche zones, wetlands and geologically unstable sites.
8. Wetlands and riparian ecosystems around waterbodies should be
included in a publicly owned protective buffer zones (see
Guideline for Protection of Special Fish and Wildlife Areas~
Wetlands and Riparian Lands and Criteria for Protective Buffer
Zones on State Lands). No disposal or staking of land should
occur within this zone.
9. All lakes and ponds bordering settlement lands should be
surrounded by a publicly owned protective buffer zone of not less
than 200 feet (see Criteria for Protective Buffer Zones on State
Lands). For remote parcels and homesteads no parcel or parcels
may enclose more than 50% of a waterbody over 20 acres in surface
area and all parcels must leave a minimum 200 foot publicly owned
The floodway is the unobstructed portion of floodplain which can convey a 100-year flood and
keep it within a specified height and velocity. The floodway carries the fast-moving and
deep water of the flood. The flood fringe is that part of the 100-year floodplain outside of
the limits of the floodway. The flood fringe carries the more shallow and more slowly
moving flood waters. ·
-196-
buffer zone between the property line and the ordinary high water
mark of any water body greater than 20 acres (See -Guidelines for
Protection of Special Fish and Wildlife Areas -Wetlands and
Riparian lands). Subdivisions and lands open to staking or
aliquot parts should be confined to that portion of a waterbody
where the least impacts to wildlife or recreationists will occur,
as determined by consultation with ADF&G. For subdividion
disposals no more than 50 percent of the area surrounding any lake
or pond inland of the buffer zone and within 1,500 feet of the
ordinary high water mark should be transferred to private
ownership. Lots should be situated on only one side of the lake
or clustered at points around the lake.
10. Mineral closing orders for all 11 leasable 11 and "locatable" minerals
should be implemented by the ADNR for all open space and buffer
zone lands.
An area of sufficient size to meet present and future demands for
personal-use forestry (fuelwood, houselogs) should be designated. This may
be incorporated into an open space system but should not be included within
a 200 foot riparian buffer zone or within 200 feet of any other area
protected by a vegetated buffer zone. The area should be accessible to all
members of the community.
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources should provide technical
assistance to owners and users of private and public forest lands to he-lp
meet local demands for fuelwood and houselogs (see Forestry Guidelines).
Within valuable fish and wildlife production or use areas, unless otherwise
approved by ADF&G, for remote parcels, homesteads and remote cabin permits,
whether staked, or disposed in aliquot parts, entries should be limited to a
maximum of two contiguous sections per township with no township bordered on
more than two sides by another township containing disposals. For each 160
acre quarter section allocated to disposal, a minimum of 40 acres should
remain in public ownership as part of an open space design. This may be in
the form of one large contiguous tract, several smaller tracts of a minimum
of five acres or a corridor. However, all tracts or corridors must be
connected to the nearest tract of public land by a public tracted trail, a
minimum of 300 feet wide. In addition all homesteads must be separated from
neighboring homesteads by a public corridor a minimum of 300 feet wide.
Deed restrictions on future subdividing of parcels into smaller lots should
be included in the sale condition for all categories of disposals. Deed
restrictions are necessary to protect fish and wildlife populations from
unplanned community expansion and maintain the lifestyle for which a
disposal is intended (i.e. remote, recreational, low density subdivision).
Right-of-ways over 60 feet wide to remote parcels or homesteads should be
limited to existing methods of transportation at the time of the initial
land disposal. No road construction should be allowed until conducting a
review. Approval of both the road location and design will be done in
consultation with affected agencies and interests including ADF&G.
-197-
Through consultation with the ADF&G, support facilities for settlement, i.e.
generation and transmission structures or cables, sewage and water lines,
garbage dumps, community buildings and transportation systems should be
located to minimize adverse impacts with wildlife. In designing a
subdivision, an area of sufficient size to accommodate these future
community needs should be reserved in open space. This should be in
addition to and not interfere with the open space reserved for wildlife
habitat protection, public access and personal-use forestry.
Additional guidelines applicable to settlement are found in the following
sections: Guidelines for Protection of Special Fish and Wildlife Areas,
Transportation Guidelines.
-198-
Forestry Guidelines
If state forests are to be managed for multiple-use, then along with the
production of commercial and personal-use wood products the objectives of
fish and wildlife management and public recreation must be met. When
deciding the best use of state forest lands, and planning the timing and
nature of silviculture operations the effects of such decisions on fish,
wildlife, soil, water, and associated recreational activities must be given
due consideration. Forest management must be aware of and responsive to
ecological relationships in terrestrial and aquatic environments. Wildlife
respond to the structure, t9pographic orientation and distribution or
arrangement of forest sites; fish respond to any change in the aquatic
system. Timber harvesting activities alter the structure and distribution
of wildlife habitat and depending on topography and type of cut, may
increase soil erosion and surface runoff, adversely affecting several water
quality and instream flow parameters including temperature, sediment load,
nutrients, flow rates and streambed and streambank stability.
By manipulating several variables, impacts to fish and wildlife populations
can be avoided or mitigated, and/or habitat enhanced. Among these are 1)
Scheduling and timing of silviculture operations, 2) design and placement of
roads, 3) method of harvest and length of rotation period between harvests,.
and 4) size and location of the logging operation relative to both
topography and adjacent land type and/or land uses, and 5) methods of forest
regeneration.
The following guidelines are intended to supplement the Alaska Forest
Resources and Practices Regulations (1981) and reduce the potential adverse
effects of forestry practices on fish and wildlife populations.
Management plans. On all lands classified or designated for forestry as a
primary or secondary use, ten-year management plans should be prepared as a
cooperative effort between the ADNR-Division of Land and Water Management,
ADNR-Division of Parks, ADNR-Division of Forestry, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, or any other agency with management
interest in the area. These plans should address actions under
consideration during the ten-year period and determine long-range objectives
with sustained yield timber harvest and protection or enhancement of
wildlife habitat as the two main goals.
An interdisciplinary team (IDT) of professional resource specialists i.e.
forester, silviculturist, fisheries biologist, wildlife biologist, soils
scientist, hydrologist, engineer, etc. representing ADF&G, ADEC, and ADNR
should review proposed timber sales to make recommendations on protecting or
enhancing habitat values during harvesting and all related operations. The
IDT should address site-specific problems and stipulations should be
incorporated into each sales contract. Timber harvests should be monitored
by the IDT to facilitate compliance with the stipulations, adjust any
inappropriate requirements, help with unforeseen problems, and document the
effectiveness of specific forest management practices.
Management guidelines should be prepared that address road construction,
site preparation, harvest method, log storage and transport, size, shape and
arrangement of cut area(s), special habitat features and wildlife
-199-
considerations, slash disposal and reforestation. Where forestry and fish
and wildlife are both designated as the primary uses, all timber harvest
operations and related activities must accommodate the needs of fish and
wildlife as determined by ADF&G. Each proposed timber sale should identify
fish and wildlife management objectives and concerns and contain
stipulations to meet the objective and accommodate the concerns.
Habitat protection. In order to reduce erosion, reduce surface runoff,
protect recreational values and protect fish and wildlife values, no
commercial forestry operation should occur within 400 feet of the ordinary
high water mark of any lake, river or creek without an approved streamside
management plan (SMP). The SMP should describe in detail all aspects of the
proposed timber harvesting operation and must be approved in advance by the
ADF&G. Timber harvesting within the management zone should only be allowed
if shade, bank stability, cover, and habitat can be maintained. Disturbance
to vegetation and to soils within the zone should be kept to an absolute
minimum. No roads should be constructed within this 400 foot buffer zone
except for stream crossings which must be approved in advance by ADF&G (see
Transportation Guidelines and Guidelines for Protection of Special Fish and
Wildlife Areas -Riparian Lands).
Commercial timber harvest will not be permitted within 400 feet of Class I
and Class II wetlands and within 200 feet of Class III wetlands (see
Guidelines for Protection of Special Fish and Wildlife Areas ~Wetlands).
In areas of highly sensitive habitat or in any habitat necessary to
threatened, endangered, or sensitive species, no harvests are allowed which
are likely to have negative impact on the on the habitat or the species.
Determination of sensitive areas, and design and approval of harvest
techniques in these areas shall be conducted jointly by ADNR and ADF&G. No
timber harvesting will occur within one mile of peregrine falcon nesting
cliffs or within i mile of active or historic bald or golden eagle nesting
areas or within i mile of currently or historically occupied nesting areas
of trumpeter swans.(see Guidelines for Protection of Special Fish and
Wildlife Areas -Endangered and Protected Species).
Timber operations should be confined to a single drainage at a time.
Adjacent drainages should not be logged simultaneously.
No timber cuts should occur within 1/2 mile of alpine tree line except with
approval and design consultation of ADF&G.
In order to minimize erosion in clearcut areas, seeding or planting with
native species adapted to disturbed sites should take place at the earliest
date following the harvest operation that will ensure the best chances of
growth and survival of the planted or seeded species and minimize erosion.
Timber cutting on commercial forest lands should not occur on any slopes
which cannot be adequately revegetated within a reasonable time period to
prevent soil damage. Reforestation plans should be approved by the State
Forester prior to harvesting and should be implemented as soon as possible
after cutting. Where artificial replanting is unfeasible, harvesting
methods should facilitate natural regeneration of the stand.
-200-
Lofging roads. Location and design of logging roads should be approved by AD &G.
1. Roads should be located in the periphery of important habitat and
be minimized in areas with big game populations.
2. To ensure the usability of meadows, clearcuts and other forage
areas for big game a minimum 200 foot buffer zone of natural
vegetation should be left between all roads and any openings.
3. Cuts and fills along roads should not block travel routes for
wildlife.
4. Roadside vegetation; which provides hiding cover should be
maintained wherever possible.
5. To increase cover value for big game avoid locating straight
stretches of road of more than i mile in forested areas (see
Transportation Guidelines).
Habitat enhancement. In areas designated by ADF&G for primary consideration
for moose habitat enhancement the following criteria should apply.
1. The area should be a minimum of 2,400 acres.
2. Fifty-percent should be clearcut.
3. Adequate escape cover (vegetation) should be available within 300
feet of any point within a clearcut. Adequate escape cover should
be trees greater than 30 feet tall a minimum canopy closure of 70
percent and a minimum of 20 acres.
4. Slash should be windowed, piled or disposed (including burned) so
that it does not create an impediment to wildlife movement.
In areas of overmature birch or aspen stands, clearcuts up to 15 acres are
encouraged as long as adequate escape cover (vegetation) is available within
300 feet of any point within a clearcut. This does not apply to those areas
within protective buffer zones unless approved by the ADF&G (see Criteria
for Protective Buffer Zones and State Lands and Guidelines for Protection of
Special Fish and Wildlife Areas). Clearcuts generally will not be allowed
in floodplains or riparian lands.
See: Settlement Guideli.nes (Personal Use Forestry)
Transportation Guidelines (Roads)
Guidelines for Protection of Special Fish and Wildlife Areas (Riparian
Lands)
Guideline for Protection of Special Fish and Wildlife Areas (Wetlands)
-201-
Oil and Gas Guidelines
To minimize environmental disturbances from primary and secondary oil and
gas development activities the following guidelines for mitigating impacts
should be adopted and implemented. With consideration for the needs of fish
and wildlife in the siting and design of facilities and scheduling of
activities the impacts to fish and wildlife populations can be lessened.
The following guidelines are consistent with ADF&G Guidelines for the Upper
Cook Inlet Oil and Gas Lease Sale No. 40.
General Mitigating Measures for Resource Protection
Comprehensive planning at the project conception stage can aid considerably
in ensuring that facilities are sited and designed, and activities
scheduled, to lessen the impacts on fish and wildlife populations. This
approach is also beneficial to developers by reducing or eliminating delays
in the permitting process, and minimizing the cost of environmental
protection.
Unitization proposals that include tracts, or portions of tracts, within a
sale area must include a surface management plan that provides for the
maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and habitats. Surface management
plans must be developed with the cooperation of the Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Land and Water Management, the Department of Fish and
Game, and the Department of Environmental Conservation, prior to submission
of plans to the Commissioner of Natural Resources.
Habitat alteration is frequently one of the most important factors
contributing to displacement and/or declines in fish and wildlife
populations. Fish and wildlife can also be impacted significantly by noise
and disturbance associated with oil and gas development activities.
Maintaining the integrity of productive or sensitive habitats, such as fish
spawning areas, moose wintering grounds, and key wetlands, is especially
important to the continued survival of local populations.
Development activities. Habitat alterations and disturbance of fish and
wildlife populations should be avoided to the maximum extent possible,
particularly during the exploratory phase when it is not known whether
commercial reserves of hydrocarbons will be discovered. If it is absolutely
necessary to site facilities in productive or sensitive fish and wildlife
habitats, or along migration routes to and from these areas, development
activities should be controlled strictly to minimize the environmental
impacts of the proposed activity.
1. Exploration activities will be restricted to the period November 1
to March 31 and shall be supported only by ice roads, winter
trails, exiting road systems and air service. The Director,
Division of Minerals and Energy Management, may allow exploratory
operations outside of this time period if the Division of Land and
Water Management and the Department of Fish and Game determine
that such operations will not damage soils or the vegetative mat,
or significantly disturb fish and wildlife populations.
-202-
2. Exploration facilities, with the exception of drill pads, will be
temporary and will not be constructed of gravel. Reuse of
existing abandoned gravel structures may be permitted on a
case-by-case basis by the Director, Division of Minerals and
Energy Management, after consultation with the Department of Fish
and Game. Approval for reuse of abandoned structures will depend
on the extent and method of restoration needed to rehabilitate
surface disturbance.
3. All lease activities will be conducted, and structures will be
designed and sited, to maintain natural water flow and drainage
patterns, and to allow free movement and safe passage of fish and
large game species.
4. Plans of operations and unit agreements will be reviewed to ensure
that the .minimum number of facilities required to safely and
efficiently develop the field are not exceeded, and that all
facilities are consolidated to the maximum extent feasible.
5. The Director, Division of Minerals and Energy Management, will
require that lease facilities be sited away from sensitive fish
and wildlife habitats, where feasible and prudent, as identified
by the Department of Fish and Game.
Vehicular traffic across wetlands (For definition see -Guidelines for
Protection of Special Fish and Wildlife Areas -wetlands) and other
sensitive habitats can cause severe damage to vegetation, lead to permafrost
degradation, and disturb wildlife populations during critical life stages.
The use of ground contact vehicles for off-road travel must be limited to
those areas where an average snow depth of 12 inches is maintained.
Exceptions to these requirements may be granted on a case-by-case basis by
the Director of the Division of Land and Water Management or his designee in
consultation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Seismic exploration can cause long-term alterations of habitat, result. in
disturbance to wildlife through noise and activity, and create unwanted
access into sensitive fish and wildlife habitats.
Clearing of forested areas, through bulldozing or other means, for the sole
purpose of seismic exploration will be strongly discouraged and may be
prohibited. Clearing of forests will be permitted only if existing data
available to the applicant from previous seismic lines can not meet the
needs of the applicant,. and if it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Director, Division of Minerals and Energy Management, after consultation
with the Department of Fish and Game, that this technique is an acceptable
environmental alternative. If so, the use of hydroaxes and the treatment of
soils to encourage regrowth by willow and other woody plants may be required
for cleared areas.
Gravel mining. Gravel mining can result in numerous adverse impacts on fish
and wildlife populations. Although the use of upland sources can result in
habitat loss through surface disturbance and interference with natural
drainage patterns, upland sites are generally preferable over mining within
-203-
active floodplains and wetlands. Gravel removal from rivers and streams can
disrupt flow patterns leading to channel diversions, increased sedimentation
of waterbodies, fish blockages and entrapment, an increased potential for
aufeis, and other channel alterations that generally reduce habitat quality.
The appropriation of large quantities of gravel needed for development and
production from active floodplains significantly increases the probability
of adversely changing the habitat characteristics of streams.
The following standards should be instituted in order to minimize the
environmental impacts of gravel mining operations:
a. In meeting gravel needs for all phases of oil and gas development,
reuse of gravel from nearby abandoned drill pads, roads, or
airstrips will be the first sources exploited, unless it is
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director, Division of
Minerals and Energy Management, after consultation with the
Department of Fish and Game and the Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission, that reuse of such sources is not
feasible or prudent.
b. Gravel mining sites for exploration activities will not be allowed
within the active floodplains of watercourses, as defined in
Gravel Removal Guidelines Manual for Arctic and Subarctic
Floodplains (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Woodward
Clyde Consultants, 1980), unless it is demonstrated to the
Director, Division of Land and Water Management, after
consultation with the Department of Fish and Game, that a
floodplain source is the preferred environmental alternative. If
gravel mining within an active floodplain is deemed necessary, the
site must be approved by the Department of Fish and Game pursuant
to AS 16.05.870 prior to any gravel removal. Mining site
development within active floodplains must follow the procedures
outlined in the above referenced report.
c. During development and production, gravel mining within active
floodplains will be prohibited. Upland mining sites will be.
restricted to the minimum number necessary to efficiently develop
the field with minimal environmental damage. Where feasible and
desirable, upland gravel sites will be designed and constructed to
function as reservoirs for winter water supplies.
Aquatic habitat protection. Hydrocarbons can be toxic to aquatic
vegetation, fish, mammals, and birds and can cause the direct mortality of
organisms or result in adverse physiological and behavioral responses.
The following protective measures should be instituted to prevent
hydrocarbon contamination of waterbodies and facilitate cleanup of spilled
products in aquatic environments:
1. Stationary fuel storage facilities and most vehicle refueling will
be prohibited within active floodplains. Exceptions may be
allowed during the Title 16 permitting process for the refueling
of slow moving construction equipment within active floodplains,
upon approval by the. Department of Fish and Game.
-204-
2. Onshore pipelines will be located on the upslope side of roadways
and construction pads.
Construction activities and siting of facilities in close proximity to
rivers and lakes can lead to shoreline erosion and sedimentation of
waterbodies, widespread pollutant transport, loss of public access to state
waters and shorelines, and loss or alteration of riparian habitats important
to birds and mammals. Riparian habitats in the Susitna Basin are
particularly important moose wintering range, and displacement of moose from
these areas could result in increased mortalities and eventually lead to
declines in local populations.
The mitigating measures listed below should be adopted in order to minimize
the impacts of industrial development on aquatic and riparian habitats:
1. All facilities, with the exception of approved road and pipeline
crossing aligned perpendicular to watercourses, will be prohibited
within t mile of all fishbearing streams and lakes, unless
otherwise approved by ADF&G.
2. Operation of equipment within riparian habitats will be
prohibited, unless approved by the Department of Fish and Game.
3. Alteration of the banks of watercourses will be prohibited except
in a manner approved by the Department of Fish and Game.
The detonation of high explosives can cause direct mortality of fish and
result in abnormal behavioral responses among fish and marine mammals.
The following measures should be instituted to avoid the detrimental impacts
of explosives on fish and marine mammals:
1. Seismic activities that utilize high explosives in marine waters
will be prohibited.
2. Onshore detonation of high explosives will be prohibited within
the minimum acceptable offsets of fish-bearing waters.
No person should discharge explosives within the distance from an anadromous
fish stream specified in the following table for each charge weight and
substrate type.
Relationship between explosive charge weight in various substrates and
distance from a waterbo.dy which will produce up to 2 psi hydrostatic
overpressure on the swim bladder of anadromous fish.
The required distances for charge weights not set forth in the table should
be computed by linear interpolation between the charge weights bracketing
the desired charge. For charge weights greater than 1,000 pounds, the
required distance may be determined by linear extrapolation. The
relationship set forth in this section applies to single shots of a given
weight of explosive or single shots in multiple charges if each shot is
separated by eight milliseconds or longer.
-205-
TABLE 54. Relationship Between Explosive Charge Weight
in Various Substrates and Distance from a Waterbody
ExElosive Charge Weight in Pounds
Unfrozen Substrate 1 2 5 10 25 100 500 1,000
Rock 60 90 140 200 320 630 1,420 2,000
Stiff Clay, Gravel 50 70 llO 160 250 510 1,130 1,600
Clayey Silt, Dense Sand 40 60 100 140 220 430 970 1,370
Medium to Dense Sand 40 60 90 120 190 390 870 1,230
Medium Organic Clay 30 40 60 80 130 250 550 780
Soft Organic Clay 20 30 50 70 120 230 520 740
ExElosive Charge Weight in Pounds
Frozen Substrate r 2 5 10 25 100 500 1,000
Aeolian Sand 60 90 130 190 300 600 1,340 1,890
Silt, Gravel 60 90 130 190 300 600 1,340 1,890
Silt, Organic 60 80 130 180 290 580 1,300 1,840
Alluvial Clay 60 80 130 180 290 580 1,300 1,840
Ice-4 co 50 70 120 170 260 530 1,180 1,670
Refuge disposal. Refuse disposal sites can alter important wildlife habitat
and pollute ground water and adjacent waterbodies. Solid waste also serves
to attract predators (e.g. bears and foxes) to industrial sites. Nuisance
animals can threaten human safety and often have to be destroyed.
All garbage and refuse, particularly human food, will be thoroughly
incinerated and disposed of at an approved upland site. No new solid fill
disposal sites will be approved during the exploratory phase.
Public access. Sportsmen, subsistence users, and recreationists may utilize
lands within or near the proposed sale area. Restricting public access and
the discharge of firearms will preclude use of the sale area for harvesting
and other traditional uses.
Current resource users should be guaranteed continued public access to lands
and resources within the proposed sale area through implementation of the
following measures:
1. No restriction of public access to, or use of, the area will be
permitted as a consequence of oil and gas activities, except for
small limited areas in the immediate vicinity of drill sites,
buildings, other related structures.
-206-
2. Surface use will be restricted, as necessary, to prevent
unreasonable conflicts with local subsistence harvests.
Environmental training. Many workers associated will oil and gas
exploration and deve1opment will not be aware of the environmental and
social considerations essential to proper development of the sale area.
Lessees shall include in any exploration and/or development plans a proposed
environmental training program for all personnel involved in exploration or
development activities (including personnel of the lessees' contractors or
subcontractors) for review and approval by the Director, Division of
Minerals and Energy Management. The program shall be designed to inform
each person working on the project of specific types of environmental,
social, and cultural concerns that relate to the individual's job. The
program shall be formulated and implemented by qualified instructors
experienced in each pertinent field of study, and shall employ effective
methods to ensure that personnel understand and use techniques necessary to
preserve archaeological, geological, and biological resources. The program
shall also be designed to increase the sensitivity and understanding of
personnel to community values, customs, and lifestyles in areas in which
these personnel will be operating.
Lessees shall also submit review and approval a continuing technical
environmental briefing program for supervisory and managerial personnel of
the lessee and its agents, contractors, and subcontractors.
Mitigating Measures for Species and Habitats Requiring Additional Protection
Refuges and Critical Habitat Areas. The management of state game refuges
and critical habitat areas is the responsibility of the Department of Fish
and Game under AS 16.20.010-.080 and AS 16.20.220-.270, respectively.
Development operations within the Refuges and Critical Habitat Areas will be
required to comply with the terms and conditions previously outlined under
both General Mitigating Measures and Protection of Fish-Bearing Streams.
The department will also require compliance with the measures listed below,
which were developed specifically for the Refuges and Critical Habitat.
Areas.
The following mitigating measures should be incorporated into all
appropriate development plans. Special requirements for industrial
operations within these areas may affect how development within the Refuges
and Critical Habitat Areas will occur. In addition, the review and approval
of plans of operations and permit applications will be expedited if
applicants incorporate required mitigation into their initial project
proposals.
1. The Refuges and Critical Habitat Areas were established by the
legislature for two primary reasons: 1) to protect fish and wildlife
habitats and populations, and 2) to ensure public access to, and use
of, these resources. Oil and gas development and other land-use
activities may be allowed within these areas, provided that they are
compatible with the primary management objectives.
-207-
In order to be consistent with the legislative intent for establishing
state game refuges and critical habitat areas, oil and gas lessees will
be required to comply with the following general measures:
a. Applicants will be required to obtain a permit from the Department
of Fish and Game, which will specify the terms and conditions of
lease operations. Permits will be issued upon receipt and
approval of detailed plans of operations for all applicable phases
of oil and gas development projects.
b. No drilling will be permitted until the lessee demonstrates the
capability to expeditiously detect, contain, and clean up any
hydrocarbon spill that may result from lease activities before the
spill significantly impacts fish and wildlife populations or their
habitats. This includes the capability to drill a relief well in
the event of a loss of well control.
c. All lease facilities must be designed and constructed to prevent
the spread of hydrocarbons and facilitate cleanup, both above and
below ground.
d. Lease facilities must include all available design features to
minimize the possibility of accidental oil spills or fires
resulting from vandalism or hunting accidents.
e. Disposal of produced waters shall be by commonly practiced
subsurface disposal techniques. Surface discharge of produced
waters will be prohibited.
f. Disposal of drilling muds and cuttings will be allowed only at
approved upland sites. Disposals will not be permitted within
Goose Bay State Game Refuge. Onshore dump or reserve pits must be
bermed and rendered impermeable, or otherwise fully contained
through diking or other means.
g. Upon abandonment or expiration of a lease, all facilities mu$t be
removed and the sites rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the
Department of Fish and Game, unless the department determines that
it is in the best interest of the public to retain some or all of
the facilities.
2. Coastal wetlands and nearshore waters within the Susitna Flats State
Game Refuge provide critical staging, nesting, and feeding habitats for
large numbers of waterfowl and shorebirds. These areas also receive
the greatest hunting pressure within the refuges. Industrial
operations could significantly impact fish and wildlife resources and
public use of these areas if activities result in extensive habitat
alterations and wide spread noise and disturbance during the period
when waterfowl and hunters are present.
Compliance with the following measures will be required within the
Susitna Flats primary waterfowl areas.
-208-
a. All surface exploration and development activities within
primary waterfowl areas will be allowed only between
November 1 and March 31, unless an extension is approved by
the Department of Fish and Game. Routine maintenance and
emergency repairs will be permitted on a year-round basis
during the production phase. A detailed plan describing
routine maintenance activities to be conducted between
April 1 and October 31 must be submitted to the Department of
Review and Approval.
b. Gravel pads and wellheads are the only permanent above ground
structures that will be allowed within primary waterfowl
areas. The design and construction of gravel pads and
wellheads must utilize the best available technology to
minimize the visual impacts of these structures.
c. Low flying aircraft frequently disturb nesting and staging
waterfowl, and can cause an increase in bird mortalities.
Eggs and chicks can be knocked from their nests, crushed, or
preyed upon when adults are alarmed and flushed from their
nests. Aircraft disturbances can also displace adults and
fledglings from preferred feeding habitats, which may prevent
them from acquiring the fat reserves necessary for the fall
migration.
From April 1 to October 31, aircraft overflights over the
primary waterfowl areas within the Susitna Flats State Game
Refuge, will maintain a minimum altitude of 1,500 feet or a
horizontal distance of one mile.
3. Surface entry will be prohibited within Goose Bay State Game Refuge.
Directional drilling will be allowed from adjacent sites.
See: Guidelines for Protection of Special Fish and Wildlife Areas -
Wetlands, Riparian Lands, Threatened and Endangered Species
Transportation Guidelines
Criteria for Protective Buffer Zones on State Lands
-209-
Subsurface and Mineral Guidelines
Mining operations working on lode deposits, coal seams, upland gravel
deposits or in support of placer mining activities are often responsible for
the degradation of the aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Disruption of
productive habitats and degradation of water quality result in reduced fish
and wildlife populations. Disturbance to hillsides and loss of vegetation
can increase erosion and siltation, alter drainage patterns, produce erratic
stream flows and dry up lowland ground water reservoirs. Construction of
roads, compaction of soils and creation of other impervious surfaces reduces
groundwater percolation and increases surface water runoff. Acid mine
waters and leachates from tailing mounds can degrade water quality,
rendering downstream rivers and lakes unsuitable for fish habitat or human
use.
Water appropriations from streams or lakes necessary for mining operations
can exceed instream flow requirements for fish and other important aquatic
life. Excavations of placer deposits in important fish habitat causes
downstream siltation and disrupts spawning beds. Physical encroachments and
noise from construction and operation of heavy equipment or blasting may
disturb wildlife in nesting, feeding and resting areas.
Because the elimination or alteration of habitat creates long-term impacts
to aquatic and terrestrial syitems, habitat maintenance and restoration must
be given primary consideration during mining activities.
While it may not be feasible to conduct mining and mineral processing
activities without affecting fish and wildlife habitat, the planning, design
and operation of all mining activities should reflect the maintenance of
existing ecological processes. Every effort should be made to maintain
water quality and quantity, natural drainage patterns, vegetative cover and
minimize disturbances to productive areas.
Development Guidelines
The following guidelines apply to all m1n1ng operations. For coal m1n1ng
these guidelines are to be referenced in preparation to the requirements
listed in the Alaska Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act (AS 41.45).
If mining is to occur on state lands, then during and subsequent to mining
operations and all related activities, the loss or degradation of important
fish and wildlife habitat will be avoided or minimized. In addition to
avoiding or minimizing impacts to fish and wildlife during the operation of
the mine following mining the land should be returned to its former or
greater productivity. At a minimum the land should be restored to a
condition capable of supporting the uses which it was capable of supporting
prior to mining and the land should be restored to the approximate original
contour unless otherwise approved by ADF&G. All surface areas should be
stabilized and protected to prevent surface and ground water degradation,
and speed up the revegetation process.
It is the responsibility of the leasee to inform all persons engaged in
construction, development or related activities of all applicable state
laws, regulations, and requirements.
-210-
All construction, development, or related activities should be designed,
constructed, and maintained so as to allow unrestricted passage and movement
of fish and wildlife.
Prior to the start of construction, development or related activities
applications for permits and lease plans of operations should be submitted
for review to ADNR, ADEC, and ADF&G. At a minimum plans for the following
issues will be addressed:
Timing and methods of access (including for roads the proposed route, and
dates and methods of construction), handling fuel and hazardous chemicals,
including plans for storage and spills, air quality, disposal of combustible
and non-combustible wastes, disposal of sewage and waste water, erosion and
sediment control, stream crossings, material removal, disposal of overburden
and tailings, clearing, blasting, restoration/rehabilitation of disturbed
sites, and protection of fish and wildlife. Guidelines and stipulations for
each activity that avoid or minimize disturbance both directly and
indirectly to fish, wildlife and habitat should be included for each lease
or permit.
Mining of gravel or related material or mining of material such as coal, oil
shale, etc. should not occur within 800 feet of a river, stream, lake, Class
I or Class II wetlands, or sensitive, critical or special wildlife habitat
areas unless otherwise approved by ADNR in consultation with ADF&G (see
Criteria for Protective Buffer Zones on State Lands, and Guidelines for
Protection of Special Fish and Wildlife Areas -Riparian Lands and Wetlands,
Oil and Gas Guidelines -gravel mining).
Stipulations in mining permits or in plans of operations associated with
leases will insure that anadromous fish streams are protected from siltation
and the introduction of toxic substances or other disturbances caused by
mining activities.
Construction, development, and related activities should be conducted so as
to minimize disturbance to surface areas.
The design of all facilities should provide for the control of erosion and
reduction of sediment production or transport.
On a case-by-case basis, with the consultation of the Department of Fish and
Game the following guidelines, where applicable, should be incorporated into
all mining permits:
1. Stream banks .shall not be mined or otherwise disturbed.
2. Applicable state water quality standards specified in regulations
of the Department of Environmental Conservation
(18 AAC 70.010-110) shall be maintained at all times.
3. There shall be no vehicles or equipment operated within a river or
stream at any time except that vehicles may cross the river or
stream solely for purposes of claim access and equipment may be
operated within the river or stream to connect water diversion
-211-
structures. All stream crossings shall be made directly from bank
to bank in a direction perpendicular to the wate~ flow.
4. All cuts and slopes not actively being mined shall be stabilized
prior to the end of each mining season to prevent erosion. In
addition, all tailing piles shall be leveled to prevent erosion
and encourage revegetation.
Erosion control measures should be employed to limit induced and
accelerated erosion, to reduce sediment production or transport,
and to lessen the possibility of forming new drafnage channels.
5. Settling pond outlets shall be screened with heavy gauge wire mesh
to prevent adult fish entrance.
6. Each water intake structure shall be designed to prevent fish
entrapment, entrainment, or injury.
7. The entrance to any water diversion ditch is to have a well
maintained headgate which is to be regulated to block water flow
during non-operating periods. The headgate intake shall be fitted
with a screen on which the effective screen opening may not exceed
0.04 inch. It is recommended that the headgate intake screen be
placed in a slack water area or parallel to the stream flow.
8. Streams may not be diverted or realigned without the specific
written approval of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
9. Fish spawning beds, rearing and overwintering areas should be
protected from sediment. Settling basins or other sediment
control structures should be constructed to intercept silt before
it reaches rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, or marine waters.
Alterations of fish or spawning beds, rearing and overwintering
areas should be avoided. if alterations cannot be avoided, the
proposed alterations should be designed to minimize negative
impacts to fish and wildlife.
Construction, development or related activities in key fish and wildlife
areas and in specific areas where threatened or endangered species of
animals are found may be restricted during periods of denning, insect
relief, breeding, nesting, spawning, lambing and calving activity,
overwintering, and during major migrations of fish and wildlife (see
Guideline for Protection of Special Fish and Wildlife Areas).
Excavated materials should not be stockpiled in rivers, streams, lakes,
floodplains, tidelands, subtidal lands, or wetlands. Excavated materials in
excess of that required for backfill should be disposed in sites approved by
ADNR.
All activities that may create new lakes, drain existing lagoons, lakes, or
wetlands, significantly divert natural drainages, increase sediment
transport, and surface runoff, permanently alter stream or ground water
-212-
hydraulics or disturb significant areas of stream beds, tidelands or marine
lands should be prohibited unless approved by ADF&G and ADNR.
Adequate means should be provided for repair, replacement or rehabilitation
of natural resources (including but not limited to revegetation, restocking
fish or other wildlife populations, and re-establishing their habitats) that
are damaged or destroyed as a result of construction, development, or
related activities. Appropriate means of restoration should be determined
by the Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game.
Access for Mineral Development
Access to tundra, wetlands, and other environmentally sensitive areas should
occur in a manner at a time that minimizes damage (See Guidelines
Transportation).
Existing roads and trails should be used to provide access to mine sites
wherever possible.
Trail and road access to recreation, fish and wildlife, and other public
resources should be maintained at or above pre-mining levels, during the
mining operation. Access should be designed to minimize the potential for
trespass, vandalism, or other public nuisance in the mining area.
Mineral Closures
Mineral closures for habitat protection or if needed to protect fish and
wildlife during critical stages of the life-cycle should be implemented when
it is necessary to protect a habitat or species which would be significantly
harmed by mining activities in spite of existing state statutory or·
regulatory authorities. Lands to be considered for mineral closures
include:
Areas supporting protected, threatened or endan~ered species of fish,
wildlife or plants. Nesting and feeding areas or peregrine falcons are
included in this category. Also included are those habitats which have been
given special protection through state and federal legislation or
international treaty (e.g., anadromous fisheries streams, migratory bird
habitat, marine mammal habitat, etc.).
Lands su~porting production of recognized valuable seecies. Lands and
waters w ich support the production or population ma1ntenance of fish or
wildlife species which have significant economic, recreational, scientific,
educational or cultural values. Nesting, brood rearing, molting and staging
areas for trumpeter swans, and nesting and feeding areas for bald eagles and
golden eagles are included in this category.
Legislatively designated habitat lands. State of Alaska game refuges,
critical habitat areas, and sanctuaries.
-213-
fish or wildlife. Other areas
support un1que or large
assemblages of fish or wildlife (moose winter range, caribou calving
grounds, caribou migration corridors, brown bear feeding areas).
Lands providing high or unique recreational values. Areas which provide
opportunities for the human use and engagement of outdoor recreation
including hunting, fishing, hiking, photography and wildlife viewing.
See: Oil and Gas Guidelines for Applicable Phases of Development Roads
Transportation Guidelines
Guidelines for Protection of Special Fish and Wildlife Areas
Criteria for Protective Buffer Strips
-214-
Transportation and Utility Guidelines
If transportation or utility systems are to have a minimal impact on fish
and wildlife populations then the location, design, construction and
maintenance, use of the system and the impact of development induced by the
system must be considered in the planning stage.
The most critical aspect is the location of the transportation or utility
system. The location will affect both the degree of habitat alteration and
the degree of secondary impacts which accompany construction and operation.
In addition to the primary impacts, a transportation system can generate
residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational development, any of
which result in activities far more detrimental to fish and wildlife than
the system itself.
Roads may also interfere with natural drainage patterns and flow of surface
and ground water, interfere with both fish and wildlife movements, create
runoff that effects water quality, removes important habitat by dredging or
filling during the construction process and directly disturbs wildlife by
increased noise or activity.
Cooperative planning between engineers, wildlife biologists, hydrologists
and contractors is necessary for locating and designing transportation and
utility systems that maintain habitat value and provide long term public
benefits for transportation and utility needs.
Location, Design and Construction
The following guidelines will assist in location, designing, and
constructing transportation and utility systems.
Roadways should be located so they conform to existing topography, require a
minimum alteration of soils and vegetation, do not disrupt natural drainage
patterns and avoid important wildlife habitats.
Transportation and utility routes should avoid moose, brown bear, caribou,
and waterfowl habitats, which if disturbed, could cause declines in local
populations. When it is not feasible and prudent to avoid important
habitat, transportation and utility routes should be sited, designed and
constructed to minimize conflicts with wildlife and avoid unnecessary
habitat alteration (see-Forestry Guidelines).
Public land disposals allowed by this plan as well as development projects
should be designed to maximize the use of existing road and utility
corridors.
All road or utility crossings of anadromous fish habitat need prior approval
by ADF&G. Road and utility crossings of rivers, lakes and streams will
avoid obstructing stream flow and impairing water quality and streambank
stability.
To minimize streambank disturbance, crossing of rivers and streams and other
flowing waters should be aligned at right angles to the direction of flow
where feasible and prudent.
-215-
All bridges and culverts requ1r1ng a Title 16 permit will be large enough
and positioned to avoid changing the direction and velocity of stream flow,
or otherwise interfere with the migration or spawning activities of fish and
wildlife unless ADF&G determines deviation from this guideline will not have
a significant impact on the fish resources. In addition, all bridges and
culverts will, to the extent feasible and prudent, be large enough to
accommodate the best available estimate of 25 year peak discharge without
interfering with volume, velocity, and sediment transport or substrate
characteristics of the stream. Bridges and culverts should provide adequate
clearance for boat, pedestrian, and large game passage whenever these uses
occur or are anticipated.
Roadbed and utility corridors should avoid alignments which closely parallel
or lie within the floodplain of rivers or streams. Buffer strips of natural
vegetation of a minimum width of 200' or more if necessary to filter surface
runoff, should be retained between the roadbed or utility corridor and any
waterbody or wetland (See Criteria for Protective Buffer Strips).
Roads and utility lines should be routed around wetlands. If no alternative
exists and roads must cross wetlands then roads should be elevated to allow
natural circulation of water and free passage of aquatic life. Avoid solid
fill causeways and other obstructions which impound or divert water. Where
solid fill roadways must occur they should be aligned parallel to the
direction of natural drainage, allow for free passage of aquatic life and
provide for peak flows. Utility crossings of rivers, lakes and streams
should either be buried or elevated to avoid obstructing streamflow. Heavy
machinery should not be driven up or down a streambed.
Necessary work in or adjacent to biologically important wetlands and
tideflats should be scheduled during the least sensitive time periods.
Disturbances to wildlife should be avoided during calving, nesting, molting
or migration.
Transmission lines will use existing or designated transportation corridors
where feasible and prudent. The siting and construction of transmission
lines will, to the extent feasible and prudent, avoid creating permanent
access corridors and causing significant damage to the land. Transmission
lines will not be sited in critical or important waterfowl habitat.
Transmission lines will be designed to prevent electrocution of raptors.
For winter roads or winter access, snow ramps, snow bridges, cribbing or
other methods should be used to provide access across frozen rivers, lakes
or streams to avoid the cutting, eroding, or degrading of banks. Snow
bridges will be removed or breached and cribbing will be removed immediately
after final use.
Airports or landing strips should be located in areas which will minimize
interference with fish wildlife and their habitats. Avoid fills into
rivers, streams, or lakes to create airport space. Avoid locations where
birds will interfere with safe take-off and landings. Retain vegetated
buffer zones around airport surfaces to filter oil and dust from surface
runoff (See -Criteria for Protective Buffer Zones).
-216-
Where road corridors contact streams, appropriate areas should be retained
in public ownership to accommodate the expected recreation use, including
parking. The size of these areas will vary but should generally be 20-80
acres. Exceptions to this size may be made for sites anticipated to have
very low or high use. These river access/recreation sites should be located
to be readily accessible from the highway without being visible. Typically,
this will require a short section of access road to a parking area screened
from the highway by vegetation or topography. A 200 foot buffer zone should
be left between any parking or camping areas and the stream (see Criteria
for Protective Buffer Zones).
See: Settlement Guidelines
Oil and Gas Guidelines
Minerals Guidelines
Forestry Guidelines
-217-
Guidelines for Protection of Special Fish and Wildlife Areas
The Alaska Legislature recognizes that, due to economic growth and natural
resource development, certain species or subspecies of fish and wildlife are
now and may in the future be threatened with extinction. AS 16.20.185
requires that on land under their respective jurisdictions, the Commissioner
of Fish and Game and the Commissioner of Natural Resources shall take
measures to preserve the habitat of species or subspecies of fish and
wildlife that are recognized as threatened with extinction.
No activity should be conducted that will jeopardize the continued existence
of an endangered species or result in modification or destruction of
habitat required by such species. A qualified Alaska Department of Fish and
Game or United States Fish and Wildlife Service biologist should review
specific cases and determine appropriate protective measures.
The peregrine falcon is protected under both federal and state endangered
species acts. Trumpeter swans are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act of 1918 and international treaties with Mexico and Canada. Bald and
golden eagles and their habitat are protected under the Bald Eagle
Protection Act.
Disturbance of marine mammals or their essential habitats is prohibited
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Coastal Management Program
6 AAC 80.150. Disturbance or destruction of migratory bird habitat is
prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and treaties with
Japan, Mexico and the Soviet Union as well as the Alaska Coastal Management
Program. 6 AAC 80.150.
Endangered Species
Pere~rine falcon. For all currently or historically occupied nesting cliffs
of t e peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus anatum and Falco peregrinus
tundrius:
1. Land use practices and/or development that will alter or eliminate
natural habitat conditions within one mile (1.6 km) of nesti~g
cliffs should be prohibited.
2. All ground level activities (unless specifically authorized)
within one mile of nesting cliffs between April 15 and August 31
should be prohibited.
3. The state should protect and/or retain nesting habitat in public
ownership.
4. The state should make provision for purchase or otherwise ensure
protection for nesting habitat in private ownership.
5. All aircraft overflights within 1500 feet of the surface and
within a horizontal distance of one mile of nesting cliffs should
be prohibited between April 15 and August 31.
-218-
6. Permanent facilities within two miles (3.2 km) that have high
noise levels or sustained human activity or that altering large
acreages should be prohibited.
For all areas within a minimum of fifteen (15) miles of active nesting
cliffs.
1. Land use practices and/or developments that will detrimentally
alter or eliminate the habitat or food source of peregrine falcons
should be prohibited. (This guideline does not advocate a
prohibition of all development activities around nesting sites,
rather it requests consultation with ADF&G to insure that
adequate peregrine feeding areas are protected around the nesting
sites.)
2. The use of harmful pesticides and other environmental pollutants
detrimental to the peregrine falcon or its food source should be
prohibited.
3. The state of Alaska should retain key feeding habitats in public
ownership or make provision for protection or purchase of these
habitats on private land.
Protected Species
Trumpeter swans. For all currently or historically occupied nesting areas
of trumpeter swans:
1. Land use practices and/or developments that will alter or
eliminate natural habitat conditions within one mile shoul~ be
prohibited.
2. The state should protect and/or retain staging and reproductive
habitat in public ownership.
3. Activities which cause or create visual or noise disturbance.
within one mile of swan nesting ponds, marshes or lakes from May 1
through September 10 should be prohibited. These same activities
should be prohibited within one mile of major staging areas
between April 1-30 and September 10 -October 1.
4. All aircraft overflight within 1500 feet of the surface and within
a horizontal distance of one mile of documented trumpeter swan
nest sites between May 1 and September 10 should be prohibited.
Eagles. For all currently or historically occupied nesting areas of bald
and golden eagles including forests, cliffs, and sea stacks:
1. Land use practices and/or development including but not limited to
removal or disturbance of natural habitat within one-quarter mile
should be prohibited.
2. Along coastal or riparian shorelines a nondevelopment zone of at
least one-quarter mile should be retained in public ownership.
-219-
3. A continuous z0ne of uncut timber of at least 500 feet (152 m)
should be maintained around nesting sites on public lands of the
state.
4. On private lands eagle nesting sites should not be removed,
felled, or in any way disturbed.
5. On state lands, all ground level development activities (unless
specifically authorized) within 500 feet (152m) of active bald
eagle nests should be prohibited between March 1 and August 31.
Alteration or disturbance of the habitat in marine mammal and migratory
seabird rookeries or migratory waterfowl and shorebird nesting or staging
areas should be temporary, limited to the non-breeding season, and fully
restored to natural conditions prior to the next breeding season. Loss of
essential migratory bird or marine mammal habitat due to permanent
alterations which remove or alter breeding, nesting, pupping, or staging
areas should be avoided. If avoidance is not possible, other mitigative
measures including compensation should be required.
Wetlands Guidelines
Wetlands have intrinsic natural values. In addition to their important
contribution to fish and wildlife productivity and associated recreational
and scientific use, wetlands perform a far broader spectrum of biological
and physical functions. Wetlands act as natural water management systems.
Wetlands serve to filter nutrients and sediment from upland run-off,
stabilize the water supply by retaining excessive water during flooding and
by recharging groundwater during dry periods. Wetlands serve as important
breeding, nesting, feeding or calving areas for many species including
waterfowl, moose and caribou. Wetlands support migratory birds of national
and international significance. Coastal and estuarine wetlands and
tideflats with their high primary productivity and energy export potential
are the ecological basis of much of our commercial seafood industry.
Unplanned and uncontrolled development has been responsible for conve~ing
wetlands to subdivisions, landfills, airports, transportation corridors,
shopping centers and industrial sites without concern for their natural
benefits. The costs to long-term community interests, both economic and
environmental, may exceed the short-term benefits of converting wetlands to
alternate land uses.
The value of various types of wetlands to fish and wildlife species may vary
considerably. The following guidelines provide some initial considerations
for the protection of wetlands. Since no classification or determination of
fish and wildlife value for general types of wetlands is currently available
for most of Alaska, evaluations of specific sites and project areas should
provide the basis for determining wetland values and permissible development
standards.
Definition. For the implementation of wetland policies and management
guidelines, the following definition of wetlands shall apply: 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
-220-
living in the soil and on its surface. The single feature that most
wetlands share is soil or 1substrate that is at least periodically saturated
with or covered by water. Generally, these are land areas which, at least
periodically, support predominantly hydrophytes 2 and in which 3the substrate
is predominantly very poorly drained or undrained hydric soil .
For purposes of these management guidelines, wetlands are divided into three
classes: Class I, wetlands larger than 100 acres and all wetlands with a
locatable stream outlet (the stream shall be considered part of; the
wetland); Class II, wetlands between 40 and 100 acres with no outlet; and
Class III, wetlands less than 40 acres with no outlet.
Development Guidelines Adjacent to Wetlands
A ricultural develo ment adjacent to wetlands. Class I wetlands and certain
surrounding ands buffers sou d remain in public ownership whenever
feasible. A Class I wetland buffer shall include all soils of Class IV or
lower agricultural capability (e.g. Class V, VI, etc.) which lie adjacent to
the wetland or a minimum 400 foot buffer zone as measured from the periphery
of the wetland -whichever provides the greatest width (see-Criteria for
Protective Buffer Zones).
Restrictive use covenants and public access easements rather than public
ownership may be used to protect Class I wetlands and associated buffers
under conditions specified in 4 below.
Class II wetlands and certain surrounding lands (buffers) should remain in
public ownership whenever feasible. A Class II wetland buffer shall include
all soils of Class IV or lower agricultural capability which lie adjacent to
the wetland, or a 200 foot buffer zone adjacent to the wetland -whtchever
provides the greatest buffer width.
Restrictive use covenants and public access easements rather than public
ownership may be used to protect Class II wetlands and associated buffers
under conditions specified in 4 below.
Class III wetlands may be sold as part of a farmstead. Draining, clearing,
or other modifications must conform to applicable permit requirements (e.g.
Army Corps of Engineers 11 Section 404 11 Permit). When feasible, Class III
wetlands should remain in public ownership.
Forestry management adjacent to wetlands. Winter access only should be used
in or across wetlands whenever feasible.
1cowardin, 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/oSs-79731. Wash1ngton b. c. 1o3 pp.
2Hydrophyte: Any plant growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically
deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content.
3 Hydric soil: Soil that is wet long enough to periodically produce anaerobic conditions,
thereby influencing the growth of plants.
-221-
Selective timber harvest only, will generally be permitted within 400 and
200 feet respectively of Class I and II wetlands. This guideline may be
changed for specific locations by ADNR with the approval of ADF&G (see
Forestry Guidelines).
Other land uses adjacent to wetlands. Maintain wetland processes when
adopting practices on adjacent lands such as protecting water quality and
quantity, minimizing disturbances to nesting molting and calving areas, not
obstructing migratory pathways and careful applications of pesticides and
herbicides.
On all lands adjacent to public wetlands adequate buffers (see-Criteria for
Protective Buffer Zones on State Lands) will be preserved in a natural state
to protect the hydrologic, recreation and habitat functions of the wetlands.
These buffers should be retained in public ownership whenever feasible.
Restrictive use covenants and public access easements rather than public
ownership may be used to protect wetland buffers under conditions specified
below.
The following standards shall apply when publicly-owned wetlands or parts
there of or publicly-owned lands adjacent to wetlands are sold to private
parties for non-agricultural use:
1. Class I wetlands and land within 200 feet of Class I wetlands will
remain in a natural state.
2. Class II wetlands and land within 400 feet of Class II wetlands
will remain in a natural state.
3. Class III wetlands will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis
through public land disposal processes or applicable public land
management plans.
Restrictive use covenants and ublic access easements. Class I and II
wetlands inc uding outlet streams and associated buffers should rema.in in
public ownership whenever feasible. Restrictive use covenants and public
access easements may be used rather than public ownership under the
following conditions:
1. Where the configuration of the wetland is such that survey along
the meander of the wetland would be excessively ex ensive. In
t is case an a 1quot part rectangu ar survey rat er than a
meander survey may be used along the edge of the wetland. This
may result in portions of the wetland being conveyed to private
ownership. Restrictive use covenants and public access easements
shall be applied to ensure that those portions of the wetland and
associated buffer conveyed to private ownership remain in a
natural state and that public access and use are maintained.
2. For Class II wetlands where the wetland is entirely included with
a parcel of land to be sold for private use. In this case the
wetland and associated buffer may be conveyed to private ownership
with restrictive use covenants which ensure that the wetland and
-222-
associated buffer remain in a natural state. This does not apply
to Class I wetlands. Class I wetlands shall remain in public
ownership except as in 1.
Dredging and fillinf wetlands. Wetlands that are hydrologically important
to fish and/or wild ife should be identified prior to any development
activities in order to avoid negative impacts on fish and/or wildlife.
Dredging, filling and other permanent alterations of wetlands should be
avoided or strictly limited. Where dredging or filling must occur,
stringent stipulations should be adopted as to the type of fill, the season
of activity, the type of structure or activity to occur on the fill and
other habitat changes resulting from the dredging or filling. Enhancement
of wetland habitats is encouraged where compatible with local wildlife
management goals. Modifications should only be allowed if it can be
demonstrated to the satisfaction of ADF&G that they will not impair
long-term fish and wildlife production.
Site preparation activities in wetlands should be scheduled during winter
when the least biological damage will occur.
See: Transportation Guidelines
Oil and Gas Guidelines
Subsurface and Mineral Guidelines
Foretry Guidelines
Settlement Guidelines
Agriculture Guidelines
Criteria for Protective Buffer Zones on State Lands
Guidelines for Protection of Special Fish and Wildlife Areas
-223-
Riparian Land Guidelines
Introduction. Riparian ecosystems are a highly productive public resource.
They support a greater abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife than
surrounding habitats. Their wildlife values provide numerous recreational
opportunities as well as contributing to the economy.
The following lists several important attributes of riparian ecosystems:
1. Riparian vegetation regulates the energy base of the aquatic
ecosystems, thus determining the quality of aquatic habitat for
fish resources;
2. The structural diversity and complexity of riparian vegetation
supports greater numbers and diversity of terrestrial wildlife
populations than any other habitat;
3. It provides a vegetative buffer zone which acts as a mechanism for
flood control, pollution abatement, erosion control, streambank
stabilization, ground water recharge and the maintenance of water
quality;
4. It attracts and supports many recreational, subsistence and
educational activities including hunting, trapping, fishing,
camping, photography and nature ·study and;
5. It has a high aesthetic value due to the combination of water,
land, attractive and unique vegetation types and abundant fish and
wildlife populations.
The removal of streamside vegetation directly affects the habitat for fish,
wildlife and other aquatic resources. Loss of riparian vegetation can lead
to changes causing increased erosion and increased sedimentation in rivers,
streams and lakes, changes in water temperature, nutrient supply, available
food and cover for fish, and stream flow and fluctuations in discharge. The
quality of the aquatic habitat and its productivity is a result of the
interaction of the riparian vegetation with the aquatic system. Adverse
alterations in the vegetation will affect the quality and quantity of fish
habitat and cause a decline in productivity.
For moose riparian habitats are essential for maintaining a stable
population. Riparian areas play a critical role in overwinter survival,
especially in years with deep snow accumulation. Moose travel long
distances to reach river bottomlands where snow is less deep and food more
accessible.
Any conflicting use of the resource must be weighed against the resources
inherent values and be designed to best maintain those values. If we are to
maintain productive, healthy riparian ecosystems then we must adhere to
management practices that reduce impacts to fish and wildlife and protect
public recreational values. The importance and value of riparian wildlife
habitats calls for especially protective measures. A more detailed account
of the values of riparian ecosystems is presented in a report in Appendix C.
The following guidelines are necessary to protect these resources.
-224-
Definition. Riparian lands are composed of plant communities along rivers
and streams and around lakes, ponds, springs or bogs, whose vegetative
structure and function is primarily determined by influences from the
adjacent aquatic system, including a high water table or overbank flooding.
Along rivers and streams, riparian lands 1are those which are located within
the boundaries of the active floodplain.
Development Guidelines. All persons conducting operations on state land
should be informed of and comply with the Water Quality Standards of the
state of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation (18 AAC
70.010-110), as approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, and with
the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit Program and Alaska's
Waste Disposal Standards.
Natural vegetative buffer zones, retained in public ownership should be left
along all shorelines, sloughs, bays, rivers, streams and other surface water
in order to trap sedimentation and pollutants, control storm water flow,·
protect important fish and wildlife habitat and provide public recreational
opportunities. The width of the buffer strip should be determined by the
slope of the land, severity of erosion, vegetation type, importance to fish
and wildlife, extent of the 100-year floodplain and proposed development.
Generally, public land disposals for remote parcels, recreational parcels,
subdivisions, homesteads and similar low density residential or recreational
development should have a minimum buffer of 200-400 feet landward of the
ordinary high water mark. Generally buffers on public lands adjacent to
commercial or industrial uses should have a minimum buffer width of 800 feet
landward of the ordinary high water mark or 200 feet landward of the
boundary of the 100-year floodplain. (see Criteria for Protective Buffer
Strips).
For all areas within a protective buffer zone (minimum of 200 feet landward
of the ordinary high water mark) adjacent to a waterbody which will be
closed to mineral entry the state should issue mineral closing orders that
include the entire width of the protective buffer zone (See Subsurface and
Mineral Guidelines).
For private property along all shorelines, sloughs, bays, rivers, streams
and other surface water where feasible and prudent the state should attempt
to purchase private land within the designated riparian buffer zone or
negotiate conservation easements equivalent to a minimum width of 200 feet.
Stipulations should be attached that assure a tract remain in its natural
state. Easements are not considered as desirable as fee-simple acquisition.
Except for low density public use recreational cabins permanent structures
should not be built within the 100-year (active) floodplain of any flowing
body of water.
1Active floodplain: The flood prone low lands and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and
coastal waters including contiguous wetlands and floodplain areas of offshore islands; this
will include, at a minimum, that area subject to a 1% or greater chance of flooding in any
given year (100-year floodplain).
-225-
For any activity within Riparian lands:
1. Free passage and movement of fish must be assured both upstream
and downstream of the permitted activity of construction as may be
provided through conditions of the permit.
2. Scheduling of instream activities will be determined by ADF&G on a
site-specific basis so as to avoid or minimize adverse disturbance
to fish during migration, spawning, incubation, rearing or
overwintering.
3. Blasting is prohibited within minimum acceptable offsets of
fish-bearing water (see Oil and Gas guidelines).
The hydrological patterns of many streams preclude the use of culverts as
adequate fish passage structure. When a majority of a streams annual flow
occurs within a short period, large culverts are necessary to safely pass
water flow. Even large culverts can constrict water-flow, however, and
result in increased water velocities. High water velocities can cause
scouring at the downstream end of a culvert, which elevates the culvert and
blocks fish movements. During other periods of the year, low water flow and
the large cross sectional area of the culvert can make water depths in the
culvert too shallow to pass fish.
During development, bridges will be used as watercourse crossings of fish
habitat wherever feasible and practical. Culverts shall be used in fish
habitat only when absolutely necessar.y, and where it can be demonstrated
they will not block fish passage. The placement of bottomless arch culverts
are preferable over either round or elliptical culverts, which are optimally
buried one-fifth of the diameter of the culvert into the thalweg of the
stream.
The operation of equipment in streams can cause sedimentation of
waterbodies, disrupt fish migrations, and restrict or eliminate spawning
grounds and overwintering habitat.
The operation of equipment, excluding boats, in open water areas of
fish-bearing streams will be prohibited, unless approved by the Department
of Fish and Game pursuant to AS 16.05.870.
The removal and compaction of snow cover overlying fish-bearing streams can
cause abnormally thick ice formation, which may reduce available fish
overwintering habitat. Winter water appropriations from fish-bearing
waterbodies during winter can dewater fish overwintering areas. Reductions
in overwintering habitats can ultimately increase winter fish mortalities.
Compaction and/or removal of snow cover from fish-bearing waterbodies will
be prohibited, with the exception of perpendicular crossings approved by the
Department of Fish and Game. If ice thickness is not sufficient to
facilitate a crossing, ice and/or snow bridges will be required.
Unscreened, high velocity water intakes can entrain and kill fish and other
aquatic organisms.
-226-
Water intakes used to remove water from fish-bearing streams and lakes must
be surrounded by a screened enclosure to prevent fish entrainment and
impingement. Pipes and screening shall be designed and constructed so that
the maximum water velocity at the surface of the screened enclosure is not
greater than 0.1 foot per second, and screen mesh size shall not exceed 0.04
inch, unless an alternate design is approved by the Department of Fish and
Game.
Development activities in or adjacent to fish habitat will, to the extent
feasible and prudent, not alter the natural stream course or channel.
Rivers, streams or lakes that support important commercial, subsistence, or
recreational fish species will not be dammed, diverted or drawn down by
hydroelectric projects unless the project will be designed or mitigated so
as to cause no net loss to fish production.
Materials toxic to aquatic life should not be stored in floodplains.
Prior to disposing lands around lakes or streams a shoreland management
classification scheme for public waters should be developed. District
planners are encouraged to identify rivers, streams and lakes within their
jurisdiction which are important to fish and wildlife resources as well as
community aesthetics, recreation, water sources and other amenities. Lakes
and streams and their shorelands should be classified into categories (i.e.
Natural Environment-no development, Recreational development, or General
development) and for each category minimum shoreland use standards (zoning)
should be addressed. These may include pollution control, protection of
wildlife, prevention of land use conflicts, wetlands protection, protection
of scenic beauty and protection and enhancement of recreational values.
Various standards may also apply to lot size, water frontage, open ~pace,
and building set backs.
It is recommended that the borough provide financial incentives to riparian
landowners in the form of tax incentives. These should be designed to
encourage landowners to dedicate riparian lands to fish and wildlife values.
No development may occur within a predetermined buffer zone without pr.ior
approval by the Borough and ADF&G. Any tax relief law should have
stipulations to recover back taxes from landowners who develop their lands.
Riparian habitats along the Susitna, and Yentna rivers, and Alexander Creek
support particularly high concentrations of moose during severe winters. If
development activities are conducted within critical moose wintering
habitats when animals are present, increased winter mortalities are likely
to result due to the additional stress created by development operations.
During severe winters, activities with a high potential for noise or visual
disturbance will be restricted or prohibited between November 15 and
April 30, as necessary, in critical moose wintering areas within one-half
mile of the Susitna, and Yentna rivers and Alexander Creek. Specific areas
where winter operations may be restricted will be identified by the
Department of Fish and Game within 60 days of the date a plan of operation
is submitted for approval.
-227-
See: Settlement Guideline
Forestry Guideline
Transportation and Utility Guidelines
Subsurface Resources Guidelines
Instream Flow Guidelines
Criteria for Protection of Special Fish and Wildlife Areas
Criteria for Protective Buffer Zones on State Lands
Agricultural Guidelines
-228-
Criteria for Protective Buffer Zones on State Lands
Introduction
Buffer zones are recognized as an important method of protecting fish and
wildlife and their habitats from disturbance or damage. The Department of
Fish and Game considers buffer zones to be bands of undisturbed land forms
and/or vegetation along rivers, lakes, streams, marine waters and contiguous
wetlands, or surrounding wildlife use areas. The zones are measured from
the ordinary high water mark (vegetated banks) in the case of rivers, lakes,
and streams; higher high tide for marine waters and from the periphery of
essential fish and wildlife use areas for terrestrial sites. The department
recommends establishing buffer zones around anadromous streams and lakes
identified in the ADF&G Anadromous Stream Catalogs, essential marine
spawning and rearing areas and specified critical fish and wildlife habitats
of endangered or protected species or species highly sensitive to human
disturbance.
A buffer zone fulfills its function of protecting fish, wildlife and their
habitats by:
a. Preserving the vegetative component of the habitat. This is
extremely critical to the existence of wildlife, erosion control
and protecting the integrity of water bodies.
b. Preventing pollutants from reaching a waterbody •
.
c. Preventing watercourses and wetlands from being unnaturally
altered by being filled-in, channelized, dammed or drained. This
is particularly important in the case of a stream which, ~ue to
natural course changes, must be controlled in order to protect
bankside development.
d. Avoiding disruption of fish or wildlife populations during
sensitive life history stages.
e. Protection of watersheds and recharge areas.
When establishing buffer zones, thought must be given to what is needed to
achieve the above objectives and still remain flexible enough for
11 real-life 11 situations. This can be accomplished by tying buffers to land
uses. This Department considers that buffer zones should be set-backs which
will vary in width based on Department of Natural Resources' land
classifications. The set-back widths incorporate the Department of Fish and
Game's best professional recommendations. In this way, buffers can
automatically be established when land is classified. Mineral closures
should be implemented in all buffer zones to prevent activities the buffer
zone is designed to protect.
Flexibility can be maintained by establishing a waiver mechanism to allow
limited encroachment. In the case of an applicant wishing to encroach upon
an established buffer, it should be demonstrated by the applicant that the
proposed activity ~ill not compromise any of the stated objectives. The
request for encroachment should be reviewed by both Department of Fish and
-229-
Game biologists as well as land managers. Hydrologists, silvaculturists,
agronomists, geologists and other specialists may need to be consulted,
depending upon the magnitude of the proposed activity. This would make the
review a truly interdisciplinary approach and would be an obvious advantage
to both the applicant and resource manager.
In many cases an adequate buffer between a waterbody and development can
only be established after on-site review. The recommended buffers listed
below are general standards which may not be applicable in all cases.
Depending upon hydrology, topography, soils and floodplain characteristics
the buffer zone may need to be enlarged. In certain instances the buffer
zone may be sufficient to protect the river from development but may be
insufficient to protect development from the river. When the width of the
100-year floodplain exceeds the width of the recommended buffer zone width,
the former should serve as the set-back or buffer zone. Development will
not be allowed within the 100-year floodplain.
This problem has been recognized by the federal government in their
"Floodplain Management Guidelines" published in the Federal Register on
. February 10, 1978. The guidelines were formulated for implementing
Executive Order 11988 and were promulgated to control development in
floodplains since "floodplains are the scene of 1) unacceptable and
increasing flood losses and 2) degradation of natural and beneficial
values."
In the "Guidelines," a floodplain is defined as "the lowland and relatively
flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood prone areas
of o·ffshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one
percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year." A one percent
chance floodplain is the 100-year floodplain.
Recommended buffer widths are given for each category in the ADNR land
classification system. Three buffer widths are proposed: minimum or
200 foot buffer, moderate or 400 foot buffer and maximum or 800 foot buffer.
These widths were chosen as being realistic in terms of resource protection
based on experiences with residential and commercial development, pipe.line
and related construction, logging and agriculture. All reference to
waterbodies includes river, lakes, streams, marine waters and contiguous
wetlands. Specific recommendations follow:
Current Land Classifications (from Natural Resources Title 11, Chapter 55,
Land Planning and Classification)
Agri cultura 1 Lands -800 Feet
Agriculture can have detrimental effects upon waterbodies through nutrient
overloading, contamination from pesticides, erosion, or draining.
"Agriculture" can span a wide spectrum of activities ranging from
small-scale homesteading to large-scale agribusiness. The actual distance
between fish streams and agricultural land clearing should be based on the
size of the agricultural project, terrain, natural vegetation, and other
factors specific to each project. The Habitat Division recommends a minimum
standard 800 foot buffer zone around major streams, rivers and lakes for
major agricultural projects. This buffer zone width is suggested in order
-230-
to provide adequate protection from potential surface soil erosion and
runoff from fertilizers and pesticides; to maintain adequate riparian
habitat for moose, furbearers, and other species.
In some cases, agricultural projects are located near waterbodies for the
express purpose of water utilization. A narrower buffer may be acceptable
for small scale agricultural projects to protect water courses and still
allow agricultural activities close enough to the stream or lake to remove
water. A narrower buffer width would be acceptable if it can be shown that
the proposed activity will not compromise the stated purpose of the buffer.
Plans for water removal would have to be reviewed to ensure that the
instream flow requirements of the fish populations are not affected, that
pumps are adequately screened to prevent adverse impacts to fish, and that
fueling is conducted to prevent spillage of toxic chemicals into the water.
Above the Point of a Stream Where Fish Have Been Identified
A 400 foot buffer width is recommended for stream reaches above the point
where fish have been identified where there is reasonable concern that
potential surface soil erosion or runoff from fertilizers and pesticides
into those systems would affect downstream anadromous and fresh water
resident fish streams.
Grazing Lands -400 Feet
Intensive grazing in the riparian zones has severely degraded streams,
lakes, rivers, and coastlines, particularly in the lower 48 states. This
has resulted in increased erosion, denudation and breakdown of the banks.
Degradation of the riparian zone and of the stream banks can be mini~ized by
establishing and maintaining buffer zones between the grazing lands and the
waterways. Pumping water for livestock would be subject to the same
restrictions discussed under Agricultural Lands.
Forest Lands -400 Feet
Clear-cutting along fish streams has long been identified as a major
problem. Removal of bank vegetation causes erosion and temperature changes
within the stream. Such practices as yarding logs through streams breaks
down banks, causes fish blockage and introduces heavy layers of organics
which may smother benthic organisms and destroy spawning habitat.
Recognizing the severity of problems created by streamside logging, and at
the same time the fact that good merchantable timber is often associated
with waterbodies, a moderate buffer is proposed.
Material Lands -800 Feet
Mining of gravel or related materials requires a wide buffer around
waterbodies or critical wildlife areas. Gravel sites located close to
waterbodies have resulted in excessive siltation, fish traps, blockage of
fish (and probably wildlife) migrations, and shifting of river channels.
Anyone who is allowed to remove materials within a buffer zone must be able
to demonstrate that siltation will be minimized, the river will not change
-231-
course, fuel will not be discharged into the water due to human activity and
fish and/or wildlife populations will not be disrupted.
Gravel mining during the construction of Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS)
demonstrated how this type of activity could affect waterbodies. For
example, Material Site (MS) 63-1.2 was located approximately 200 feet from
an oxbow of the Chatanika River. The site was inadequately protected from
the river and during the spring of 1976, the first breakup following opening
of the pit, the Chatanika flowed through M.S. 63-1.2. The results were
trapping of fish, siltation of the Chatanika River, severe erosion of banks
of two tributary streams, access road wash-out and deposition of gravel over.
extensive amounts of vegetation. These sorts of occurrences must be
prevented because, in most cases, repair is difficult and often impossible.
Mineral Lands/Coal Lands -800 Feet
Mining of materials such as coal, oil shale, etc. can produce the same
detrimental effects (erosion, siltation, fish traps) as gravel mining. In
addition, depending upon the substance being mined, toxic pollutants can be
introduced from mining activities. One has only to look at the mining areas
of Pennsylvania, West Virginia or Montana or appreciate the harm that
unregulated mining can have on habitat.
Oil and Gas Lands/Geothermal Lands -800 Feet
Construction activities and siting of facilities in close proximity to
rivers and lakes can lead to shoreline erosion and sedimentation of
waterbodies, widespread pollutant transport, loss of public access to state
waters and shorelines, and loss or alteration of riparian habitats important
to birds and mammals. Riparian habitats in the Susitna Basin provide
particularly important moose wintering range, and displacement of moose from
these areas could result in increased mortalities and eventually lead to
declines in local populations.
Fish and wildlife can also be impacted significantly by noise and
disturbance associated with industrial activities. Maintaining the
integrity of critical habitats, such as fish spawning areas, moose wintering
grounds, and key wetlands, is especially important to the continued survival
of local populations.
Public Recreation Lands -200 Feet
In most cases, public recreation will have minimal effects upon waterbodies
if located outside a narrow buffer. Campground septic systems and parking
lots in particular must be located away from rivers or lakes in order that
nutrient overloading does not occur or that the watercourse is not changed
to accommodate the development.
The latter was the case at the Anchor River on the Kenai Peninsula. This
river is a highly productive and popular fishing stream that supports
several species of salmonids including silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch),
king salmon (0. tshawytscha), and steel head (Salmo gardneri). A campground
and two cabins were built on the banks of the r1ver. The river began
natural shift to the south and eroded away the banks next to the campground
-232-
and cabins. In order to control the river, it was channelized and graded
into a gentle slope. As a consequence, the water is very shallow and the
river does not provide the same high quality fishing or aesthetics as it did
before. If the campground had originally been built away from the river, it
is likely that stream control procedures would not have been necessary.
Reserved Use Land -800 Feet
These lands should receive the maximum buffer since it is unknown what their
ultimate disposition will be. That they are reserved for government
agencies does not alter the fact that resources should be protected,
particularly if the lands may be used for future townsite development.
Settlement Lands
Residential lands -800 feet. A maximum buffer should be provided between
residential developments and waterbodies or other critical wildlife habitat.
This will not only accomplish the goals of avoiding disturbance or
degradation of natural areas, it will provide greenbelts through
communities. Green belts are beneficial for animal migrations and human
recreation.
Private recreation lands -200 feet. For rural lands with a minimum of
development, a minimum buffer will usually be sufficient to control the
amount of nutrient overloading from septic systems, pollution from fueling
and will keep structures far enough away so that the resident will not need
to fill, divert or otherwise change a waterbody in order to protect his
1nvestment. The Anchor River channelization mentioned earlier, which
protected a campground, also protected two cabins.
Commercial/industrial lands -800 feet. Commercial or industrial facilities
should be located at least 800 feet from waterbodies or critical wildlife
habitat. The concerns are pollution, erosion, disturbance of fish and
wildlife populations and alteration of water courses.
Resource Management Land -Variable
This classification incorporates the multiple land use concept. As such,
the use with the most stringent requirements should determine the buffer
width.
Transportation Corridor Land -Variable
The most critical aspect is the location of the transportation system. The
location will affect both the degree of habitat alteration and the degree of
secondary impacts which accompany construction and operation. In addition
to the primary impacts, a transportation system can generate residential,
commercial, industrial, and recreational development, any of which result in
activities far more damaging than the system itself.
Roads may also interfere with natural drainage patterns and flow of surface
and ground water, interfere with both fish and wildlife movements, create
runoff that effects water quality, removes important habitat by dredging or
-233-
filling during the construction process and directly disturbs wildlife by
increased noise or activity.
When intended for specific uses the transportation system should adhere to
the most stringent buffer of the activities intended for (i.e.
transportation systems to private recreation lands should have a buffer of
200 feet. A road to a commercial site should have an 800 foot buffer while
a road intended for use by both commercial development and private
recreation should have an 800 foot buffer.
Water Resources Land -800 Feet
Since one of the goals of this classification is to prevent damage to
potable water reserves and provide clean water for various facilities such
as fish hatcheries, community water systems, etc., a maximum buffer should
be implemented.
Wildlife Habitat Lands
Does not apply.
-234-
LITERATURE CITED
ADF&G. 1979. ·Recommendations for minimizing the impacts of hydrocarbon
development on the fish, wildlife, and aquatic plant resources of Lower
Cook Inlet. Vol. 1. Prepared by C.J. Hamilton, S.J. Starr, MCHM.
Prepared for Alaska Dept. of Comm. & Reg. Affairs, Coastal Energy
Impact Program. NOAA, USDC.
ADF&G. 1983. Susitna hydro aquatic studies, Phase II Rept., Vol. 1:
Summarization of Vols. 2, 3, 4, Parts I, II; and Vol. 5. 106 pp.
Bader, D. 1982. Relative moose population density estimates for the
Susitna Planning Area. Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game. 7 pp. Draft.
Beck, C. 1981. Susitna area plan land use alternatives, Alaska Dept. of
Natural Resources, Land & Resource Planning. 9 pp.
Bentz, R.W., Jr. 1983. Inventory and cataloging of the sportfish and
sportfish waters in upper Cook Inlet. Annual Rept. of Progress, 1982-
1983, Project F-9-15, 24(G-I-D) 59-104.
Coady, J.W. 1974. Influence of snow on behavior of moose. Naturaliste
Can. 101:417-436.
Delaney, K., and K. Hepler. 1983. Inventory and cataloging of sportfish
and sportfish waters of western Prince William Sound, Lower Susitna
River, Northern Cook Inlet drainages. Annual Rept. of Progress 1982-
1983, 23 (G-I-H), 25 pp.
Derksen. 1983. A management plan for trumpeter swans of the Cook Inlet.
18 pp.
Didrickson, J. 1970. Moose survey-inventory progress report-1969. In D.E.
McKnight, ed. Annual report of survey-inventory activities, Part I,
Moose, Deer, and Elk, 3, Proj. W-17-2, Fed. Aid Wildl. Restor., Alaska
Dept. of Fish and Game, Juneau. 82 pp.
Didrickson, J. 1973. Moose survey-inventory progress report-1971. In D.E.
McKnight, ed. Annual report of survey-inventory activities, Part I,
Moose, Deer, and Elk, 3, Proj. W-17-4, Fed. Aid Wildl. Restor., Alaska
Dept. of Fish and Game, Juneau. 179 pp.
Didrickson, J.C., and K.P. Taylor. 1978. Lower Susitna Valley moose
population identity study. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game. Fed. Aid
Wildl. Rest. Proj. Final Rept., W-17-8 and 9. Job 1.16R. Juneau. 20
pp.
Hammerstrom, S., and L. Larson. 1983.
fisheries of the Kenai Peninsula.
1983, Proj. F-9-15, 24 (G-Il-L).
Evaluation of chinook salmon
Annual Rept. of Progress, 1982-
pp. 36-67.
-235-
Hepler, K. 1984. Chinook salmon population and angler user studies of
Upper Cook Inlet water. Annual Rept. of Progress, 1983-1984,
25(G-II-M) in press.
Kubik, S. 1981. Inventory and cataloging sport fish and sport fish waters
of the lower Susitna River and central Cook Inlet drainages. Annual
Rept. of Progress, 1980-1981, Proj. F-9-13, 22(G-I-H). pp. 68-88.
Modafferi, R.D. 1981. Moose-Downstream. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game.
Susitna Hydroelectric Proj. Phase II. Annual Proj. Rept. Big Game
Studies. Vol. II. 114 pp.
Preston, D.J. 1983. The impacts of agriculture on wildlife. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game final report, Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration, Project W-21-2 and W-22-1, Job 18.6R.
Scott, P. 1961. A colored key to wildfowl of the world. Charles Scribner
Sons, New York, 91 pp.
USFWS. 1980. National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife associated
recreation for Alaska.
Watsjold, D. 1983. Comments on Su-Hydro FERC license application. Alaska
Dept. of Fish and Game. Memorandum. 11 pp.
~236~
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
SUSITNA AREA PLAN
HUMAN USE AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS
SPORT FISHING
Prepared by
Stephen M. Burgess, Ph.D.
Habitat Biologist
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Habitat Division
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
June 1983
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • . • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • i i
INTRODUCTION. • . . . • . • • . • • • • . . . . . • . • • • • . • • . . • • • . . . . • . • . . . . • . . . • • • . . . • . . . 1
PRESENT USE PROFILE................................................... 2
Use Patterns ....................... !'.................................. 6
ECONOMIC VALUES ••••..•••••.•••..•••.•••.••••.••••••••••.••..•........• 11
Fisheries Accessible by Family Car .................................... 11
Fisheries Accessible by Air or Multiple Modes of Transportation ....... 12
Total Willingness to Pay .............................................. 14
Willingness to Sell ................................................... 14
ENHANCEMENT POTENTIAL AND PROJECTED USE ............................... 16
TABLES
Table 1 -Sport Fishing Days and Total Harvests,
Susitna Basin 1977-1981 .............................. 3
Table 2 -1980 Susitna Basin Sport Fishing Days
and Harvests by Fisheries and Species ................ 4
Table 3 -1980 Fishing Days by Residency of Users ................ 5
Table 4 -1980 Use of Susitna Area Sport Fisheries ·
Accessible by Family Car............................. 8
Table 5 -1980 Use of Susitna Area Sport Fisheries Accessible
by Multiple Modes of Transportation.................. 9
Table 6 -Willow Sub-Basin Sport Fishing Effort and
Harvest by Fisheries and Species, 1980 ............... 10
FIGURES
Figure 1 -Sport Fishing Days and Total Harvests,
Susitna Basin 1977-1981 .............................. 7
NOTES .....•••.•..•...•...••.•.........•.....•.••............•.•....... 17
-i-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Assistance has been generously extended to Habitat Division staff (Stephen
M. Burgess) by economists John O'Neill and Paul Fugelstad (particularly
O'Neill in this instance) of the United States Department of Agriculture's
Economic Research Service during the preparation of this report. The entire
analytical framework for this report and all of the cost factors used were
developed by O'Neill while the narrative and computations were prepared by
Burgess. The staff of the Sport Fish Division (especially D. Watsjold, M.
Mills, and Kelly Hepler) provided numerous suggestions during review of
earlier drafts. The clerical staff assisted in assembling this report and
preparing tables.
-ii-
INTRODUCTION
Sport fishing is an activity of major significance to land use planning in
Southcentral Alaska. The continued growth and centralization of a
recreationally oriented population has resulted in pressures on fish
populations so great that nearly every river and lake system has required
special regulatory protection, such as gear restrictions and emergency
closures. These systems are often the first to exhibit the effects of
habitat degradation associated with increased growth of the human population
and numerous resource development efforts such as mining, road construction,
agriculture, forestry, and the like. In addition, sport fishing is very
popular in Southcentral Alaska. The vicinity map included in Atlas Map C4
identifies the major fishing locations, levels of effort in terms of days
fished, and the major access modes to these fisheries.
To establish reliable estimates of the human use and economic effects
presently associated with sport fishing in the Susitna basin, it is
necessary to first assemble a profile of this activity basin-wide. The data
base assembled under the 1Alaska Statewide Sport Fish Harvest Studies will
be used for this purpose. Next, a more in-depth look will be taken at how
sport fishing is pursued in the basin by selecting a sample of streams and
lakes demonstrating typical patterns of harvest, access, travel mode,
equipment, time requirements, and the types of users served. Economic
values will be attributed to these systems and, by inference, to the entire
basin through application of a simplified version of the travel cost method.
Finally, the fisheries potential of the region is considered.
-1-
PRESENT USE PROFILE
Three types of information· provide the basis for a profile of sport fishing
in the Susitna basin: 1) angler days, 2) number of fish harvested, and 3)
the residency of anglers. This information is organized by species, by
area, and by fishery, and has been systematically collected by the Sport
Fish Division since statehood. Formal questionnaires of a large sample of
the sport fishing population (nearly 8,400 completed questionnaires were
returned in 1981) have been used since 1977. This effort has resulted in
one of the most carefully designed, consistently managed, and statistically
accurate data bases available for any resource use in the state.
Table 1 summarizes sport fishing days, total harvests, and averages for
the five-year period 21977-1981 for the principle river and lake systems
in the Susitna basin. Figure 1 displays these same data graphically. The
fisheries referred to are generally well known. Excluding the Willow
sub-basin area, fishing days range from 7 to 9% of the statewide total over
this period. Only a small portion of the Glennallen area fisheries are
included in the Susitna area: the Lake Louise complex and the fisheries off
the Denali Highway. The eastside Susitna drainage is dominated by the
fisheries north of Little Willow Creek, which are easily reached from the
Parks Highway. The entire westside Susitna drainage is included, with
effort and harvest concentrated in four main river systems that are
generally reached by aircraft and boat. The available data on effort and
harvest in 1980 for all Susitna basin fisheries are listed in Table 2.
1980 is taken as the typical year for purposes of this study.
Table 3 summarizes the residency of the users of Susitna basin fisheries in
terms of fishing days at each location.
A review of these tables serves to verify several important features of the
sport fishery in the Susitna basin.
Sport fishing is indeed a widespread and popular activity. For 1980,
effort in the Susitna basin totaled 118,590 fishing days. At 1980
population levels (Anchorage: 174,431, Mat-Su Borough: 17,816), nearly
every resident in the area could have participated sometime during the
year.
A high percentage of effort (over 30%) is concentrated on a very
limited number of small creeks clustered along the Parks Highway. This
pattern is reinforced by the inclusion of Willow sub-basin data: taken
together, these small drainages 3account for 89,694 fishing days, or
35% of the area total in 1980. Target species in these extremely
popular drainages are primarily salmon.
A near one-to-one relationship between the number of days fished and
the total harvest appears common. For the anadromous fisheries,
harvest rates appear to be a little lower, whereas for the resident
fish species rates are higher. Since the usual fishing limit is three
fish per day, the 1980 harvest level required to satisfy every
fisherman every day would be about 356,000 fish (118,590 days fished
X 3) or 3.6 times the 1980 harvest.
-2-
I w.
I
TABLE 1. Sport Fishing Days and Total Harvests, Susitna Basin 1977-1981 (Willow Sub-basin Area excluded)
1977 1978
Fisheries Days Harvest Days Harvest
Glennallen Area
Lake Louise, Lake Susitna
& Tyone Lake 14,899 10,624 13 '161 8,419
Other Waters (X 35%) 7,746 1 0,308 4,667 7,914
Eastside Susitna Drainage
All waters except Willow Creek
& Little Willow Creek 38,044 33 '163 57,641 67,598
Westside Susitna Drainage
All Freshwater Areas 31,946 39,606 37,971 48,287
Total 92,635 93 '701 113,440 132,218
(Total Less Pink Salmon) (73,727) (97,300)
Percent of Statewide Totals 7.7 9.6 8.8 12.7
1979 1980
Days Harvest Days Harvest
12 '199 8,953 10,539 15,386
6,613 11,909 5,823 9,191
54,140 38,561 54,103 54,340
50,374 49,392 48,125 52,272
123,326 108,815 118,590 131,189
(89,972) ( 103,963)
9.0 8.3 7.9 10
1981
Days Harvest
14,397 15 '941
5,354 9,231
41,949 35,884
37,335 36,110
Average
Days Harvest
13,039 11,865
6,040 9,711
49,175 45,909
41,310 45,043
99,035 97,166 109,565 112,528
(91,774) (99,242)
7.0 10 8.1 10.1
Source: Mills, Michael J. 1977-1981.
active fishing, all anglers.
and release fisheries.
Statewide Harvest Studies. Selected from appropriate tables. "Days" are days of
"Harvest" denotes all fish taken, all species included, but does not include catch
I
+::>
I
TABLE 2. 1980 Susitna Basin Sport Fishing Effort and Harvest by Fisheries and Species
Fisheries
Glennallen Area
Lake Louise,
Lake Susitna,
Tyone Lake
other waters (x 35%)
Total
Days
Fished
10,539
5,823
16,362
Eastside Susitna River Drainages
Caswell Creek
Montana Creek
Sunshine Creek
Clear (Chunilna)
Sheep Creek
Others
4,963
19,287
5,208
Creek 4,388
8,041
12' 216
Total
Westside Susitna River
Kroto reek esh a
Lake Creek
Alexander Creek
Talachulitna River
Chuit River
Theodore River
Lewis River
Other Rivers
Shell Lake
Whiskey Lake
Hewitt Lake
Judd Lake
Other Lakes
54,103
' 8,325
6,812
2,542
614
700
43
4,998
414
29
471
814
2,999
Total 48,125
GRAND TOTAL 118,590
es
KS
0
145
145
215
559
13**
172
45**
45**
1,049
3,685
775
1,438
121**
17**
17**
0
129**
0
0
0
0
0
ss
0
57
57
1 '124
2,684
1,534
661
430
2,234
8,667
2,290
2,351
999
491
258
370
0
6,010
0
0
0
0
0
6,182 12,769
7,376 21,493
Total Poundage 171,000/968 125,000
LL
0
75
75
0
0
0
0
0
1,663
1 ,663
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RS
0
301
301
77
257
116
6
0
257
PS
0
0
0
1 ,663
8,230
2,408
622
6,362
3,403
cs
0
0
0
19
571
225
385
648
1 ,445
713 22,688 3,293
0 689 0
267 2,101 69
52 809 121
112 276 17
0 69 0
0 232 0
0 0 0
34 362 284
198 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
267 0 0
181 0 0
Species Harvested
DV
RT AC LT
0
461
461
154
854
193
950
385
2,658
5,194
4,305
2,144
1,945
379
301
250
9
1 '722
103
0
9
86
2,092
0 2,609
292 784
292 3,393
83
167
39
751
83
790
1,913
0
121
353
982
146
129
0
603
0
0
0
723
43
0
0
0
0
0
267
267
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
181
69
0
0
0
198
0 1,111 4,538 491 13,345 3,100 448
1,738 2,125 27,226 3,784 19,000 5,305 4,108
1,740 12,500 89,800 27,600 19,000 5,300 10,300
GR
4,477
5,985
10,462
353
655
0
1 ,348
725
4,854
7,935
1 ,817
1,972
1 '145
1,713
0
0
0
1 ,808
0
0
0
232
560
NP WF
Total
BB Other Harvest
0 1,688 6,612 0
0 63 687 341
0 1,751 7,299 341
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
103
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
129
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
13
39
32
45
212
367
224
0
0
0
0
0
0
448
0
0
0
0
34
26
13
0
32
0
520
591
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
15,386
~
24,577
3,740
14,003
4,567
4,959
8,723
18,348
54,340
13,079
9,903
6,862
4,091
791
998
9
11 ,581
370
0
9
1,308
3,271
9,247 232 0 706 103 52,272
27,644 232 1,751 8,372 1,035 131,189
30,400 696 2,280 29,300 1,000 527,000
Source: Mills, Michael J. 1981. Statewide Harvest Study-1980 data. ADF&G, Division of Sport Fish, Juneau. Extracted from Tables 42, 44 and 45.
Species Harvested and average weights (lbs): Chinook salmon (KS) 24.4/2.2, Coho salmon (SS) 5.8, Landlocked Coho salmon (LL) 1.0, Sockeye salmon (RS)
5.9, Pink salmon (PS) 3.3, Chum salmon (CS) 7.3, Rainbow trout (RT) 1.0, Dolly Varden/Arctic char (DV/AC) 1.0, Lake trout (LT) 2.5, Arctic grayling (GR)
1.1, Northern pike (NP) 3.0, Whitefish (WF) 1.3, Burbot (BB) 3.5. (Source for poundages: ADF&G, Division of Commercial Fisheries, and ADF&G, Division
of Sport Fish, Pers. Comm., L. Engel 3/83; and, Morrow, James E., 1980. The Freshwater Fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company, Anchorage.
** King salmon less than 20 inches.
TABLE 3. 1980 Fishing Days by Residency of Users
Days Non-Resident Balance
Fisheries Fished Da;ts Fished Anch. Area Mat-Su Bor. Fbks. Area of State
Glennallen Area
Lake Louise,
Lake Susitna,
Tyone Lake 10,539 1,875 5,360 1,254 245 1,805
Other Waters (x 35%) 5,823 1 '142 2,177 220 784 1,500
Total 16,362 3,017 7,537 1,474 1,029 3,305
Eastside Susitna River Draina9es
Caswell Creek 4,963 446 2,871 1,499 88 59
I Montana Creek 19,287 3,106 13 '128 1,967 1,026 60 (Jl Sunshine Creek 5,208 422 3,700 822 245 19 I
Clear (Chunilna) Creek 4,388 439 2,596 843 500 10
Sheep Creek 8,041 870 6,202 754 186 29
Others 12,216 2,398 6,075 3,086 343 314
Total 54,103 7,681 34,572 8,971 2,388 491
Westside Susitna River Draina9es
Kroto Creek (Deshka) 19,364 2,635 14,034 2,581 75 39
Lake Creek 8,325 1,140 6,291 807 25 62
Alexander Creek 6,812 1 '1 04 4,877 360 161 310
Talachulitna River 2,542 536 1,608 25 so 323
Chuit River 614 93 447 12 0 62
Theodore River 700 37 534 54 0 75
Lewis River 43 0 43 0 0 0
Other Rivers 4,998 841 2,816 472 211 658
Shell Lake 414 0 414 0 0 0
Whiskey Lake 29 0 29 0 0 0
Hewitt Lake 471 0 457 14 0 0
Judd Lake 814 181 633 0 0 0
Other Lakes 2,999 455 ~ 472 12 74
Total 48,125 7,022 34 '169 4,797 534 1,603
Grand Total 118,590 17 '720 76,278 15,242 3,951 5,399
Differences in odd and even-year pink salmon harvests account for most
of the annual fluctuations in harvest shown in Figure 1.
There may be a correlation between lower harvest rates and fisheries
showing important King Salmon harvests. The Kroto, Montana, Caswell
and Alexander creeks express this effect.
A surprisingly high level of effort takes place in the westside Susitna
fishery, which is dominated by four particularly important streams.
Most of these are in remote areas and demonstrate that the Alaskan
angler is willing to undergo the extra time and expense to fly or boat
into productive fishing areas.
It is possible to select fisheries for which access, use, and harvest
patterns are typical for the basin. In the following section, use patterns
of selected fisheries are discussed, including background data required for
a preliminary economic analysis.
Use Patterns
Rather than treating the Susitna basin as a homogeneous region, the approach
taken here is to select and describe specific fisheries that typically
share the same patterns of use. For this purpose the most common modes of
access have been chosen as the basis for selection: family car, fly-in, and
multiple modes for which combinations of road, air, and water transportation
are required.
Fisheries accessible by family car. Table 4 summarizes the sport fisheries
accessible by family car for which harvest and effort data are available.
These fisheries are near major highways and characteristically serve as day
or weekend fisheries. Target species are primarily salmon. Only the Lake
Louise system and 35% of ''other waters" occur within the Susitna basin.
"Other waters" ~efers to numerous locations, primarily near the Denali
Highway. The eastside Susitna drainages are relatively small, with only a
small portion of these creeks accessible to anglers. Data in Table 2 for
1980 (our typical or indicator year) show about half of the fishing effort
and half of the harvest (55%) occurring in these easily accessible
fisheries. Overall success rates are 1.1 fish/day and somewhat lower for
drainages dominated by anadromous salmon (0.8 fish/day). Of the westside
Susitna drainages only the Kroto Creek -Deshka River system is accessible
by road.
Fisheries accessible by air or multi~le modes of transeortion. In Table 5 a
selected group of fisheries for whic access is more d1fficult are listed.
More equipment, time, and expense is required to reach these drainages: the
distances travelled are greater, and very often the assistance of commercial
operators is required for a portion or all of the trip. Data in Table 3
show residency of users. Frequency of use of the eastside and westside
systems appears remarkably similar for non-resident and for Anchorage
fishermen, but the westside fisheries appear less preferred by Mat-Su and
Fairbanks fishermen. This is an effect created by the exclusion of Willow
sub-basin fisheries from the analysis: total days fished for all eastside
fisheries is 91,300 (1980, including Willow sub-basin, Table 1 and Table 6),
or nearly double that of the westside fisheries. The importance of Montana
and Kroto creeks is obvious.
-6-
That these streams can maintain productivity year after year under such
enormous fishing pressure attests to their very high value as a resource.
FIGURE 1. Sport Fishing Days and Total Harvests, Susitna Basin 1977-1981
160
150
140
130
Fishing Days 120
and
Total Harvests
in 110
Thousands
100
90
80
70
§§
Source: See Table 1
1977 1978
-7-
X = Fishing Days
0 = Harvests
* = Harvest Less Pink
Salmon Harvests
1979 1980
YE R
1981
TABLE 4. 1980 Use of Susitna Area Sport Fisheries Accessible by Family Car
2 Travel Cost ($)3 verage
Fished 1 Total Harvests1 Round Trip Road Distances Resident Travel Costs
Fisheries Total Days Anch Area Mat-Su Boro Fbx Area Anch Area Mat-Su Boro Fbx Area Day
Glennallen Area
Lake Louise,
Lake Susitna,
Tyone Lake 10,539 15,386 340 260 360 180,000 32,000 9,000 $32.00
other waters (x 35%) 5,823 9,191
Eastside Susitna River
Caswell Creek 4,963 3,740 190 100 560 53,000 15,000 5,000 $28.00
Montana Creek 19,287 14,003 210 130 540 270,000 25,000 54,000 $29.00
Sunshine Creek 5,208 4,567 230 140 530 83,000 11,000 13 ,ooo $30.00
Sheep Creek 8,041 8,723 200 110 560 120,000 8,000 10,000 $28.00
I Others (x 90%) 10,994 16,513 (X)
I
Westside Susitna River
Kroto Creek (Deshka)
(x 5%) 968 654 280 190 500 21 2000 2 2000 $23.00
Total 65,823 72,777 727,0004 93,000 91,000
Grand Total 911,000
1see Table 3.
2 As calculated by use of a digital map plotter at scale 1/250,000 rounded.
3 (Days fished) X (Round trip travel distance) X travel cost per person per mile ($0.097).
4Average travel cost for Anchorage anglers: 727 2 000 $23.45
31,000 user days
I
\.0
I
TABLE 5. 1980 Use of Susitna Area Fisheries Accessible by Multiple Modes of Transportation
Days 1 Total 1
Fisheries Fished Harvest
Eastside Susitna Drainages
Clear Creek (Chunilna) 4,388 4,959
other waters (x10%) 1,222 919
Westside Susitna Drainages
Kroto Creek (Deshka)(x95%) 18,396 12,425
Lake Creek 8,325 9,903
Alexander Creek 6,812 6,862
Talachulitna River 2,542 4,091
Chuit River 614 791
other waters 10,468 17,546
Total 52,767 57,496
1see Table 3.
Round Trip Travel Distances 2
Anch Area Mat-Su Boro· Fbx Area
250 160 570
76 40 790
120 90 830
80 so 800
134 110 850
86 110 800
Resident Travel Cost ($ x 1000)3
Anch Area Mat-Su Boro Fbx Area
37 17 15
695 64 5
281 23 1
265 15 7
66 .8 3
32 1
1,3765 121 31
Grand Total $1,528,0004
2Air travel distances only for Anchorage and Mat-Su. Anchorage air distance plus 716 road miles for Fairbanks.
3see Kroto Creek (Deshka) work sheet for example of calculation (Note 7).
4Anchorage, Matanuska Valley and Fairbanks values only.
5 Average for Anchorage 1,376,000 = $89.00
15,400
Average Travel
Cost/Day
$20.50
40.00
40.00
45.00
46.00
80.00
TABLE 6. 1980, Willow Sub-basin Sport Fishing Effort and Harvest by Fisheries and Species
ays ota
Fisheries Fished KS ss LL RS PS cs RT AC LT GR BB Other Harvest
Knik Arm Drainage
Little Susitna River 22,420 646 6,302 0 2,127 3,918 465 852 1,748 0 181 9 1,059 17,307
Wasilla Creek
(Rabbit Slough) 5,726 0 3,555 0 0 310 9 121 189 0 0 0 0 4,184
Cottonwood Creek 9,268 0 3,375 0 2,660 0 0 1,085 439 0 0 0 0 7,559
Wasilla Lake 1,642 0 0 43 0 0 0 2,084 181 0 0 0 0 2,308
Finger Lake 6,483 0 0 10,685 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,685
Kepler Lake Complex 8,597 0 0 2,807 0 0 0 5,906 0 0 1 ,061 0 0 9,729
Luci 11 e Lake 3,798 0 0 3,633 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,633
Big Lake 12' 195 0 0 189 43 0 0 5,398 7,585 594 0 43 0 13,852
Nancy Lake
Recreation area,
I including
-' Nancy Lake 9,153 0 0 146 69 0 0 2,540 327 749 0 34 43 3,908 0
I Others 23 2248 0 22798 1 2997 775 473 60 112382 202015 775 82317 224 34 282850
Total 102,530 646 16,030 19,500 5,674 4, 701 534 29,368 12,484 2,118 9,514 310 1,136 102,015
East Side Susitna Drainage
Willow Creek 29,011 289 1,207 0 83 23,638 989 1,168 636 0 1 ,863 0 116 29,989
Little Willow Creek 8,190 32 494 0 77 6,420 270 353 122 0 1,156 0 13 8,937
GRAND TOTAL 1392731 967 17 2 731 192500 52834 342759 1 2793 302889 132242 22118 12 2533 310 12265 140 2 941
Source: Mills, Michael J. 1981. Statewide Harvest Study -1980 Data. Extracted from Tables 44 and 46. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Sport Fish, Juneau.
Species Harvested and average weights (lbs): Chinook Salmon (KS) 24.4/2.2, Coho salmon (SS) 5.8, Landlocked Coho salmon (LL) 1.0, Sockeye salmon
(RS) 5.9, Pink salmon (PS) 3.3, Chum salmon (CS) 7.3, Rainbow trout (RT) 1.0, Dolly Varden/Arctic char (DV/AC) 1.0, Lake trout (LT) 2.5, Arctic
grayling (GR)1.1, Burbot (BB) 3.5 (Source for poundages: ADF~G, Division of Commercial Fisheries,
and ADF&G, Division of Sport Fish, Pers. Comm., L. Engel 3/83; and, Morrow, James E., 1980. The Freshwater Fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest -------Publishing Company, Anchorage.
**King salmon less than 20 inches.
ECONOMIC VALUES
Access is among the most important factors determining patterns of use. In
addition, access is of central importance to the economic analysis, in
which a simplified version of the travel cost method is used. The primary
assumption of this method is that the net dollar value of a recreational
fishery may be estimated by taking the cost of travel as a substitute for
the price of a fishing trip. In other words, payment of the costs to travel
to a specific location may be taken as an expression of 11 Willingness to pay 11
to use that location and represents the net value, or worth, of that site to
the user. Therefore, if the number of trips taken per year to a fishing
area is known, the costs of travel may be estimated from standard sources
and a dollar value determined. This is no more than a short-hand method of
arriving at a preliminary determination of recreational use values "at zero
price.11 Without preparation of a demand function for the fishing trip and
with no prediction of the use of a site at increased costs, it is not
possible to estimate willingness to pay the "margin above cost of sport
fishing which measures the 4real monetary value which would be lost if the
fishery were to disappear.11 The present effort is a first step towards
application of the travel cost method to a large geographic region for the
purpose of estimating net benefits from private recreational uses.
Commercial operations of significant size serve the sport fishery and
represent a significant additional source of value; but they are not 5 included here, nor is any measure of consumer's surplus attempted.
Fisheries Accessible by Family Car
Resident t'rave 1 costs of $911,000 (Table 4) portray a genera 1 perspective of
the annual 11 Value,11 or net benefit to the economy in general, of the
fisheries identified. This analysis is driven by the use of two sets of
data and a single cost factor: angler days, residency of fishermen, and the
cost/mile of automobile travel. The cost of $.097/mile used is derived from
United States Department of Transportation data for 1977, updated for Alaska
by use of the Alaska consumer prige index and assuming that there are an
average of 2.5 persons per car. The cost figures in Table 4 are
generated by simply multiplying (days fished by origin of fishermen) X.
(round trip distance to site) X $.097. It is assumed that all fishing trips
are one-day trips.
The data shown in Table 4 may be used to estimate
accessible fisheries. Anchorage, Mat-Su Borough,
spend over $900,000 annually ($911,000) in travel
six most popular fisheries in the Susitna basin.
averages, travel costs .for unidentified fisheries
follows:
Glennallen other waters
the value of all road-
and Fairbanks residents
costs to sport fish in the
Using the appropriate
may be estimated as
5,823 days X $32/day = $186,000
Eastside other waters
10,994 days X $29/day = $319,000
Total = $505,000
-11-
Residents from elsewhere in the state (see 11 Balance of State 11 column, Table
3) used these waters, and estimates of their travel costs may also be made
under the assumption that these users incur a travel cost similar to
Anchorage users, plus a nominal air fare ($150), and that they mostly take
two-day fishing trips.
Balance of state
Glennallen 3,305 dats X ($150 + $32)/day = $301,000
2 day/trip
Eastside 481 dats X ($150 + $29)/day = $ 43,000
2 day/trip
Westside 2 dats X ($150 + $23)/day = $ 173
2 day/trip
Total $340,000
In addition, considerable use of these fisheries occurs by non-residents
(see Table 3), who generally fly to Anchorage and incur travel costs
thereafter similar to Anchorage residents. If half of a round trip air fare
from Seattle may be attributed to fishing and two-day fishing trips are
assumed, the following costs are derived:
Non-residents. Glennallen area
· 3,017 days X ($263 + $33.60) = $ 448,000
2 day/trip day
Eastside Susitna
7,242 days X ($263 + $29) = $1,050,000
2 day/trip day
Westside Susitna
132 days X ($263 + $30) = $ 20,000
2 day/trip day
Total $1,520,000
In summary, the total value of fisheries
Willow sub-basin) is as follows:
11 Big Six" fisheries
other waters
Balance of State
Non-residents
accessible by road (excluding the
$ 911 ,000
$ 505,000
$ 340,000
$1,520,000
Total · $3,276,000
Fisheries Accessible by Air or Multiple Modes of Transportation
The analysis of economic value of systems requiring multiple modes of
access goes well beyond the usual application of the travel cost method.
A number of assumptions are required concerning distances travelled,
the preferred, travel mode, residency of users, the number of days per
-12-
trip, and the variable costs incurred. It may be useful therefore to
describe the analysis 7of one fishery: the Kroto Creek -Moose Creek -
Deshka River system .
Access to the Deshka River system is available at five locations: by air to
the mouth of the river, Neil Lake, and Butterfly Lake; by car and boat at
the Petersville road crossing; and from the Kashwitna River dock on the
Susitna River. It is estimated that 5% fish by car access along the
Petersville road area, another 45% by boat access from the Kashwitna dock,
and the remaining 50% by aircraft to the mouth of the river. It is further
assumed that half the fishing on the Deshka is day fishing, the other half
consisting of two-day trips. It is further assumed that all users resident
in the Mat-Su Borough and Fairbanks areas access the fishery by car and boat
from the Kashwitna dock and that their fishing trips last two and
two-and-one-half days respectively. Travel cost is then calculated from
Anchorage, the Mat-Su Borough, and Fairbanks, based upon round-trip miles by
each mode of transportation, costs per mile, and the number of users grouped
by residency. Travel cost for the remaining users (balance of state) is
determined using an averaged value.
Travel costs for fisheries requiring multiple modes of transportation are
shown in Table 5. Data may be used from this table in the same manner as
above to estimate costs for "other waters" and the balance of state and
non-resident costs.
Eastside 11 0ther waters"
1,222 X $29 = $ 35,400
Westside 11 0ther waters"
10,468 X $50 = $523,000
Total = $558,000
Users from elsewhere in the state (Balance of state, Table 3) show:
Eastside
208 days X ($150 + $89) = $ 24,900
2 days/trip
Westside
1603 days X ($150 + $89) = $192,000
2 days/trip
Total = $216,900
For non-residents, the approach is similar to that taken in Table 5:
Eastside Susitna
679 days X ($263 + $89) = $120,000
2 days/trip
-13-
Westside Susitna
7022 days X ($263 + $89) = $1,236,000
2 days/trip
Total = $1,356,000
In summary, the total net "value" of fisheries requiring multiple modes
of transportation is as follows:
"Big Six" fisheries
other waters
Balance of State
Non-residents
Total Willingness to Pay
Total
$1,528,000
$ 558,000
$ 217,000
$1,356,000
$3,659,000
Our current estimate of the total 1980 net "value" of these fisheries is in
the range of $7,000,000.
Willingness to Sell
One of the purposes for calculating the economic value of fish and wildlife
resources is to assist in determining whether a project requiring the
limitation or loss of these resources can be justified economically. In
these situations, "willingness to pay" to enjoy the use of these resources
is not the appropriate measurement. In cases where loss of a resource or an
activity is the management option under consideration, the correct measure
of value is the willingness of the users to sell or relinquish their right
to.use the resources in question.
The ADF&G Sport Fish Division has included hypothetical questions regarding
the willingness of anglers ~o give up their right to fish pink salmon ~s
part of a larger study of the values of sport fishing on Willow Creek (see
Workman, William G. 1983. Valuing Outdoor Recreation Opportunities.
Agroborealis. Fairbanks, p.29ff), with the following results:
Fishery:
Sample:
Question:
Willow Creek Pink Salmon
504 anglers
"What is the smallest amount you would accept to give up
your rights to fish pink salmon on the Willow Creek in 1980?"
Net willingness to sell: $2,685,740
Days fished pink salmon 1980: 19,121
Net willingness to sell/day: $140.46
Days fished all species in 1980: $29,989
Extention to all species fished: $4,212,255
As has repeatedly occurred in other studies, it appears that values based
upon estimates of "willingness to sell" are considerably higher than based
upon "willingness to pay." Using the figures for a pink salmon fishing day
for the entire region ($140.46), and using the five year average days
-14-
fishing for the entire basin (see Table 1), 109,565 days fishing results in
a total average value of $15,400,000.
-15-
ENHANCEMENT POTENTIAL AND PROJECTED USE
The enhancement objective for the recreational fisheries of the Susitna
basin is to produce an additional 106,000 salmon and steelhead by 1988.
Using a 2.3% annual growth rate, an increase of 87,000 angler days over 1979
is expected, or 522,000 angler days by 1988. To maintain the current catch
rate of .35 salmon/day the total catch must therefore increase to 124,000
fish (Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of Sport Fish. 1981. Plan
for Supplemented Production of Salmon and Steelhead for Cook Inlet
Recreation and Fisheries. Juneau, Alaska.).
Enhancement of Access and Public Facilities
Because the road system and population centers are on the eastside of the
Susitna River, access to the major sport fishing streams located on the
westside is difficult. Since most eastside streams are intersected by
(other than parallel to) the highway, access is limited by private land
holdings (pp. 20-31). Given this situation, provision of any new access and
facilities is expected to result in significant increases in fishing effort.
-16-
NOTES
1Mills, Michael. Statewide Harvest Survey, 1977-1981 Data. Volume 19-
23, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration and Anadromous Fish Studies.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish.
Juneau, Alaska. 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982.
2sport fishing activities within the Willow sub-basin area are
excluded from this study. This area has already been treated under an
area plan (see Alaska Department of Natural Resources, et al. Willow
Sub-Basin Area Plan. Division of Research and Development, Anchorage.
1982.) For reference, sport fishing activity in this area for the 1980
indicator year is summarized in Table 6.
3Fisheries of this type for the Susitna basin are:
Creek
Wi 11 ow Creek
Little Willow Creek
Wasilla Creek
Cottonwood Creek
Montana Creek
Caswell Creek
Sunshine Creek
Sheep Creek
Total
Days Fished 1980
29,011
8,190
5, 726
9,268
19,287
4,963
5,208
8,041
89,694
angler days/mile/day: 89,694 = 145
10.3 X 60
(~ssume 60 day season, all species)
Miles of River
Accessible to Angler
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.3
. 5
.5
.5
1.5
10.3
4crutchfield, J. A. 1962. Valuation of Fishery Resources. Land.
Economics, 38(5): 148.
5A procedural guide and primary source for the travel cost method is
provided by: Dwyer, J.F., J.R. Kelly, and M.D. Bowes. 1977.
Improved Procedures for Valuation of the Contribution of Recreation
to National Economic Development. Final Report to the Office of
Water Research and Technology Grant No. 14-34-001-6237
-17-
6cost/mile, standard auto determined as follows:
Item
Variable Costs
Maintenance
Parts & Tires
Gas & Oil
Subtotal
Fixed Costs
Depreciation
Insurance
Taxes
Subtotal
Total
1976a
U.S. National
Average
4.2
3.3
7.5
4.9
1.7
1.6
8.2
15.7
¢/mi 1 e
Nov. 1982b
U.S. National
Average
1976 X 1.8
13.5
14.76
28.26
Nov. 1982c
Alaska Costs
1982
USA X 1.24
16.7
18.3
35.0
cost/mile, Recreation Vehicles assumed 20% above standard auto or
$.35 X 1.20 = $.42;
assume 70% family car use, 30% recreational vehicle use:
(70 X 16.7) + (30 X 42) =
Source
100
11.70 + 12.60 = 24.30 = 9.7d
2.5
aFederal Highway Administration. 1977. Transportation Trends and
Choices. Tolls and parking fees excluded.
bPers. Comm., Neal Freid, Alaska Department of Labor, 1/13/83, based
upon United States Transportation CPI update factor:
Nov. 1982, 297.4 = 1.8
1976 165.5
cibid, 1/13/83, 11/82 Transportation Index for Alaska:l.24 or 24%
higher in Alaska.
dFor comparison see use of 7¢/mile in Nicholson, A.J. 1957. Summary
of Sportsmen's Expenditures, Missouri River Basin. Spec. Sci. Report:
Wildlife #35. United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C. Surveys from 1940's.
For comparison see also use of 30¢/mile for reimbursable cost of
private auto use by State of Alaska.
-18-
7work Sheet -Fishing Recreation Values -Non-Road Accessed Areas
Fishing Location Kroto Creek (Deshka)
Point of Origin .:...;.An'"'"'c:..;.h:...:.o..:,_ra::...gL.:e ____ _
Two alternative methods of access:
1. Auto/Air Taxi
a) Auto Round trip miles to air taxi = 25 miles
b) Auto Miles in a) above x $.097 = $2.45
c) Air taxi round trip miles to fishing location (river mouth)
= 180 miles
d) Air taxi miles in c) above x $.640 = $115.20
e) Total cost per person = b) $2.45 +d) $115.20 = $117.65
f) Assumed % of people using this access method 50%
g) % in f) = .50 x e) $117.65 = $59.00 weighted cost
2. Auto/Boat
a) Auto miles round trip to stream which acGesses fishing
location 185 miles Kashwitna
b) Auto miles in a) above x $.097 = $17.95 Kashwitna
c) . Boat round trip miles to fishing location 60 miles Kashwitna
d) Boat miles in c) above x $.338 = $20.28
e) Total cost per perso~ =b) $17.95 +d) $20.28 = $38.23
f) Assumed % of people using this access method 45% Kashwitna
g) %in f) = .45 x e) $38.23 = $17.20
User day value
Weighted cost from 1. g) above = $59.00
Weighted cost from 2. g) above = $17.20
Total Cost = $76.20
User day value = Total Cost $76.20 ~ average # of days/trip 1.5 =
Total Value = User day value $50.80 x Anchorage user days 14,034 =
$712,927.00
-19-
$50.80
APPENDIX B
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
MOOSE, CARIBOU, SHEEP, BEAR AND WATERFOWL
HUNTING IN THE SUSITNA BASIN
Prepared by
Stephen M. Burgess, PhD
Habitat Biologist .
prepared for
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Habitat Division, Region II
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
August 1983
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION .......................... .
Data Base
Harvest Ticket Hunter Report System
Summary of Total Annual Expenditures
HARVEST STATISTICS AND PATTERNS OF USE OF GAME
IN THE SUSITNA BASIN ...
Moose
Caribou
Sheep
Bear
Waterfowl
TRAVEL COST ANALYSIS OF MOOSE, CARIBOU
AND SHEEP HUNTING IN SELECTED STUDY AREAS ..
Work Sheet Assumptions and Applications
License and Tag Fees ................... .
i
PAGE
i i
1
2
2
2
7
4
4
8
12
15
17
22
22
34
TABLES PAGE
1. Economic Values of Recreational Hunting in the Susitna Basin ...... 1
2. Summary of 1981 Costs of Hunting in the Susitna Basin ............. 2
3. Susitna Basin 1981 General File Harvest Statistics for Moose ...... 5
4. 1981 Moose Harvest Statistics for Susitna Basin Harvest
Report Code Units (HRCU) .......................................... 6
5. 1979 Moose Hunter Expenditure Survey at the Glenn Highway
Creek Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Susitna Basin 1981 General File Harvest Statistics for Caribou .... 9
7. 1981 Caribou Harvest Statistics for Nelchina Basin
Harvest Report Code Units ..•.........................•......•... · .. 11
8. Total Costs for Susitna Basin Caribou Hunters .............•....... 12
9. Susitna Basin 1981 General File Harvest Statistics
for Da 11 Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Reported Harvest of Dall sheep ... Talkeetna ..•..................... 14
11. 1981-1982 Bear Harvest Statistics for the Susitna Basin ........... 16
12. Total Costs for Bear Hunting in the Susitna Basin ................. 16
13. 1974-1976 Waterfowl Hunting in the Susitna Basin,
Average Values for Hunter Days and Harvests ....................... 17
14. Annual Trip and Equipment Expenses for Waterfowl Hunter ........... 19
15. Dollar Value of Waterfowl Meat .................................... 20
16. Travel Cost Analysis Work Sheet ................................... 23
17. Auto, Boat, and Air Travel Costs Constants ........................ 26
18. Area Summary of Travel Cost Analysis .............................. 28
19. Susitna Lowlands: Moose Hunting, Travel Costs
Contributed by Anchorage Area Hunters ............................. 29
20. HRCU Summary for 16-01-002 (Petersville)
of Moose Hunting Travel Costs ........•....................... ; .... 29
21. Palmer Area Summary of Travel Cost Analysis
for Moose and Dall Sheep Hunting .................................. 30
22. Nelchina Area Summary of Travel Cost Analysis
for Anchorage area Moose, Caribou, and Sheep Hunters .............. 31
23. Lake Louise Unit Summary for Moose Hunting ..................•..... 32
24. Lake Louise Unit Summary for Hunting Caribou ....................... 32
25. Nelchina Area Summary of Travel Costs
for All Moose, Caribou, and Sheep Hunters ......................... 32
26. 1981 Travel Costs for Moose, Caribou, and
Dall Sheep Hunters in the Susitna Basin ........................... 33
27. 1981-1982. Costs to the Hunter for Susitna Area
Hunter Licenses, Tags, and Duck Stamps: for Moose,
Caribou, Dall Sheep, Bear, and Waterfowl .......................... 35
i i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The human use of wildlife ~unting areas in the Susitna basin is analyzed
from an economic perspective. Value is demonstrated in terms-of
expenditures by big game and waterfowl hunters, under the assumption that
these expenditures would not occur in the Alaska region were wildlife
resources absent.
In addition, an application of the travel cost method of resource valuation
is attempted for recreational moose, caribou, and Dall sheep hunting in nine
selected areas of the basin. The values derived are underestimates, since
important elements of the method, such as quality variables, site fees,
opportunity costs, and availability of substitutes have not been included.
However, the relative contributions to the general economy of hunting in
these areas is indicated. No effort has been made to establish consumer
surplus values, since a required assumption (that higher costs of travel
result in reduced rates of use) is apparently not valid for Alaska (Burgess,
S.M., 1983. A Comparison of the Net Benefits of Livestock Grazing and Moose
Hunting in the Headwaters of the Little Susitna River. State of Alaska,
Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage).
Values demonstrated are summarized in Table 1, which follows.
TABLE 1. Annual Economic Values of Recreational Hunting in the Susitna
Basin
Moose, Caribou, Dall Sheep, Bear, Waterfowl
Source of Value TOTAL VALUE ($)
Licenses & tags 1 193,000
Leisure time estimate 2 580,000
Estimated total expenditures 3 5,000,000
1see Table 26
243,440 hunter days X 8 hr/day X $28,406/yr X 1/3 = $579, 760
2,080 hr/yr
3see Table 2
-1-
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of an economic analysis of recreational hunting in the Susitna
basin is to establish dollar values to the economy for these activities. If
reliable, these values may 1) demonstrate that hunting does in fact bring
dollars to the economy of the state and therefore represents economic value
to its citizens; 2) allow comparisons with the extent and magnitude of
economic values of other land extensive, resource-based industries and the
possible losses resulting from competing activities; and 3) define the
sources of value so that they might be protected and increased through
appropriate land management practices.
Southcentral Alaska supports a human population with densities comparable to
many other urban/suburban areas of the country. Additionally, only a small
portion of the land area of the Susitna basin is served by roads. The
existing pressures upon accessible fish and wildlife resources are therefore
extremely high in selected areas. As shown below, the economic values of
these resources are likewise very high. It is the combination of relatively
abundant fish and game resources in close proximity to population centers
that gives rise to the high economic values found in the Susitna basin.
Several different methods are used in this report to establish economic
value; in every case they are chosen to best match the data available to the
department. In general, an effort is made to follow the guidelines provided
by the Water Resources Council (CFR, Chapter VI, Subpart k. NED Benefit
Evaluation Procedures: Recreation. November 4, 1980). Total expenditures
basin-wide are estimated initially, based upon check station surveys of
hunters (contingent valuation). In cases such as bear and waterfowl, where
available data are minimal, estimates by staff experts are used (unit day
value approach). Basin-wide values for total expenditures by hunters are
included in the discussion of harvest data presented elsewhere. A travel
cost analysis is attempted for those cases where travel data are available.
Using these several different approaches, an estimate of the general level
of the value of hunting to the economy of the state in the land areas
considered should be possible.
Data Base
This report is dependent upon a broad array of data collection programs
carried out by the department. The data base used for each species analyzed
is described in the appropriate sections. The harvest ticket hunter report
system provides data on the use of three major game species: moose,
caribou, and Dall sheep. This report makes extensive use of this data base,
which is therefore described below.
Harvest ticket hunter report system. Harvest tickets are issued to all
hunters who participate in moose, sheep, and caribou hunts throughout the
·state. Forms are provided by the Department of Fish and Game and by vendors
of hunting licenses (see Figure 1). Participants are requested to return
completed tickets to the department regardless of the success or failure of
the hunt. The only exception to this requirement occurs in the case of
permit hunts, which are discussed below. The harvest ticket system
constitutes one of the major data gathering systems used by the department
for game management. Some 69,339 harvest ticket forms were issued for the
-2-
ALASKA DEPT. OF FISH & GAME
ANCHORAGE, AK 99502
IIIII
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST CLASS PERMIT NO. 709 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA
NO POSTAGE
NECESSARY
IF MAILED
IN THE
UNITED STATES
POS1 AGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE r r =-:or
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
333RASPBERRYROAD
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99502-9979
a: == •
MOOSE HUNTER REPORT 1983-84 No. M83-077027 1
REPORT~ MOOSE ON THIS CARD NON·TRANSFERABtE
YES NO
I HUNTED MOOSE 0. 0 A TOTAL OF---DAYS INCLUDING PLANNING AND
TRAVEL ___ OF THESE DAYS WERE SPENT IN THE AREA HUNTED.
I HUNTED IN THE ------~~~~-----NEAR ------~~~~-------!DRAINAGE) IU'NDMARKI
OF GAME MGMT. UNIT ___________ SUBUNIT-;:::========.
1SEE THE BACK .OF THE HARVEST TICKET FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON SPECIFIC LOCALITY) FOR ADF&G USE ONLY
YES NO
I Kl LLED A MOOSE 0 0 ON ---:-:-;o--.,_/-=-:~/'-::~-
MO DA YR
MALE FEMALE
MY MOOSE'S SEX WAS 0 0 AND ITS ANTLER SPREAD WAS __ INCHES.
1. FIREARM
2. BOW AND ARROW
3. OTHER 1. AIRPLANE MY METHOD OF TAKE WAS BY __ _
2. HORSE
I TRAVELED TO WHERE I BEGAN WALKING BY __ _ 3. BOAT
COMMENTS:
F.IGURE 1 .
MOOSE
HARVEST TICKET
OVERLAY
5. SNOWMACHINE
6. OFF ROAD VEHICLE
7. HIGHWAY VEHICLE
1983-84
Harvest Ticket
Report Form
ALASKANO 0
WE ARE ASKING FOR LOCA·
TION BY DRAINAGE. PLE.G.SE
GIVE THE NAME OF THE
CREEK OR RIVER NEAREST
YOUR HUNTING LOCATION.
MOUNTAIN PEAKS AND
LAKE NAMES ARE ALSO
HELPFUL IF YOU HUNTED
ALONG A ROAD SYSTEM
PLEASE PROVIDE MILEPOST
INFORMATION.
THANK YOU FOR REPORT·
lNG PROMPTLY.
MB3-0 7 70 2 7
MOOSE
HARVEST TICKET
(NON • TRANSFERABLE!
REGULATORY YEAR 1983-19S.O
UPON TAKING MOOSE
VAUOATE THIS TlCKET
BY Clli"TING OUT MONTH
ANO OA Y OF KilL
KEEP THIS HARVEST TICKET
IN YOUR POSSESSION AT ALL
TIMES UNTIL THE ANIMAL IS
DELIVERED TO THE LOCATION
WHERE rT WILL BE
PROCESSED. • • . SEE YOUR .
GAME REGULATIONS.
No. M83-077027
. NON· TRANSFERABLE
VENDOR: Write number of this ticket on back of applicants license.
Detach This Card and Return To:
11·239M ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GA~E
1981-1982 season: 44,337 for moose hunts, 18,252 for caribou hunts, and
6,750 for sheep hunts. Three sets of information are requested on three
separate parts of the ticket: the 11 overlay,11 the 11 hunter report,11 and the
11 harvest ticket.11 The overlay requests information about the hunter: name,
residence, and, by reference, the information on the hunting license. This
information is essential for the present review and is very likely the most
specific and reliable information collected. This portion of the ticket is
issued by and returned to the department. The 11 hunter report'' requests
information on the hunt itself (number of days, locality of hunt, and
transportation used) and, in cases of successful hunters, the
characteristics of the animal killed (date, sex, size, and method of kill).
Lastly, the 11 harvest ticket 11 portion indicates the date of the kill and
accompanies the animal until it is processed and stored •.
This data is automated by the Game Division Statistics Section. The first
step is entry of the data by harvest ticket number into a general or
11 Sequential 11 file. The Habitat Division, Data Management Unit, through the
cooperation of the Game Division, has developed summaries of hunter report
data for the 1981 moose, caribou, and sheep hunts (see Data Supplement for
general file harvest statistics for the planning area).
Permit hunts are designed for situations in which close control of the
number of animals taken is necessary to meet the special needs of a given
subpopulation and for hunter safety. Data on these hunts is normally
tabulated by area biologists and maintained in respective regional offices.
There is at present no regular data collection program within the department
regarding the economic aspect~ of wildlife uses.
Summary of Total Annual Expenditures
Cost information outlined below is summarized in Table 2. The summary of
total annual expenditures by Susitna basin hunters for selected species
approaches $5,000,000. An estimate of expenditures for numerous small game
species was not attempted. '
TABLE 2. Summary of 1981 Costs of Hunting in the Susitna Basin
Species Hunters Total Cost Estimate
Moose 4,594 1,089,000
Caribou 747 650,000
Dall Sheep 328 890,000
Bear 1,714 1,610,000
Waterfowl 1 1,951 664,000
TOTAL 9,334 4,903,000
1 rnc1udes Wi 11 ow subbasin area
-3-
HARVEST STATISTICS AND PATTERNS OF USE OF GAME IN THE SUSITNA BASIN
As outlined above, harvest statistics collected directly from hunters by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game provide data for estimating use of moose,
caribou, and Dall sheep in the Susitna Basin. In the sections that follow,
these statistics are summarized by species and linked with general
descriptions of the patterns of hunting in the area, with 11 typical" hunts,
and with other descriptive material designed to promote an understanding of
the harvest statistics data base. Finally, an estimate of total
expenditures by hunters for the entire planning area is made, based upon
these harvest statistics and the expenditure data available. In all
instances permit hunts are excluded from this discussion.
Moose Hunting Data Base
Moose hunting was described in Chapter I from a general perspective for the
entire Susitna-Beluga basin. Information on the numbers and distribution of
moose hunters is presented, as well as additional information on residency
and travel modes. Similar information in a slightly different format is
summarized for 1981 in Table 3. In Table 4 the same data is presented for
selected Susitna basin harvest report code units where most moose hunting
occurs.
Use patterns/typical hunts. There are several approaches to conducting a
moose hunt in the planning area.
a. Road hunts. For areas accessible by road where moose are known to be
present, weekend (2! day) road hunts are common. A hunter will use a
camper-equipped pick-up or light camping gear and, with binoculars,
drive from lookout to lookout searching for moose. In a likely area, a
hunter will park and leave the road area for perhaps a half-mile, but
rarely further. Fully 80% of the hunting in the Petersville Road area
is of this type. An important variation on the road hunt is the use of
ORVs to extend the range of search possible during a half-day or
one-day foray from the highway. Table 4 indicates the large number of
hunters who consider ORVs primary transportation.
b. Fly-in hunts. Because of the limited road system, fly-in hunts are
very common in the area. Since weight and space are important
considerations in small aircraft, fly-in hunters often go light and
store or locally secure ORV, boat, and camping equipment. In portions
of the Beluga area (Unit 16-02-013) this system is used through the
cooperation of local residents.
c. Boat hunts. Because of the demanding conditions met on the Susitna and
tributary rivers, larger boats with a minimum of 50 hp {jet equipped)
are most commonly used. Boat transportation is efficient since heavier
weights can be accommodated. Most often a hunter will put in at a
landing along the Parks Highway, then travel to a preferred hunting
area, make camp, and then pursue the hunt, using the boat and the camp
as a base.
-4-
TABLE 3. Susitna-Basin 1981 General File Harvest Statistics for Moose
Game Management Unit (GMU)
13 14 16
Talkeetna Mts. Talkeetna
Chulitna/ Mts. to Alaska
Deletions 1 Total 2 Watana Hills Chugach Mts. Range
Hunters
Total 999 1,834 2,195 434 4,594
Successful 258 272 567 53 1,044
Unsuccessful 741 1,562 1,628 381 3,550
Hunter Days
b:l: Residenc:l:
Anchorage area 3,380 5,057 8,467 NO 16,904
Mat-Su Borough 1,055 4,192 2,117 7,364
Kenai-Homer 177 106 452 735
Fairbanks-Delta 492 42 289 823
Cordova-Tok 448 27 32 507
Southeast 53 13 26 92
Out-of-state 264 175 643 1,082
Foreign 30 7 88 125
Other state 21 119 184 324
TOTAL 5,920 9,738 12,298 2,598 3 25,358
Hunter Days by
Primary Mode of
· Transeortation
Air 948 447 3,974 NO 5,369
Boat 1,009 495 2,139 3,643
Off-road vehicle 1,487 1,523 1,273 4,283
Highway vehicle 1,201 4,166 2,634 8,001
Unknown 1,185 2,913 2,251 6,349
Horse 90 194 27 311
TOTAL 5,920 9,738 12,298 27,956
Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division, Data
Management Unit. Greg Fischer, 1983. Special computer run
1 completed 7/18/83.
2Required for reporting units partially outside the planning area
3ooes not include hunters or days of unknown residency or unknown success
Assume 10%
-5-
TABLE 4. 1981 Moose Harvest Statistics for Selected Susitna Basin Harvest Report Code Units (HRCU)
Days Origin Of Hunters 2 Primar~ Mode of Trans~ortation HRCU Name Hunters 1 Hunting 1 Anch Mat-Su other out-of-off-road highway
acreage TL s u TL s 0 Area Boro Alaska state air boat vehicle vehicle unknown horse
16-01-002 Petersville Rd 604 106 498 3,342 595 2,747 472 82 38 7 13 13 136 326 116 0
400,000 acres
16-01-003 Susitna River/
Lower Yentna
270,000 acres 121 27 94 635 137 498 91 24 4 18 28 8 29 38 0
14-01-011 Moose Creek 79 13 66 429 40 389 50 28 1 0 0 0 18 44 16 1
-013 Reserve 52 12 40 244 37 207 36 13 1 1 0 0 10 32 10 0
-017 61,400 acres 190 36 154 871 130 741 118 65 3 2 1 1 14 21 48 5
subtotal 321 61 260 1,544 207 1,337 '204 'fUb --"'5" j 1 1 ~ 97 fTi ~
16-02-013 Beluga
630,000 acres 158 62 96 945 420 525 129 9 10 9 112 10 8 11 17 0
I 16-02-004 Mt. Yenlo/ O"l
I mid-Yentna
630,000 acres 168 63 105 950 322 628 131 14 18 89 57 0 0 22 0
16-02-012 Alexander Creek
Mt. Susitna
426,000 acres 200 54 146 1 ,037 225 812 163 11 10 11 108 53 37 0
14-01-016 Jim's Slough 69 17 52 283 70 213 37 31 0 0 1 1 14 121 48 5
14-01-024 Hunter Creek 62 14 48 353 65 288 20 39 1 0 4 16 8 22 12 0
subtotal 131 31 100 636 135 501 ~ -m 1 0 -s-11 22" m bO" -s-
13-10L Nelchina Basin 292 38 254 1 '718 212 1,507 190 33 44 18 52 108 11 47 73 0
13-12L 1,900,000 acres 211 52 159 1 '211 263 948 129 50 33 11 36 18 78 36 41 1
13-13L 74 10 64 356 47 309 24 19 1 1 3 0 19 22 25 6
13-14L 68 34 34 377 168 210 42 14 4 5 31 3 25 1 6 2
subtotal 645 134 511 3,662 690 2,974 385 m 82 """'!5" rn m m m m 9
14-01-001 W. Chickaloon R. 31 8 23 130 25 105 15 13 1 0 7 0 0 9 9 6
14-01-003 Castle Mt. 11 3 8 54 3 51 9 2 0 0 0 1 0 7 1 0
85,000 acres
subtotal 42 11 31 184 28 156 24 15 0 7 0 16 10 6
TOTAL 22390 549 1 2841 122935 22759 10 2 178 12656 447 149 84 475 309 350 829 519 26
1 S=Successful, U=Unsuccessful. Figures do not include hunters or days of unknown residency or unknown 2TL=Total, success.
Anch Area =Anchorage, Chugiak, Eagle River, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Ft. Richardson, Eklutna.
Mat-Su =Palmer, Sutton, Wasilla, Big Lake, Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, Willow, Alexand.er Creek, Beluga.
Other Alaska= Fairbanks, Kenai, etc.
It is possible to define in more detail a few of the characteristics of
moose hunting in the Susitna basin by a further look at Tables 3 and 4. An
annual harvest of approximately 1,000 moose from the planning area, together
with over 25,000 hunter days required to realize this harvest, is an
activity of significant proportions. For example, taking the usual measure
of the value of leisure time at 1/3 wage rate, $0.9 million in opportunity
cost is represented by this activity:
' (25,358 days X 8 hr/day X $28,406 median AK income X 1/3 = $923,000)
2,080 hr/yr
With 1,044 hunters of 4,594 reporting successful hunts we see success rate
of 23% for the basin, or one in every five hunters, and about 24 hunter days
required to take one moose. Rates of success vary from 14% in Unit 13-13L
and 16% at Moose Creek, to 39% rates of success at Beluga and 50% in
Unit 13-14L. Hunters from Anchorage dominate the field, although in terms
of per capita participation rates, Matanuska Valley hunters dominate (19 per
1,000 to 68 per 1,000, using 1980 population figure of 174,431 and 17,816,
respectively).
A fair balance exists (except for the occasional use of horses) among all
modes of transportation reported as 11 primary 11 by basin hunters, i ndi eating
the ~omplexity of travel requirements. This is particularly true in Unit
13. In Unit 14 the predominance of highway travel is obvious, as is the
predominance of air travel in Unit 16. The large number of hunters not
reporting a mode of transportation (11 unknown 11
) results from the difficulties
in answering the question on the hunter report form (11 What was your primary
mode of transportation?11
) when multiple modes are almost always used.
Of the planning area, nine geographic units, comprising some 4,600,000 acres
of the Susitna basin, have been selected for economic analysis (Table 4).
These areas, or Harvest Report Coding Units (HRCU), are shown on Atlas maps
A3a, A3b, A3c, and are selected on the basis of their importance to users
and to the maintenance of fish and wildlife resources. These units are part
of three major land areas: the Susitna lowlands (GMU 16), the rivers and
foothills of the Knik Arm area (GMU 14A), and the southwestern portion of
the Nelchina basin (GMU 13). The popularity of the Petersville Road, Moose
Creek and the 10L and 12L Nelchina units is obvious.
Moose hunters spend 5.4 days hunting on the average, with a range of 4.2 for
the West Chickaloon to 5.9 at Beluga. Successful hunters spend a little
less time on their hunts (5.2 days) than unsuccessful hunters (5.4 days).
Mode of transportation is important to an economic analysis. Obviously,
those units accessible by road (Units 1, 3, 7, 8, 9) provide hunting
opportunities to a larger group of people at lower cost than remote, fly-in
areas (Units 2, 4, 5, 6). Problems in the use of this data are caused by
the 1 a rge 11 Unknown 11 category.
Total expenditures. Data in Table 3 allows an estimate of expenditures for
moose hunting in the planning area if linked with a survey of costs faced by
hunters passing the Glenn Highway check station carried out by the
department in 1979.
-7-
During nineteen days of operation of the check station a total of 1,195
hunters were contacted. Expenses averaged $237 each per hunt. Most hunters
hunt in parties of two to five people. The non-resident hunters hunting
alone or with another non-resident faced the-highest costs: 34 interviewed
from seventeen states showed average costs of $3,500 each per hunt (range
$150-$10,000). The non-resident hunter apparently sperrds much less when
hunting with a resident friend or relative. Nineteen mixed
resident/non-resident parties were interviewed with average hunter expenses
of $470 each per hunt (range: $50-$8,000). A large group of resident
hunters interviewed (1,079) showed average expenses of $120.00 each per
hunt. This data is summarized in Table 5.
TABLE 5. 1979 Moose Hunter Expenditure Survey at the Glenn Highway Check
Station
Average Expenses/Hunter
Hunters Parties Residenc~ Cost($) Range ($)
34 24 non-resident 3,400 150 -10,000
82 19 mixed parties 470 50 -8,000
1,079 NA resident 120 N/A
TOTAL 1,195 NA All Groups 237 50 -10,000
Source: ·Cunning, Tina and Sterling Eide 1979. Moose Hunter Expenditures,
Glenn Highway Check Station. Unpublished data. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Glennallen, Alaska.
This work was carried out for internal purposes and was not subject to
formal validation procedures. The results, however, provide an indication
of the range of expenses faced by the moose hunter in the Susitna basin and
the important influence of residency on these expenses.
If the $237 average figure for resident and non-resident hunters is
accepted, total annual expenditures for Susitna basin moose hunters exceed
$1 million dollars (4,594 hunters X $237/hunt = $1,089,000). This assumes
that each hunter engages in one hunt only, which results in a very
conservative estimate.
Caribou Hunting Data Base
Most caribou hunting in Southcentral Alaska occurs in the Nelchina basin
(GMU 13). As shown in Table 6, effort is light in GMU 14 and dominated by
-8-
TABLE 6. Susitna-Basin 1981 General File Harvest Statistics for Caribou.
13
Game Management Unit
14 16
Talkeetna Mts. Talkeetna
Chulitna/ Mts. to Alaska
Deletions 1 Watana Hi 11 s Chugach Mts. Range
Hunters
Total 751 4 43 51
Successful 577 1 16 41
Unsuccessful 174 3 27 10
TOTAL Hunter Days 2,534 27 277 349
Hunter Days
by Residencl
Anch area 1,228 0 51
Mat-Su Boro 611 1 3
Kenai-Homer 46 0 10
Cordova-Tok 132 0 0
Frbks-Delta 389 20 2
Southeast 18 0 0
Out-of-State 102 0 113
Foreign 0 0 24
Other state 8 6 74
TOTAL 2,534 27 277
Hunter Days by
Primary Mode of
Transeortation
Air 658 27 129
Boat 406 0 0
Off-road vehicle 855 0 25
Highway vehicle 479 0 62
Unknown 67 0 10
Horse 69 0 51
TOTAL 2,534 27 277
Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division, Data
Management Unit. Greg Fischer, 1983. Special computer run
Total
747
553
194
2,489
1,279
615
56
132
411
18
215
24
88
2,838
814
406
880
541
77
120
2,838
1 completed July 13, 1983.
Required for those reporting units partially outside the planning boundary
-9-
guided hunts in GMU 16. The discussion of caribou hunting presented in our
chapter on demand may be summarized as follows.
The Nelchina caribou herd is located near the population centers of the
state and is therefore-an extremely valuable resource. Three Harvest Report
Code Units in the Nelchina basin are particularly popular {13-10, 13-12,
13-14), accounting for over 50% of reporting hunters, who spend an average
of 3.6 days per hunt and use aircraft as the primary mode of transportation
most of the time (31%).
Other areas in the Susitna basin where caribou are occasionally taken
include Yellow Jacket Creek (14-01F), the headwaters of the Talkeetna River,
and the Rainy Pass area (16-048) (see Atlas Map). Outside the Nelchina area
the huntable population of caribou is very low. In Table 6, residency and
travel mode information is presented for units selected for the economic
analysis carried out below.
Use patterns/typical hunts. Caribou are hunted in Unit 13 in the fall
(August 20-September 20) by the recreational hunter. The subsistence hunter
hunts both in the fall and during a winter season January 1-March 31. As
shown in Table 6 the caribou hunters in Unit 13 mostly reside in the
Anchorage and Palmer areas. There is a strong contingent, however, from
both the Fairbanks and Cordova-Tok areas (110 and 37, respectively). A
large number consider the airplane their primary mode of transportation.
Unit 13-10L leads all others in intensity of use (725 hunter days for 201
hunters for 141 caribou; see Table 7).
In 1982 the 11 typical 11 caribou hunter came to the Nelchina basin from
Anchorage and spent 3t days hunting caribou in hunting areas along the
Denali Highway or in the Talkeetna Mountains. These areas are most often
accessed by aircraft from Anchorage to any of a number of large lakes. No
lodging or support facilities are sought to speak of, since most hunters
enjoy wilderness camping. Moose hunting is available as a substitute for
caribou hunting in cases of failure or cancellation of the fall hunt. The
characteristics of a high quality hunt sought by the hunter are: 1) to
encounter large groups of caribou and 2) to enjoy a wilderness experience
without seeing a lot of other hunters. ·
Of course, there is more than one 11 typicaP hunter for caribou in the
Nelchina. The local Mat-Su Borough resident very often uses an off-road
vehicle along the Glenn Highway, as does the Fairbanks resident. The rural
resident in Unit 13 will use only a highway vehicle, without the use of
aircraft or an ORV. Local residents are very often familiar with herd
movements and do not require ORV support.
-10-
TABLE 7. 1981 Caribou Harvest Statistics
for Nelchina Basin Harvest Report Code Units 1
13-10L 13~12L 13-14L 13-13L
Lake Louise Little Nelchina R. Oshetna R. Anthracite Ridge
Hunters ,
Total
Successful
Unsuccessful
201
141
60
Hunter Days by Residency Group
Anch area
Mat-Su Boro
Frbks-Delta
Cordova-Tok
Kenai-Homer
Southeast
Other state
Out-of..;state
Foreign
TOTAL
380
165
5
28
117
10
0
20
0
725
188
135
53
285
115
11
43
65
9
0
26
0
554
Hunter Days by Primary Mode of Transportation
Air
Boat
Off-road vehicle
Highway vehicle
Horse
Unknown
118
349
45
197
2
14
95
5
320
108
18
8
82
72
10
128
58
5
10
39
0
0
19
0
259
169
5
66
17
0
0
21
13
8
59
25
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
93
1
.9
79
0
5
12
1Does not include hunters or days of unknown residency or unknown success
Total expenditures. If costs of travel, food, lodging, hunting equipment,
ammunition, and camping equipment are summarized for caribou hunters,
expenditures range from $300 to $1,050 per hunter per hunt for the rural
resident and Anchorage resident, respectively (Bob Tobey pers. comm. ADF&G
Glennallen, Alaska). Data in Table 8 show 747 hunters, with 45% from the
Anchorage area, 21% from the Matanuska Valley area, 15% from the Fairbanks
area, and the remaining 20% divided between other state origins and
non-resident hunters. Using a conservative approach values to non-residents
total expenditures of $650,000 area estimated for the Susitna basin.
-11-
Once again, travel mode shows the greatest influence on cost of any single
factor. More caribou hunters fly than moose hunters, resulting in a higher
per hunt range of costs.
TABLE 8. Total Costs for Susitna Basin Caribou Hunters
Hunter Origin Hunters Cost/Hunt TOTAL Dollars
Anchorage 335 1,050 351,750
Other state 74 1,050 77,700
Non-resident 74 1,055 77,700
Mat Valley 153 300 45,900
Fairbanks 111 878 97,125
TOTAL 747 NA 650,175
Sheep Hunting·
Data base. As with moose and caribou, harvest data on Dall sheep are
collected from all areas in the state by use of the Harvest Ticket Hunter
Report System. The basic 1981 harvest statistics for Dall sheep have
already been outlined in our chapter on demand. Table 9 summarized these
data in a slightly different format. We see that 328 reporting hunters
spent 1,532 days afield (4.6 days/hunter) to take 134 rams from the Susitna
basin. In addition, this table indicates a willingness on the part of
resident hunters to travel from outlying areas (Fairbanks, Delta, Homer,
etc.) to hunt in the basin, as well as revealing the presence of a
significant number of non-resident hunters.
Ten years of data on the number of hunters, harvest and percent success is
available for the Talkeetna mountains in Table 10. This data indicates a
diminution in hunting in the face of increasing rates of success, which is
somewhat unexpected. Also, Department staff speculated that with changes in
federal land status occurring since 1978, hunting pressure would markedly
increase in areas remaining open to sheep hunting. This increase in
pressure has not occurred. Sheep hunting is very demanding with longer
trips common and a high level of effort usually required. It appears that
with the loss of an area, considerable time is needed for a hunter to
establish new hunting areas with comparable chances for success.
Use patterns/typical hunts. The Dall sheep is one of the most prized of all
big game trophies. Hunting usually takes place between mid-August and
mid-September. Except in controlled hunts where ewes may be taken, only
rams with horns with 7/8 curl or larger are legal game. Hunting in rugged
mountain country, considerable skill is required to approach these animals.
In addition to the usual camping and support equipment, good binoculars or
-12-
TABLE 9. Susitna Basin 1981 General File Harvest Statistics for Dall Sheep 1
Game Management Units 2
13 14 16
Hunters
Deletions 3
42
12
30
Total
328
134
194
Total
Successful
Unsuccessful
Res/Non-res
204
81
123
179/25
146
53
93
119/27
20
12
8
7/13 39/3 266/62
TOTAL Hunter Days
Hunter Days
by Residency
Anch area
Mat-Su Boro
Kenai-Homer
Frbks-Delta
Other state
Out-of-state
Foreign
Hunter Days by
Primary Mode
TOTAL
of Transportation
Air
Boat
Off-road vehicle
Highway vehicle
Unknown
Horse
TOTAL
931
507
235
8
45
32
103
1
931
364
23
107
267
70
100
931
618
285
147
11
0
20
152
3
618
185
66
49
197
59
62
618
123
18
0
9
0
20
55
21
123
99
0
0
0
10
14
123
140
112
20
2
5
0
1
0
140
46
15
10
51
17
1
140
1,532
698
362
26
40
72
309
25
1,532
602
74
146
413
122
1.75
1,532
Source: Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Habitat Division, Data Management
Unit. Greg Fischer, 1983. Special computer run completed 7/13/83.
~Does not include hunters with unknown residency or unknown success.
Game Management Unit 13 =Talkeetna Mts. Chulitna and Watana Hills
Game Management Unit 14 = Talkeetna Mts. to Chugach Mts.
3Game Management Unit 16 = Alaska Range
Only 50% of units 13-26D and 14-25D, 10% of Unit 14-21D and 33% of
unit 14-22D are within the planning area.
-13-
TABLE 10. Reported Harvest of Dall Sheep Rams, Numbers of Hunters, and Percent
Success of Hunters for Talkeetna Mountain Range, 1971-1981, as
Derived from Harvest Reports
All Hunters 1
No. rams No. %
Year harvested hunters success
1971 85 240 35
1972 81 304 27
1973 61 277 22
1974 114 312 37
1975 109 281 39
1976 77 300 26
1977 2 55 203 27
1978 77 304 25
1979 3 65 269 24
1980 3 80 244 33
1981 3 96 236 41
~Data includes hunters of unknown residency.
3No reminder letters were sent to sheep hunters.
Legal horn size increased from 3/4 to 7/8 curl.
spotting scopes, and rifles equipped with telescopic sights are necessary.
The successful hunter receives an additional bonus, since sheep meat
properly prepared is a gourmet item.
As shown in Atlas Map C2c HRCU are established for Dall sheep hunting in the
higher elevations of the western and eastern portion of the Basin. The
units showing activity to the west are 16-02, 16-03B, 16-04B (the Emerald
Creek, Crystal Creek, Skwentna River and Happy River areas). Access to
these areas is by aircraft while guiding operations out of Rainy Pass Lodge
use horses for packing in. In GMU 14 (14-01 through 14-09), 53 animals were
harvested in 1981 from a highly dispersed population which ranges over the
higher elevations of the western portion of the basin. Nearly all access in
this unit is by air. Occasionally a guide will use pack horses.
Total expenditures. The Department of Fish and Game is currently engaged in
a cooperat1ve research study in an effort to establish the economic
-14-
characteristics of Dall sheep hunting statewide. Until such time as that
study is completed only general estimates of hunter costs will be used here.
As a general rule, resident hunters spend about $1,000.00 on a sheep hunt,
whereas non-resident hunters spend about $10,000~00. Statewide annual
expenditures range from $7-10 million dollars.
Applied to 1981 data (Table 9), Susitna-basin hunts represent over $886,000
in total expenditures by the hunter 1 (266 resident hunters X 1,000) +
(62 non-resident hunters X 10,000)~
Bear Hunting
Data base. Table 11 summarizes the available harvest data for brown and
black bear hunting in the Susitna basin. The Harvest Ticket Hunter Report
System is not used for bear but rather a tag and sealing form system, as
described in Chapter I. The lack of information on resident effort for black
bear requires application of non-resident success rates to the resident
harvest attributable to the basin, in order to estimate resident effort. We
estimate that 1,714 hunters took 248 black and brown bear in the planning
region and further estimate 9,400 hunter days for the 1981-1982 season.
Use patterns/tfpical hunts. It is ha,rd to define a black bear hunter
because very o ten black bear are taken incidentally to moose hunting or
salmon fishing (42% reported harvest as incidental in the Nelchina, 1981).
Those who hunt specifically for brown bear show a notably wide range of
success rates, with harvests in the Nelchina basin dominating. Non-resident
success rates are high, since a guide is required for these hunts. Resident
success rates are low, since many hunters pick up brown bear tags for use in
the event they encounter bear on their moose hunt.
Total expenditures. At present no data collection program relating to the
economic aspects of bear hunting exists within the department. The
individual interests of area and research staff occasionally lead to
observations of potential interest (see e.g. Sellers, R.A. 1982 ''Millipn
Dollar Bears" Fish Tales and Game Trails, Summer 1982. ADF&G, Juneau,
Alaska). Sellers estimates expenditures associated with brown bear hunting
on the Alaska Peninsula at $1.5 million in 1981.
1costs established with the ass1stance of Wayne Heimer, Game Division,
Fairbanks office, May 1983.
-15-
TABLE 11. 1982 Bear Harvest Statistics for the Susitna Basin Bear Hunting 1
Black Bear Brown Bear A11 Bear
AREA Resident Non-resident Resident Non-resident Resident Non-resident
STATEWIDE
Tags issued NA 1,247 5,049 813 5,049+ 2,060
Harvest NA 235 376 435 670
Success rates NA 19% 7.4% 54%
SAP AREA
Tags issued NA 122 824 52 1,540 174
Harvest 136 23 61 28 197 51
Success rates 19%2 19%2 7.4% 54%
~File Data 1983. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska.
Statewide non-resident rate.
All non-resident brown bear hunters in the planning region must use a
professional guide. The willingness to pay in the range of $5,000.00 for a
guided brown bear hunt in Southcentral Alaska (a minimum figure, according
to area staff) establishes a substantial base for the valuation of this
resource. For Unit 13, where most of the brown bear are taken, 47% of the
harvest has been by non-residents since 1961. For the entire basin, 52
guided hunts in 1982 establishes an estimate of gross income to guides and
related services of $260,000 (52 x $5,000). A high percentage of
non-resident black bear hunts (46 of 122) are also guided and are often
combined with other target species for a package deal. Allowing $2,000 for
the black bear component of a multispecies guided hunt (these are never
under $5,000 total), a total annual value of $92,000 (46 x $2,000) is
realized.
The contribution to the economy of the non-guided, non-resident black .bear
hunter will not be much less. Half of the guided costs is used here, for a
total of $76,000 (76 hunts x $1,000). Non-resident expenditures are
nominal, and a total expenditure for bear hunting is therefore estimated at
$1.6 million. Resident hunters of brown bear spend on an average of $1,000
a hunt, while resident black bear hunters spend an average of $500 per hunt.
These costs are summarized in Table 12.
TABLE 12. Total Costs for Bear Hunting in the Susitna Basin
52 guided non-resident Br. Bear
46 guided non-resident Bl. Bear
76 non-guided non-resident Bl. Bear
824 Resident Br. Bear
716 Resident Bl. Bear
-16-
@ $5,000
@ $2,000
@ $1,000
@ $1,000
@ $ 500
TOTAL
260,000
92,000
76,000
824,000
358,000
$1,610,000
Waterfowl Hunting
Data Base. The data base for recreational waterfowl hunting used by ADF&G
includes information from USFWS National Hunting Surveys, USFWS annual duck
stamp sales, postal questionnaires, parts collection surveys, seasonal bag
checks, and ADF&G waterfowl hunter surveys conducted from 1974 through 1976.
In addition, a study of the economic values of waterfowl hunting prepared in
1976 for the Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission by game division
staff has been very useful to this report.
Use Patterns. While most of the planning unit is not noted for its
waterfowl hunting, the Susitna Flats Refuge, which borders on Cook Inlet, is
the most heavily hunted waterfowl area in the state (see Figure 2). In the
discussion which follows, Susitna Flats is therefore the focus of the
analysis. Other areas where waterfowl hunting occurs in the planning unit
(and for which data are available) are also included, even though these
areas are part of the Willow subbasin (see Table 13). These data were not
presented in the Willow Plan. A more compelling reason for including them
here is that these areas constitute a continuous biogeographic unit that
supports waterfowl.
TABLE 13. 1974-1976 Waterfowl Hunting in the Susitna Basin Average Values
for Hunter Days and Harvests
1974 -1976 Average Values
Hunter Days Ducks Geese ·
Area All Waterfowl Harvest % Statewide Rarvest % Statewide
Susitna flats Refuge 5;700 10,000 11.00% 350 3. 40%·
Palmer hay flats Refuge 1 4,470 6,300 7.20% 119 0.80%
Goose Bay Refuge 1 370 380 0.43% NO .01%
TOTAL 10,540 16,680 18.6% 469 4.2%
Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Game Division. 1976, 1977,
1978. Survey .and Inventory Reports, Waterfowl. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska.
1These areas are within the Willow subbasin and are included here since
these data were not presented in the Willow Plan.
Statewide harvest statistics over this period indicate that the average
waterfowl hunter spends 5.4 days hunting ducks and geese, for an average
trip length of 2.4 days.
-17-
Waterfowl hunting areas in the Susitna basin are both close to population
centers and very popular. Good numbers of waterfowl are present, especially
in the Susitna flats area, where typical annual harvests average 8 ducks and
0.4 geese per hunter, taken during an average 5.4 days afield. The Palmer
hay flats and Goose Bay areas are accessible by road and trail, whereas
access to the Susitna flats is primarily by air. This results in entirely
different use patterns for these areas.
Other types of waterfowl harvest in the planning unit are associated with
big game hunting and subsistence. Waterfowl hunter survey results indicate
that a few ducks and an occasional goose are taken by big game hunters in
both the lower Susitna and that portion of the Gulkana basin within the
planning area. Since this harvest is random, the actual number of birds
harvested is unknown but probably minimal. Local residents throughout the
planning unit also harvest an unknown number of waterfowl for personal use.
Use of the Susitna flats. Trips hunters take to the Susitna flats are
limited by access and effective season length. Even th6ugh the flats are
only between 5 and 35 miles from Anchorage, primary access is by aircraft,
with boat and road (from Beluga and Tyonek) access being minimal. The
response of 13 hunters interviewed on opening day 1982 indicated an average
of 2.2 trips to Susitna flats per year, with a range from 1-6 trips. While
sample size was small, observations by ADF&G personnel over a period of
years support these figures~
With access by air and most hunters overnighting, the ·typical hunter is
facing a significant commitment of time and money to hunt waterfowl on the
flats. About 155 cabins in the Susitna flats area are dedicated primarily
to use for waterfowl hunting or set net fishing. A bag check survey
conducted in 1982 (9/1-3/82) showed 71 hunters between the Beluga and
Theodore rivers, with an average bag of 3.6 ducks and 0.43 geese.
Twenty-one aircraft were parked on Seeley Lake on opening day.
In addition to hunters with private cabins and private aircraft, other
hunters tent in the area, purchase package hunts from charter services and
occasionally carry out day hunts from Anchorage, traveling by boat on a high
tide to the eastern portion of the flats.
Total ex enditures. The average Susitna flats waterfowl hunter spends an
estimated 39. per year in pursuit of waterfowl, or approximately $73.00
per day. These expenses can be broken down into two basic classifications:
1) annual equipment expenses and 2) annual trip expenses. These expenses
are listed below, based on 1982 prices (Table 14). Equipment expenses are
self-explanatory.
Travel cost, food, and lodging constitute trip expenses. Without direct
surveys of hunters these expenses can be estimated only on a nominal basis.
Air travel expenses are determined by whether the aircraft is private or
chartered. Since hunters chartering into an area typically go less
frequently, stay longer, and travel with larger groups than those gaining
access by private aircraft, actual travel costs between the two groups are
-18-
TABLE 14. Annual Trip and Equipment Expenses per Waterfowl Hunter
Item Annual Expense
Equipment Expenses
Hunting license ($12.00 prorated at 22% for waterfowl only)
Federal duck stamp
$ 2.65
7.50
40.50
25.00
Subtotal $ 75.65
Shells ($15/box [mag] X .5 box/day, X 5.4 days)
Equipment maintenance
Shotgun ($250.00 for 20 yrs.)
Decoys (2 doz. medium G&H@ $75.00/doz for 10 yrs.)
Gear (boots, raingear, camping equipment
12.50
15.00
gun cleaning kit, etc.) ($150.00 for 5 yrs.) 30.00
Subtotal $ 57.50
Total Annual Equipment Expense $133.15
Trip Costs
Transportation ($50.00 x 2.2 trips/yr.)
Food ($20.00/day x 5.4 days)
Lodging
$110.00
!08.00
45.00
Total $263.00
GRAND TOTAL $396.15
Source: Campbell, Bruce 1983, pers. comm. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Game Division, Anchorage, Alaska; and personal communications
with hunters.
-19-
probably similar. Average transportation costs are therefore estimated at
$50.00/trip for all hunters. Lodging also presents an unusual problem, with
the majority of the waterfowl hunters using hunting cabins as mentioned.
The estimated expense in constructing a cabin, including transportation, is
about $3,000. Since most cabins have multiple ownership with two to six
persons common, the individual's expense for a cabin is perhaps $750.00.
Prorating this over the life of the cabin, which is estimated at 20 years,
annual estimated expense, including upkeep, is at $60.00 per individual per
year. This figure is offset by hunters who either purchase lodging as part
of their charter or who tent camp. Annual lodging expense per hunter is
estimated· at $45.00.
Obviously, the birds bagged by area hunters have value as a highly
nutritious centerpiece of a gourmet meal. In the past, estimates of this
value have been based upon the current market price of the meats replaced by
the waterfowl harvested. Table 15 estimates the meat value of the Susitna
flats harvest at about $49,000 using current market prices in Anchorage for
frozen domestic duck. This is a very conservative estimate, which could
easily be doubled.
TABLE 15. Statewide and Susitna Flats Waterfowl Harvest and Its Economic
Value
1982 Waterfowl harvest statewide 1
Waterfowl harvest attributable 2
to Susitna flats (%)
Market price 3 $1.69/lb.
TOTAL DOLLAR VALUE
Total
. 88,412
9,763
49,498
Ducks
78,209
9,385
(12%)
$1.69
47,582
Geese
10,203
378
(3.7%)
1,916
1campbell, Bruce H. & Daniel E. Timm 1983. Annual Survey and Inventory
Report, Part V. Waterfowl. Table 2, p. 1280.
2Timm, Daniel E. 1976. Report to the Federal-State Land Use Planning
Commission on Waterfowl. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage,
Alaska.
3carr's Payless. 6/10/83. Anchorage, Alaska (Average dressed weight) is
taken at 3lb/bird. Calculation: $1.69/lb X 3lb/bird X (9,385 + 378) =
$49,498
-20-
In summary, waterfowl hunters on Susitna flats, which is the portion of the
planning unit where most of the waterfowl hunting occurs, hunt an average of
5.4 days and spend an average of $73.00 per hunting day, ($133.15 + $263.00).
5.4 days
An estimated 5,700 hunting days are spent on Susitna flats, for an annual
expenditure of approximately $416,000.00, virtually all of which is spent
locally. The value of waterfowl meat is estimated at about $49,000.
These figures may be extended to the basin-wide harvests estimated in Table
13. However, since travel to Goose Bay and Palmer Hay Flats is by road,
travel costs must be reduced by 50%. The following basin-wide values
result: Expenses per hunting day (133 + 208) = $63 5.4
Total basin-wide expenditures (63 X 10,540) = $664,000
Total value of waterfowl meat (17,149 X 3lb X 1.69) = $86,945
-21-
TRAVEL COST ANALYSIS OF MOOSE, CARIBOU, AND SHEEP HUNTING IN SELECTED
SUSITNA BASIN STUDY AREAS
The study areas selected for an analysis of travel cost are shown in the
Atlas of maps. The purpose of the analysis is to indicate the relative
contribution to· the economy of the region of specific hunting areas by
selecting one cost factor that reveals preference for these areas. In
addition, net benefit to the economy at one point in time is indicated by
combining site costs, including travel, site fees, and the cost of time (see
Water Resources Council regulations cited above.) In the following
sections, the assumptions used in the travel cost analysis are outlined,
followed by the analysis itself. A summary is then attempted of all sources
of net benefit for these units.
Work Sheet Assumptions and Applications
The following narrative explains the assumptions and prov1s1ons applied to
the travel cost analyses of moose, caribou, and sheep hunting in the Susitna
Basin. Each item refers to an item on the work sheet used for the analysis
that appears in Table 16.
Travel destination. It is impractical to calculate the distance traveled to
a hunting site for each individual hunter. Hunting occurs in many different
sites over a large land area. In addition, the harvest ticket data base
lacks sufficient precision to determine kill sites, although such data has
been developed by the department under special studies programs. The
hunting location is therefore designated as a single, centrally located and
commonly used staging point, even though this procedure results in .
minimizing travel costs. For each Harvest Report Code Unit (HRCU) the
following destinations are used:
Harvest Report Code Unit
13-lOL
13-12L
13-14L
13-13L
14-01-001
14-01-003
14-01-017
14-01-013
14-01-011
14-01-016
14-01-024
16-01-002
16-01-003
16-02-013
16-02-004
16-02-012
Travel Destination (nearest place name)
south shore of Lake Louise
Nelchina (cabin sites)
Oshetna River
Chitna Creek
Moss Creek
Kings River
Moose Creek
Moose Creek
Moose Creek
Jim's Slough
Hunter Creek
Peters Creek
Shulin Lake
Beluga Lake
Bu 1 ch itna Lake
Alexander Lake
-22-
TABLE 16. Travel Cost Analysis Work Sheet
Work Sheet -Big Game Hunting Values
Hunting location --------------------------------------
Point of origin
Round trip travel distances
AIR AUTO AUTO/BOAT ORV
Hunters by travel mode
AIR AUTO AUTO/BOAT ORV TOTAL
TRAVEL COST
1) Air: miles X $1.67/mile X hunters = $
plus ORV local use: 25 mi X $.90/mi X hunters = $
2) Auto: miles X $.037/mile X hunters = $
plus ORV .local use: $22.50 X hunters = $
plus ORV access: X $.90/mile X hunters = $
3) Auto: miles X $.037/mi = $
plus bo-a-:-t:___ X $1.14/mi X -----hunters = $ ____ ...:..,_
plus Boat: miles X $.45/boat mile X hunters = $ ------
Total travel cost for this location = $
---:;-"1 )....--:--+ --r\"2""\'"") --;+----,3"')-
Total kill -----Travel Cost = $
---Total hunter days ----Hunter Day
Point of origin. The same residency classifications are used for this
analysis as those appearing in the general file harvest statistics (Data
Supplement). Since the analysis requires use of a single point for
calculating travel distances, a central location is chosen for each group of
communities based upon the origin of the largest number of residents, as
follows:
-23-
Area
Anchorage-Girdwood
Palmer-Skwentna
Kenai-Homer
Kodiak-Alaska Peninsula
Cordova-Tok
Fairbanks-Delta
Southeast
Other Alaska
Out of state
Foreigners
Central Point Used
Lake Hood
Palmer
Kenai
Kodiak
Chitina
Fairbanks
Juneau
Anchorage
Seattle
Hamburg, Germany
Round trip travel distances. Travel distances are calculated on a 1:250,000
scale USGS topographic map and 1:1~000,000 scale world aeronautical charts
using a digital map plotter (see also Alaska Milepost for mileages). It is
assumed that hunters make one round trip from their point of origin to the
designated hunting location. Second trips and side trips are ignored, even
though additional travel of this kind is common.
It is further assumed that hunters specifying air travel have available
off-road vehicle transportation for twenty-five miles of local use. Air
travel is assumed straight-lined, with only one round trip taken per hunt
(two round trips are common for charters or parties). In areas where no
road access exists (e.g., 16-02-013, Beluga), all hunters entering unknown
or highway vehicle travel are entered under aircraft travel.
For local use of boat transportation, 40 miles is assumed.
It is also assumed that every hunter specifying off-road vehicles
(motorbike, ORV, snowmobile, horse) as a primary mode of transportation also
used a highway vehicle. A specific travel distance is entered for ORV in
locations such as the Nelchina basin, where considerable off-road travel is
required to reach the hunting site. Otherwise, only local use (25 miles) of
ORVs is assumed.
Hunters. Hunters active in a specific HRCU are tabulated in the harvest
ticket data base by the following modes of travel:
airplane
horse
boat
motorbike
snowmachine
off-road vehicle (ORV)
highway vehicle or auto
unknown
These categories are reduced to four for purposes of the travel cost
analysis (airplane, boat, auto, and ORV), placing all specialized vehicles
in the ORV category and assuming all 11 unknown 11 hunters travelled by auto
only (again minimizing travel costs).
-24-
An assumption of major importance to this analysis is that the number of
hunters is equal to the number of hunting trips taken (travel costs apply to
hunting trips). Each hunter is assumed to take one trip, hunting alone.
This is obviously not accurate, since most people hunt in parties.
Moreover, most hunters also take more than one hunting trip per season.
These actualities do not show up on the harvest ticket hunter reports, and
it is assumed that these differences are roughly equal. These differences
therefore cancel, leaving the number of hunters equal to the number of
hunting trips taken.
Travel cost. Travel cost is calculated by the simple expedient of
multiplying the number of hunters by the round trip distance travelled, by
the cost per mile of travel. It is assumed that the levels of cost and the
patterns of travel are similar for moose, caribou, and sheep hunting.
These costs are developed in the form of constants for each travel mode.
Since these constants greatly influence the results of this analysis, they
have been developed with some care (with the exception of ORV costs, which
are highly variable and therefore set somewhat arbitrarily at $.90/mile).
Table 17 specifies auto, boat, and air travel cost factors.
It is important to note that consistent with the assumption that each hunter
takes one trip, hunting alone, cost constants are calculated on the basis of
one person per vehicle (that is, a party of one).
Since nearly all foreign and out-of-state hunters travel to and from
Anchorage, round trip fares calculated from the central point or origin
(Seattle at $579.00; Hamburg at $1,021.00) may be used, together with
Anchorage-origin travel costs, for these hunters.
For Matanuska Valley hunters, Anchorage origin travel distances may be used,
less the round trip distance between Anchorage and Palmer.
In instances where the number of hunters from a given origin is small,
travel costs from comparable origins or occasionally averaged values are
used.
-25-
TABLE 17. Auto, Boat and Air Travel Cost Constants
Item ¢/mile
AUTO TRAVEL
Nov. 1982 2 Nov. 1982 3
1976 1 U.S. National Alaska Costs
U.S. National Average 1982
Variable costs Average 1976 X 1.8 USA X 1.24
Maintenance,
Parts & tires 4.2
gas & oil 3.3
Subtotal 7.5 13.5 16.7
Fixed costs
Depreciation 4.9
Insurance 1.7
Taxes 1.6
Subtotal 8:2 14.76 18.3
Total 15.7 28.26 35.0
Cost/mile, Recreation Vehicles, assumed 20% above standard auto or
$.35 X 1.20 = $.42
Assume 70% family car use, 30% recreational vehicle use:
(~70 X 35.0) + (.30 X 42.0) = 24.5 + 12.6 = 37.1¢ per mile per trip
BOAT TRAVEL 4
Fiberglass Hull -22' w/125 hp Volvo inboard & trailer
a) Ownership cost/yr
$23,000 new/15 yr life/10% interest rate
cost = $3,023.90/yr
hrs used/yr = 200
cost/hr = $15.12
avg speed = 20 mph
ownership cost/mile= $15.12 ~ 20 = 75.6¢/mile
b) Repair & maintenance cost
established@ $400/yr
400 ~ 200 hrs = $2.00/hr
$2.00 ~ 20 mph = 10.0¢/mile
-26-
c) Operation
4 gal/hr @ 20 mph
gas & oil = $1.40/gal.
$1.40 x 4.0 = 28.0¢/mile
20
Total Cost = 75.6 + 10.0 + 28.0 = $1.14/mile
AIR TAXI TRAVEL
Assume Cessna 185
Sources
cost/hour = $200 hr
cruising speed = 120 mph
cost/mile = $200 = $1.67/mile
120mph
1Federal Highway Administration. 1977. Transportation Trends and
Choices. Tolls and parking fees excluded.
2Pers. Comm., Neal Freid, Alaska Department of Labor 1/13/83, based
upon United States Transportation CPI update factor:
Nov. 1982, 297.4 = 1.8
1976 165.5
3Ibid. 1/13/83, 11/82 Transportation Index for Alaska:124 or 24%
higher in Alaska.
For comparison see use of 7¢/mile in Nicholson, A.J. 1957. Summary of
Sportsmen•s Expenditures, Missouri River Basin. Spec. Sci. Report:
Wildlife #35. United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C. Surveys from 194Q•s. For comparison see
also use of 30¢/mile for reimbursable cost of private auto use by
State of Alaska.
4ward•s Marina, Anchorage, Alaska
-27-
Susitna Lowlands (GMU 16)
Five harvest report code units making up most of the Susitna lowlands were
selected for economic analysis. Only moose hunting occurs in these units.
Table 18 summarizes the travel cost analysis for these units: 1,251 hunters
expended $225,143 in travel costs to hunt 7,187 days and kill 312 moose.
Theory and practice in economic valuation of recreational hunting allows the
use of travel cost as a proxy for net economic benefit of this activity to
society. Table 19 summarizes the travel costs contributed by Anchorage area
hunters. Table 20 summarizes travel costs from all origins analyzed for the
single most popular moose hunting area of the group: the Petersville unit
(16-01-002). Work sheets for the Susitna lowlands area have been shown
(Table 16) demonstrating the methods used and allowing further
interpretations of the basic data if required.
TABLE 18. Area Summary of Travel Costs Analysis Susitna Lowlands (GMU 16)
Moose Hunting
HRCU Total Total Travel TC TC
Hunters (H)1 Harvest Cost (TC) R7Day Hunter Notes
16-01-002 604 106 73,552 3,468 21.22 122
Petersville road
Road accessible
16-02-012 200 54 42,250 1,115 37.89 211
Alex. Creek
16-02-004 168 63 50,965 967 52.70 303
Yenlo Hills remote
16-02-013 158 62 40,739 970 42.00 258
Beluga Lake
16-01-003 121 27 17,667 671 26.33 146
Lower Yentna/ 1 imi ted
Lower Susitna road access
TOTAL 1,251 312 225,143 7,191 31.33 180
1ooes not include hunters with unknown success or unknown residency
-28-
TABLE 19. Susitna Lowlands: Moose Hunting Travel Costs (TC) Contributed by
Anchorage Area Hunters
HRC Total Total Travel Hunter TC/
Unit Hunters Harvest Cost(TC) Da~s Hunter Day
16-01-002 476 71 53,181 2,516 21.14
16-02-012 168 45 30,435 935 32.55
16-02-013 125 46 25,137 684 36.75
16-02-004 135 44 34,436 775 44.43
'
16-01-003 91 19 12,991 462 28.12
TOTAL 995 225 156,180 5,372 29.07
Travel Cost/Hunter = $157
TABLE 20. HRCU Summary for 16-01-002 (Peters vi 11 e): of Moose Hunting
Travel Costs (TC)
Origin of TL Total Trave 1 Hunter TC/
Hunter Hunters Harvest Cost Days Hunter Day
Anchorage 476 71 53,181 2,516 $21.14
Mat Valley 82 24 7,677 644 11.92
Frbks-Delta 25 7 5,616 182 30.85
Balance
of state 16 2 3,594 93 30.84
Out-of-state 5 2 3,454 33 104.67
Foreign 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 604 106 73,522 3,464 $21.22
Trave 1 Cost per hunter = 122
-29-
Palmer Area (GMU 14)
Moose and sheep are hunted in the reporting units selected for analysis in
the Palmer area. For these units only the Anchorage-origin hunter is
selected for analysis. In addition, in order to compa~e similar geographic
areas, moose harvest report code units are used also for sheep harvest data.
Table 21 summarizes the travel cost analysis and shows Anchorage-origin
moose and sheep hunters paying $48.62 and $63.92 in travel costs per trip,
respectively. The data base indicates a large number of Matanuska Valley
area hunters also use the area along with one out-of-state moose hunter and
nine out-of-state sheep hunters. Anchorage values may be used for hunters
for a conservative estimate of total travel costs as shown (moose: $24,018;
sheep: $6,328).
TABLE 21. Palmer Area Summary of Travel Cost (TC) Analysis for Moose and
Dall Sheep Hunting
Species HRCU Total Total Anchorage Area Hunters ($)TC/1 ($)TC/
Hunters Ki 11 Hunters Ki11 TC($) Hunter Oats HD Hunter
MOOSE
14-01-011 79 13 not known
14-01-013 52 12 not known
14-01-017 190 36 208 40 9,318 946 9.85
14-01-016 69 17 37 7 1,979 171 11.60
14-01-024 62 14 20 5 1,105 84 13.15
14-01-001 31 8 16 2 968 54 17.92
14-01-003 11 3 9 2 730 38 19 .. 21
Subtotal 494 103 290 56 14,100 1,293 10.90 48.62
TOTAL Travel Cost: 494 X 48.62 = $24,018
DALL SHEEP
14-01-011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14-01-013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14-01-017 5 0 3 0 32 14 2.29
14-01-016 32 7 16 2 1,063 107 9.93
14-01-024 44 12 23 2 1,196 57 20.98
14-01-001 18 11 8 4 906 45 20.13
14-01-003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 99 30 50 8 3,197 223 14.34 63.92
TOTAL Travel Cost: 99 X 63.92 = $6,328
TOTAL 593 133 340 64 •17,297 1,516 11.41 51.17
Grand Tota 1 = $30,346
1Travel cost/Hunter day
-30-
Nelchina Basin (GMU 13)
Moose, caribou, and Dall sheep hunting occurs in the southwestern portion of
the Nelchina basin selected for analysis. Only the Lake Louise area ·
(Unit 13-lOL) has been selected for travel cost analysis of all user groups.
Table 22 shows an area summary of all hunters and total harvest for all
three species and a summary of the travel cost analysis for Anchorage area
hunters. As in Table 21, Tables 22 and 23 moose, caribou and sheep coding
units are translated into a common coding unit, this time based on caribou
units. For the Lake Louise area results of the travel cost analysis for all
moose and caribou hunters is shown in Tables 23 and 24. Averaged values for
all hunters from areas other than Anchorage may be used to estimate travel
costs for these hunters for other units in the area. Table 25 summarizes
these estimates and shows a total estimate of $318,000 expended in travel
costs for this area.
TABLE 22. Nelchina Area Summary of Travel Cost Analysis for Anchorage Area
Moose, Caribou, and Sheep Hunters
Species HRCU Total Total Anchorage Area Hunters TC/
Hunters Harvest Runters Rarvest TC{$) Runter Days HD($)
MOOSE 13-10L 279 35 183 17 36,245 1,094 33.13
13-11L 26 4 19 2 2,399 104 23.07
13-12L 196 46 124 25 19,380 794 24.41
13-13L 67 10 34 4 3,011 113 26.64
13-14L 68 34 44 20 11 ,520 104 110.76
Subtotal 636 129 404 68 72,555 2,209 32.85
CARIBOU 13-10L 201 139 106 70 23,169 380 60.97
13-11L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13-12L 188 132 107 76 18,073 285 6.3. 41
13-13L 21 13 14 7 1,805 59 30.59
13-14L 82 69 45 35 15,618 127 123.00
Subtotal 492 353 272 188 58,665 851 68.94
SHEEP 13-10L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13-UL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13-12L 5 1 2 0 227 7 32.43
13-13L 102 38 42 22 9,185 248 37.04
13-14L 7 1 4 1 1,544 20 77.20
Subtotal 114 40 48 23 Io,9s5 275 39.84
TOTAL 1,242 522 724 279 142,176 3,335 42.63
Travel cost per hunter: $228.25
-31-
TABLE 23. Lake Louise Unit Summary for Moose Hunting
Origin of Total Total Trave 1 Hunter TC TC
Hunter Hunters Harvest Cost(TC)($) Days HD{SJ Hunter($)
Anchorage 183 17 36,245 1,094 33.13 198.06
Mat-Va 11 ey 35 4 6,111 294 20.79
Fairbanks-Delta 14 2 5,724 143 40.00
Cordova-Tok 21 5 3,670 90 40.78 356.02
Other state 12 2 6,444 102 63.18
Out of state 13 4 11,010 64 176.88
Foreign 1 1 1,219 3 406.00
TOTAL 279 35 70,423 1,790
Average 39.34 252.41
TABLE 24. Lake Louise Unit Summary for Caribou Hunting
Origin of Total Total Trave 1 Hunter TC TC
Hunter Hunters Harvest Cost(TC)($) Days HD{$ J Hunter($)
Anchorage 106 70 23,169 380 60.97 218.58
Mat-Va 11 ey 46 36 9,783 165 59.29
Fairbanks-Delta 30 20 14,530 117 124.00
Cordova-Tok 7 4 1,275 28 45.53 357.53
Other state 5 3 2,790 14 200.00
Out of state 7 6 5,586 20 279.00
Forei n 0
TOTAL 201 139 57,134 724
Average 78.91 284.25
TABLE 25. Nelchina Area Summary of Travel Costs for A 11 Moose, Caribou, and
Sheep Hunters
Total Hunters Trave 1 Hunters Travel
Hunters Anchorage Cost($) Non-Anchorage Cost($)
Moose 636 404 72,555 232 1 82,5921
Caribou 492 272 58,665 220 78,5402
Sheee 114 48 10,956 66 15,064
TOTAL 1,242 724 142,176 518 176,196
1Based on Lake Louise sample showing $356/moose hunter/trip,
$357/caribou hunter/trip
2Anchorage value of $228.25 used throughout
-32-
Travel
Total Cost($)
155,147
137,205
26,020
318,372
Summary
Table 26 summarizes the estimated travel costs faced by moose, caribou, and
sheep hunters in the areas of the Susitna basin selected for analysis. Net
benefits enjoyed by the general economy from these hunters is estimated at
just over $500,000 for the 1981 study year.
TABLE 26. 1981 Travel Costs for Moose, Caribou, and Dall Sheep Hunters in
the Susitna Basin
Area
Susitna lowlands
(GMU 16)
Subtotal
Palmer area
(GMU 14)
Subtotal
Nelchina basin
(GMU 13)
Subtotal
TOTAL
Species
Moose
Caribou
Sheep
Moose
Caribou
Sheep
Moose
Caribou
Sheep
Total
Hunters
1,251
0
0
1,251
494
0
99
593
636
492
114
1,242
3,086
Tota 1 Trave 1 TC
Harvest Cost($) Hunter Method
312
0
0
312
103
0
30
133
129
353
40
522
967
-33-
225,143
0
0
225,143
24,018
0
6,328
30,346
180 All residents
0 analyzed.
0
180
48.62 Based upon
0 Anchorage
63.92 origin values.
51.17
All residents
analyzed for
155,147 243.94 Unit 13-10L
137,205 278.87 only. Remainder
26,020 228.25 based upon these
values.
318,372 256.34
573,861 185.95
LICENSE AND TAG FEES
In most applications of the travel cost method (see Water Resources
Council VI, K 11/1980) license and tag fees are among the costs faced by the
hunter that can be included in an estimate of net benefit. The cost of a
license to hunt game in the State of Alaska is $12.00 to residents and
$60.00 to non-residents. In addition, non-residents are required to
purchase a non-refundable big game tag at the following prices (see Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Board of Game. Alaska Hunting Regulation #22.
July 1, 1981 -June 30, 1982. Juneau, Alaska):
Bear, black ...................................... each
Bear, brown or grizzly ...................•....... each
Bear, polar ...................................... each
Bison ........•......•....•...................•... each
Caribou .......................................... each
Deer ............................................. each
Elk ..............•.•.............•..............• each
Goat .....•....................................... each
Moose ..•........•••......•......••............... each
Muskoxen .........•.............................•. each
Sheep .......•..........•......................... each
Walrus .. _ ......................................... each
Wolf .................................•......•.... each
Wolverine ........................................ each
$ 100.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
200.00
35.00
125.00
125.00
200.00
1,000.00
250.00
250.00
50.00
50.00
Costs to moose, caribou, Dall sheep, black bear, brown bear, and waterfowl
hunters in the Susitna basin for licenses and tags is estimated in Table 27
at about $200,000.
These values are for those hunters who actually entered the field and
submitted hunter reports.
-34-
TABLE 27. 1981-1982 Costs to the Hunter for Susitna Area Hunting Licenses
Tags and Duck Stamps for Moose, Caribou, Dall Sheep, Bear, and
Waterfowl
Reeorting Hunters 1
Gross 3 Species Resident Non-Resident 2
Hunted Licenses Licenses & Tags Dollar Value
Moose 4,416 178 99,272
Caribou 609 4 . 37 11,447
Sheep 266 4 62 20,018
Bear 5 1,540 174 54,120
Waterfowl 1,050 4 1,050 duck stamps 6 7,875
TOTAL 192,732
1Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Game Division. General File Harvest
statistics, 1981, printed 08/05/82
2see text for tag prices
3calculation example:
moose: (4,416 X $12) + (178 X $60) + (178 X $200) = 99,272
4use 25% only, since most resident caribou & sheep hunter also hunt moose
5calculation: ($1,540 X $12) + (174 X $60) + (122 X 100) + (52 X $250) = 54,120
6Federal Duck Stamps cost $7.50
black bear brown bear
-35-
APPENDIX C
RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS: RESOURCE VALUES AND CONFLICTS
WITH EMPHASIS IN THE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
by
Dan Rosenberg
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Habitat Division Region II
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
October 1983
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . • . .
Definition ..•...••....
Attributes of Riparian Ecosytems ••
FUNCTIONS OF RIPARIAN VEGETATION
Fish Habitat. • . . ...
Moose Habitat ••....
Furbearers. . . • . . . .
IMPACTS OF LAND USE ACTIVITIES
Agriculture .
Grazing ..
Settlement ...•..
Forestry .. .
Mining ... .
Oil and Gas .. .
Road Construction
Natural Hazards .
PUBLIC ATTITUDE AND CONFLICTS
PAGE
. iii
1
. . . . 1
2
. . . . . 3
. . . . 4
6
7
. . . . . 8
• • 14
. • • 15
. • 17
• • 20
. . • 21
. 22
• 22
Public and Attitudes. . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Access Problems in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. . . 26
LOSS OF RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS ...... .
CURRENT PROGRAMS FOR PROTECTING RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS.
State Programs •..
Private Programs •.
Federal Programs.
Alaska•s Programs
. . . . . . 28
. 30
. . . 31
. 37
. 38
. 39
LITERATURE CITED . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
-i-
TABLES
Pages
1. Drainages in the Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga Study Area
that provide important winter habitat for moose. . . . 5
2. Potential primary and secondary water quality effects
resulting from agricultural practices in Alaska. 11
3. Impacts on furbearers resulting from stream
channelization projects. . . . . . . . • . . . . 13
4. Suggested buffer strip widths to control sedimentation
from agricultural practices for the coastline of Maine 13
5. Minimum filter strips for cropland water quality
restoration recommended to the U.S. Agricultural
Research Service . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . 14
6. Recommended widths for filter (buffer) strips (derived
for higher-slope harvest areas). . . . • . . . . . . . 19
7.
8.
FIGURES
1.
2.
Riparian landowner•s agreement with alternate
techniques of wild river policy implementation ..
Summary of state wild and scenic rivers programs .
Functions of riparian vegetation as they relate to
the aquatic ecosystem •........•••...
Extent of soil erosion from conversion of riparian
forests to agriculture along the Sacramento River,
California, from 1952 to 1982 •....•...•.
3. Sample storm hydrographs of clearcut and control
watersheds before and after treatment ..
4. Wisconsin•s shoreline delineation .•
-ii-
25
33
3a
9a
18a
31a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report describes the values of riparian ecosystems and how these values
are a result of complex interactions between riparian vegetation and aquatic
systems. Impacts from land use activtties and management practices can
interrupt the functions of riparian ecosystems, diminishing their value. By
understanding how and why riparian ecosystems are so valuable and using
management practices that maintain these values, the public can continue to
derive social and economic benefits from the riparian ecosystems.
Riparian ecosystems consist of a water body (river, stream, lake, etc.) and
adjacent plant communities that are influenced by the presence of that
water. Along rivers and streams riparian ecosystems, which include
vegetation communities, streambanks, and the stream channel, are generally
located within the riverine floodplain.
Ecological processes within riparian ecosystems result in high abundance,
diversity, and production of wildlife. Floodplains, for example, provide
important habitat for moose, birds, and furbearers. Overwinter survival of
moose often depends on the availability of riparian vegetation, which also
determines the quality of aquatic habitats for fish and functions as a
buffer zone, providing a mechanism for flood control, pollution abatement,
erosion control, streambank stabilization, ground water recharge, and the
maintenance of water quality. Riparian lands attract and support many
recreational, subsistence, and educational activities, including hunting,
fishing, trapping, camping, and nature study.
Impacts from developmental activities (agriculture, grazing, settlement,
forestry, oil and gas, mining, and road construction) alter ecological
processes and have been responsible for degrading riparian and aquatic
environments and reducing o.r eliminating existing resources and amenity
values.
Soil erosion, water pollution, habitat loss, reduction in fish and wildlife
populations, and loss of public recreational and private economic
opportunities are often the consequences of developmental impacts.
Development in or adjacent to riparian ecosystems has resulted in public
expenditures of bil.lions of dollars for water quality restoration, habitat
rehabilitation, and disaster relief from flooding. Non-structural
approaches (buffer zones) are the best managerial solutions for preventing
riparian land and water degradation and maintaining a productive resource.
When river corridors come under multiple ownership, conflicts arise between
landowners and public users. Trespass is the most serious riparian land
owner-user conflict. Lack of public access results in overuse of the few
available sites, increasing trespass, creating litter problems, and causing
habitat degradation. Most riparian property owners oppose easements for
regulating use and development, and they also oppose public agencies
purchasing private riparian lands. In Alaska, many landowner-public user
conflicts result from combinations of human population growth, changing
landownership patterns, poorly marked access, limited or nonexistent access,
and the absence of a clear definition of the rights and limitations of
landowners and the public within access easements.
-iii-
Conversion of floodplain forests and shrublands to alternate land uses has
been responsible for making riparian ecosystems among the most severely
altered landforms in the nation. In the contiguous 48 states, over 70% of
the estimated original coverage of riparian ecosystems has been altered or
eliminated. Recognizing the functions and important public benefits derived
from riparian ecosystems, and alarmed over the rate of destruction, the
federal, local, and state governments and private organizations have begun
to exercise control over development in riverine 'Corridors or to acquire
private lands to protect riparian values and provide public recreational
opportunities. Regulatory legislation, zoning, conservation easements, tax
incentives, establishment of riverine corridors, and fee-simple acquistion
of land are some methods currently being used to protect riparian
ecosystems. Millions of dollars have been spent by Alaska, California,
Oregon, Washington, and Idaho to purchase riparian lands for public access
and fish and wildlife habitat protection.
-iv-
INTRODUCTION
With an expanding population and ever growing demand for the use of Alaska•s
resources, the need for public awareness and planning in allocating
resources is becoming increasingly important. This is especially so in
Southcentral Alaska, the most rapidly developing area in the state.
Riparian ecosystems are one resource whose ecological, social and economic
values to the people of Alaska must be recognized. In order to manage and
maintain riparian river and stream ecosystems to best serve the public
interest, the functions and values of the resource must be understood. It
is the intent of this paper to develop an understanding of the relationships
existing between river and stream ecology, riparian lands, fish and wildlife
needs and the human uses and demands for these resources.
Riparian ecosystems are a highly productive public resource. They support a
greater abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife than surrounding
habitats. No ecosystem is more essential to the survival of the nation•s
fish and wildlife resources than riparian ecosystems (Council on
Environmental Quality 1978). These high fish and wildlife values provide
numerous recreational opportunities as well as jobs, both locally and
regionally. The Council on Environmental Quality (1980) predicts that as
travel becomes more costly, lakes and rivers near major population centers
will provide even more important recreational opportunities. Any
conflicting uses of riparian ecosystems must be weighed against the
resource•s inherent values and be designed to best maintain those values.
Allocating land and water in riparian ecosystems among various users and
assessing the ecological, social, and economic impacts of such allocations
are of great concern. How these resources are apportioned and managed will
determine their future value to fish and wildlife productivity and its
associated activities. Riparian ecosystems require only protection for them
to yield consumables such as floodwater storage, water quality maintenance,
and products from fish, wildlife, and timber.
Definition
Duff (1980) defines riparian ecosystems as wetland ecosystems that have a
high water table because of proximity to an aquatic ecosystem such as a
river or lake or to subsurface water. Plant species composition reveals the
influence of the surface water (Franklin and Dyrness 1973).
Riparian ecosystems are distinguished by a linear band of distinct
vegetation and soil characteristics situated between aquatic and upland
ecosystems (Brown et al. 1978). Moisture requirements of riparian plant
communities exceed those of adjacent upland ecosystems. Communities depend
on high water tables or overbank flooding, which may vary from extended
periods of seasonal flooding to periodic rises in subsurface ground water
(Hirsch and Segelquist 1978). Plant communities may range from only a few
meters wide along stream banks to several miles across in the floodplain of
larger rivers. Riparian vegetation is usually dominated by trees or shrubs.
The structure and function of these plant communities is primarily
determined by the physical aspects of flooding, water flow, and the lateral
transport of nutrients and sediments by the aquatic ecosystem.
-1-
Riparian communities are not restricted to river and stream systems. Thomas
et al. {1979) divides riparian communities into standing water (lentic)
habitats along the shorelines of lakes, ponds, and the periphery of bogs,
and running water {lotic) habitats along rivers, streams, and springs.
Lentic habitats often occur within the riverine floodplain.
For this report, the following definition will apply:
Riparian ecosystems are composed of 1) plant communities along rivers
and streams and around lakesl ponds, springs, or bogs, whose vegetative
structure and function is primarily determined by influences from the
adjacent aquatic system, including a high water table or overbank
flooding, and 2) the adjacent aquatic system. Along ·rivers and
streams, riparian plant communities are those locate~ within or
adjacent to the boundaries of the active floodplain. These occur
within or are often synonymous with the riverine corridor.
Vegetation types are not a good indicator of flood hazard (Miller 1982).
The Soil Conservation Service has found that in most cases there are no
measureable differences between plant life in the floodplain outside the
three-to-five-year flood event. Vegetation in a floodplain that is flooded
by a 10-year event will be the same as that flooded by a 25-year or 100-year
flood.
Attributes of Riparian Ecosystems
The importance of riparian ecosystems to fish and wildlife and associated
human activities cannot be overestimated. Riparian ecosystems maintained in
a healthy condition should be recognized as a valuable natural resource .and
a legitimate land use. The following, modified from Duff (1980), lists
several of the most important values of riparian ecosystems:
1.) Riparian vegetation regulates the nutrient input to aquatic
ecosystems, thus determining the quality of aquatic habitat for
fish resources.
2.) The structural diversity and complexity of riparian vegetation
supports greater numbers and diversity of terrestrial wildlife
populations than any other habitat.
3.) Riparian ecosystems support vegetative buffer zones that provide
flood control, pollution abatement, erosion control, stream bank
stabilization, ground water recharge and the maintenance of water
quality;
4.) Riparian ecosystems attract and support many recreational,
subsistence, and educational activities, including hunting,
trapping, fishing, camping, photography, and nature study.
~1 A_c_t_i-ve ___ f_l-oo_d_p_l-ain: The flood-prone lowlands and relatively flat areas
adjoining inland and coastal waters, including contiguous wetlands and
floodplain areas of·offshore islands; this will include, at a minimum, that
area subject to a 1% or greater chance of flooding in any ~iven year
(100-year floodplain).
-2-
5.) Riparian ecosystems have a high aesthetic value due to the
combination of water, land, attractive and unique vegetation
types, and abundant fish and wildlife populations.
FUNCTIONS OF RIPARIAN VEGETATION
Fish Habitat
Fish habitat is directly related to and highly dependent on the conditions
of the surrounding watershed, especially the adjacent riparian zone (Duff
1980, Merrit and Lawson 1978). The quality of the aquatic system is a
result of the interaction between riparian vegetation, the stream/river
channel, the water column, and the streambank (Platts 1982). By influencing
water temperature, rate of flow and fluctuation in discharge, and available
cover these determine the productivity of the fishery. Adverse alterations
in riparian vegetation will affect the quality and quantity of fish habitat
and may cause a decline in production.
The functions of riparian vegetation as they relate to the aquatic ecosystem
are presented in Figure 1. Riparian vegetation reduces erosion and thus
bedload sediment by controlling surface runoff and stabilizing streambanks.
An increase in bedload sediment would interfere with intergravel waterflows
and decrease oxygen available to incubating fish eggs and alevins. Stream
bank erosion is a normal occurance but must be maintained in equilibrium
with the buildup of·new banks. Problems begin when this balance is upset.
Vegetation slows overland water flow and traps sediment, building new stream
banks and minimizing damage to the river channel and bank during periods of
high flows. Burger et al. (1982) found that areas along the Kenai River,
Alaska, with bank irregularities and overhanging vegetation resulted in
higher catch rates of juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
Greater numbers and higher frequencies of juvenile Coho Salmon (0. kisutch)
were captured in the Susitna River in areas with emergent or aquatic
vegetation and/or overhanging or deadfall cover (ADF&G 1983). Overhanging
banks and vegetation provide fish with protective cover as do some submerged
snags and boulders. Platts (1982) cites several studies that document the
importance of cover to fish. Salmonid abundance declines as stream cover is
reduced; as cover is added it increases. The removal of vegetation causes a
reduction in bank irregularities and a tendency toward a smooth straight
channel. Along with this goes an increase in water velocity and a reduction
in cover and thus a loss of habitat.
By providing shade, vegetation maintains suitable water temperatures for
fish, incubating eggs, aquatic plants, and invertebrates (Duff 1980). Hynes
(1970) states that water temperature is one of the four most important
abiotic factors in fish production. Temperature changes can affect the
metabolic rate of fish, change the dissolved oxygen content in the water,
and influence hatching success. Shaded streamside areas are a preferred
habitat of juvenile salmonids (Platts 1982).
Riparian vegetation contributes to primary stream productivity by supplying
the aquatic system with plant and animal detritus and nutrients that provide
the basic components of the food chain (Meehan et al. 1977). Evidence
suggests that organic detrital input into forested streams may support over
99 percent of the annual energy requirements for primary consumer organisms
-3-
t
c z < ...I a.
::::>
z ...I z c
:$ w :$ z
a: z a: < < z < ...I a.< a. a. -J: ::::> a: 0 a:
RIPARIAN VEGETATION
SITE COMPONENT
above ground. canopy & stems
above channel
in channel
streambanks
floodplain
large debris
drived from
riparian veg.
roots
stems & low
lying canopy
FUNCTION
1. Shade-controls temperature &
In stream primary production
2. Source of large & fine plant
detritus
3. Source of terrestrial insects
1. Control routing of water and
sediment
2. Shape habitat-pools, riffles
and cover
3. Substrate for biological
activity
1. Increase bank stability
2. Create overhanging
banks-cover
1. Retard movement of sediment
water and floated organic
debris in flood flows
Figure 1. Functions of riparian vegetation as they relate to the
aquatic ecos~stem. Adapted from Meehan et al. ( 1977).
-3a-
(Fischer and Likens 1973). Organic debris supplies a food source to many
aquatic invertebrates important in the diet of many fish. Riparian
vegetation is also a supplier of terrestrial insects to the aquatic
ecosystem. Vegetation along the Kenai River appears to supply food items to
juvenile chinook salmon (Burger et al. 1982). Kennedy (1977) reports that
54 percent of the organic matter eaten by fish from the Missouri River is of
terrestrial origin.
By its ability to absorb runoff, the riparian community can provide
groundwater recharge to the aquatic system during periods of low flow,
increasing available habitat to rearing fish. Absorbing surface runoff also
mitigates high flows, reducing erosive forces.
Moose Habitat
Quality, quantity, and accessibility of riparian vegetation is absolutely
essential for maintaining stable moose (Alces alces) populations. Good
moose range consists of a complex of river bottomlands and adjoining
lowlands and sub-alpine foothills (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1973).
For moose populations, riparian lands play a critical role in overwinter
survival. During winter months, especially years of deep snow,
subpopulations of moose travel distances up to 25 miles (40 km) from
extensive areas to riparian communities along the Susitna River (Modafferi
1982). Here snow is less deep and food more accessible. During harsh
winters river bottoms become yarding areas for high densities of moose. The
areal extent and condition of riparian vegetation ultimately determine at
what level moose populations will persist in a given area (LeResche et al.,
no date).
Numerous drainages in the Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga study area provide
important winter habitat for moose (Table 1). On November 16, 1982, Bill
Taylor (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, pers. comm.) counted 101 moose
in riparian vegetation along Alexander Creek between the confluence of the
Susitna River and Lower Sucker Creek. Aerial surveys flown between Mt.
Susitna and Mt. Beluga reveal large numbers of moose in riparian drainages.
Between Upper Sucker Creek and Bear Creek during the same years, early
winter counts varied from 134 to 146 moose. Few other areas have been
surveyed extensively.
While the number of moose in riparian communities increases markedly during
winter months, year-round use is still significant. Along the Susitna River
below Talkeetna, some moose use riparian areas for the entire life-cycle. A
large majority (up to 90 percent) of the lower Susitna River moose are found
between Montana Creek and Cook Inlet. Above Talkeetna, females migrate to
riparian areas for calving (Modafferi 1982).
Movements between seasonal ranges often follow traditional migration routes.
There are east-west movements of moose into the river valleys as well as
movements parallel to the river corridor. Disruption of migration routes
may cause a significant increase in mortality.
The natural seasonal variation in water flow, the frequency and magnitude of
flooding, and ice and wind action create a shifting pattern of plant
communities in the floodplain. This is most important in the creation and
maintenance of primary and early successional plant communities such as
-4-
willow shrublands. These, along with the understory vegetation of some
later seral stages, provide important browse species. Horsetail-willow and
horsetail-balsam poplar (cottonwood) plant communities provide substantial
forage for moose, as do mature and decadent balsam poplar and birch-spruce
stands. The extensive areal cover of the latter two communities makes them
a major food resource for moose living in the floodplain of the lower
Susitna River (McKendrick et al. 1982).
TABLE 1. Drainages that Provide Important Moose Wintering Habitat in the
Matanuska -Beluga -Susitna Study Area. Additional Drainages may
Provide Important Winter Habitat but no Information is Available.
Susitna River
Little Susitna River
Alexander Creek and Sucker Creek
Talachulitna River
Yentna River
Skwenta River
Kahiltna River
Twenty-mile slough
Moose Creek, Deshka River, Kroto Creek, Twenty-Mile Creek
Lewis River
Theodore .River
Be'l uga River
Tokositna River (between Home Lake and Bunco Lake)
Lake Creek
Talkeetna River
Oshetna River
Little Oshetna River
Little Nelchina River
Tyone River
Tyone Creek and tributaries
Mendeltna Creek
Watana Creek
Maclaren River
Nenana River
Coal Creek
Fog Creek
Sanona Creek
Brushkana Creek
Tsusena Creek
Goose Creek·
Clear Water Creek
Jay Creek
Butte Creek
Deadman Creek
Kosina Creek
SOURCES: R. Modafferi, 1982, pers. comm.; J. Didrickson, 1982, pers. comm.
D. Bader 1983, pers. comm. Adapted from ADF&G, Habitat Division,
Comments on Proposed Cook Inlet Oil and Gas lease sale #40, 1982.
-5-
The major factors currently causing declines in study area moose populations
are habitat-related; loss or alteration of riparian moose habitat will
seriously exacerbate the situation.
Furbearers
Beavers (Castor canadensis), muskrats (Ondatra zibethica), mink (Mustela
vison) and river otters (Lutra canadensis) occur throughout the Susitna
River drainage along rivers, streams, and around lakes and ponds. All are
dependent upon riparian ecosystems throughout their life-cycle. All being
furbearers, they are sought by trappers for the value of their pelts.
Beavers. Beavers are restricted to freshwater aquatic habitat bordered by
riparian vegetation. They are found throughout the Susitna drainage from
sea-level to 3,100 feet (1,000 meters) (Terrestrial Environmental
Specialists, Inc. no date). The extent of habitat use is a function of the
rate of water flow, water depth, fluctuations in water depth, ice depth, ice
scouring, and the characteristics of channel bottoms, streambanks, and
riparian vegetation (Gipson 1983). · Boyce (1974) found beavers in Alaska
favoring lakes or slow-flowing streams bordered by sub-climax stages of
shrubs and mixed coniferous and deciduous forests. Densities of lodges in
Interior Alaska were positively correlated to habitats high in balsam poplar
(Populus balsamifera) and willows (Salix spp.). Shifting river channels
create an environment conducive to the natural regeneration and colonization
of balsam poplar (Gill 1972) and willow. Beavers prefer a seasonally stable
water level and abandon colonies when flows become too low (Collins 1976).
Fancy (1982) considers the water depth under the ice to be the major
limiting factor for beavers in the floodplain. Beavers are generalized
herbivores (Jenkins 1975), but primary food is the bark of aspen (P.
tremuloides), willow, cottonwood (P. trichocarpa), balsam poplar, blrch
(Betula spp.) and sometimes alder TAlnus spp.) (Konkel et. al. 1980). In
Al~ska, willow is the most stable food source, although not necessarily the
preferred food (Murray 1961). ·
Boyce (1974) found beavers foraging up to-195 feet (60 meters) from the
water's edge. Slough and Sadleir (1977) report beavers foraging up to 650
feet (200 meters) from water; 90% of all cuttings were done within 98 feet
{30 meters) of the water's edge.
In modifying habitat through damming, beaver impoundments not only improve
their own habitat but provide aquatic and riparian wildlife habitat for
other species. Damming creates ponds that provide feeding, staging, and
brood-rearing habitat for waterfowl {Hair et al. 1978, Yeager and Rutherford
1957), improves range for moose (Yeager and Rutherford 1957), and provides
rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids. Hakala (1952) reports that
extensive willow growth in the Susitna River moose range is the direct
result of beaver activity. Beaver ponds also stabilize watersheds, reducing
flooding and sedimentation.
Beavers are one of the major furbearers sought by trappers in the Susitna
basin, including the Susitna River, its tributaries, and large lakes such as
Stephan's Lake (Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. no date).
Beavers are one of the few furbearers that readily provide for
-6-
non-consumptive use such as viewing, photography, and nature study (Alaska
Department of Fish and Game 1980).
The most significant factors affecting beaver populations are habitat
destruction and overtrapping. Concentrated trapping efforts near
settlements and along roads can result in depletions of local populations.
In Southwest Alaska beavers are five times as abundant in remote areas
compared to areas near villages (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1980).
From 1850-1900 beavers were almost eliminated from southeastern United
States by the effects of overharvest and habitat loss due to clearing land
for agriculture (Hair et al. 1978). Roads, railways, and land clearings
invariably follow waterways and are a major limiting factor to beaver
habitat suitability. Artificial water regulation with manmade dams can
produce severe water fluctuations, decreasing the capability of many areas
to support beavers (Slough and Sadleir 1977). Small streams are the most
susceptible to change in flow rates, sedimentation, and alteration of
riparian vegetation (Hair et al. 1978, Terrestrial Environmental
Specialists, Inc. no date).
Mink. In the Susitna basin, mink occur along all major tributary creeks of
the Susitna River below 4,000 feet (1,200 meters) (Gipson 1982). In
Southcentral Alaska, mink are highly dependent on riparian plant communities
and are most commonly found near streams, ponds, marshes, and fresh or
saltwater beaches (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1976). Movements are
largely restricted to shoreline areas. Schladweiler and Storm (in Brinson
et al. 1981) report the primary zone of activity is within 230 feet (70
meters) of a stream. Mink infrequently range out to 600 feet (180 meters)
"from a stream. Mink have large home ranges and may cover an area up to
three square miles (7.7 km 2 ) (Banfield 1974, in Konkel et al. 1980).
There appears to be some correlation between the size of the mink population
and the size of the salmon run for areas on the Kenai Peninsula (Alaska
Department of Fish and Game 1976).
Mink do not construct their own dens but generally rely on vacated or
appropriated dens of other furbearers, or they use naturally occurring
cavities in channel banks, drift piles, or fallen trees (Konkel et al.
1980). Natal dens are generally located near water.
Human development along rivers may be detrimental to mink (Alaska Department
of Fish and Game 1976). Disturbance by heavy machinery and recreational
vehicles along streambanks causes damage to the denning habitat of mink
(Bur.ns 1964 in Konkel et al. 1980).
For more information on impacts to furbearers see Agricultural Impacts -
stream channelization, page 12.
IMPACTS OF LAND USE ACTIVIES
Riparian zones occupy relatively small areas and are vulnerable to severe
alteration. Past and continuing degradation of riparian ecosystems has
resulted in conditions that are detrimental to fish and wildlife
-7-
populations. Native fish and wildlife resources are dependent upon the
maintenance of natural conditions. The removal of riparian vegetation, the
debasement of both water quality and quantity, and the alteration of stream
morphology will reduce fish productivity, resulting in economic losses to
the commercial fishery, increase conflicts between sport fishermen and
commercial fishermen, reduce sport fishing opportunities, cause a decline in
wildlife populations, with a consequent loss of hunting opportunities,
effect the loss of other water-associated recreational activities and of
aesthetic and economic values. By 1983, approximately $275 billion will
have been spent in an effort to clean up the nation•s rivers (Warner 1982).
Because many of the state•s fish and wildlife species are dependent on
riparian areas or use them disproportionately more than other habitat types,
and because riparian areas are a major recreational attraction, protection
of these areas should be a high priority. 11 Habitat rehabilitation must
never be viewed as a substitute for habitat protection 11 (Reeves and Roelofs
1982).
To effectively manage and protect riparian ecosystems, development-related
impacts to these systems must be understood. The impacts of alternate land
uses and related activities (agriculture, grazing, forestry, mining,
settlement, oil and gas, roads) should be weighed against the existing
values provided by riparian systems. By understanding the habitat needs of
fish and wildlife and the impacts from development, management guidelines
for a particular land use can be implemented that will allow development to
occur in a location and manner having minimal effects on the existing
natural resources. We must, however, be aware of the fact that an
accumulation of relatively small impacts can severely weaken the ecological
integrity of natural systems through interacting and cumulative effects
(Karr and Dudley 1981).
The best management practice to protect riparian ecosystems is to leave a
buffer strip of natural vegetation along or around a waterbody. This buffer
strip should be retained in public ownership and be of sufficient width to
protect water quality, and quantity, provide terrestrial habitat, including
food and cover to a high diversity of wildlife species, and provide a
variety of recreational and subsistence opportunities without causing
conflicts among user groups.
Agriculture
The effects of agricultural development in Alaska are expected to be similar
to those of other activities causing large-scale changes in vegetation and
land use, e.g. timber harvest, residential development, mining, and oil and
gas development. The same attributes, nutrients, soils, and water that make
riparian lands productive for wildlife are also attractive to agriculture.
As with many other developmental activities, the impacts of agriculture on
riparian systems are often complex and subtle. The direct loss of wildlife
habitat from large-scale land clearing is perhaps the most obvious impact.
The impacts to the aquatic system, which are essentially secondary effects
of land clearing, are at first much less apparent but have far-reaching
consequences. The removal of riparian vegetation modifies stream flow
rates, water temperature, water chemistry, and natural erosion rates. The
-8-
closer to the stream channel the vegetation is removed, the more pronounced
the effect.from land clearing (Fig. 2).
Water quality. In the United States, cropland is the greatest single cause
(contributor to) of excessive stream sediment (McCorkle and Halver 1982).
Cropland yields four times more sediment to public water than any other
erosion source (Clark 1977). Aldrich and Johnson (1979) report that in
Interior Alaska, removal of ground cover increased erosion 18 times above
that on forested lands. Wolf (in Cordone and Kelley 1961) considers
siltation created by agricultural practices to be the real cause for the
extinction of stocks of Atlantic salmon. The detrimental effects of
increased sedimentation to populations of salmonids and the aquatic life of
streams has been reviewed by Cordonne and Kelley (1961) and Hall and McKay
(1983).
Sediment deposited in stream gravels may be detrimental to the survival of
eggs, alevin, and fry. Sediment deposited in the streambed may decrease the
permeability of spawning gravels and block the interchange of subsurface and
surface waters. Egg, embryo, and fry survival may decrease because of
oxygen depletion, fungal infection, and delayed and impaired emergence.
Sedimentation may inhibit production of aquatic plants and invertebrate
fauna. Eliminating habitat for aquatic insects reduces available food
sources to rearing and resident fish.
Water pollution from agriculture is often diffuse (nonpoint) in nature and
therefore difficult to identify and control (Clark 1977). Sixty-eight
percent of the basins in the United States report water pollution caused by
agricultural activities (McCorkle and Halver 1982). The use of fertilizers,
insecticides, pesticides, and fungicides adds nutrients and toxic chemicals
to the aquatic system. Carcinogens found in the drinking water of New
Orleans, which draws its water from the Mississippi River, originated with
industrial and agricultural pesticides (Tripp 1979). Feedlots, often ·
located along rivers and streams, have for many years introduced untreated
animal wastes directly into surface waters (Clark 1977). Rummel (1982)
lists the potential effects of agricultural development on primary water
quality in Alaska. These include
changes in temperature;
increased suspended load;
increased sedimentation;
decreased light transmission;
changes in pH;
decreased concentration of dissolved oxygen;
increased concentration of specific compounds containing nitrogen and
phosphorus (plant nutrients including nitrates);
-9-
z
0 0 z ~ < _, V) ....
1-w _, v; (!)
< 0 w
a: Q.. > :::> w
1-0 z _,
:::> > <
~ 0 a:
a: z ~ ~ < V) a:
0 z
LIJ
(,!)
LIJ
..J
I " • I I u • I I I •
~ ~
0 0 a: a: u.. u..
z z Q 0
V) in· QN oN a:" a:= w2: w2:
""'o "-O ~ o .... o ... ::
c( c( 0 WN wN < a:oo a:" 0 cc2: cc2: a:
Figure 2. Extent of soil erosion from conversion of riparian forests to
agriculture along the Sacramento River, California from 1952 ·to 198.2.
From McGill, 19l5-and McGill (pers comm) 1983.
-9a-
introduction or increased concentration of pesticides, including
herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides; and
propagation of pathogens, as indicated by fecal coliform bacteria.
The Alaska Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70) specify limits for primary
water quality effects. Primary effects are responsible for secondary water
quality effects, which cause changes in plant and animal communities,
potability, and recreational potential (Table 2).
-10-
I
1-'
1-'
I
TABLE 2. Potential Primary and Secondary Water Quality Effects Resulting from Agricultural
Practices in Alaska (adapted from Rummel 1982)
Primary Effects
CHANGES IN
TEMPERATURE
INCREASED
SUSPENDED LOAD
INCREASED
SEDIMENTATION
DECREASED
LIGHT TRANSMISSION
CHANGES
IN pH
DECREASED
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
INCREASED NITROGEN
AND PHOSPHORUS
INCREASED
CONCENTRATIONS OF
PESTICIDES
PATHOGENS
Plant & Animal
Communities
increased biological
production to a limit;
then decrease
interference with benthic
invertebrates (fish food)
and fish development
decreased reproductive success
of anadromous fish from
clogging of spawning beds
decreased primary production;
interference with food finding
some physiological effects
decreased fish production;
decreased growth in fish
developmental stages
increased growth of
nuisance plants
wide variety of effects; from
changes in behavior of aquatic
organisms to developmental
defects to death
propagation of disease
Secondary Effects
Drinking
Water Supply
interference with
water supply requiring
filtration
may require treatment
of supply water
contamination of water
supplies from nitrates
and nitrites
contamination of water
-supplies
propagation
of disease
Recreational
Potential
warmer surface
waters in summer
muddy appearance
of surface waters
propagation
of disease
Water quantity. Converting riparian forests to cropland or pasturelands
leaves comparatively little vegetation or ground cover to intercept rainfall
or retard surface runoff. Consequently, after rain or during snowmelt,
floods will be more frequent and larger. As surface runoff increases, the
relative amount of water that reaches underground reservoirs decreases.
During low flows, streams are largely supplied with water from these
subsurface resources. In addition, ground water modifies water temperature
extremes, reducing ice thickness in winter and maintaining cooler
temperatures in summer. Gosselink et al. (in McCorkle and Halver 1982)
estimate that riparian forests of the Mississippi River alluvial floodplain
historically had the capacity to store a volume of water equivalent to 60
days of river discharge. With land clearing, river channeling, and
construction of levees this capacity has been reduced to 12 days. River
stages are now higher for a given discharge during floods and lower during
low water periods. Larger channels created during periods of high flow have
an insufficient volume of water to fill the channel during low flows.
Agriculture is the largest single user of water in the United States. In
the 17 western states, irrigation accounts for about 90% of freshwater use
(McCorkle and Halver 1982). Withdrawals of water, whether directly from
lakes and streams or indirectly from groundwater sources, will compound the
problems previously discussed. Impacts will be greatest on small streams
and lakes. Pumping ground water for crop irrigation has resulted in some
streams losing their value for trout fishing (White, Hunter, in McCorkle and
Halver 1982). The largest cause of losses of anadromous and resident fish
in western streams is from lowered stream flows due to diversion of water
for irrigation (National Wetland Newsletter 1982).
Stream channelization, impoundments, and dikes often accompany agricultural
development. Following flood protection, farmers often remove riparian
vegetation to plant more crops. Construction of flood control works and
dams along California's Sacramento River System in the past 50 years has
contributed significantly to the loss of riparian forests, and the number of
king salmon spawning in the upper river has decreased by 50% (Burns 1978).
The major consequences to aquatic systems from channelization include loss
of spawning substrate, removal of instream cover, loss of instream
vegetation, loss of streamside vegetation, loss of run-riffle-pool
sequences, loss of overall stream length, increased gradient and velocity,
draining of adjacent lands, physical and chemical changes in the stream, and
decreased detrital input (Simpson et. al. 1982).
Stream channelization and its secondary effects decrease wildlife
productivity and reduce populations appreciably. Alteration of streambanks
is probably the most significant change affecting furbearers (Table 3).
Gray and Arner (in Simpson et. al. 1982) found mink, beaver, and muskrat
were all far more abundant along unchannelized stream segments than in
channelized areas. After the Kissimmee River in Florida was channelized,
the average duck harvest per day decreased from 374 to 50 (Montalbano, in
Simpson et. al. 1982). Conversion of riparian vegetation to croplands will
eliminate food and cover for moose in important wintering grounds, increase
their susceptibility to predators, and eliminate travel lanes. Depredation
by moose on agricultural crops may occur. Many of the major.negative
impacts to wildlife from agriculture, including loss of food and cover,
wildlife depredation on crops or livestock, effects of agricultural
chemicals on wildlife, and transmission of disease between domestic animals
-12-
and livestock (Preston 1982), can be expected to be more pronounced in
riparian areas because of the higher abundance and diversity of wildlife
populations.
TABLE 3. Impacts on Furbearers Resulting from Stream Channelization
Projects (from Singleton et al. 1982)
Effect of Channelization
Loss of woody vegetation
(reduced diversity)
Bank composition and configuration
Low water levels
Reduction of channel snags and debris
Reduction or loss of aquatic organisms
Impact on Furbearers
-Loss of bank cover
-Reduction of roots and "nooks
and crannies" for foraging
-Decreases furbearer abundance
-Reduces available bank for
foraging
-Slope or sand and gravel
deposition reduces den sites
-Underwater dens excluded
-Reduces foraging areas
-Reduction or loss of food
items
To reduce impacts from agricultural activities, setbacks or buffer zones
should be required along all water courses to separate tilled land from
waterbodies by a vegetated buffer area of specified width. A basic
management goal should be that the higher the degree of development, the
greater the vegetated buffer provided along water courses (Clark 1977).
Depending on the amount of development within a watershed, additional buffer
widths must be provided to offset the progressive effects of surface runoff
associated with increasing development. Buffer widths required to remove
contaminants and sediments from overland flows vary with soil
characteristics, slope, climate, time of harvest, amount of cultivated area,
type of farm operation, and type of vegetation in the buffer zone. Standard
buffer strips for Maine•s coastal zone vary between 50 and 110 feet,
depending on slope (Table 4). ·
TABLE 4. Suggested Buffer Strip Widths to Control Sedimentation from
Agricultural Practices for the Coastline of Maine (from Clark 1977)
Average Slope of Land Between
Tilled Land & Normal High Water Mark
(%)
0 - 4
5 - 9
10 -14
15 and over
Width of Strip Between Tilled
Land & Normal High Water Mark
[ft (m) along surface of ground]
-13-
50 (15)
70 (21)
90 (27)
110 (34)
These are designed solely for purposes of sediment control. Guidelines for
buffer zones developed for the United States Agricultural Research Service
(Table 5) are also primarily for sediment control.
TABLE 5. Minimum Filter Strips for Cropland Water Quality Restoration
Recommended to the U.S. Agricultural Research Service (from Clark
1977)
Slope Slight Erosion Moderate Erosion Severe Erosion
(%) [ft (m)] [ft (m)] [ft (m)]
0 30 (9) 35 (11) 45 (12)
10 55 (17) 65 (20) 80 (24)
20 80 (24) 95 (29) 115 (35)
30 105 (32) 125 (38) 150 (46)
Additional widths are required to provide for removal of nitrate and other
agricultural chemicals. The minimum effective stream setback for nitrate
removal covering most soil, slope, and vegetative conditions is 300 feet
(91 meters) (Clark 1977).
Thompson et al. (1979) found that in a 118-foot (36 meters) buffer zone,
nearly all of the manure-contributed nutrients present in runoff at the
source were removed before reaching the stream. However, the quality and
quantity of runoff is dependent upon the season of application, weather
conditions, soil, and the amount of manure applied. Manure application in
melting snow or just prior to rainfall represents the worst possible case
for nutrient outflow.
Buffer strips are not a panacea for sediment control; persistent sediment
sources will quickly overwhelm the absorptive capacity of the forest floor
when surface pores are clogged by fine sediments (Chamberlin 1982). Buffer
strips must also be designed for wind firmness and for providing wildlife
habitat, including migration corridors. Therefore, widths recommend for
sediment control represent a bare minimum and should be increased
substantially to protect both aquatic habitat and terrestrial habitat.
Grazing
Since livestock are attracted to streamsides, overuse of the riparian zone
by domestic livestock has often resulted in widespread stream degradation.
In the western United States, livestock grazing is the single most important
factor limiting wildlife and fisheries production (Platts 1979). Grazing
has severely reduced riparian vegetation and altered stream geomorphology,
adversely affecting fish and wildlife population. Behnke and Zarn (1976)
-14-
identify livestock grazing as one of the principle factors contributing to
the decline of native trout in the west. There are presently no range
management techniques or guidelines short of fencing that can protect
riparian vegetation from overgrazing by domestic livestock (Behnke and
Raleigh 1978, Meehan and Platts 1978, Moore et al. 1979).
The consequences to fish habitat of changes, reductions, or elimination of
riparian vegetation include the reduction of shade and cover, with
subsequent increases in stream temperature, changes in stream morphology,
and the addition of sediments through bank and off-site soil erosion.
Stream-channel sedimentation caused by soil erosion on rangelands has long
been recognized as a major problem.
Disturbance of ground cover and soil by livestock trampling has long been
recognized as an important factor contributing to accelerated erosion and
storm runoff in western forests and rangelands (Moore et al. 1979).
The sloughing and collapse of streambanks caused by improper livestock
grazing is probably the greatest impact livestock has on fish populations
(Platts 1981). This results in changes in stream morphology, including
wider and shallower stream channels and the loss of undercut banks.
Other effects resulting from improper livestock grazing in riparian zones
include decreased terrestrial food inputs because of loss of riparian
vegetation, lowering of the water table, lack of regeneration of native
trees and shrubs, loss of instream cover, and a reduction in fish
populations (Behnke and Raleigh 1978, Platts 1981, Haugen and Duff 1982).
Interactions between wildlife and livestock, which may occur regardless of
habitat, can be expected to have more pronounced effects in riparian lands
because of the attraction of greater numbers of both wildlife and livestock.
As 'determined from a literature review of over 1,200 references and
conversations with biologists, Preston (1982) found loss of habitat,
elimination of predators by livestock owners, disease transmission from
domestic animals to wildlife, and competition for forage to be among the
major impacts of grazing. Moose winter range could be severely affected by
livestock grazing. In northeast Colorado, Crouch (1982) found significantly
greater numbers of all game species in ungrazed bottomlands versus grazed
bottom lands.
Settlement
Rivers, streams, and lakes are highly favorable areas for human settlement
and frequently provide focal points for community aesthetics, recreation,
commerce, and amenities. Nearly all phases of development in riparian
areas, including residential developments, roads, airports, and commercial
buildings, will affect river, stream, and lake habitat. The presence of
native vegetation and the flow of water from the land are the primary
factors controlling the condition of riparian ecosystems. Activities that
degrade or remove vegetation also degrade the aquatic environment.
Ultimately, not only does the local community environment suffer, but so
does the environmental quality of downstream communities.
-15-
Poorly planned development will result in stream sedimentation. Erosion and
run off from parking lots, housing developments, roads, and construction
sites, and the use of natural drainages for storm sewers, dumping areas, and
gravel extraction often produce high sediment loads. This degrades the
capacity of freshwater habitats to support aquatic life. An appropriate
level of soil erosion should, in most cases, be in the range of 0-3
tons/acre/year. Housing projects and other developments can produce up to
1,000 tons/acre/year (Johnson 1979).
Excessive nutrient input resulting from domestic sewage and soil erosion may
produce large amounts of algae or bacteria in lake and streams. As algae
decomposes, it decreases dissolved oxygen levels, promotes growth of
bacteria, makes the waterbody less aesthetic, and reduces water quality.
Nutrient input is especially critical in floodplains, where wastes percolate
rapidly into stream and groundwater. Public sewer systems often eliminate
waste discharge; these are very expensive, however, and often increase the
market value of land, offering strong economic incentives for land owners to
sell. This often results in more development, thus increasing environmental
problems in the long run (Palmer 1981).
Appropriations of water for domestic or industrial use often lower the
capacity of freshwater bodies to support fish and wildlife populations. In
addition, domestic water sources can become degraded when surface water
stagnates and groundwater aquifers are depleted as a result of water
withdrawals.
Increased settlement and development along floodplains brings increasing
demands for flood control. As natural land surfaces are paved and
developed, flood peaks increase and often arrive sooner after storm onset
than under pre-developmental conditions (Anderson, in Platt and McMullen
1979). Impoundments, diversion structures, or stream channelization are
often the solution. However, these reduce the productivity of both the
terrestrial and aquatic system by eliminating habitat, and they encourage
further settlement in the floodplain, destroying more wildlife habitat,
blocking wildlife migration routes, and creating visual and noise
disturbances to wildlife.
Encroachment upon floodplains in the belief they are 11 protected 11 sets the
stage for heavy losses when floods exceeding the design capacity of flood
control structures occur. Additionally, increased development in the
floodplain diminishes its value as a natural water storage area, further
increasing the magnitude of flood peaks and reducing baseflow water levels
in rivers and streams.
The fragmentation of authority in floodplains when land is transferred to
multiple owners makes integrated management difficult. Conflicts arise
between public users and private landowners and between upstream development
and downstream development. Fragmentation of landownership patterns along a
river poses some of the most perplexing and least studied issues in
floodplain management (Platt and McMullen 1979). Rapid conversion of rural
lands to subdivisions has created problems for local governments that have
only limited experience with large developments (Palmer 1981). The
-16-
piecemeal evolution of year-round housing is hard to predict. Through a
slow process of single lot development, the amount of building and
settlement can become substantial, with impacts on water quality or wildlife
habitat that were never expected initially.
Municipalities along the St. Croix River of Wisconsin and Minnesota require
all new structures be set-back 200 feet from the normal high water mark.
Additionally, no construction of buildings or alterations on slopes greater
than 13% is allowed; no buildings are allowed in the 100-year floodplain,
and buildings must be set-back 100 feet from bluff lines at the top of steep
hills.
Because studies have shown unacceptable amounts of nitrate at distances of
150 feet from septic tank systems (Ketelle, Minear, and Patterson, in Clark
1977), a setback of at least 150 feet from the annual high water mark is
required to minimize nitrate pollution. A setback of 300 feet should be
required whenever possible because local soil and groundwater conditions may
be unsuitable for nitrate removal (Clark 1977). Maine and Wisconsin require
the absorption fields of septic tanks to be setback a minimum of 100 feet
from surface waters. This allows for the removal of coliform bacteria and
other waterborne pathogenic organisms from wastewater. Adequate soil
purification removes organisms before they can reach and contaminate
adjacent waterbodies.
Forestry
Timber harvest operations cause changes in water and land system processes,
which in turn lead to changes in anadromous fish habitat (Chamberlin 1982)
and terrestrial wildlife habitat (Tubbs 1980). The closer logging is to the
riparian zone, the more severe the erosional impacts and the greater the
danger of reducing water quality in the adjacent aquatic zones (Thomas et
al. 1979).
Chamberlin•s (1982) detailed review of how timber harvesting affects the
aquatic habitat was used as~ source document for much of this discussion.
Gibbons and Salo (1973) have prepared an annotated bibliography with 278
references on the effects of logging on fish of the western United States
and Canada.
Loss of vegetation and alterations in terrestrial habitat are a direct
result of logging. The magnitude of these habitat changes to terrestrial
wildlife depends on the extent and techniques of the logging operation.
Habitat alterations can effect changes in bird populations in riparian
communities (Stauffer and Best 1980, Tubbs 1980). Cavity-nesters and
raptors are especially vulnerable to mature tree or snag removal. Beidelman
(in Tubbs 1980) reported a four-fold decrease in spring species and a
three-fold decrease in wintering birds in a highly productive eastern
Colorado cottonwood-willow riparian community that was logged. Losses of
thermal cover, hiding cover, and access to forage areas used by a variety of
birds and mammals can result from logging practices (Thomas et al. 1979).
Alteration of vegetation in turn leads to changes in the aquatic system.
Forestry, like other land-clearing processes, may substantially change
-17-
1) the distribution of water and snow on the ground; 2) the amount of water
intercepted, transpired, or evaporated by foliage; 3) the rate of snowmelt;
4) the amount of water that can be stored in the soil or transpired from the
soil by vegetation; and 5) the physical structure of the soil, which
governs the rate and pathways of water movement to stream channels.
Clearcutting can cause storm flow discharges of nine times those of
undisturbed watersheds (Fig. 3) (Clark 1977). Impacts to the aquatic system
include 1) introduction of surplus organic debris into streams; 2)
acceleration of erosion and stream sedimentation; and 3) stream channel
modifications.
Increased erosion and sedimentation in streams often results from timber
harvests (Swanson and Dyrness 1975). The majority of severe sediment
problems are related to road systems, especially where roads cross stream
channels (Vee and Roelofs 1980). However, removing tree cover on steep
slopes reduces slope stability and may accelerate the movement of soil and
excess sediment to the stream.
Tree cutting adjacent to streams has the potential for introducing large
amounts of debris. On steep slopes, residual debris can still be transported
to main channels years later. Although stable debris contributes to channel
stability and habitat variability for both fish and wildlife, excessive
amounts impede fish and wildlife movements and in streams may reduce
dissolved oxygen levels if fine organic particles accumulate in stream
bottoms (Hall and Lantz 1969). Logging and skidding near or across small
streams covered by snow or ice are particularly likely to result in fine
debris accumulation because operators may be unaware of the stream•s
location. Debris accumulation also impedes fishing access and generally
reduces recreational opportunities in a river. Buffers of vegetation
between skid trails and streambanks are necessary to minimize sediment and
organic debris accumulation in stream channels (Chamberlin 1982).
Of all riparian ecosystem components, streambanks and stream margins are the
most susceptible to direct influences from logging activities. The
breakdown and destruction of streambanks by felling and yarding are among
the most persistent of direct harvesting impacts, and they are the most
difficult to avoid when streamside felling or skidding and cross-stream
logging occur (Chamberlin 1982). Tree falling and yarding along streambanks
may reduce bank stability, eliminate streamside cover, cause streambank
erosion, increase sedimentation, and widen channels. Avoiding logging
activities in streamside areas is frequently the only alternative to bank
destruction (Chamberlin 1982).
The principal water quality parameters influenced by forest harvesting are
temperature, suspended sediment, dissolved oxygen, and nutrients. Removal
of streamside vegetation usually increases summer water temperatures and
decreases winter temperatures. The effects of temperature change are
discussed on page 3.
Erman et al. (1977) reported that the changes to aquatic invertebrate
populations in logged streams are similar to changes found in streams
affected by sewage effluents, thermal discharge, and run-off from
agricultural activities. Logging along streams without leaving vegetated
-18-
~
(/)
0
.5 .
a
6
3: 4
..2 u.
2
0
a
6
4
2
BEFORE CUTTING
1200 2400 1200 2400 1200
July 9, 1955 July 10 July 11
AFTER· CUTTING
1200 2400 1200 2400 1200
July 11. 1958 July 12 July 13
Figure 3. Sample storm hydrographs of clearcut and control watersheds
before and after treatment. (Reinhart. Escher and Trimble 1963, in Clark 1977)
CSM = Cubic foot per second per square mile
-l8a-
buffer strips caused a significant change in benthic invertebrates, compared
with unlogged streams. While populations of some invertebrates increased,
overall diversity was reduced.
Other forestry-related activities that can have significant adverse impacts
on riparian vegetation and water quality are silvicultural treatments
(Everest and Harr 1982); use of forest chemicals (Norris et al. 1983),
including herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers, and fire retardants; and
log storage (Schmiege 1980).
Erman et. al. (1977) found that buffer strips greater than 100 feet (30
meters) afforded protection for stream invertebrate populations at a level
equivalent to unlogged streams. Streams with buffer zones less than 100
feet wide generally show the same impacts as streams without protective
buffers, including changes in population abundance and reduction in species
diversity.
The dimensions of a buffer strip depend on slopei wind exposure, rainfall,
type of vegetation, location, and type of timber harvest. Trimble and Sartz
(in Clark 1977) recommend a minimum buffer strip of 25 feet (7.6 meters)
plus two feet (0.6 meters) for each 1% of slope between surface water and
the logged area (Table 6).
TABLE 6. Recommended Widths for Filter (Buffer) Strips (Derived for
Higher-slope Harvest Areas) (from Clark 1977).
Slope of Land
(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Width of Filtration
Strip (ft)
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
The United States Forest Service suggests the following formula for
determining ideal buffer width: width = 4 feet (1.2 meters) X {percent
slope) + 50 feet {15.2 meters) (United States Environmental Protection
Agency in Clark 1977). Generally, if the terrain is steep, the potential
for erosion moderate to severe, and large-scale clear cutting is to be used,
the buffer strip must be substantially wider than the recommended minimum
(Clark 1977). On the Delaware River, no logging is allowed within 100 feet
without a permit (Palmer 1981).
-19-
Mining
Mining can cause severe pollution of aquatic environments by increasing
bedload sediment and turbidity, changing pH, discharging heavy metals, and
causing alterations in stream channel and streamflow (Martin and Platts 1981
Haugen and Duff 1982). Over 2,000 miles of major streams in Pennsylvania
are polluted by drainage from coal mines (Palmer 1981).
Although there are many methods of mining (strip mining, open pit mining,
dredge mining, hydraulic mining, underground mining), mining-related impacts
in riparian wildlife habitats and the aquatic system can be divided into
physical and chemical impacts (Haugen and Duff 1982). Examples of physical
impacts resulting from mine operations include the following:
Removal of riparian vegetation associated with stream channelization,
road construction, culvert and bridge installation, direct mining
activity, and tailing deposition.
Increased rates of stream sedimentation resulting from vegetation
removal, road and mine construction, tailing deposition, stream
channelization and dredging, and erosion of overburden. ·
Flooding of riparian areas for the construction of tailing pond or
water storage reservoirs.
Reduction of stream flows associated with decreases in ground water
level or water diversions.
Entrainment and/or impingement of aquatic organisms due to water
diversion facilities and dredge mining activities.
Chemically related impacts associated with mining and related activities
generally affect aquatic organisms directly without necessartly harming
physical habitat. Examples of chemical degradation of water quality include
the following:
Introduction of toxic materials utilized in mining operations
(petroleum products, flocculants, dispersants, etc.).
Thermal shocks to aquatic organisms associated with the release of
processing water.
Release of acid mine waste into aquatic systems, thereby resulting in
precipitation of ferric hydroxide and heavy metals.
Reduction in dissolved oxygen from organic enrichment and increases in
water temperature.
Increased turbidity and suspended solids due to removal of ground
cover.
To date, most of the mining impacts in Alaska have been from placer mining
or gravel removal from floodplains. Habitat alterations include removal of
-20-
riparian vegetation, processing of stream gravels, channelization, channel
diversion, road construction in streams, high turbidity and sedimentation,
litter, and barriers to fish movement. Placer mining adversely altered
large areas of riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat in the Kantishna
Hills area (Meyer and Kavanagh 1983). Singleton et al. (1978) cite low soil
moisture-holding capacity, due to loss of soil fines during mining, and
unfavorable post-mining topography as being responsible for slow
revegetation following mining. Zemansky et al. (1976) provide numerous
references indicating that increased total settleable solids and turbidity
.resulting from mining operations cause direct adverse effects on fish,
including effects on fish reproduction and food supplies, and a reduction in
fish populations. Heavy metals that are damaging to fish, including
cadmium, chromium, arsenic, and selenium and sulfates are released into the
aquatic system by placer mining (Metsker 1982).
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1982b) found that an increase in
placer mining activity resulted in a reduction of recreational fishing.
Habitat alterations from gravel mining operations in flood plains are well
documented, including resultant impacts to river hydrology, the aquatic
biota, terrestrial biota, and water quality (Woodward -Clyde Consultants
1980).
Oil and Gas
Starr et al. (1981) review the impacts on fish and wildlife habitats from
all phases of oil and gas development activities.
Impacts to wildlife habitat are associated with 1) any activity that
removes, scars, or covers the surface vegetation and which, in turn, leads
to increased erosion, permafrost degradation, or drainage changes; 2) oil
well blowouts, spills, leakage, or release. of other toxic materials capable
of killing or damaging vegetation; 3) any activity that will increase the
frequency or intensity of fires, such as a burning oil or gas well blowout;
4) degradation of the quality of land surface or water bodies by the
disposal of solid or liquid wastes; 5) the creation of physical barriers,
such as roads, pipelines, or other facilities, that separate large tracts of
previously continuous wildlife habitat and that may lead to differential use
of habitats by wildlife; and 6) any activity, such as gravel or sand
borrowing or water withdrawal, that will result in the lowering of habitat
quality for aquatic invertebrates, fish, waterfowl, and non-game birds and
mammals. While many of these activities are not confined to riparian
ecosystems, their occurrence in such areas will cause impacts of equal or
greater intensity than in other habitats because of the high biological
diversity and sensitivity of riparian zones.
Principal impacts to aquatic populations may occur from 1) blockages of fish
passage (including those caused by pipeline or road crossings of waterways
or accumulation of debris); 2) fish entrapment in borrow pits or reservoirs
connected to waterways only during periods of high water; 3) channel,
bottom, or current changes; 4) any activity that lowers the physical,
chemical, or biological quality and, hence, the carrying capacity of the
aquatic habitat (for example, oil spills, waste disposal, excessive winter
-21-
water withdrawals, or siltation); 5) seismic operations through ice or
adjacent to water bodies; and 6) increased harvest of fish and game due to
increased access through new roads and airfields, higher incomes, and
increased human presence.
In Texas alone, 23,000 cases of ground and surface water contamination
caused by petroleum activity have been reported (Council on Environmental
Quality 1980).
The effects on riparian fish and wildlife habitat from oil and gas
operations and secondary developments (e.g., alterations to water quantity,
water quality, and vegetation) are generally similar to other development-
related activities discussed in this paper.
Road Construction
Road construction in riparian zones will reduce habitat suitability for many
species, and probably has more critical and long-l~sting impacts on riparian
zones than any other activity (Thomas et al. 1981). Roads and their
construction cause major increases in sedimentation to streams, remove
riparian vegetation, alter stream channels (Haugen and Duff 1982), act as
physical barriers to the movement of juvenile and adult fish, and increase
human access to previously remote and isolated areas (Yee and Roelofs 1980).
Burns (1972) observed a water temperature increase of 20°F (9°c) following
riparian canopy removal during road construction. Gibbons and Salo (1973)
concluded that during timber harvesting, forest roads are the primary-
initiator of erosion caused by human activities. Yee and Roelofs (1980)
state that "poor culvert design and location can ·still be ranked among the
most devastating problems for fish habitat in western forests." Road
culverts can be barriers to migration, usually because of outfall barriers,
excessive water velocity in the culvert, insufficient water in the culvert,
lack of resting pools below culverts, or a combination of these conditions
(Elliot 1982, Yee and Roelofs 1980).
Roads result in a direct loss of habitat and increased disturbance to.
wildlife from traffic (Thomas et al. 1981). Roads placed through major
moose migration routes or wintering areas will result in wildlife fatalities
from automobile collisions. Habitat use by deer and elk is adversely
influenced by the presence of roads open to vehicular traffic. Effects are
markedly influenced by type of road, location, and amount of use.
Researchers have reported decreased use of areas adjacent to roads for
distances ranging from .25 to .50 miles (.4 to .8 km) (Perry and Overly;
Ward, in Thomas et al. 1979).
Little research has been done on the possible toxic effects of surface and
subsurface runoff from oiled and chemically treated roadways. The potential
exists for development of localized water quality problems that could affect
fish and aquatic habitats.
Natural Hazards
Flooding.
streams.
Flooding is a natural phenomenon occurring along rivers and
It is an important component in determining the nature of the
-22-
riparian vegetation and other biological aspects of the stream and its
floodplain. Land use management programs need to acknowledge the benefits
and values of undisturbed floodplains, recognize the hazards of locating
developments in floodplains, and realize that encroachments, obstructions,
or alterations of floodways can reduce their floodwater carrying capacity,
resulting in increased flood heights, velocities, and frequencies (French
and Burby 1980). Building on floodplains increases flood damage for both
private property owners and the taxpayers who pay for disaster assistance,
flood control projects, and subsidized flood insurance.
Flooding of urbanized areas is currently the most widespread natural hazard
in the United States. Flooding causes public and private property damage of
$1.5 to $2 billion annually (French and Burby 1980). Federal and
non-federal expenditures to reduce urban flood damage during fiscal year
1974 were $954.7 million (Goddard 1979).
In contrast to the major floods of the 1930 1 s, an increasing proportion of
flood losses today are caused by flash flooding along seemingly
insignificant streams and creeks (Platt and McMullen 1979). Changes in
flood patterns can be attributed to changing land use practice.
In Alaska, flood losses to public and private property will increase unless
steps are taken to minimize development in floodplains. Miller (1982)
reports on flood damage in Alaska. Throughout the summer of 1971, flooding
in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley caused almost $6 million in physical damage.
Damages to private homes and personal property were approximately $1.4
million. The breakout of Lake George in the Knik River drainage was a
near-annual event until 1966. Since then, the Knik Glacier has not advanced
to dam the lake, and development has occurred in the floodplain. In 1969 a
lake dammed by the Skilak glacier released, causing the Kenai River to rise
and fracture river ice. Ice blocked the river channel at Soldotna, causing
backwater flooding of roads, homes, and businesses. Again in 1974 and 1977,
glacial lake dumping caused flooding along the Kenai River.
In Fairbanks, the 1967 Chena River Flood took six lives and caused damage in
excess of $85 million. To mitigate flood hazards, $243 million was spent in
federal and state funds to build the Chena River Dam and floodway.
Operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $763,000 annually.
By establishing greenbelts (buffer zones) along creeks, Anchorage has
increased residential property values while combining protection from
flooding with increases in recreational opportunities (Miller 1982).
PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND CONFLICTS
Public Attitudes
The public•s view of riparian ecosystem management varies greatly with
personal values, perceptions, and according to whether one is a landowner, a
resource manager, or a public user. A few studies have attempted to
quantify these attitudes in order to improve management of riparian
resources and minimize conflicts among landowners and recreationists.
Minimizing conflicts has become increasingly important as recreational use
-23-
of rivers and lakes, especially those near population centers and those with
access, has been rapidly increasing. This trend is expected to continue.
At the same time, competition for land and water for developmental purposes
will increase. Deciding the most appropriate allocations among many special
interests will continue to be a topic of heated debate. Any land allocation
system must recognize the attitudes and needs of the participants
(landowners and public users) and promote cooperation while protecting
public resources. Thus, understanding problems and attitudes among user
groups and correlating these with ecological values, economics, and the
legal system is essential for ensuring good management in the future.
A recent public opinion survey conducted in Alaska by the Dittman Research
Corporation (1982) found that 70% of the public respondents strongly or
moderately supported the "establishment of recreational waterway and trail
corridors to provide hunting, fishing and other recreational opportunities
through private land near the urban centers." These same people expressed
willingness to "create a fund to purchase access corridors." Sixty-nine
percent of the public strongly or moderately supported spending state money
to buy private land necessary to establish a recreational waterway or trail
corridor system.
In most states, landownership patterns are opposite those in Alaska, with
most land in private ownership. Recognizing the need for access, the values
of riparian land, and the prohibitive ~ost of acquisition, the public in
these states has favored other alternatives for acquiring riparian lands.
In Oklahoma, a public opinion survey on "public attitudes toward stream and
streamside (riparian) fish and wildlife habitats" showed that " •.. large
majorities favored enactment of state statutes which would allow protection
of minimum stream flows and provide tax incentives to landowners who would
agree to manage riparian habitat on their private land 11 (The Wildlife
Society 1982).
In Wisconsin, Roggenbuck and Kushman (1980) found little understanding and
support for the protection of riparian ecosystems among riparian landowners.
While landowners supported adopting policies to protect the stream channel,
they were in disagreement on how or if to protect the river corridor.
Landowners with misconceptions outnumbered those who were well informed on
policy towards use, development, or other activities on riparian lands
adjacent to the river. Problems with recreationists, litter, vandalism,
trespass, pollution, and inadequate law enforcement were much greater
concerns to property owners than maintaining ecological values, including a
decrease in wildlife. Seventeen eastern states identified trespass as the
most serious landowner-user conflict along rivers and streams (Countess et.
al. 1977). Lack of access results in overuse of a few sites, increasing
trespass and litter, and leads to a degradation of the habitat. As a whole,
riparian landowners opposed restrictions on development and land use
practices (Roggenbuck and Kushman 1980). Only 33% of the private riparian
landowners favored easements for regulating riparian use and development,
and only 35% favored the state•s purchasing land from willing sellers (Table
7). Most property owners identify easements as an unwarranted and
unjustified encumbrance on their land (Countess et. al. 1977). Landowners
oppose the state purchasing private riparian lands for three main reasons:
1) a fear of an influx of recreationists to the area; 2) a belief that
-24-
condemnation would result on other lands once the government achieved
partial ownership; and 3) a belief that property taxes would increase on
remaining private lands (Roggenbuck and Kushman 1980). According to
TABLE 7. Riparian Landowners' Agreement With Alternative Techniques of Wild
River Policy Implementation. Adopted from Roggenbuck and Kushman
(1980).
Alternative
Revised or new laws to lessen
present restriction on use
and development
Increased participation by
local residents in DNR
decisions
Written agreements between
the DNR and landowners to
guide use and development
Tax incentives to encourage
landowners to maintain their
property in a natural
condition
Zoning to guide use and
provide protection to river
Easements to guide use
and development
State acquisition of land
from willing sellers
Condemnation of properties
within the 400-foot zone
along the rivers
Agree Neutral Disagree
-----------Percent------------
40 20 40
76 8 16
62 11 27
69 12 . 19
54 12 34
33 16 51
35 8 57
14 5 81
Coughlin and Plaut (1978), however, if public access is required, in
addition to achieving conservation objectives, public ownership is necessary
as easements will not be sufficient. Not only are the terms of easements
very difficult to enforce, but the administrative costs of enforcement over
many years may far outweigh the initial cost difference between easement and
fee-title purchase (Priesnitz and Harrison 1977). When landowners are
willing to sell land for conservation purposes, they appear to prefer
selling to private conservation organizations rather than to public agencies
(Burns 1978). Landowners fear that public ownership will increase access
and recreation, along with trespassing, littering, and vandalism, on nearby
private lands.
-25-
Curtiss (1977) describes the problems, confusion, and conflicts that arise
between and among landowners and public users when river corridors come
under multiple ownership. Regulations become complex and often
contradictory. The maze of federal, state, and local laws and private
property rights leads to overlapping controls, confusion, and conflicts.
These widen the dichotomy between user and landowner, and both sides, as
well as the resource, bear the consequence. When this occurs, issues arise
that must be resolved politically. The concerns of a local constituency and
their political support may outweigh the benefits to the public-at-large.
In California, a major obstacle to riparian land protection is the riparian
landowner (Burns 1978). Protecting agricultural lands from flooding and
erosion and protecting private property rights elicits a quick response from
elected officials. Flood control projects are implemented that give little
consideration to impacts on fish and wildlife populations.
Access Problems in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
In the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, trespass and congestion around lakes and
along streams has become a prevalent problem that continues to worsen.
Conflicts arise both between public users {primarily sport fishermen) and
private landowners and among public users. The problem is most severe where
salmon streams cross the Parks Highway between Willow and Talkeetna and
around lakes in the Matanuska Valley. Eastside Susitna River tributaries
that cross the Parks Highway support excellent salmon runs and attract large
numbers of anglers mostly from Anchorage and the Matanuska Valley. Along
Willow Creek, Little Willow Creek, Sheep Creek, Kashwitna River, Goose
Creek, Sunshine Creek, and Birch Creek, the only public access is by a state
reserved 100-300 foot-wide highway right-of-way or by launching a boat from
the highway. All other access is across private lands.
Conflicts result from a combination of increasing human population, changing
land ownership patterns, poorly surveyed or marked access, limited or no
access to some sites, and absence of clear definitions of the rights and
limitations of landowners and the public within access easements. Wherever
private property supports good fishing or recreation in the absence of
nearby public lands and access, ~respass becomes a problem.
When such situations arise, the public loses opportunities to utilize public
resources, and enjoyment of recreational activities is greatly reduced.
Meanwhile property owners feel their rights have been violated. Many
landowners regret having granted easements because of the increases in
public use and continued lack of management. Disrespect for both public
and private property and lack of environmental awareness on the part of
certain recreationists has often created or worsened existing problems.
Lack of public recreational areas near population centers leads to
overcrowding at existing sites. Overuse at recreational sites and boat
launch areas has resulted in environmental degradation and pollution,
sanitation problems, public safety problems, and excessive noise and litter.
Continued overuse of sites can result in loss of vegetation and lead to
accelerated erosion, habitat degradation, or disruption of fish and wildlife
populations.
-26-
Past land disposals have not adequately retained public lands that support
productive fish and wildlife populations or provide ample access to these
resources. In addition, in recreational areas sufficient public lands are
needed for recreationists to disperse. The population of Anchorage is
currently increasing at a rate of 2,000 residents per month. The state's
population is projected to increase by approximately 17 percent in the next
10 years. An increased population with more leisure time will demand more
access to and along public and navigable waters. Without proper planning,
existing conflicts can only be expected to worsen.
Many examples of these problems can be found in the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough. In addition, it often costs the state millions of dollars to
rectify problems that were created by poor planning.
At Birch Creek (reached from the Talkeetna Spur road), access to an
excellent salmon fishery has been blocked by a landowner who has erected a
cyclone fence across the creek and shoreline at the outlet of Fish Lake.
The fence blocks access to upstream areas. Conflicts have led to incidences
such as smashed car windows. All access to Goose Creek has been denied to
the public by a few private landowners. A public resource has become part
of a private hunting and fishing cl~b.
Recently, in an attempt to alleviate access problems and overcrowding, the
state purchased land on both sides of Montana Creek between the Parks
Highway and the Susitna River. The cost was $1.2 million. More purchases
are still necessary to ease conflicts on upriver portions, where any public
use involves trespass. One landowner attempted to physically block access
across neighboring private lands that permitted public access. The
landowner attempted to charge people $10.00 per day to park their cars on
his land.
The state recently purchased five acres for $25,000 for access to Sheep
Creek. While this may help alleviate the problem of reaching the creek, it
does not relieve overcrowded conditions at the creek nor permit movement up
and down the creek corridor. Both Caswell and Sunshine creeks have trespass
and litter problems.
Since 1980, 11 AAC 53.330. has authorized the director of the'Department of
Natural Resources to reserve a minimum 50-foot easement to provide for
public access along inland navigable or public water. "The director shall
(also) reserve an easement or right-of-way to provide access to coastal or
inland navigable public water in the conveyance of land adjacent to or
containing that water.~. (of) at least 50 feet wide." Without a current
status plat it is difficult at best for the public to know when land was
disposed of and whether an easement pertains to specific parcels or to all
the land in an area. Under 11 AAC 53.350, "the director may require as a
condition of any sale, lease, grant or other disposal of State land that the
purchaser, lessee or grantee survey, mark or survey and mark public
easements ... " In addition, 11 AAC 53.340. allows the director to publish a
directory of navigable and public waters and of the easements that provide
access to and along them.
-27-
To further complicate matters, conditions affecting easements on Native
lands come under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and have
diffe~ent stipulations.
The Department of Fish and Game stocks 25 lakes in the Matanuska Valley.
All have easements or rights-of-way for access to the lake, but access
around the lake and activities allowed in this access zone are open to
interpretation.
Both Rocky Lake and Finger Lake are stocked with fish at public .expense.
Both have public campgrounds. However, anglers without a boat are
restricted to the campground area. Better fishing sites around the lake are
privately owned. Florence Lake, east of Willow, has a section line easement
from the road to the lake. Within this easement, a landowner added a porch
onto his house. He then posted no trespassing signs in an attempt to block
public access. Prater Lake and Memory Lake in the Matanuska Valley are
other examples of lakes where access easements have created landowner
conflicts with fishermen.
Because of limited and marginal access at Seymour Lake (Big Meadow Lake),
the public is utilizing more than just the right-of-way and is disturbing
adjacent landowners. Limited and poorly defined public use areas and lack
of management have resulted in litter, noise, unattended fires, and
tree-cutting on public and private lands.
The seven lakes in the Keppler-Bradley Lake complex near Palmer are all
stocked. Because of public demand for recreational sites, the state spent
$3 million to purchase land once held in the public domain. The main
entrance to the area is still controlled by a private landowner who has
entered into an agreement with the state to allow access.
As a result of various federal and state land disposal programs over the
years, much of the land along the Parks Highway and in the Matanuska Valley
was transferred to private interests, particularly through homesteading
programs. After gaining title to the land, many landowners moved elsewhere
or sold their land, often having it subdivided. In the past, with fewer
fishermen and either absentee or consenting landowners, access to lakes and
streams was not as significant a problem as it is today. Over the years,
the population has increased, people have acquired more leisure time, and
landownership patterns have changed. Gaining access and avoiding conflicts
while traversing several parcels of private land becomes more difficult than
crossing only one parcel. Many landowners are reluctant to grant access
when it involves many individuals rather than a few, especially now that
more of the land is developed for private housing. However, because
historically access was available many recreationists continue to use land
unaware or in spite of trespass violations.
LOSS OF RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS
The conversion of floodplain forests to alternate land uses has been
responsible for making riparian ecosystems among the most severely altered
land forms in the nation. In the contiguous 48 states, over 70% of the
-28-
estimated original coverage of riparian ecosystems has been altered or
eliminated. As of 1981, riparian communities comprised less than 2% of the
total land area in the 48 states (Brinson et al. 1981).
The alteration and destruction of riparian ecosystems on a national level
has been gradual but steady. Historically, elimination of riparian lands
has essentially followed a consistent pattern, and the extent of riparian
vegetation has been reduced by a substantial amount in every region of the
country. The same qualities that are attractive and productive for
vegetation and wildlife also attract human development. Impacts from water
development, agriculture, grazing, settlement, and forestry have been the
primary forces responsible both directly and indirectly for the loss of this
valuable habitat. With this loss goes a decrease in fish and wildlife
populations and a loss of recreational opportunities.
Riverine bottomlands were frequently the first areas homesteaded by newly
arrived settlers. Rivers and their fertile valleys provided abundant fish,
game, furs, and other easily harvested natural resources needed by early
inhabitants. Rivers also served as transportation corridors, and water
power was easily converted to an energy source. The same fertile soils and
abundant water that supported diverse vegetation and wildlife also proved to
support rich agricultural development. As development continued, more land
was cleared, and greater demands were made on riparian resources. Growing
human populations increased demands for transportation, economic ·
development, homesites, water supplies for domestic, industrial, and
agricultural development, as well as flood protection for homes and crops.
While vegetation and wildlife are adaptable and resilient to many of the
unpredictable forces of nature, human developments generally are not.
Various combinations of dams, dikes, levees, drainage ditches, water
diversions, alterations, and stream channeling were used to accomplish
protective goals. These alterations lead to secondary losses of habitat.
With improved protection from the natural forces of the river, human
populations. increased and placed more demands upon the riparian land. More
land was cleared of native vegetation and converted to alternate uses. The
cumulative impacts of increasing populations, continuous development, land
use changes, and the resulting loss of vegetation and modification of
hydrologic regimes have numerous adverse effects on fish and wildlife.
Where modification of habitat has been most severe, certain species have
become scarce. Of the 276 species of plants and animals listed as
threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 80 are
directly or indirectly dependent on riparian ecosystems (Brinson et al.
1981).
Although the amount of riparian vegetation present before the arrival of
Europeans to North America and the amount remaining today are often
difficult to assess, there are many examples to indicate the startling loss
that has taken place in many parts of the country.
In the 1850 1 s along the floodplain of the Sacramento River, California•s
largest river, there existed an estimated 775,000 acres of riparian forests.
By 1952, 27,000 acres remained, and by 1972 there were less than 18,000
acres of riparian forests along the river (Sands 1978). Of the state•s
remaining riparian lands, between 60 and 90% is privately owned (Warner
-29-
1982). As urban development and streambank erosion claim prime agricultural
land, (Figure 2) additional riparian forests must be cleared for conversion
to agricultural production.
Riparian vegetation along the Colorado River has been cleared at a rate of
about 3,000 acres per year. Additionally, water management practices and
overgrazing have encouraged the replacement of native plant species by
introduced exotic species that provide poorer wildlife habitat (Anderson et
al. 1978).
According to David E. Morine, Director of Land Aquisition for the Nature
Conservancy:
When originally acquired, the Louisiana territory contained over
50 million acres of bottomland (riparian) hardwoods. Currently there
are less than 3.5 million acres left in America (48 contiguous states)
and these are being destroyed at a rate of 300,000 acres per year.
Seven out of every eight acres of bottomland forest has been drained
and cleared.
For the Mississippi River floodplain, the rate of clearing has averaged
about 2% per year over the past 20 years (Brinson et al. 1981). A study
published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that since 1937
over 6.6 million acres of bottomland hardwood in the Mississippi River delta
have been cleared and converted to soybean production. The report estimates
that by 1985, 86% of the original bottomland forests will be destroyed. Of
the remaining bottomland forests in this region, only 700,000 acres are in
public ownership (National Wetland Newsletter 1982). As with Alaska•s
riparian lands, those in the southeast United States support an abundance of
fish and wildlife and provide excellent hunting, fishing, and recreational
opportunities. This tremendous loss of habitat has occurred in a region
where a larger proportion of the people hunt and fish than any other portion
of the country and the commercial and sport fishing enterprise constitute a
multi-billion dollar industry (National Wetland Newsletter 1982).
As previously mentioned, several factors have combined to severely alter or
eliminate riparian forests in the lower 48 states. Most of these habitat
losses have come at considerable expense to the taxpayer. Most are the
result of secondary habitat losses, after initial settlement is established.
The effects of local or regional projects, however, often extend far beyond
the intended target area. Among these are federal and state spending for
water resource developments such as flood control and drainage projects,
stream channelization for agricultural soil conservation programs,
government subsidies and price supports for crops, and preferential tax
policies.
CURRENT PROGRAMS FOR PROTECTING RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS
Increased recognition of the important public benefits and functions of
riparian ecosystems and the extent to which they have been altered has
resulted in efforts by the federal government and some states to exercise
some control over development in riparian corridors and acquire riparian
lands for public use.
-30-
State Programs
Numerous alternatives for protecting riparian lands from future alteration
or destruction are being utilized in various parts of the country. These
include acquisition by fee simple and less-than-fee simple interest,
acquisition of easements, leasing, direct government regulation, economic
incentives, and management through compatible use. The Alaska Department of
Fish and Game endorses a policy of maintaining riparian ecosystems in public
ownership, especially when these lands are already held by the state.
Examples from other states that have recognized the need for riparian land
protection illustrate the high cost to the taxpayer of reacquiring these
lands for public use. As a result, most programs are a case of too little,
too late, or a second-best alternative. Acquisition of only a portion of
the floodplain or stream segment does not assure adequate protection because
disturbances in upstream areas or adjacent habitats can have downstream
impacts extending far beyond the immediate area. However, many states are
attempting to rectify past policies in land management, and the following
discussion will present some examples of on-going programs.
Six states have adopted special legislation for the protection of inland
shoreland areas: Maine, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and
Michigan (Kusler 1980). All six states define shoreland in relation to the
high water mark of rivers and lakes. Depending on the state, distance from
the high water mark to the shoreland boundary varies from 200 feet in
Washington to 1000 feet in Michigan and Vermont. In addition, some of these
states regulate river shorelands up to 300 feet from the high water mark or
to the landward side of the 100-year floodplain. This minimum distance
varies from 200 feet in Washington to up to 300 feet in Wisconsin and
Minnesota. In general, one of two main approaches has been used to classify
shoreland areas. The first method classifies specific riparian lands
individually, such as particular wetlands around individual lakes. The
second approach classifies lakes and streams in their entirety as 11 natural
environment 11 or 11 recreational development 11 or 11 ge~eral development ... These
classifications then determine minimal standards.
Wisconsin's shoreland zoning act (WIS. ·sTAT. ANN. 144.26,59.971) has been in
effect since 1965. It requires all counties to adopt zoning regulations
for the protection of shoreland corridors in unincorporated areas.
Shorelands are defined as lying within 1,000 feet of the highwater mark of a
lake, pond, or flowage, or within 300 feet of a river or stream or to the
landward side of a floodplain (Figure 4). The Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources is responsible for establishing a comprehensive plan for
navigable waters and their shorelands. Different-use districts are
designated. Enforcement of the zoning ordinances has been difficult
(National Wetland Newsletter, 1980). No development is permitted in the
shoreland-wetland zone except for minor structures associated with hunting,
fishing, hiking, wild crop harvesting, and sustained yield forestry. In
1A more detailed description of state shoreland programs can be found in B.
Berger, J. Kusler, and S. Klinginer, Lake-Shoreland Management Programs:
Selected Papers, Univ. of Mass. Water Resources Research Center, Publ. No.
69, Technical Report, Amherst, Mass. (1976).
-31-
SHORELAND
BOUNDARY
SHORELAND BOUNDARY
TO LANDWARD SIDE OF-~
FLOOD PLAIN
F-igre 4. Wisconsin,s shoreline delineation.
(From Kusler, J., 1980)
-31a-
NORMAL
HIGH-WATER
ELEVATION
100 YEAR RECURRENCE
INTERVAL FLOOD OR
MAXIMUM FLOOD OF
RECORD
1982 the state legislature enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 839, which requires
protective zoning of shoreland wetlands in c~ties and villages. Wetlands to
be zoned must be five acres or more in size.
All shoreland regulatory programs apply state standards for local adoption
of zoning, subdivision controls, and, in some instances, sanitary codes.
Minimum standards include pollution control, wildlife protection, preventing
land use conflicts, reducing flood and erosion hazards, wetland protection~
and protecting aesthetic and recreational values.
Twenty-four states have adopted legislation for the protection of wild,
scenic, or recreational rivers (Table 8) (Kusler 1980). State-designated
rivers may be included in the National Scenic and Wild River Program.
Inclusion in the federal program protects the rivers from federal water
resources projects. In general, acts provide that wild, scenic, or
recreational rivers are distinguished, based upon their "extraordinary"
"unusual," or particular "water conservation, scenic, recreational, or
wildlife values." (Kusler 1980). Some states impose tight controls on
structures within rivers, such as dams, but do not regulate shoreland areas.
Minnesota and Michigan authorize a state standard for local regulation in
corridors up to 1,320 feet and 400 feet wide, respectively. Regulatory
objectives include preserving water quality and free-flowing river
conditions, protecting natural scenic beauty, vegetation, wildlife, and
recreational values. Secondary objectives include minimizing alternate user
conflicts, controlling access, protecting health and safety, and reducing
flood damage. The Oregon Supreme Court sustained shoreland regulations for
a one-fourth mile wide corridor along the Rogue River (Kusler 1980).
In Florida, the 1981 Save our Rivers Act created a fund to enable the
state's water management districts to acquire lands needed for water
management. Another act (FLA. STAT. Section 259) created in 1979
established the Conservation and Recreation Lands Program. This program
authorizes state selection and purchase of lands containing Florida's most
valuable conservation and recreational resources. Under this act, a trust
fund was created to acquire lands. Money comes from severance taxes on the
mining of minerals and oil and gas.
For further information on this legislation, contact Wisconsin Wetlands
Association, 2 South Fairchild Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53703; (608)
256-0565, or Editor, Environmental Law Institute, Suite 600, 1346
Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036.
-32-
TABLE 8. Summary of State Wild and Scenic Rivers Programs.
System or How Established (date) Number
State Program Legislative Admin. of Rivers
Alabama System 1969 1
Alaska None
Arizona None
Arkansas None
Ca 1 iforni a System 1972 9
Colorado None
Connecticut None
District of Columbia None
Florida Program 1972 0
Georgia System 1969 0
Hawaii None
Idaho None
Illinois None
Indiana System 1972 2
Iowa System 1970 1
Kansas None
Kentucky System 1972 8
Louisiana System 1970 43
Maine System 1966 1
Maryland System 1971 9
Massachusetts Program 1971 0
Michigan System 1970 6
Minnesota System 1973 4
Mississippi None
Missouri None
Montana None
Nebraska None
Nevada None
New Hampshire None
New Jersey None
New Mexico None
New York System 1973 61
North Carolina System 1971 2
North Dakota System 1975 1
Ohio System 1968 8
Oklahoma System 1970 5
Oregon System 1971 8
Pennsylvania Program 1972 0
Puerto Rico None
Rhode Island None
South Carolina System 1974 0
South Dakota Program 1972 0
Tennessee System 1968 11
Texas None
Utah None
Vermont None
-33-
TABLE 8. (Continued)
Virginia System 1970 2
Washington None
West Virginia System 1969 5
Wisconsin System 1965 3
Wtoming None
Total 24 2 190
Source: Bureau of Outdoor Recreation~ Wild and Scenic Rivers, Outdoor
Recreation Action, No. 43, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation, Washington, D.C., Spring 1977.) Adapted from
Kusler (1980).
Due to the shortage of public funds and the high cost of land acquisition an
alternative method of riparian land protection has been established in
Oregon. The Oregon state legislature passed a bill (S.B. 397) that grants
property tax exemptions and income tax credits to private landowners who
voluntarily dedicate their riparian lands to wildlife uses. The bill states
that 11 the legislative assembly declares that it is in the best interest of
the state to maintain, preserve, conserve and rehabilitate riparian lands to
assure the protection of the soil, water, fish and wildlife resource of the
state for the economic and social well-being of the state and its citizens ...
In Oregon•s approach to riparian land protection the emphasis is placed on
local administration and self-management by landowners. The program was
attractive to landowners interested in more monetary incentives and less
regulation. It is too early to evaluate the effectiveness of this
legislation in achieving goals, such as increased salmon p3oduction, stream
bank stabilization, and increased late-season streamflows.
This type of program does not necessarily allow access; landowners are not
committed to the program over a long time frame, and agreements must be
renegotiated with a change of ownership. Further, a program of this type is
no guarantee for protection of large continuous tracts of land necessary to
support populations of highly mobile species such as moose. Such a program
does not provide incentive to protect critical habitats such as moose
wintering grounds, and it has not been in existence long enough to have been
tested for effective enforcement. It must also be determined what
acceptable level of economic gain is necessary to encourage a landowner to
participate in such a program. Clearly, such a program remedies only some
of the symptoms created by past practices and does not solve the underlying
cause of the problem.
The Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife has spent an average of
over $500,000 per year for the last 15 to 20 years for the purchase of
private land for public access, recreation, and habitat protection (Dick
3 For futher information on this legislation, contact Water Resources
Analyst, Metro Office, Oregon Wilderness Coalition, 2637 S.W. Water St.,
Portland, Oregon 97201.
-34-
Scherzinger, pers. comm.). Some of these costs include money for
development and maintenance. In one of its larger projects, the state
recently purchased 17 miles of river frontage along the Deschutte River.
Money came from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Parks, and public
contributions. Total cost equalled $1.6 million. Another major state
purchase of riparian lands involved buying 11 miles of river frontage along
the Middle Fork of the Malheur River. Purchased in the late 1970's, this
cost $750,000 (Dick Scherzinger, pers. comm.).
In 1947, the California legislature passed the Wildlife Conservation Act
(chapter 1325, statutes 1947). Section 1 of the act states:
It is hereby declared that the preservation, protection and restoration
of wildlife within the State of California is an inseparable part of
providing adequate recreation for our people in the interest of public
welfare; and it is further declared to be the policy of the state to
acquire and restore to the highest possible level, and maintain in a.
state of high productivity those areas that can be most successfully
used to sustain wildlife and which will provide adequate and suitable
recreation. To carry out the aforesaid purposes, a single and
coordinated program for the acquisition of lands and facilities
suitable for recreational purposes and adaptable for conservation,
propagation and utilization of the fish and game resources of the
state is hereby established.
This act established the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB). The purpose· of
the WCB is to acquire and develop lands and waters for wildlife conservation
and related recreational purposes for the State Department of Fish and Game
(DOF&G).
In 1951, the WCB began land acquisitions. Prior to 1951 all lands were
acquired directly by the DOF&G. Information prior to 1951 is not available.
Between 41951 and December 31, 1982, the WCB has spent approximately $22.3
million acquiring land in riparian habitats (pers. comm., John Wentzel,
WCB). This includes purchases and easements for the purpose of access to
freshwater fishing sites, fish habitat protection, and protection of river
and stream riparian wildlife habitat. In addition, land valued at
$676,000.00 was donated to the state through the WCB. Donations are tax
deductible.
The WCB has spent approximately $33.5 million in acquiring coastal fishing
access, freshwater and coastal wetlands, hunting access, deer winter and
summer range, bighorn sheep range, and lands acquired for the protection of
threatened and endangered plants and animals. Some of this undoubtedly
includes riparian lands but has not been included in the above dollar value
for riparian acquisitions. A large percentage of this money goes to
acquiring wetlands and state waterfowl management areas.
4 $7,354,000 included in the $22.3 million was acquired with State Water
Project (California Aquaduct) funds for mitigation of damage to wildlife
habitat during construction. I do not know how much of this cost was used
for riparian land acquisition.
-35-
A breakdown by primary recreational use of each acquisition is difficult, as
many of the areas provide several recreational opportunities and also
protect valuable habitat. ·
Much of this land was purchased prior to the recent inflationary spiral, and
present costs and future costs will be much higher.
Other municipal, county, state, and federal agencies are also responsible
for acquring land for access, recreation, and habitat protection. The
amount acquired and costs incurred by the WCB is probably a relatively small
percentage of the total for riparian land acquisitions within the state.
The Riverine Corridor concept in California was first implemented on the
American River. Sacramento County has purchased 4,100 acres along a 23 mile
stretch of the American River at an average cost of approximately $4,000 per
acre; this amounts to a total cost of roughly $16 million (Walt Veda, pers.
comm.). The county still has plans to purchase another 800 acres but is
hindered by rising costs and lack of funds. Additionally, the county has
purchased small tracts of 0.5 to 4.5 acres along the Sacramento River for
public access to fishing. There was a proposal (as of 1979) to establish a
Sacramento River Parkway (corridor) with a length of over 300 miles and a
width of 300 feet on each side of the river. Land acquisition costs were
estimated at $165 million (Warner 1982). The high cost of acquisition made
enancting this proposal an impossibility. Although funds are often
available for acquisition, purchase of important riparian tracts is not
assured. Both the Wildlife Conservation Board and the Department of Parks
and Recreation have been unsuccessful in acquiring fee title or easements to
important riparian lands (Burns 1978). Other counties have similar programs
and are competing for federal and state money. Because of. the high costs
involved in purchasing land, emphasis is being placed on zoning to protect
riparian ecosystems (Ross Henry, pers. comm.).
In California, legislation (AB 3147, 1978) provided funding for a two year
Department of Fish and Game study to survey California's remaining riparian
lands and make recommendations for action by the legislature. California
Fish and Game established a riparian task force to develop programs and
procedures for the maintenance, protection, and restoration of the state's
riparian resources.
Idaho is similar to Alaska in that a high percentage of land within the
state is owned by the federal government. Yet, despite the large amount of
public land and the fact that the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management have retained some riparian lands, there is still a big demand
for public access to rivers and lakes (Gene deReus, pers. comm.). In
addition, development qf private lands has interfered with the migration
routes of big game. As a result, the state has been spending public money
to purchase private lands, acquire easements, and lease lands to provide
public access to the state's waters.
Since 1965, the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation has spent
approximately $13.3 million (combined state and federal money) purchasing
riparian land from private landowners (Dale Christiansen, pers. comm.).
With $2.00 received from the sale of every hunting and fishing license the
-36-
Idaho Department of Fish and Game spends $450,000 per year for land
acquisition, easements, and leases for the purpose of 11 Sportsmen access 11 to
rivers and lakes and for habitat protection (Gene deReus, pers. comm.).
In the State of Washington the InteragencY Committee for Outdoor Recreation
(!COR) oversees land acquisitions for state resource agencies. Between 1965
and 1981 the !COR has assisted the State Game Department in purchasing 273
parcels of land. Of these, 218 (80%) have included riparian fish and
wildlife habitats. During this 16 year period, 37,385 acres of riparian
lands were purchased for th~ Department of Game at a cost of nearly $6.2
million (Ronald Taylor, pers. comm.). According to Mr. Taylor, this is not
the total sum but represents the majority of the riparian land acquisitions.
Money comes from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund and the State
Capital Budget. The Department of Game also acquires land with money made
available through the Pittman-Robertson Act. Additionally, the !COR has
funded another 1,500 projects by state and local agenices for the purchase
of recreational lands. Due to financial constraints, land acquisition
projects have been reduced in the past few years, although demand for public
recreational lands and access to them is still high.
Private Programs
Not all projects and programs for the protection of riparian lands are
initiated by public agencies. The private sector as it begins to understand
and recognize riparian values is also contributing time and money to protect
riparian resources. Some of the best examples come from work done by the
Nature Conservancy, a national conservation organization committed to
preserving natural diversity.
The conservancy also enters into cooperative programs with state agencies.
In 1974, the Mississippi Game and Fish Department, with the Assistance of
the Nature Conservancy, drafted legislation to create the Mississippi .
Wildlife Heritage Committee. The goal of the committee is to create and
implement a state-wide comprehensive natural resources program to guarantee
the preservation of the state•s most important wildlife habitats through
acquisition or other means. Many of these habitats are in riparian
ecosystems. In another effort in the Southeast, the Nature Conservancy,
with a grant of $15 million and by raising matching funds, is attempting to
purchase key tracts of l~nd to protect six major river systems. The
conservancy•s goal is a total gain of 350,000 acres of river habitat. The
purchase price of this land is over twice the original cost for the entire
Lousisiana Territory, an area of over 525,911,680 acres.
Another strategy used by the Nature Conservancy for protecting habitats is
acquisition of conservation easements. Along nine miles of the Brule River
in northern Wisconsin, the conservancy has negotiated easements with private
landowners for protecting the natural character of almonst 5,000 acres. The
conservation easements are parcel specific but contain some common
provisison. Mining, alteration of topography, alteration of water courses,
filling or removal of gravel, sand, topsoil, rock, or other materials, and
dumping trash, noncompostable garbage, or other offensive materials are
prohibited. Also prohibited are commercial development, access to
commercial development, billboards, mobile homes, off-road vehicles,
-37-
grazing, shooting within one-quarter mile of raptor nests, application of
herbicides and pesticides (except in home gardens), and introduction of
non-native species. A conservation easement is a legally enforceable
restriction that attaches to the land in perpetuity and is recorded at the
register of deeds office. In addition, the landowner is entitled to a
charitable contribution deduction on his federal income tax, equal to the
amount of the reduction in the value of the property.
Federal Programs
The federal government has also recognized the values and special mangement
needs of riparian ecosystems. The Environmental Protection Agency and the
U.S. Forest Service (1978) published a cooperative report describing a
survey of streamside management zone laws, ordinances, and regulations on
state and private lands in all 50 states, some counties, and local
jurisdictions. At least 209 laws are applicable to riparian areas (Duff
1980). Thirty-one percent of these laws have been enacted since 1980.
Executive Order 11988, May 24, 1977, Floodplain Management (42 FR 26951),
requires that federal agencies all 11 take action to reduce the risk.of flood
loss, to minimize the impact of flood loss, to minimize the impacts of
floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the
natural and b~neficial values served by floodplains.11 This is an important
act because many riparian areas have been adversely affected by federally
funded projects for development of agricultural lands, flood control
projects, water diversions, and road construction.
Executive Order 11990, May 24, 1977, Protection of Wetlands (42 FR 26961),
may also be applicable, as riparian ecosystems are considered wetland
ecosystems by many authors (Duff 1980, Brinson et al. 1981). This order
calls for 11 action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of
wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of
wetlands.11 It requires each federal agency to determine how its activities
affect wetlands and to revise regulations to minimize adverse impacts on
wetlands. As with EO 11988, this applies only to federal projects.
The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-542:82 Stat.
906, et sef.) can be applied to entire watersheds to ensure better
management of water quality and land use. Of the seven national and wild
scenic rivers in Alaska, not counting those in national parks or wildlife
refuges, none are within the boundaries of the Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga
Study Area.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law
92-500, Sec. 208; Stat. 816 et sef.) are intended to 11 restore and maintain
the sociological integrity of the nation's waters.11 Section 208 requires
water pollution controls for both point and non-point sources, including
soil erosion. This may be interpreted to have great significance for
requiring better managerial practices to protect riparian vegetation. This
legislation is being implemented through federal, state, and regional water
quality plans.
-38-
The Federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16. USC 661 et sef.)
requires federal agencies to give wildlife conservation equal consideration
with other features of water resource develomental programs. This includes
11 aquatic and land vegetation upon which wildlife is dependent ... While the
act gives wildlife managers the opportunity to comment and make
recommendations, the acceptance of these recommendations is not mandatory.
A possible federal alternative to Oregon Riparian Bill is the recently
introduced Conservation Land Sale Tax Incentive Bill (HR 6465). Introduced
into the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Robert Lagomarsino (R-CA) and
43 co-sponsors, the bill would give landowners a tax incentive for selling
or exchanging real estate to 11 qualified organizations•• for conservation
purposes, instead of to developers. Qualified organizations include
federal, state, and local agencies and private non-profit conservation
organizations. The conservation purposes must be protected in perpetuity
and may include 1) preservation for education or public recreation,
including hunting and fishing; 2) protection of fish, wildlife, and plant
habitat; and 3) land acquisition to carry out federal, state, or local
conservation programs.
Current legislation can go only so far in mitigating damages to riparian
systems. Another method commonly used, and among the most desirable methods
for long-term protection, is through direct federal or state acquisition of
riparian lands. Riparian lands have been purchased by agencies often with
money made available by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (16 U.S.C.
4601-4 to 4602-11). This act established the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. The fund provides money for purchase of fee and easement interests in
lands designated for protection of fish and wildlife and other ecological
values. ·
Alaska's Programs
The State of Alaska has few programs, laws, or policies that specifically
recognize and protect the functions and values of riparian ecosystems.
Those provisions most applicable to riparian ecosystems are contained. in the
Alaska Administrative Codes (ACC) and the Alaska Statutes (AS). The
Standards for Resources and Habitats (6 ACC 80.130) defines rivers, streams,
and lakes as habitat types in coastal areas subject to the Alaska Coastal
Management Program (ACMP). Section 6 AAC 80.130 c (7) states that rivers,
streams, and lakes will be managed to protect natural vegetation, water
quality, important fish and wildlife habitat, and natural flow. In
addition, Section 6 ACC.80.130 b (7) provides that rivers, streams, and
lakes shall be managed so as to maintain or enhance the biolgical, physical,
and chemical characteristics of the habitat that contribute to. its capacity
to support living resources.
The standards of the ACMP are implemented in three ways: 1) through local
coastal management plans; 2) through the ACMP's 11 State consistency 11
provisions, which require state agencies to carry out both planning and
regulatory actions that affect the use of coastal resources in a manner
consistent with both the ACMP standards and any local coastal management
programs; and 3) through the state's review of federal actions for
consistency with the state program.
-39-
The only statewide authority applicable to riparian areas is AS 16.05.870.
This authorizes the Alaska Department~of Fish and Game to regulate
activities proposed for streams supporting anadromous fish. The statute
states that the approval of the commissioner of the Department of Fish and
Game is needed to, use, divert, obstruct, pollute, or change the natural
flow or bed of a river, lake, or stream, specified as important to the
spawning or migration of anadromous fish. Alterations of riparian
vegetation may change the natural flow of a river if these alterations are
severe enough or encompass a large area.
Legislative designation of state game refuges, sanctuaries, and critical
habitats can be used for the protection of riparian lands or riverine
corridors. Under AS 16.20.220, the legislature can designate certain lands
and waters as "Fish and Game Critical Habitat Areas" to protect and preserve
habitats especially crucial to the perpetuation of fish and wildlife and to
restrict all other uses not compatible with that primary purpose.
Curran and Dwight (1979} review existing state wate~ use laws and their
administration. For a review of wetlands management in Alaska and the legal
authorities pertaining to it, see State of Alaska (1981).
Two recently introduced bills to the Alaska State Legislature also address
the need for better management of the state's rivers and streams. Senate
Bill No. 9, introduced in January 1983 by Vic Fishcher and Joe Josephson
(later withdrawn), included provisions for establishing state historical,
recreational, and wilderness waterways.
House Bill No. 278, introduced in March 1983, by Fritz, Malone, Szymanski,
and Bussell recognizes that ''Alaskan rivers are among the most impo~tant of
the State's natural resources and that they must be protected and preserved
for the maximum benefit of all Alaskans." To solve problems endangering
fish and wildlife habitats, increasing erosion, causing overcrowded,
unpleasant conditions, and causing a fragmentation of management
jurisdiction, this act would establish an Alaska Rivers Commission.
Already in Alaska demand for acquiring recreational access and public
recreational lands is much greater than the money available for purchase
(Russ Redick, pers. comm.). Lakes, rivers, and streams are the lands most
sought by recreationists. Due to the state's demographic patterns, demand
for recreational access and conflicts over land use are increasing,
especially on the Kenai Peninsula and in the Mat-Su Borough. In response to
public demands, the State Division of Parks has spent over $2 million buying
back private riparian lands once held in the public domain along rivers and
creeks in the Kenai Peninsula. Land purchases were targeted for areas
receiving heavy recreational use (Jack Wyles, pers. comm.). In 1982, the
legislature appropriated $3 million to buy back lands for access in the
Kepler-Bradley Lake System in the Mat-Su Borough. Land acquisition in the
Nancy Lakes area has cost the state over $565,000. To provide access, the
state recently spent $1.2 million to purchase land along Montana Creek and
$25,000 to purchase land adjoining Sheep Creek (page 27}. These costs have
been incurred because past land disposal systems did not consider future
population patterns and recreational needs, nor needs to protect natural
resources.
-40-
Another example of the public•s need for Alaska•s riparian lands and the
high cost to the taxpayer of "buying back•• this land can be found in
Anchorage. The municipality has been purchasing "greenbelt" tracts along
Fish Creek, Chester Creek, Ship Creek, and Campbell Creek. The municipality
is in the process of trying to acquire land along Little Campbell Creek and
Rabbit Creek, but with the rapid growth in Anchorage over the past few
years, demand for developable land has made land very expensive. Between
1976 and 1981, the municipality has spent $3.2 million to buy 60.4 acres
along Campbell Creek (Diane Reusing, pers. comm.).
-41-
LITERATURE CITED
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1973. Alaska's wildlife and habitat.
Juneau, Alaska. 144 pp .
.
~1~97~6~.--TA_c_o_m_p~i~la~t~i~on of fish and wildlife resource information for the
State of Alaska. Vol. 1, Wildlife. Anchorage, Ak. 425 pp.
~~--~~--~~· 1980. Alaska wildlife management plans -species management policies.
Juneau, Ak.
~~--~~~~~· 1982. Aquatic habitat and instream flow studies. Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies. Phase II: Basic Data Reports. Vol. 4., Part II.
Anchorage, Ak.
~~--~~--~~· 1982b. Placer mining issue paper. Fairbanks, Ak. 2 pp.
Aldrich, J.W.J and R.A. Johnson. 1979. Surface erosion sedimentation
associated with forest land use in Interior Alaska. University of
Alaska, Institute of Water Resources, Report No. IWR-99. Fairbanks, Ak.
87 pp.
Anderson, B.W., R.D. Ohmart, and J. Disano. 1978. Revegetating the
riparian floodplain for wildlife. In R.R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick
(Tech. Coord.), Strategies for the protection and management of
floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report
W0-12. Washington, D.C.
Behnke, R.J., and R.F. Raleigh. 1978. Grazing and the riparian zone.:
impact and management perspectives. In R.R. Johnson & J.F. McCormick
(Tech. Coord.) Strategies for protection and management of floodplain
wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report W0-12.
Washington, D.C.
Behnke, R.J., and M. Zarn. 1976. Biology and management of threatened and
endangered western trouts. United States Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service General Technical Report RM-28. Fort Collins., Colo.
45 pp.
Boyce, Mark S. 1974. Beaver population ecology in Interior Alaska. M.S.
Thesis, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks. 161 pp.
Brown, S., M.M. Brinson, and A.E. Lugo. 1978. Structure and function of
riparian wetlands. Pages 17-31 in R.R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick
(Tech. Coord.), Strategies for protection and management of floodplain
wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. United States Department of
-42-
Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report W0-12.
Washington, D.C.
Burger, C.V., D.B. Wangaard, R.L. Wilmot, and A.N. Palmisano. 1982. Salmon
investigations in the Kenai River, Alaska, 1979-1981. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. 178 pp.
Burns, J.W. 1972. Some effects of logging and associated road construction
on northern California streams. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. No. 101(1),
pp. 1-17.
Burns, J.W. 1978. Planning for riparian vegetation management in the
Sacramento River, California. In R.R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick
(Tech. Coord.), Strategies for protection and management of floodplain
wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report W0-12.
Washington, D.C.
Chamberlin, T.W. 1982. Influence of forest and rangeland management on
anadromous fish habitat in western North America. 3. Timber Harvest.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General
Technical Report PNW-136. 30 pp.
Clark, J.R. 1977. Coastal Ecosystem Management -A Technical Manual for
the Conservation of Coastal Zone Resources. John Wiley and Sons, New
York, New York. 927 pp.
Collins, T.C. 1976. Stream flow effects on beaver populations in Grand
Teton National Park. Pages 349-352 in R.L. Linn ed., First Conference
on Scientific Research in National Parks. USDI NPS. Trans. Proc.
Series 5. Vol. I. New.Orleans, La.
Cope, O.B., ed., 1979. Proceedings of the Forum-grazing and
riparian/stream ecosystems. Trout Unlimited Inc., Washington, D.C. 94
pp.
Cordone, A.J., and D.W .. Kelley. 1961. The influences of inorganic sediment
on the aquatic life of streams. California Fish and Game
47(2):189-228.
Coughlin, R.E., and T. Plaut. 1978. Less-than-fee acquisition for the
preservation of open space. AIP Journal, October, pp. 452-462.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1978. Environmental quality (Annual
Reports). Washington, D.C. 599 pp.
1980. Environmental Quality (Annual Reports). Washington, D.C. 497 pp.
Countess, M.L., W.L. Criley, and B.R. Allison. 1977. Problems and
conflicts associated with river recreation programming and management
in the east. Pages 147-150 in Proc.: River Recreation Management and
-43-
contingency table analysis. Oecologia 21: 157-173.
Johnson, R. 1979. Why do we need a national riparian initiative. Pages 1-8
in R.E. Warner ed., Proceedings of a workshop on fish and wildlife
resource needs in riparian ecosystems. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Water Resources Analysis Group.
Karr, J.R., and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality
goals. Environ. Manage. 5(1):55-68.
Kennedy, C.E. 1977. Wildlife conflicts in riparian management: ·water. In
R.R. Johnson and D.A. Jones (Tech. Coord.). Importance, preservation!
and management of riparian habitats: a sympos1um. United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report
RM-43. Washington, D.C.
Konkel, G.W., L.C. Shea, K.E. Bulchis, L.C. Byrne, D. Penquilly, K.
Stenehjem Lourie. 1980. Terrestial habitat evaluation criteria
handbook -Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Ak.
Kusler, J.A. 1980. Regulating sensitive lands. Environmental Law
Institute. Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 248
pp.
Le Resche, R.E., R.H. Bishop, and J.W. Coady. Distribution and habitats of
moose in Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, Ak.
No date.
Martin, S.B., and W.S. Platts. 1981. Influence of forest and range
management on anadromous fish habitat in western North America. 8.
Effects of Mining. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service. General Technical Report PNW. 119 pp.
McCorkle, C.O., Jr., and J.E. Halver (co-Chairman). 1982. Impacts of
emerging agricultural trends on fish and wildlife habitat. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 303 pp.
McKendrick, J., W. Collins, D. Helm, J. McMullen, and J. Koranda. 1982.
Alaska Power Authority, Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Environmental
Studies, Subtask 7.12:Plant Ecology, Phase 1 Final Report. University
of Alaska, Agricultural Experimental Station. Palmer, Ak.
Meehan, W.R., and W.S. Platts. 1978. Livestock grazing and the aquatic
environment. J. Soil and Water Conservation 33(6):274-278.
Meehan, W.R., F.J. Swanson, and J.R. Sedell. 1977. Influences of riparian
vegetation on aquatic ecosystems with particular reference to salmonid
fishes and their food supply. Pages 137-145 in R.R. Johnson and
D.A. Jones (Tech. Coord.), Importance, preservation and management of
riparian habitat: a symposium. United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report RM-43.
Washington, D.C.
-46-
Merritt, R.W., and D.L. Lawson. 1978. Leaf litter processing in floodplain
and stream communities. Pages 93-105 in R.R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick
(Tech. Coord.), Strategies for protection and management of floodplain
wetlands and other Riparian ecosystems. United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report W0-12.
Washington, D.C.
Metsker, H. 1982.
environment.
10 pp.
Toxicity of certain heavy metals on fish in the aquatic
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Ak.
Meyer, S.C. and R.C. Kavanaugh. 1983. Fish resources and the effects of
mining activities in the Kantishna Hills, Denali National Park, 1982.
USDI, National Park Service. Anchorage, Ak. 150 pp.
Miller, C.L. 1982. Floodplain management for Alaskan communities.
Department of Community and Regional Affairs. Anchorage, Ak.
Alaska
68 pp.
Modafferi, R.D. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Phase 1 Final Report.
Big Game Studies, Volume II, Moose -Downstream. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game. Anchorage, Ak. 114 pp.
Moore, E., E. Janes, F. Kinsinger, K. Pitney, and J. Sainsbury. 1979.
Livestock grazing management and water quality protection (State of the
art reference document), United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Seattle, Washington. EPA 910/9-79-67. 147 pp.
Murray, David F. 1961. Some factors affecting the production and harvest
of beaver in the upper Tanana River Valley, Alaska. M.S. Thesis, Univ.
of Alaska, Fairhanks. 103 pp.
National Wetland Newsletter. 1980. Vol. 2, No. 4. July-August 1980.
Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C.
1982. Vol. 4, No. 6. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C.
Norris, L.A., H.W. Lorz, and S.V. Gregory. 1983. Influence of forest and
rangeland management on anadromous fish habitat in western North
America. 9. Forest Chemicals. United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-149. 95 pp.
Palmer, T. 1981. Local protection of high quality streams. Environmental
Planning Information Series Report No. 6. Department of Environmental
Conservation. Harrisburg, Pa. 79 pp.
Platt, R.H., and G.M .. McMullen. 1979. Fragmentation of public authority
over floodplains: the Charles River response. Water Resources Research
Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. 112 pp.
Platts, W.S. 1979. Livestock grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems -an
overview. In O.B. Cope, ed., Proceedings of the Forum-Grazing and
riparian/stream ecosystems. Trout Unlimited. Vienna, Va.
-47-
Platts, W.S. 1981. Influence of forest and rangeland management on
anadromous fish habitat in western North America. 7. Effects of
livestock grazing. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service General Technical Report PNW-124. 25 pp.
Platts, W.S. 1982. Vegetation requirements for fisheries habitats. United
States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. Boise, Idaho. 4 pp.
Preston, D.J. 1982. The impacts of agriculture on wildlife. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. Project No. W-21-1. Fairbanks, Ak.
Priesnitz, M.F., and J. Harrison. 1977. Managing corridors in multiple
ownership. Pages 183-186 in Proc.: River Recreation Management and
Research Symposium. U.S. Department of Agriculture. General Technical
Report NC-28.
Reeves, G.H., and T.D. Roelofs. 1982. Influence of forest and rangeland
management on anadramous fish habitat in Western North America. 13.
Rehabilitating and enhancing stream habitat: 2. Field Applications.
United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service General
Technical Report PNW-140.
Roggenbuck, J~W., and K.G. Kushman. 1980. Riparian landowners• attitudes
toward a state wild river program. Journal of Forestry. Vol. 78.
No. 2. 3 pp.
Rummel, B.W. 1982. Agricultural practices and water quality effects.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Anchorage, Ak. 82
pp.
Sand~, A. 1978. Public involvement in riparian habitat protection - a
California case history. Pages 216-227 in R.R. Johnson and J.F.
McCormick, (Tech. Coord.), Strategies for-protection and management of
floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report
W0-12. Washington, D.C.
Schmiege, D.C. 1980. Influence of forest and rangeland management in
anadromous fish habitat in western North America, 11. Processing Mills
and Camps. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
General Technical Report PNW-113. 17 pp.
Sheridan, W.L., and W.J. McNeil. 1968. Some effects of logging on two
salmon streams in Alaska. J. Forestry 66(2):128-133.
Simpson, P. W., J.R. Newman, M.A. Keirn, R.M. Matter, and P.A. Guthrie.
1982. Manual of stream channelization impacts on fish and wildlife.
United States Fish and Wildlife ~ervice/OBS-82/24. Washington, D.C.
154 pp.
Singleton, G.A., O.A. Steen, K. Weagle, and D. Weir. 1978. Fish and
-48-
wildlife habitat recovery in ~lacer mined areas of the Yukon. Hardy
Associates, Ltd., Calgary, Canada. 131 pp.
Slough, B.G., and R.M.F.S. Sadleir. 1977. A land capability classification
system for beaver. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 55(8):1325-1335
Starr, S.J., M.N. Kuwada, and L.L. Trasky. 1981. Recommendations for
minimizing the impacts of hydrocarbon development on the fish, wildlife
and aquatic plant resources of the Northern Bering Sea and Norton
Sound. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division.
Anchorage, Ak. 525 pp.
State of Alaska. 1981. Wetlands management in Alaska: a report to the
Alaska Coastal Policy Council. Office of Coastal Management, Juneau,
Ak. 119 pp.
Stauffer, D.F., and L.B. Best. 1980. Habitat selection by birds of
riparian communities: evaluating effects of habitat alterations.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 44(1):1980.
Swanson, F.J., and C.T. Dyrness. 1975. Impact of clearcutting and road
construction on soil erosion by landslides in the western Cascade
Range, Oregon. Geology 3(7):393-397.
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. No date. Susitna Hydroelectric
Project Feasibility Report. Vol. 2 Sec. 1-4. Anchorage, Ak.
The Wildlife Society. 1982 •. Stream and streamside. (riparian) fish and
wildlife habitats -a report on the results of a public opinion survey
in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Chapter, Broken Arrow. 48 pp.
Thomas, J.W., C. Maser, and J.E. Rodiek. 1979. Riparian zones. Pages
40-47 in Wildlife habitats in managed forests -the Blue Mountains of
Oregon-and Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service Agriculture Handbook, No. 533.
Thomas, J.W., C. Maser, and J.E. Rodiek. 1981. Wildlife habitats in
managed rangelands -the Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon. Riparian
habitats. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
General Technical Report. PNW-10. 18 pp.
Thompson, D.B., T.L. Loudon, and J.B. Gerrish. 1979. Animal manure
movements in winter runoff for different surface conditions. In R .• C.
Loehn, ed., Best Management Practices for Agriculture and Silviculture.
Proceedings of the 1978 Cornell Agriculture Waste Management
Conference. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 740 pp.
Tripp, J. 1979. Who are our constituents and the decisionmakers. Pages
9-14 in R.E. Warner, ed., Proceedings of a workshop on fish and
wildlife resource needs in riparian ecosystems. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Water Resources Analysis Group.
Tubbs, A.A. 1980. Riparian bird communities of the Great Plains. In
-49-
R.M. De Graff (Tech. Coord.) Proceedings: management of western forests
and grasslands for non-game birds. United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report. INT-86.
Warner, R.E. 1982. Proceedings of a workshop on fish and wildlife resource
needs in riparian ecosystems. National Water Resources Analysis Group,
Eastern Energy and Land Use Team, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C. 53 pp.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1980. Gravel removal studies in arctic and
subarctic floodplains in Alaska. United States Department of the
Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, OBS-80/08.
Anchorage, Alaska. 401 pp.
Yeager, L.E., and W.H. Rutherford. 1957. An ecological basis for beaver
management in the Rocky Mountains region, Pages 269-300. Trans. 22nd
North American Wildlife Conference.
Yee, C.S., and~. Roelofs. 1980. Influence of forest and rangeland
management on anadramous fish habitat in western North America. 4.
Planning forest roads to protect salmonid habitat. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Forest Service General Technical Report. PNW-109. 26
pp.
Zemansky, G.M., T. Tilsworth, and D.J. Cook. 1976. Alaska mining and water
quality. Institute of Water Resources, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks, Alaska. 82 pp.
-50-
APPENDIX D
THE USE OF MOOSE AND OTHER WILD RESOURCES
IN THE TYONEK AND UPPER YENTNA AREAS
A BACKGROUND REPORT
by
James A. Fall, Resource Specialist III
Dan Foster, Fish and Game Technician III
Ronald T. Stanek, Resource Specialist II
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division of Subsistence
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
March 1983
ABSTRACT
This report contains background information on the use of moose and
other wild renewable resources by the residents of the village of Tyonek
(population 239) and the Upper Yentna area (population 145), both of
which lie in Game Management 16B. The data derive from two Division of
Subsistence research projects which have been investigating resource uses
in these areas in order to providi data for area and regional plans, and
to the Board of Fisheries and Game for their review of proposals for
regula tory change. Several proposals to reestab 1 ish a November moose
hunting season in GMU 16B will be considered by the Board of Game during
its Spring 1983 meeting. This report supplements an earlier Division
paper on the use of moose by Tyonek residents (Foster 1982a).
Research methodologies have included interviewing, participant-obser-
vation, and mapping. Data were collected from 52 percent of the Tyonek
househo 1 ds and 82 percent of the househo 1 ds in the Upper Yentna Area.
An annual round of resource harvests and a map of the geographic areas
used for these harvests are provided for both areas. In addition, harv.est
quantities for 43 resources or groups of resources are reported for the
Upper Yentna area. In both areas, residents harvest a wide range of
resources. At Tyonek, the three year average subsistence catch of salmon
has included 1, 900 kings and 250 reds. Fifteen moose were taken by
Tyonek hunters in September 1981. In 1982, Upper Yentna households
harvested an estimated maximum of 1,630 salmon, 1,800 freshwater fish,
and 30 moose for local use. Travel to hunting and fishing areas in the
Tyonek area is primarily by pickup truck along a network of roads built
for timber harvesting, by boat along several rivers, and by ATV. In the
roadl ess Upper Yentna area, travel is by boat, snowmachi ne, ATV, and
dogsled along rivers and trails and is highly dependent on weather con-
ditions.
The preservation of most meat and fish in both areas is accomplished by
methods not requiring electricity, including smoking, canning, and freez-
ing outdoors.
Over the past three years, an average of 59.6 percent of the households
in the Upper Yenta area harvested at least one moose; most unsuccessful
households received moose meat from other households. Harvest levels in
Tyonek were monitored in 1981 only. While sharing was extensive, the
total of fifteen moose harvested was said to be insufficient to meet
vi 11 age needs. Of the Tyonek households interviewed, 73 percent expressed
a preference to reopen a November or December moose season.
Residents in both areas have few sources of wage employment and utilize
a variety of sources of monetary income, most of which are seasona 1,
for the purchase of non-locally produced commodities. The use of local
harvests of wild, renewable resources has historically played a major
role in the economic and sociocultural systems of this region.
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
List of Figures •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• · ••••••••••••••••••••• iii
List of Tables ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• iv
Ackn ow 1 edgment s ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• v
Purpose ••••••••••••••••••••••••• ,• •••••••••••••••••••••• ~ •••••••••••• 1
Met hodo 1 ogy
Tyonek Comprehensive Resource Use Study •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2
Susitna Basin Resource Use Study ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3
Results
Patterns of Wild Resource Use in Tyonek •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6
General Characteristics of the Upper Yentna Area •••••••••••••••• 13
Settlement Patterns ••••.•.••••.••••••..••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13
Population Characteristics •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13
Wage Employment and other Monetary Incomes •••••••••••••••••••••• 16
Annual Round of Resource Harvest •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 20
Characteristics of Moose Harvest by Upper Yentna Residents •••••• 26
Discussion ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 29
Literature Cited ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 36
Appendix A ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 37
i i
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
LIST OF FIGURES
The Upper Yentna area in which households were
interviewed.
Geographic area of resource harvest used by Tyonek
residents 1978 to 1982.
Seasonal round of harvest activities by Tyonek
residents--1978-1982.
Areas used for moose hunting by Tyonek residents
during the 1981 moose season, representing a com-
posite of individual hunting areas.
The percentage of sampled Tyonek households which
participated in resource harvest during the period
of 1978-1982.
The length of residency in the Upper Yentna area
for the longest residing member of each household
in 1982.
The length of residency in Alaska for the longest
residing members in Upper Yentna households in 1982.
The age/sex structure of Upper Yentna households
in 1982.
The number of sources of monetary income of Upper
Yentna households in 1982.
The annual round of resources harvested, percentage
of households harvesting, and estimated quantities
harvested by Upper Yentna residents in 1982.
The number of resources harvested per household
in the Upper Yentna area in 1982.
Geographic area currently used for resource harvest
Upper Yentna residents indicating levels of use.
The three year moose harvest characteristics for
Upper Yentna households 1980-1982.
The household moose harvest for Upper Yentna households
during 1982.
The methods of meat preservation used by Upper Yent-
na households during 1982.
The amounts of moose meat preserved by various
methods by Upper Yentna households in 1982.
i i ;
PAGE
4
7
8
10
12
17
18
19
21
22
23
25
27
28
30
31
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure 17. The geographic area currently used by Upper Yentna
residents for moose hunting.
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. UPPER YENTNA HOUSEHOLD LAND ACQUISITION
TABLE 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF UPPER YENTNA HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS
iv
PAGE
32
14
15
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors received valuable input and assistance from a number of
individuals during the preparation of this document. Bob Wolfe, Research
Director, gave his valuable aid in reviewing data and commenting on the
text. Linda Ellanna, Deputy Director, also provided her comments.
We are especially thankful to_Jim Bitney, Joe Delia, and Vern Logan
for introducing us to area residents, providing transportation, and
advising during the field work.
As always, our sincere thanks go to the support staff of Alaska
Department of Fish and Game who assisted in typing and compiling this
report.
v
PURPOSE
This report describes the uses of wild resources and socioeconomic
characteristics of the residents of portions of Game Management Unit 16B.
It provides a background for the Board of Game's consideration of several
proposals for regulatory change which would open a November moose season
in that GMU.
The data derive from two ongoing Division of Subsistence research
projects. The first, the "Tyonek Comprehensive Resource use Study,"
commenced in 1980 and will conclude in 1984. The second, the "Susitna
Basin Resource Use Study," began in December 1982. One purpose of both
of these projects is to gather data on the current patterns of resource
uses by local residents of each area which may be incorporated into area
and regional land use plans. These data may aid in our understanding of
the potential effects of land disposals, timber sales, road construction,
and the development of nonrenewable resources such as coal, oil, and
gas. To date, the Division has been able to comment on several potential
resource development projects (such as Oil and Gas Lease Sales 33 and 40;
coal leases; geothermal leases) and, in addition, has provided data on
land use patterns for the Department of Natural Resources' Susitna Area
Plan.
A second major purpose of these projects is to provide information on
local uses of fish and wildlife to advisory committees, regional councils,
and the Boards of Fisheries and Game which may inform their consideration
of fish and game regulations. Accordingly, as particular regulations
have been subjected to review and modification, the Division has period-
1
ically prepared reports based on ongoing projects (Foster 1981; Stanek,
Fall, and Foster 1982). The current paper is an example of such a report.
While based in part on preliminary data describing only portions of the
unit under consideration, the paper depicts the general patterns of
resource use by residents of this area. This description can serve as a
context for understanding the use of moose.
Additionally, the paper will .also introduce the new Board of Game
members to the Division's research program in the Cook Inlet area and,
especially, outline the scope of our recently initiated work in the
Susitna Basin.
METHODOLOGY
Tyonek Comprehensive Resource Use Study
Research methodologies for the "Tyonek Comprehensive Resource Use
Study" have included formal interviewing with the aid of survey instru-
ments (Foster 1982a: Appendix B; 1982b:60-61), informal discussions, map-
ping, and participant observation. Data specific to the use of moose by
Tyonek's 239 residents were gathered in the fall of 1981. Of 48 identi-
fied moose hunters, 40 were interviewed. Hunting trips by several Tyonek
residents were also observed. Using United States Geological Survey
(USGS) 1:63,630 topographic maps, local residents indicated the areas
that they had hunted in 1981. From these maps, the researchers prepared
a composite map of the village moose hunting area. The complete results
of the research on 1981 moose harvests in Tyonek are discussed in Foster
1982a.
During the spring and summer of 1982, data were collected on the cur-
rent annual round of resource harvests in the Tyonek area. With the aid
2
of several key respondents, the researcher chose of a sample of 39 house-
holds representing 52 percent of the village households for intensive in-
terviewing. This sample included those households most active in resource
harvesting. Respondents were asked to indicate the resources which they
had regularly harvested within the last five years. The results of this
research included an annual round of hunting and fishing activities, an
estimate of the percentage of Tyonek households participating in harvest
activities, and a series of maps of harvest areas (Foster 1982b). The
major findings of this research are summarized below.
Susitna Basin Resource Use Study
Data on resource uses in the Upper Yentna study area (Figure 1) were
primarily collected through household interviews with the aid of an inter-
view guide (Appendix A) and in field notes. Prior to conducting household
interviews, Division staff discussed the proposed research, including its
purpose, objectives, and methods, with area residents at a public meeting
in Skwentna.
In a population census survey conducted by Schulling (1982) in the
same geographic area as this study, 145 full-time residents were identi-
fied. With the aid of local key informants, Division staff mapped the
approximate locations of homes of Upper Yentna residents. During a five
week period in December 1982 and January and February 1983, the Division
researchers attempted to interview as many of the households as possible.
At the end of the study period, 38 households, with a total population
9f 126, had been interviewed. This provided a sample of 87 percent of
the census population.
Several factors influenced the choice of househo 1 ds to contact,
3
STUDY AREA ~
SCALE
0 5 10 15
MILES
Figure 1. The Upper Yentna area in which households were interviewed.
4
including the availability of household members for interview, logistical
constraints such as availability of transportation, prevailing weather
conditions, and time limitations. There was a tendency to select those
households which were the most active users of local resources, such as
trappers, hunters and fishermen, and guides, although other residents who
' used resources to 1 esser degrees were not systematically excluded. An
effort was made to include in the .sample as many long-term residents as
possible.
Questions on the interview guide asked for household information ap-
propriate to 1982 use levels. When discussing harvest levels, many house-
holds were unable to recall exact harvest quantities for particular spe-
cies. This was particularly true for fish. In such cases, a range was
estimated. For big game and furbearers, respondents generally were able
to recall exact harvest levels.
The researchers attempted to arrange interviews before visiting each
home. This all owed residents to decide in advance whether they want'ed to
participate and to prepare for the discussion. Interviewees were given
the option of not answering questions with which they felt uncomfortable.
Two researchers were present for each interview. One researcher asked
questions from the interview form and recorded data pertinent to each
question, and the other researcher recorded addition a 1 information from
ensuing discussions.
All household members were encouraged to participate in the inter-
views. Since most interviews were prearranged, the persons most knowl-
edgeable about particular subjects were present to reply to specific
questions. In addition, this approach proved beneficial in reaching a
consensus on harvest quantities, seasons, or locations. In all inter-
5
views, open discussion of resource use activities was encouraged in order
to elicit any qualifiers to specific interview responses.
Mapping of resource use areas followed each interview. The research-
ers used the 1 i st of resources generated earlier as a guide in mapping
use areas, which was done on 1:63,630 USGS topographic maps. Because
mapping of use areas for a single year might not realistically represent
the area generally used, interview~es were asked to draw a line encompas-
sing the area they currently use to harvest each resource or category of
resources. Resource use areas were grouped into fishing, trapping, moose
hunting, wood gathering, berry picking, small game hunting, and bear
hunting areas.
RESULTS
Patterns of Wild Resource Use in Tyonek
The uses of wild resources by the residents of the village of Tyonek
have been described in detail in several Division reports (Stickney 1980;
Stanek and Foster 1980; Stanek, Fall, Foster 1982; Foster 1982a, 1982b).
In this regard, the reader should refer to Foster (1982a), Foster (1982b:
32-54), and Fall (1982). This section briefly summarizes these earlier
findings.
The geographic area utilized by Tyonek residents for the harvest of
resources from 1978 to 1982 is depicted in Figure 2. The harvest and
utilization of fish and game in the Tyonek area proceed according to an
annual round of activities (Figure 3). A new round begins each April as
groups of vi 11 agers travel south in dories to Redoubt Bay to harvest
razor clams and three other species of shellfish. These trips are usually
6
COOK INLET
TYONEK RESOURCE
HARVEST AREA
SCALE 0 s 10
MILES
15
Figure 6~ Geographic area of resource harvest used by Tyonek residents 1978 to 1982
7
SEASONAL ROUNU OF HARVeST ACTIVITIES FOR SELECTED SPECIES, TYONEK,AK. 1978-1982
Species APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
Razor Clam
Butter Clam -------
Redneck Clam------
Cockle
Hooligan
Herring
King Salmon
Red Salmon
Coal
---------
Harbor Seal
Belukha
Black Bear --------------------
Pink Salmon
Chum Salmon
snver Salmon
Berries
Edible Plants
Medici na 1 Pl ts.
Ducks
Geese
Moose
Brown Bear
Tomcod
----------------------------------
Spruce Grouse--------------------------------
Porcupine ---------------·----
wood
Snowshoe Hare
Ptarmigan
Mink
Marten
Fox
Coyote
Beaver
Otter
------------------
-------------------
Rainbow Trout-------------------------------------------------------
Dolly Varden---------------
Key: ____ Usual period of harvest effort; ------Occasional period of harvest effort.
Figure 3. Seasonal round of harvest activities by Tyonek residents (Foster
1982b:34)
8
organized by older, more experienced men with boats and motors. The vil-
lage harvest of 2,000-3,500 clams is distributed throughout the community.
Preparation for subsistence and commercial salmon fishing takes place
in late April and early May. During the summer months, the majority of
Tyonek households take salmon for local use with set gill nets from 28
fish camps. Many camps also have smoke houses and other fish processing
facilities, although most Tyonek fqmilies now cut and smoke their salmon
in the vi 11 age. Over the 1 ast three seasons, the subsistence catch at
Tyonek has averaged about 1900 kings and 250 reds. Additionally, approxi-
imately 25 households fish commercially at the same camps. Harbor seals
and bel ukha are also harvested during the summer months. About 37 percent
of Tyonek households regularly participate in the harvest of these marine
mammals. As with clams, the products of these hunts are widely distributed
in the village. Salmon fishing, especially for silvers, continues into
the fall.
Each September, approximately 50 Tyonek residents hunt moose. Figure
4 depicts the general area used by Tyonek moose hunters in 1981. The
area hunted in 1982 was similar. Access to hunting areas is along the net-
work of local roads first constructed in the early 1970s for a commercial
logging operation, or by dory to several rivers south of the village.
About 87 percent of Tyonek households harvested moose regularly over the
past five years (Fall 1982). While considerable time and effort were
expended by Tyonek hunters in September 1981, the harvest of 15 moose was
considered by the villagers to be inadequate to meet their needs. The
1982 fall harvest was of a similar size. Traditionally, moose hunting
in the Tyonek area, as well as the Susitna Basin, continued throughout
the winter months (Fall 1981:146-49, 188, 197). Tyonek residents have
9
Figure 4. Areas used for moose hunting by Tyonek residents during 1981 moose season, representing a
composite of individual hunting areas (N=40) (Foster 1982a:9)
indicated a desire to reopen a November or December season (Foster
1982a:25).
In addition to moose, Tyonek residents take bear, waterfowl , and
small game in the fall. Although winter harvest activities are not as
intense as those of spring, summer, and fall, a few individuals run trap
1 i nes, and others hunt small game and fish through the ice for trout.
The percentage of Tyonek households which generally participate in the
harvest of various resources is shown in Figure 5.
Social relationships, especially kinship, structure the harvest,
processing, and distribution of fish and game in Tyonek. Hunting and
clamming parties, as well as fishing groups, are normally composed of
relatives. Fish and game harvests are widely distributed throughout the
village, and facilities such as fishcamps and smokehouses are extensively
shared. For example, while only 15 hunters successfully harvested moose
in September 1981, over 90 percent of Tyonek's 75 households received
moose meat. Resources which require special skills and equipment for
their harvesting, such as marine mammals or clams, are taken by a limited
number of individuals in the village, but these products are distributed
almost village wide. Village elders and the ill, as well as kin, are
included in this resource sharing.
In summary, the use of wild resources provides an important economic
base for the majority of Tyonek residents. Wage employment opportunities
in the village are relatively few and household incomes are well below
Alaska's average (Fall 1982). In addition, harvesting and utilizing fish
and game tie the community together and are a basis for group identity
and community stability.
11
1-'
N
100 1~~ . 391
90
~ 00
0: ~
~ 10
"' z: s 60
~ u 50 5
"" ...
~ 40
0
ffi 30 gJ
0 "' ... 20 0
Ill ~ 10
... 0 I I I I I I I I I I I
SPECIES .• * * • • •
* Species harvested for household use and commercial sale.
Figure 5. The percentage of sampled Tyonek households which participated in resource harvest during the
period 1978-1982 {Foster 1982b:33)
General Characteristics of the Upper Yentna Area
The Upper Yentna area is located in the Susitna basin along the upper
reaches of the Yentna River. The focal point for the area•s residents is
Skwentna, which is located near the confluence of the Yentna and Skwentna
Rivers approximately 55 air miles northwest of Anchorage.
Travel in the area is by boat or airplane during summer months and
fall months, and by snowmachine, ~irplane, dogsled, and ATV during the
winter months. Especially, travel in fall and spring is highly dependent
upon the weather and the freezing and thawing rivers, 1 akes, airstrips,
and trails.
Settlement Patterns
The aborgi nal inhabitants of the Yentna River drainage, the Upper
Inlet Oena•ina, had greatly declined in population by the early twentieth
century, most due to diseases. Subsequently, a few scattered households
of trappers and prospectors comprised the permanent population until ,
within the past 30 years, human settlement again increased as a a result
of State and Federal land disposal programs. Consequently, concentrations
of househo 1 ds have appeared in areas a 1 ong rivers or bordering 1 akes.
This is the current pattern around the mouth of Lake Creek, at Skwentna,
and in the Whiskey and Hewitt Lake areas.
The means by which local residents acquired their land included
purchase from previous owner (36.8 percent), State open-to-entry programs
(21.0 percent), State remote parcel programs (18.4 percent), and a variety
of other State and Federal programs (Table 1).
Population Characteristics
A summary of interview findings regarding households member charac-
13
TABLE 1.
UPPER YENTNA HOUSEHOLD LAND ACQUISITION
Purchased From Previous Owner
State Open-To-Entry (UTE) Program
State Remote Parcel Program
Federal Homestead
State Homesite Program
Borough Housing
Federal Cabin Site
Rental
Purchased from State
Other
14
14
8
7
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 2.
CHARACTERISTICS OF UPPER YENTNA HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS
Mean Range
Number of Persons/Household
Age of Heads of Households
*Number of Years in Alaska
*Number of Years in Upper Yentna Area
3.3
42.9
16.4
7.9
*Indicates number of years for the longest
residing household member.
15
1-7
25-70
3-41
1-33
teristics appears in Table 2. Household size varied from one to seven
members and averaged 3.3 persons.
The results of interview questions asking about length of residency
appear in Figures 6 and 7. The range of time that household members had
been in Alaska was 3-41 years. The average length of time in Alaska was
16.4 years. Residency in the Yentna area ranged from .5 to 33 years, and
averaged 7.9 years. Overall, most residents have resided in the area for
less than 10 years.
The age/sex structure of the population, depicted in Figure 8, re-
flects this immigration of most families into the area. The few individ-
uals over 50 years of age are mostly males. Middle aged couples (ages
31-50) and their children (ages 11-20) comprise most of the population.
The age/sex profi 1 e also reveals that there are few chi 1 dren under ten
years of age and few young women in prime child-bearing years (ages
21-30). This suggests that the population is not yet reproducing itself;
individuals must still find mates from outside the area.
t4age Employment and Other Sources of Monetary Income
Full time wage employment opportunities in which the sample of 126
Upper Yentna residents were involved during 1982-83 included positions
as school teacher (3), weather reporter (2), equipment operator (1),
postmaster (1), and facilities engineer (1). The remaining sources of
cash income were seasonal, part time, and/or temporary. Some people
worked outside the area on a seasonal or part time basis. Ex~mples of
local seasonal jobs include guiding hunters and fishermen (8), trapping
(18), freighting (2), consulting (2), assisting at lodges (7), operating
16
9
8
7
en
Ci 6 _,
0 = . L.&.l
en 5
~
0 =
I.&. 4
0
cr::::
L.&.l cca 3
:E
~
:z:
2
t
YEARS OF RESIDENCY IN UPPER JENTNA AREA
I ... 38 HOUSE.HOLDS I
0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----------L-______ JL ____ __
I 3 S 7 9 U 13 IS 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 41
2 4 6 8 ro n U " U H H N H H ~ n M H
Figure 6. The length of residency in the Upper Yentna area for the longest residing member of
each household in 1982
1-'
(X)
YEARS RESIDENCY IN ALASKA OF UPPER IENTNA RESIDENTS
9
8
7
Cl) I•· 38 IOUSEIOLDS I '
c:a ..... 6 e
:c
L&.l
Cl) = 5 e :c
..... e 4 = L&.l
ca
:::IE: 3 = z:
2
1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 2 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 41
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 3!f 36
Figure 7. The length of residency in Alaska for the longest residin~ members in Upper Yentna
households in 1982
AGE/SEX PROFILE
OF UPPER YENTNA RESIDENTS
66-70
61-65
56-60
51-55
46-50
41-45
36-40
31-35
26-30
21-25
16-20
11-15
6-10
0-5
MALE
20 15 10 5 0
PERCENT
FEMALE
N: 38 HOUSEHOLD
126 PEOPLE
5 10 15 20
Figure 8. The age/sex stnucture of Upper Yentna households in 1982
19
the store (4), running river boats (3), and operating saw mills (2).
Examples of nonlocal employment include commercial fishing (2), North
Slope oil field work (2), and road and housing construction (2). Some
people were retired and received longevity payments and retirement bene-
fits.
Fifty-two percent of the househo 1 ds had three or more sources of
cash income during a single year ·(Figure 9). Forty-eight percent had one
to two sources of income. Thirty-one percent had four to seven sources
of cash income.
Because of the small numbers of full-time jobs in the area, most
households need several seasonal or part time sources of cash income in
order to purchase food staples, fuel, equipment and parts, building
materials, air transportation, and other commodities not produced locally.
Annual Round of Resource Harvest
The range of wi 1 d resources harvested by residents of the Upper
Yentna area during 1982 is indicated in Figure 10, along with estimated
quantities, timing of harvest, and percentages of households participat-
ing in the harvests. The number of resources taken by each household
varied considerably, with 91 percent of the households harvesting from 6
to 25 i ndi vi dual or groups of resources (Figure 11). Following is a
summary of the annual round of resource uses in the Upper Yentna area as
reported by area residents for 1982. Although the harvest of resources
occurs continuously throughout the year, the month of April was used as a
convenient starting point for this discussion.
When the ice on rivers and lakes started to melt in April, harvesting
of rainbow trout, grayling, whitefish, and northern pike began. This
20
30
25
Cl) 20 = ..... = = I.W
Cl) = = = 15
L.l.. =
..... :z:
I.W
c.:> = 10 I.W
Q.,
5
0
Figure 9.
1-
24% 24% I N=38 HOUSEHOLDS I
:;:;:;:;:
21%
18%
:;:;
::;:;:
::::
5% 5%
;:;:;:; ::::
:::: ;:;:;:;
3%
::::::::::: ;::
:(~~ ~=II :::: ~~~~~ r ::::: :::::::: ::::::: :;: ;:;:::::::
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
NUMBER OF SOURCES OF MONETARY INCOME
OF UPPER YENTNA HOUSEHOLDS
The number of s0urces of monetary income of Upper Yentna households
in 1982 21
AllltUAL RCUHO fF RESOURa:S HARVESTED BY UPPER YEMT!IA RESIOEHTS 1913Z
Percent of Est1 ... ted
Hausellolds Qount1ty
S!le<1os APR lillY JUN JUl. AUG SEP OCT HOY OEC JAil FEB HIIR ~I'Vost1ng ~nested
Re1-T~out ........ ~ .... m 482·520
~ayllng 391: 3114-435
Wll1tet1SII 1H 45-01
Sllellf1sn 191: 1003-1481"
Slack a .. ~ "'" 13
NO~hel'ft P1kl 47f. 252-279
HOOligan 36f. 5480.5929
Suck•~ Sf. zoo
81"00011 a..~ llf. 1
"'sent 11f. 155
Ed1ble Plants sor. 156-160 qt.
X1ng Sll.,.. 57f. 141-151
Red Sllooon m 413-470
Pink Sll-4lf. 523-531
~aka T~ouc 17f. 42
Surllot 35f. 131-144
POrap1ne llf. 7
Silver S1l11011 75f. 331·351
en .. Sllooon m 94-127
Oolly Varden 14f. 124
Bemes m 431-445 qt.
Sind and ~ ... 1 3f. 18.000 Tbs
Clrtbou Sf. 1
SliMP 3f.
$pM.ICI Grouse ··$··········· sor. 141-1n -· ............. 83f. 3D
Duck ········· ........ 4Zf. 138-148
Gift I ................. 17f. 4
snows-~ ... ......... 22S as
Red Squ1rNl lH 174
Flying Squirrel 14f. 20
Ml~en 3H 296
Coyote 191:
111nk 35f. 126
Weasel 33f. sz
~n· 17f.
l.lnd OCter ur. 20
WOlv11'1nl 14f.
Red Fox 17f.
WOlf ····· ........... 6:11
Beeve,. ................... 391: 195
Ptamtgan .................. m 120
WOOd 97f. zst-zsa-...
387-427
Key: .......... Usual period of harvest effort; ...... Occasional period of harvest effort.
*Razor, steamer, fresh water clams. ** Cords of birch, spruce, and cottonwood used as
firewood for heating and cooking. *** Number trees of spruce and some birch used in
construction of homes, outbuildings and furniture.
Figure 10. The annual round of resources harvested, percentage of households har-
vesting and estimated quanities harvested by Upper Yentna residents in
1982
22
30 N: 38 HOUSEHOLDS
26~ 26%
25
23%
en = 20 ..... = = .....
en = 16% = = ..... 15 = .....
:z: .....
c.:» = ..... 10
Q,.
5
3% 3% 3%
OLU_ILI_IlU
0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35
NUMBER OF RESOURCES
Figure 1l The number of r~sources harvested per household in the Upper Yentna
area in 1982
23
continued through September. The percentage of households harvesting each
species was as follows: rainbow trout--72 percent; northern pi ke--47
percent; grayling--39 percent; whitefish--19 percent. For a short period
in May and June, hooligan and suckers were included in the harvest. Near-
ing the end of May and continuing through November, five salmon species
were harvested: king salmon were harvested by 67 percent of the house-
holds, red salmon by 78 percent, and silvers by 75 percent. At this time
lake trout were harvested by 17 percent of the households. Burbot was
said to be a highly desired species for eating, and was taken by 36
percent of the households.
Plant species including edible mushrooms, berries, fireweed, and fid-
dlehead fern, were gathered from spring through fall. Wood was taken
throughout the year. Ouri ng February and March, when snow conditions
were favorable for travel, wood was stockpiled for the following year.
Among the mammals taken in April and May were muskrat and beaver, which
were trapped primarily for fur and dogfood by 14 and 39 percent of the
households respectively. Brown and black bear were taken by 11 and 44
percent of the households respectively, usually as nuisance animals,
although black bear meat and hides were used by many people.
Ouri ng the fall, moose were harvested by 83 percent of the house-
hal ds, waterfowl by 42 percent, and spruce grouse by 50 percent. When
cold weather and freeze-up arrived around November 1, trappers began
setting out their traplines. A wide variety of furbearers including
marten, mink, weasel, and otter, was taken throughout the winter months
by 40 percent of the area households.
The geographic area currently used by Upper Yentna residents for all
resource harvest activities is shown in Figure 12. The number of house-
holds indicating use of a particular area varies depending upon the
24
N
(.TI
Note: This map was compiled during 1963 from
a sample of community residents, so It may be
a partial representation of areas used by com-
munity members for fishing, hunting, trapping,
and g~therlng. Use areas change through time
and are not fixed entitles. Land outside use
areas should not be assumed to be of relative
less Importance to community members.
RESOURCE HARVEST
CONCENTRATION AREAS
1-5 Resources
6-10
10+
Resources
Resources ~~~~~;~;~~
5 10 15
MILES
Figure 12. Geographic area currently_used for resource harvest by Upper Ventna residents indicating levels
of use (N=38)
proximity of the area to local residences, accessibility of the area by
ri ve rs, streams, and t ra i 1 s, and the variety of resources present.
Characteristics of Moose Harvest by Upper Yentna Residents
Information about moose harvest was requested for the past three
years (Figure 13). In 1980, 63 percent of the households harvested a
moose locally, 2.6 percent (one household) harvested a moose nonlocally,
21 percent were unsuccessful in their attempts locally, and 13 percent
did not hunt moose. In 1981, the success rate dropped to 52 percent and
the portion of unsuccessful households increased to 34 percent; no one
travelled out of the area for moose and the percent of those who did not
try remained the same. The success rate for 1982 returned to 1980 level,
and fewer households ( 7. 9 percent) did not try. It should be noted that
in 1980 and 1982 the success rate among local households which hunted
moose was 80 percent. In 1982, the number of moose harvested per house-
hold ranged from one to three (Figure 14).
A significant aspect of the harvesting of moose is the relationship
between the timing of the harvest and how the meat is distributed. The
meat of any moose taken during warm weather was distributed by the suc-
cessful hunter to other households in order to prevent spoilage. No area
households had freezers large enough to freeze all the meat from one
moose, and there is no cant i no us source of e 1 ect ri city to run freezers
throughout the warm weather during the summer and fall. By distributing
meat among several households, the smaller portions could be consumed
before they spoiled, frozen in small quantities, or processed by canning,
drying, pickling, or making sausage.
Hunting moose during colder weather was said to be preferrd over Sep-
tember seasons for several reasons. Preservation of meat by freezing
26
N ........
80
70
en = ...... 60
~1%
c:::>
::c
LA.! en 50 ~
c:::>
::c
..... 40
c:::>
.....
z: 30 LA.!
~
c:::
LA.! 20 Q...
10
0
_J
~ u
0
_J
_J
'::::>
LL.
Vl
Vl w u u
::::>
Vl
19 8 2
2.6%
r::::m
_J
~ u
0
_J
z:
0 z:
_J
::::>
LL.
Vl
Vl w u u
::::>
Vl
26.4%
_J
::::>
LL.
Vl
Vl w u u
::::>
Vl z: ::::>
7.9%
I
>-0::
1-
1-
0 z:
Cl .....
Cl
MOOSE HARVEST
19 81
63.1%
52.6%
I
II
34.2%
13.2%
I 0%
_J
~ u
_J 0 _J
~ _J ~ u z: u
0 0 0
_J z: _J _J
::::> >-
_J _J LL. 0:: _J
::::> ::::> Vl 1-::::>
LL. LL. Vl LL.
Vl Vl w 1-Vl
Vl Vl u 0 Vl w w u z: w u u ::::> u u u Vl Cl u
::::> ::::> z: ..... ::::>
Vl Vl ::::> Cl Vl
N =38 HOUSEHOLDS
1980
2.6%
l::m1
_J
~ u
0
_J
z:
0 z:
_J
::::> LL.
Vl
Vl w u u
::::>
Vl
21.1%
I
_J
::::>
LL.
Vl
Vl w u u
::::>
Vl z: ::::>
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
13.2%
I 10
0
>-0::
1-
1-
0 z:
Cl .....
Cl
Figure 13. The three year moose harvest characteristics for Upper Yentna households, 1980-1982
25
20
en = ..... = = ""' en 15
= = =
..... = = 10 ""' = :::E = :z:
5
0
N=38 HOUSEHOLDS
21
13
;:;:
3
:;:; 1
t:::::;:::·: ·:·:l :;::
0 1 2 3
NUMBER OF MOOSE HARVESTED
PER HOUSEHOLD IN 1982
Figure 14. The household moose harvest for Upper Yentna households during 1982
28
outdoors is possible, and snow and/or ice conditions make hauling of the
meat easier and, in most instances, possible. At this time, the lack of
foliage makes selecting the desired size of moose easier. As previously
mentioned, moose harvested before freeze-up usually are shared with other
households and another animal would be needed later in the year to replen-
ish the meat supply. Depending on the year, moose may not move into the
local area from higher elevations. until December or January. People
cannot afford to fly to Anchorage to purchase domestic meat whenever they
need it and keeping large quantities is impossible during warm months.
The methods of preserving moose meat used by area residents are indi-
cated in Figures 15 and 16. The largest percentage of meat was preserved
by freezing out-of-doors (48 percent). Nearly twice as much meat was
preserved by this method than by either canning or freezing in a freezer.
The greatest percentage of people used canning as a method of storage
than any other method, although only 21 percent of the moose meat was
actually preserved this way.
Geographic areas used by Upper Yentna residents for moose hunting are
shown in Figure 17. Moose hunting areas most heavily used were those in
the vicinity of residences and along waterways.
DISCUSSION
The results of research on the uses of wi 1 d resources in two por-
tions of Game Management Unit 16B have demonstrated that harvests of a
wide variety of fish and game species play significant roles in the local
socioeconomic systems of both areas. Residents of the village of Tyonek
and the Upper Yentna area harvest local wildlife resources in substantial
29
w
0
100
90
80
en
t= 70 .....
0
:c
1.1.1
en
::;:)
0
60
:c 50
L&..
0
1-40 :z:
1.1.1
~
~ 30
A-
20
10
0
37.1%
FROZEN
(FREEZER)
62.8%
FROZEN
(OUTDOORS)
14.3%
SMOKE
OR
DRY
68.6%
CAN
OR
JAR
8.6%
CORN
OR·
PICKLE
I N= 3 5 HOUSEHOLDS I
37.1 %"
2.9%
FRESH SAUSAf~E
METHODS OF PRESERVATION OF MOOSE
Figure 15. The methods of meat preservation used by Upper Yentna. household.s ·during 1982
50 48.0%
45 ·I N=3 5 HOUSEHOLDS I
1-cc
L&.l 40 :e:
L&.l en
C) 35
C)
:e:
&.I. 30 C)
1-25.9%
:z: 25 L&.l
c:.::l 20.6% = w L&.l 20
~ "-
Q
L&.l 15
1-
cc
:e: 10
1-
en
L&.l
5 3.5%
1.2%
J!.l! 0.6%
0
FROZEN FROZEN SMOKE CAN CORN FRESH SAUSAGE
(FREEZER) (OUTDOORS) OR OR OR
DRY JAR PICKLE
METHODS OF PRESERVATION
' Figure 16. The amounts of moose meat preserved by various methods by Upper Yentna households in 1982
w
N
Note: This map was compl led during 1983 from
a sample of community residents, so 1t may be
a partial representation of areas used by com-
munity members for fishing, hun~lng, trapping,
and gathering. Use areas change through time
and are not fixed entitles. Land outside use
areas should not be assumed to be of relative
less importance to community members.
HOUSEHOLD UTILIZATIOtl
CONCENTRATION
1-5 Households
6-10 Households ;;;~~;m;
10+ Households II SCALE 5· 10 15
MILES
Figure 17. The geographic area currently us~d by Upper Yentna residents for moose hunting (N=38}
quantities according to an annual round of activities. In Tyonek, five
species of salmon, clams, waterfowl, freshwater fish, moose, and several
species of small game comprise most of the harvest. Marine mammals and
black bear are also taken. Harvest and distribution of these resources
are organized on a kinship basis; these uses provide an economic base for
village households and bind village residents in networks of sharing and
support. In the vast area surrounding the community of Skwentna, house-
holds take moose, small game, salmon, freshwater fish, furbearers, and a
host of other species. These harvests serve as a focus of family activi-
ties, and the sharing of big game, for example, ties households to others
of the region.
For both study populations, the uses of fish and wildlife resources
generally represent one component of an overall socioeconomic pattern that
includes seasonal or part-time wage employment. In both areas, full-time
year-round employment opportunities are scarce. Tyonek residents fish
commercially, find seasonal construction jobs, or work on temporary
village projects supported by state or federal funds in order to obtain
cash. In the Upper Yentna area, about 40 percent of the households
obtain some income from trapping. Other kinds of seasonal work, often
resource related (such as guiding, and logging,) are combined to supply
households with adequate cash incomes. In both areas, some residents
obtain non-local employment for several months, but most people in each
population reside at their homes for most of the year.
Historically, fish and game harvests have been extremely important
to residents of the western Susitna Basin and the western Cook Inlet
area, the area now encompassed by Game Unit 168 (Fall 1981, Cole 1982).
The aboriginal inhabitants of the area, the Upper Inlet Oena'ina, utilized
all of this area for fish and game harvests until diseases reduced their
33
numbers early in this century. While some Dena•ina continued to use
portions of the Upper Yentna area seasonally into the 1940s, most former
Native residents of the area and their descendents now reside in Tyonek.
The area currently used by these and other Tyonek people has been harvested
for fish and game by the Oena•ina since before recorded history. During
the twentieth century, a small number of prospectors and trappers replaced
the Dena • ina in the Upper Yentna area. In the 1900s and 1910s, many
newcomers arrived or passed through the area to exploit the Cache Creek
or Sunflower Basin mining districts. A few stayed on to hunt and trap.
While there has been no subsequent industrial or other development in
this region, in the last several decades state and federal land policies
have resulted in the introduction of a small, permanent population in the
area. As the findings of the first phase of the "Susitna Basin Resource
Use Study" have demonstrated, these households have developed a pattern
of hunting and fishing which in some ways resembles the historic resource
use patterns of the area.
One component of the historic and contemporary resource patterns of
the residents of Tyonek and in the Upper Yentna area ·is the use of moose.
In the past, moose have been harvested throughout the fall and winter,
generally as needed and as accessible, with a preference for hunting when
temperatures permit preservation by freezing outdoors and when travel is
convenient.
Findings of this report have demonstrated the wide spread use of
moose in both areas today. About 87 percent of Tyonek households have
harvested moose over the last five years, although only 15 hunters were
successful during the September 1981 season. In the Upper Yentna area,
about 63 percent of the households reported a successful moose harvest in
1982. Residents cited the possibility of outdoor preservation, ease of
travel, and accessibility as reasons for post-freeze up harvests. In
34
both Tyonek and the Upper Yentna areas, the majority of hunters have
expressed their desire to reopen a moose hunting season in November in
the vicinity of their homes.
35
LITERATURE C !TED
Cole, Terrance
1982 Historical Survey of the Talkeetna/Susitna River Drainage. In
Cultural Resource Assessment: Talkeetna-Lower Susitna River
Basin, Southcentral Alaska. Glenn Bacon, editor, pp. 65-93.
Alaskarctic, Consultant Archaeologists: Fairbanks.
Fall, James Arthur
1981 Patterns of Upper Inlet Tanaina Leadership, 1741-1981. Ph. D.
Dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
19.82 Tyonek: Resource Uses in a Small, Non-Road Connected Commun-
ity of the Kenai Penin.sula Borough. In Wolfe, Robert J., and
Linda J. Ellanna, compilers. 1982. Resource Use and Rural-
Urban Concepts: Case Studies of Fishing and Hunting in Alaskan
Communities. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. November, 1982.
Foster, Dan
1981 Tyonek Moose Utilization 1981. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska.
1982 The Utilization of King Salmon and the Annual Round of Resource
Uses in Tyonek, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska.
Schul ling,
1982
Rodney
Revised 1982 Sample Census Results. Memorandum HA.M. 82-365,
10/22/82, to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Asembly, Palmer,
Alaska.
Stanek, Ronald and Dan Foster
1980 Tyonek King Salmon Subsistence Fishery 1980 Activities Report.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Stanek, Ronald T., James Fall, and Dan Foster
1981 Subsistence Shellfish Use in Three Cook Inlet Villages, 1981.
A Preliminary Report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska.
Stickney, Alice
1980 Report on the Survey Conducted in Tyonek 1980. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska.
36
APPENDIX A
I .D. NUMBER~---INTERVIEWER ------
DATE _____ _ LOCATION ------
1. Did you or any member of your household hunt, fish, trap, or gather wild
resources in 1982? Yes No ----
2. Did your household use any wild resources harvested by other people
in 1982? Yes No ----
3. I'd like to ask you some questions about your uses of wild resources in
1982. I'll review a list of resources. Please let me know if you harvested
or used the resource in 1982. If 1982 was not a typical year, please tell
me what is typical for your household. I'm also interested to know the
methods you use to ha~vest resources, how much you harvest, and the time
of year you harvest resources. I would also like to map your general
harvest areas while we discuss these resources. As we conduct the interview
one of us will go through the survey and record your responses to the questions.
The other person will record any other information you wish to provide. We
are interested in any observations and ideas which you may have about resources
and their use in this area.
37
8 r-r--<
< > = c
r'l"l :z
38
= -r'l"l r-c < r'l"l =
VI > r-
5 :z
VI > r-
5 :z
:>": -:z
"' VI > r-
:::iC
0 :z
~ID ~AR
g~A IN
~MO
PTH
APPENDIX A CONT.
YOU TRY TO
VEST THIS IN 1982.
NTITY HARVESTED
1982?
UNT RECEIVED FROM
ER HOUSEHOLDS
~ET HOD OF HARVEST?
~E
rt'AT
THOD OF TRANSPOR-
ION?
~ES ~ON
·~uA
PIS
~AR
~AN
EB
~
~PR
MAY
~UN
~UL
OURCE USE? (TRADED,
SUMED, SOLD, ETC.)
NTITY CONSUMED?
TANCE TRAVELED TO
VEST RESOURCE?
UARY
RUARY
CH
IL
E
y
~UG
~EP
per
~ov
pEe
UST
TEMBER
OBER
EMBER
EMBER
~ ::::1 I" Q = = -f c::: ~ :::! ::::1 r-> ., ::::1 r;; Q > ! ::::1 z: ::::1 ., c::: z: ("')
Q -:::1: ..., ("') ::::1 :z: ::0: -("') r-Q ...,
-f ::0: r-C"l = = ..., Q > C"l C"l ..., ...,
I :z:: :z: ::::1 ::::1 > > -f Q Q ::::1 ::::1 > c::: c::: -I" I" r-..., ...,
I
.
\a ("') :::1: I" ·~ r;; > Q ...,
::::1 Q > ~ ..., -I" r-
~ = ..., ::::1
8
I
39
\a .,
r;; -I" r-= r-., ..., -C"l
I" C"l = I"
APPENDIX A CONT.
DID YOU TRY TO
HARVEST THIS IN 1982
QUANTITY HARVESTED
IN 1982?
AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM
OTHER HOUSEHOLDS
METHOD OF HARVEST?
METHOD OF TRANSPOR-
TATION?
RESOURCE USE? (TRADED,
CONSUMED, SOLD, ETC.)
QUANTITY CONSUMED?
DISTANCE TRAVELED TO
HARVEST RESOURCE?
JANUARY
FESRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER
::c :3: ::c ("") = $ $ ..., C'} = ,., 0 0 ,., r-s ,.,
> ::z: r--< = = = -< = Vl ""' ..., 0 .... :3: c:: ,., . .... ..., ,., 0 ::z: ::z: Vl r-,., 0 ::z: .... C'} = .0
X c::
Vl Vl ;; .0 .0 c:: c:: = --,., = = r-= = r-r-
~ Vl C'}
0 ::z: ,., = 0 ,.,
("") ::c Vl c:: Vl Vl ("") ,.,
~ ~ ::z: > -0 ::z: ::z: ,., ::c > ,., = $ > = ,.,
= c::
("")
""'
APPENDIX A CONT.
= ,.,
Vl
0 c:: = ("") ,.,
DID YOU TRY TO
HARVEST THIS IN 1982
QUANTITY HA~VESTED
IN 1982?
AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM
OTHER HOUSEHOLDS
METHOD OF HARVEST?
METHOD OF TRANSPOR-
TATION?
RESOURCE USE? (TRADED,
CONSUMED, SOLO, ETC.)
QUANTITY CONSUMED?
1--+--f---!-~i---+-~--+---+--+---+--+---+--!--+--!---1 0 I STANCE TRAVELED TO
HARVEST RESOURCE?
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
r-~-~-+--~-+-~f---+-~--+-~--+-~--!---+--1--INOVEMBER
DECEMBER
40
APPENDIX A CONT.
I would now like you to think back a couple years about moose. Did you
harvest a moose in 1982, 1981, 1980?
4. 1982 5. 1981 6. 1980
Yes, 1oca11y Yes., 1 oca11y Yes, 1oca11y
Yes, non1 oca11y Yes, non1oca11y Yes, non1oca11y
No, but tried No, but tried No, but tried
No, didn't try No, didn't try No, didn •t try
Not resident of area Not resident of area Not resident of area
7. If the household did not harvest a moose in the last 3 years, when was the
last time they harvested one 1oca11y? ·
Year -----------
Not a resident -------
Never while a resjdent ----
8. How do you preserve your moose meat? Estimate the percentage.
Frozen (freezer) %
Frozen (outdoors) %
Smoke/Dry %
Can/Jar %
Corn/Pickle %
Salt %
Fresh %
Other %
41
APPENDIX A CONT.
9. In the past year, about how many households have given your household:
Game -----------------
Fish ~----------------Furs ________________ _
Berries --------
Food Plants _____ _
10. In the past year, about how many households has your household given:
Game ____________ _
Fish ---------------
Furs ------------
Berries -------
Food Plants· ----------
11. Which of the following best describes how you get most of the resources
you harvest?
n 1 v1 ua .y I d" "d 11 W1 re a 1ves "th 1 t. W1 r1en s 'partners ·th f · a 1
salmon fishing
other fishing
moose hunting
sheep hunting
trapping
berry picking
12. Please approximate what percent of your household meat, fish , and fowl in the
past year has been from wild resources. % --------------~
13. Does your household raise a garden? yes__ no __ _
14. (If yes) Please estimate the percentage of your produce which comes
from your garden % None bought in store? __ _
42
APPENDIX A CONT.
15. Does anyone in your household engage in logging as a business in
this area? yes__ no
16. Does anyone in your household participate in mining? yes __ no
17. Do you own any of the following?
item yes/no approximate value
boat
snowmachine
airplane
ATV
dogteam
automobile
freezer
smokehouse
generator
. trapping cabin
18. Which of the following are sources of household monetary income?
__ guiding
trapping
commercial fishing
1 oggi ng
mining
construction
other
other
other
location: town GMU
19. In terms of income, which of the above is most important?
43
r'
,_._ ..
APPENDIX A CONT.
20. What kinds of resources/supplies must you get outside the area?
21. How many people live in this household?
ages
males
females
total
22. Please indicate the longest time any household member has been in
Alaska ·--------
Skwentna area. ____ _
23. How many months did you stay in the Skwentna area in 1982? months. -----
Explain prolonged absences. ---------------------------
24. How did you acquir.e your property/home (e.g. what program or through sales)
Homestead. ____ _ Other -------------------
Subdivision ----
Homesite ------
Purchased from previous owner ------
25. What are your ideas on a winter moose season in this Game Management Unit (168)?
44
APPENDIX E
INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS
SUSITNA AREA PLAN
Prepared by
Phyllis K. Weber, Habitat Biologist
Durand R. Cook, Habitat Biologist
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Habitat Division
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
1983
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
I NSTREAM FLOW EFFECTS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 2
Effects of Instream Flows on Physical Parameters ...•.....•.•.....• 2
Effects of Instream Flows on Biological Parameters ....•..•.••..... 3
INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS • . • . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . • • . • . . . • . . . . . • 4
Criteria for Stream Recommendations and Instream
Flow Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Proposed Guidelines to Protect Instream Flows .•.••••........•..... 5
TABLES
Table 1.
Table 2.
;
6
13
INTRODUCTION
The 1980 Alaska State Legislature passed an amendment to the Water Use Act
(AS 46.15.145) which allows reservation of water to protect fish and
wildlife habitat, migration and propagation, for recreation and parks, for
navigation and transportation, and for sanitary and water quality purposes.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game believes that the maintenance of fish
and wildlife and their habitats are among the highest priority water uses in
the Susitna basin.
The survival of anadromous and resident fish species within the Susitna
basin depends not only upon identifying and protecting streams important for
spawning and migration and managing fish populations wisely, but also upon
insuring the availability of adequate seasonal water supplies within these
streams. Seasonal water supplies, or instream flows, are a primary
component of habitats used for spawning, incubation, rearing, overwintering,
and passage of fish. The maintenance of instream flows assures that there
will be enough water for fish to migrate to spawning areas, that eggs will
not become desiccated and that rearing areas will remain wetted and
accessible to juvenile fish seasonally. Winter water levels may be
especially important to salmonid eggs and rearing fish. Seasonal flow
regimes are also integral to determining the habitats of other aquatic and
terrestrial biota.
The following discussion is presented to provide land-use planners with an
understanding of the significant impacts associated with alterations of
instream flows, and to recommend basic guidelines for maintaining the
instream flows required by fish and wildlife.
This discussion is primarily limited to lotic (flowing water) environments
and their relationship to fish. However, all hydrologic systems, including
groundwater and precipitation, are interrelated. Changes in any component
of the hydrologic cycle may affect other components directly and in subtle
and indirect ways.
-1-
INSTREAM FLOW EFFECTS
Historical records of stream flows in the Susitna basin are generally
nonexistent or of insufficient duration to predict long-term flow patterns.
In addition, data on instream flow requirements of specific stocks of
Alaskan fishes are also incomplete. Careful management of instream flows is
essential for preserving, maintaining, or enhancing freshwater and
anadromous fisheries, other aquatic and riparian wildlife, and instream flow
uses such as navigation. If instream flow dependent resources in the
Susitna basin are to be preserved, management decisions must consider
seasonal fish and wildlife instream flow requirements, even if these
requirements have not yet been specifically quantified.
Physical and biological parameters influenced by instream flows, and the
consequences resulting from seasonal flow modifications are described below.
Effects of Instream Flows on Physical Parameters
Physical parameters which influence aquatic environments are: flow regime
(volume, velocity, and temporal variation of flows), channel morphology
(size, shape, gradient, and geologic material of channel), water quality
(temperature, turbidity, dissolved gases and salts, etc.), and stream load
(bed and suspended loads). Each of these factors is strongly controlled by
the flow levels in a stream.
Because hydrologic systems maintain a state of dynamic equilibrium, change
in any one of these factors will usually result in changes in the other
parameters. For example, watershed alterations such as land clearing can
increase erosion and consequently increase the amount of sediment entering a
particular stream. If there is too much material entering the channel to
remain suspended, sediments begin to deposit. Over time, this deposition
results in changes to the channel slope and stream velocity. Eventually
channel slope will decrease until the streamflow velocity is just high
enough to transport the amount of material entering the stream, and an
equilibrium will be reached.
Alterations in instream flows resulting from impoundments, diversions~
channelizations or withdrawals also cause changes in stream equilibrium.
There may be substantial changes in flow regime, channel shape, wetted area,
substrate characteristics or water quality as the stream moves toward
equilibrium. Moreover, these changes may affect areas far downstream from
the original disturbance. Disturbances such as channelizations and
impoundments may also cause stream readjustments upstream and downstream
from the disturbance.
The complexity of the physical interactions is compounded by natural
fluctuation in flows with season and climate. As a result, changes produced
by alterations in lotic systems stem from both the amount of modification
(e.g., volume of flow withdrawal or alteration) and from the timing of the
modification in relation to normal seasonal flow fluctuations. For example,
certain periodic high flows (e.g., bankfull discharge) are responsible for
maintaining channel morphology by flushing sediments or transporting bed
load. Reduction, elimination, or rescheduling of regular high flows (e.g.,
during flood control) can have serious consequences on channel
-2-
characteristics. On the other hand, during some high flows it is possible
to withdraw water for human consumption, storage or industrial use with only
minor effects to the stream system. During low flows, withdrawals represent
a larger proportion of available instream flow and are more difficult to
manage without inducing adverse changes to the stream environment. The
complexity of these possible interactions, and effects of modifying them,
must be considered on both a seasonal and cumulative basis for specific
waterways.
Effects of Instream Flows on Biological Parameters
Although this discussion emphasizes effeets on fisheries, instream flows
also affect other aquatic organisms and the riparian and terrestrial
wildlife associated with the lotic environment. For example, flow regimes
influence the succession of riparian vegetation, access of predators to
waterfowl nesting on islands, and the availability of food and cover for
furbearers such as beaver, river otter and muskrat.
Modifications of instream flows, and the associated change to the physical
environment, may have very significant effects to the fisheries resources.
Specifically, streamflow modifications may cause changes to spawning,
incubation, rearing, overwintering, and passage habitats. For example,
decreased flows may prevent upstream or downstream passage of fish and may
reduce the quantity or extent of spawning and rearing habitats. Reduced
flows may also lead to silt deposition and reduced oxygen levels in spawning
gravels, and therefore, cause suffocation of incubating eggs, pre-emergent
fry and other aquatic organisms. Increased flows may wash away spawning
gravel or destroy sheltering areas. Both decreases and increases in flows
may alter stream productivity and thus modify food availability in rearing
and overwintering habitats.
Alterations in 1flow regimes may also affect the seasonal behavior of fish
species. Hynes presents the following examples of the important
interrelationships among seasonal flow regimes, fish movements, and human.
alterations of the lotic environment:
1
Most fish are stimulated to move by rising water, and when the movement
is to be upstream this enables them to pass over riffles with greater
safety, because the increased width at such points spreads out the
discharge and provides zones of slower water which are nevertheless
deep enough to swim through.
Descending fish, such as smolts .•. , are also stimulated to move by
rising water ... Under normal circumstances, descending fish readily
overcome obstacles, and the cushioning of the water prevents damage at
falls, or at any rate at falls which are small enough for them or their
parents to have ascended ... This presents no problems in a natural
stream, but where man has erected dams the habit leads them not over
the fall, but to the bottom of the upper edge of the dam, where they
tend to become held up.
Hynes H.B.N. 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters. University of Toronto
Press. 555p.
-3-
The complex interrelationships between instream flows and seasonal fish
behavior are compounded by the seasonal flow requirements of a particular
species. For example, returning salmon may need 30-50 percent of
the mean annual flow to ascend the lower and middle reaches 2of a river
system, and even more flow to ascend the headwaters (Hynes ). The
preservation of fisheries resources requires that certain volumes of
instream flow be maintained and that specific flows be available at
particular times of the year. Tennant 3 provides a valuable discussion of
the "instantaneous flow" percentages of average annual streamflow required
to maintain particular levels of aquatic resources. He suggests that stream
degradation begins with the first reduction in flow, and not after4an
arbitrary minimum flow level has been reached. Orsborn and Estes discuss
the limitations of and procedures for applying non-field methodologies such
as the 5Montana Method to streams in Alaska and other states. Ott and
Tarbox provide a general literature review of methods to assess instream
flows in Alaska.
INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS
Protection of fisheries resources and other aquatic resources in the Susitna
basin requires that seasonal resource-maintenance flows be defined,
established, and legally reserved.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game recommends that decisions to permit
alterations of natural instream flows for a particular project must be based
on review of the following information by both fish and wildlife biologists
and an instream flow hydrologist:
1. physical effects of seasonal flow alterations;
2. biological effects of seasonal flow alterations;
3. seasonal variation in physical and biological effects;
4. loss of opportunities to realize alternative flow benefits (e.g.,
navigation, recreation, socioeconomics, aesthetics, etc.); and
5. ability to mitigate effects of altered flow regimes.
2 ibid
3 Tennant, D.L.1975. Instream Flow Regimes for Fish, Wildlife, Recreation
and Related Environmental Resources. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Billings, Montana.
4
5
Orsborn, J.F., C. Estes 1981. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Unpublished Report.
Ott, A.G., and K.E. Tarbox. 1977. "Instream Flow" Applicabili,ty of
Existing Methodologies for Alaska Waters. Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
Anchorage, Alaska, 70 pp.
-4-
When the above data are not available, it will be necessary to determine
whether or not:
1. to apply non-field techniques (e.g., Tennant•s Montana Method), to
evaluate effects of flow alterations, or
2. to initiate habitat preference and instream flow field
assessments.
Specific instream flows will not be recommended at this time because flow
data within the Susitna basin are minimal or non-existent on most of the
streams identified. Alaska Department of Fish and Game proposes the
postponement of any water withdrawals which will cause loss of fish or
wildlife habitat until studies have been conducted to determine the extent
of habitat loss and to propose acceptable mitigation measures. This
condition should apply except where water is being appropriated for
municipal or domestic use. Investigations are needed to determine flow
regimes and the effects of reduced flows on fish and wildlife habitat.
Criteria for Stream Recommendations and Instream Flow Considerations
Specific waterbodies in the Susitna basin were identified as being important
for reservations of water to maintain the instream flow and aquatic habitat
values.
These areas were considered and selected based on the following criteria:
fisheries and wildlife values, unique habitat characteristics and their
potential for recreational use. Streams were defined as important for
fisheries if escapements were greater than 1,000 for sockeye, coho, pink and
chum salmon combined or greater than 500 for chinook salmon (Table 1). Each
identified waterbody significantly contributes to the returning salmon
population used for commercial harvest, recreation and continued propagation
of salmon. Table 2 lists sport fishing effort days for select streams
within the Susitna Area Plan. Harvest information was obtained from the
Statewide Harvest Study for 1979 and 1980, and from a Sport Fishing
Location, Access, and Effort Map, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport
Fish Division 1983.
Proposed Guidelines to Protect Instream Flows
Except for domestic use, the maintenance of fish stocks is the highest
priority water use in the study area. It is the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game•s goal to:
1. maintain the historic levels of productivity of fish and wildlife
populations and the carrying capacity of their natural habitats and
2. provide for optimum commercial, recreational, and subsistence use of
fish and wildlife populations through conservation and management.
The following recommendations are based upon general habitat and land
management practices. These issues need to be addressed if the productivity
-5-
I
(J')
I
TABLE 1(a). Salmon Escapement/Harvest Data for Susitna Area Plan Systems Upper Cook Inlet West Side Systems
Area
Beluga River
Bishop Creek
Coal Creek
Coal Creek Lake
Drill Creek
Olson Creek
Pretty Creek
Scarp Creek
West Fork
Chakachatna River
Noaukta Slough
Straight Creek
Tributary to
Straight Creek
Chuitna River
BHW Creek
Chuit Creek
Lone Creek
Middle Creek
Wolverine Fork
Lewis River
Nikolai Creek
Theodore River
Threemile Creek
Year
1980
1977
1972
1978
1972
1981
1980
1977
1980
* * 1982
1981
1981
*
1982
1976-79
* 1982
1982
* 1982
1982
1982
1978, 1979, 1981
* * 1982
1976-79, 1981
* *
Legend A DOWL Engineers (DE)
Chinook
468(E)
1,551(E)
1,000(E)
1,229(E)
1,000(E)
1,300(E)
1,300(E)
1,130-1,984(E)
28S(E)
1,000(E)
548(E)
150( E)
546-560(E)
SOO(E)
512-2,263(E)
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association (CIAA)
Woodward-Clyde (WWC)
Sockeye
1,2SO(E)
2,313(E)
1,700(E)
1,100 (E)
1,000(E)
1,000(E)
S,OOO(E)
3,000(E)
3,000(E)
1,000(E)
Coho
520(E)
1,000(E)
1,000(E)
1,000(E)
1,000(E)
S,OOO(E)
1,SOO(E)
1,000(E)
1,000(E)
SOO(E)
1,000(E)
1,000(E)
Chum Pink Reference
1 ,SOO(E) CIAA
CIAA
CIAA
CIAA
CIAA
CIAA
S,OOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
CIAA
1,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
SOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G wwc
S,OOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
S,OOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
DE
S,OOO(E)
10,000(E)
S,OOO(E)
S,OOO(E)
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
CIAA
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
CIAA
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Personal Communication, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Escapement data (E)
Harvest data (H)
NOTE: Escapement and harvest data do not necessarily estimate the total stream escapement.
*Escapement estimates from several years of observation
TABLE 1(b). Salmon Escapement/Harvest Data for Yentna River Drainage
Area Year Chinook Sockeye Coho Chum Pink References
Bear Creek * 100(E) S,OOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Cache Creek 1983 SOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Clearwater Creek * 100(E) S,OOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Contact Creek * 100(E) 1,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Canyon Creek 1983 575(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Donkey Creek * 100(E) 1 ,OOO(E) S,OOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Eightmile Creek 1982 1,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
1983 2SO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Fish Creek 1982 1,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Happy River 1983 SOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Puntell a Lake 1977 2,100(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
1978 1,1 OS (E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Hewitt Lake 1976, 1978, 1980 1,200-2,017(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
I Hewitt & Whiskey Lake 1981 9,8SO(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
"'-J Huckleberry Creek 1980 1,7SO(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
I Hungryman Creek * 100(E) S,OOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Kichatna * 1,000(E) 10,000(E) 10,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Nakochna River * 1 ,OOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Lake Creek 1976-79 3,735-8,931(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
6,000(E) S,OOO(E) 2,SOO(E) 1S,OOO(E) SOO,OOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Camp Creek 1983 1,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of.SF/ADF&G
Chelatna Lake 1980 4, 120(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
1981 14,900(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Home Creek 1982 SOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Sunflower 1983 1,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
unnamed tributary 1980 SOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
(T.2SN., R.10W.~ SM) 1983 2SO(E) 2SO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Yenlo Creek 1977 1 ,061 (E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
1982 SOO(E) 2,SOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Peters Creek 1976 1,489(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
* 4,000(E) 1,000(E) 10 ,000( E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
1982 SOO(E) SOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Black Creek 1983 100(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
1982 SOO(E) SOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div, of SF/ADF&G
Kenny Creek 1983 100(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Martin Creek 1976 791(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
1977 1,061(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Pickle Creek * S,OOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Portage Creek 1980 1,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Quartz Creek 1981 1,210(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Quiggs Creek 1982 SOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
1983 2SO(E) 1,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
TABLE 1(b). Salmon Escapement/Harvest Data for Yentna River Drainage
Area Year Chinook Sockeye Coho Chum Pink References
Bear Creek * 100(E) S,OOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Cache Creek 1983 SOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Clearwater Creek * 1 00( E) S,OOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Contact Creek * 100(E) 1,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Canyon Creek 1983 57S(E) Per .Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Donkey Creek * 100(E) 1,000(E) S,OOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Eightmile Creek 1982 1,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
1983 2SO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Fish Creek 1982 1,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Happy River 1983 SOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Puntella Lake 1977 2,100(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
1978 1,1 OS (E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Hewitt Lake 1976, 1978, 1980 1,200-2,017(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Hewitt & Whiskey Lake 1981 9,8SO(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
I Huckleberry Creek 1980 1,7SO(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G co
I Hungryman Creek * 1 OO(E) S,OOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Kichatna * 1,000(E) 1 O,OOO(E) 10,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Nakochna River * 1,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Lake Creek 1976-79 3,735-8,931(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
6,000(E) S,OOO(E) 2,SOO(E) 1S,OOO(E) SOO,OOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Camp Creek 1983 1,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Chelatna Lake 1980 4,120(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
1981 14,900(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Home Creek 1982 SOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Sunflower 1983 1,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
unnamed tributary 1980 SOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
(T.2SN., R.10W., SM) 1983 2SO(E) 2SO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Yenlo Creek 1977 1,061 (E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
1982 SOO(E) 2,SOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Peters Creek 1976 1,489(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
* 4,000(E) 1,000(E) 10,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
1982 SOO(E) SOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Black Creek 1983 100 (E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
1982 SOO(E) SOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Kenny Creek 1983 100(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Martin Creek 1976 791(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
1977 1,061 (E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Pickle Creek * S,OOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Portage Creek 1980 1,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Quartz Creek 1981 1 ,210(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Quiggs Creek 1982 SOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
1983 250(E) 1,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
I
1..0
I
TABLE 1(b). [continued] Salmon Escapement/Harvest Data for Yentna River Drainage
Area Year Chinook Sockeye Coho Chum Pink References
Red Creek 1977 1,511(E) · Stream Survey Data ADF&G
1981 749(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
* S,100(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Johnson Creek * S,100(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Red Sa 1 mon Lake 1980 1,100 (E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Shell Creek 1979 1,000(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
1981 S,100(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Shell Lake 1980 S,SOO(H) Sport Fish Harvest ADF&G
1981 6,0SO(H) Sport Fish Harvest ADF&G
Talachulitna R. System 1976-81 1,319-2,02S(E) 9,295-25,93S(E) 30,000-SOO,OOO(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
* 2,000(E) 10,000(E) SOO,OOO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Friday Creek 1983 9SO(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Judd Lake 1973-75 4, 720-10,364 (E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Saturday Creek 1983 600(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Talachulitna Creek 1973 1,3SO(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Talachulitna River 1976, 77, 79 1,319-1,856(E) 2,699-29,935(E) 30,000(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Twentymile Creek 1983 2,000(E) 1,000(E) Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Legend B Stream Survey Data courtesy of Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Division of Sport Fish and Fisherie$
Rehabilitation, Enhancement and Development Division, and Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
Sport Fish Harvest -State Harvest Study 1980 Data, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish
Personal Communication, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Escapement data (E)
Harvest data (H)
NOTE: Escapement and harvest data do not necessarily estimate the total stream escapement.
*Escapement estimates from several years of observation
I
--'
0
I
TABLE 1(c). Salmon Escapement/Harvest Data for Susitna River Tributaries
Area
Alexander Creek
Upper & Lower Sucker
Wolverine
Birch Creek
Fish Lakes
Sheep Creek
Goose Creek
Indian River
Kashwitna River-North Fork
Kroto Creek
Trapper Creek
Twentymile Creek
Montana Creek
Portage Creek
Question Creek
Rabiduex Creek
Sheep Creek
Sunshine Creek
Trapper Creek
Year Chinook
1976-79 S,412.,.13,38S(E)
1979
* 1983 SOO(E)
1983 SOO(E)
1972
1980
1980
1983 SOO(E)
1976 537(E)
1981 557(E)
1976-79 21,693-39,642(E)
1979
* 1983 300( EJ
1983 200(E)
1976-79 881-1,445(E)
1979 312(H)
1980 559(H)
1976 702(E)
1981 659(E)
1980
1980
1983 200(E)
1978, 79, 81 778-1,209(E)
1979
1980
1980
1980
Sockeye Coho
1,560(H)
S,OOO(E)
2,100(E)
Entire Deshka System (EDS)
2,290(H)
10,000(E)
SOO(E) 2SO(E)
SOO(E)
1,73S(H)
2,684(H)
200(E)
1,534(H)
Chum Pink
2SO,OOO(E)
3,051 (E)
10,000(E)
SOO,OOO(E)
SOO(E)
2,472(H)
8,230(H)
1,000(E)
1,000(E)
2,412(H)
6,362(H)
2,408(H)
1,000(E)
References
Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Sport Fish Harvest ADF&G
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADFI
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADA
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADFI
Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADFI
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADFI
Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Stream Survey Data ADF&G (Eos:
Sport Fish Harvest ADF&G
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADFI
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADFI
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADFI
Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Sport Fish Harvest ADF&G
Sport Fish Harvest ADF&G
Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADFI
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADFI
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF~
Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Sport Fish Harvest ADF&G
Sport Fish Harvest ADF&G
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADFI
Legend C Stream Survey Data courtesy of Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Division of Sport Fish Fisheries Enhanc
Division, and Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
Sport Fish Harvest -State Harvest Study, 1979 and 1980 ·Data, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish
Personal Communication, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Escapement data (E)
Harvest data (H)
NOTE: Escapement and harvest data do not necessarily estimate the total stream escapement.
*Escapement estimates from several years of observation
I __, __,
TABLE 1(d). Salmon Escapement/Harvest Data for Talkeetna River Subdrainage of the Susitna River
Area Year Chinook Sockeye Coho Chum Pink References
Chunilna Creek 1974, 76, 77 769-1,237(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
1979 1,248(H) Sport Fish Harvest ADF&G
Mama & Papa Bear Lakes 1976, 78, 80 7,700-20,2SO(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Larson Lake 1977, 81 2,500-S,SOO(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Prairie Creek 1976-78, 81 1,900-6,513(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Stephan Lake 1978 1,022(E) Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Legend D Stream Survey Data courtesy of Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Division of Sport Fish, Fisheries
Rehabilitation and Enhancement Division, and Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
Sport Fish Harvest -State Harvest Study 1979 Data, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish
Escapement data (E)
Harvest data (H)
NOTE: Escapement and harvest data do not necessarily estimate the total stream escapement.
I
--'
N
I
TABLE 1(e). Salmon Escapement/Harvest Data for the Chulitna River Subdrainage of the Susitna River
Area
Byers Creek
Chulitna River Middle Fork
Troublesome Creek
Year
1979
1976-78
1980
Chinook
900-1,870(E)
Legend E Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association (CIAA)
Sockeye Coho
1,000(1;)
Chum Pink
1,000(E)
References
CIAA
Stream Survey Data ADF&G
Per.Comm. 1983 Div. of SF/ADF&G
Stream Survey Data courtesy of Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Division of Sport Fish, Fisheries
\
Rehabilitation and Enhancement Division, and Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
Personal Communication, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Escapement data (E)
Harvest data (H)
NOTE: Escapement and harvest data do not necessarily estimate the total stream escapement.
TABLE 2. Susitna Area Plan Sport Fishing Effort Days/Year
10,000
Sheep Creek
Deshka River
Alexander Creek
Montana Creek
Lake Creek
Caswell Creek
5-10,000
Moose Creek
Chunilna Creek
Sunshine Creek
1-5,000
Chuitna River
Chuit River
Talachulitna River
Kashwitna River
Goose Creek
Peters Creek
Beluga River
Skwentna River
Black Creek
Martin Creek
Sucker Creek
1,000
Straight Creek
Theodore River
Olsen Creek
Nikolai Creek
Lewis River
Prairie Creek
Portage Creek
Indian Creek
Red Creek
Shell Creek
Ref: Sport Fishing Location, Access and Effort Map, Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Sport Fish Div., South Central Regional Staff 1983.
of populations and the carrying capacity of their habitats is to be
maintained.
1. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources should not allow an
appropriation of water from a river, lake or wetland to cause the
flow or water level to fall below the amount determined necessary
to protect fish, wildlife and waterfowl habitat and production,
unless, under the procedures outlined in AS 46.15.080, the
commissioner of ADNR makes a finding based on public review that
the competing use of water is in the best public interest and no
feasible and prudent alternative exists.
2. To minimize negative impacts on natural stream flows and water
quality, the appropriate land management agency should retain a
publicly-owned vegetated (if naturally occurring) strip of land or
an easement as a buffer on lands adjacent to fish habitat. A
buffer is preferred on streams and rivers important to the
production of anadromous fish or with important public use values.
The sizes of the river, lake, or wetland buffers should be decided
on a case-by-case basis and may vary, depending on the nature of
the activity proposed and the particular values of the river,
lake, or wetland. Generally, public land disposals for rural
homesites, recreational facilities, recreational land disposals,
and similar low density, non-water dependent uses should have a
minimum 6 buffer of 200 feet landward of the ordinary high water
rna rk( s) .
6Guidelines for Protection of Onshore and Nearshore Fish and Wildlife Areas,
Habitat Division July 1983.
-13-
Where buffers are smaller than the m1n1mum, soil erosion should,
to the extent feasible· and prudent, be minimized by restricting
the removal of vegetation adjacent to fish-bearing waterbodies and
by stabilizing disturbed soil as soon as possible. Adequate
stabilization practices should be determined on a case-by-case
basis. Private land owners are encouraged to maintain development
setbacks equivalent to the buffers described here and to follow
soil erosion mitigation practices.
3. Rivers, streams, or lakes that support important commercial,
subsistence, or recreational fish species should not be dammed,
diverted, or drawn down by hydroelectric projects unless the
project will be designed or mitigated to provide adequate instream
flows so as to cause no net loss to fish production.
4. Significant amounts of snow and ice cover should not be removed
from shallow lakes, wetlands and rivers with low winter flows that
are important to overwintering anadromous fish. Water withdrawal
shall be limited as to not reduce limited overwintering fish
habitat in ice-stressed (frozen) systems.
-14-