Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

photograph by Pete Martin

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY OF PURPOSE

This document is a land use plan for public lands inthe Susitna Area. The plan designates the uses that areto occur on much of the public land within the SusitnaArea. It shows areas to be sold for private use and areasto be retained in public ownership. The plan resultsin specific policies for the near term (5 years) and moregeneral policies for the long term (20 years). It doesnot control uses on private land, nor does it direct landuse on areas that already have been legislatively desig-nated for specific purposes, such as parks or wildliferefuges.

Since most public lands will be managed for multipleuse, the plan also establishes rules which allow varioususes to occur without serious conflicts. For example,in an area intended for land disposals, the plan ex-plains how public access to streams and trails is to bemaintained.

HOW THE PLAN IS ORGANIZED

To present this information, the draft plan is organizedinto four chapters.

Chapter 1 provides a brief description of the planningarea, explains the reasons a plan is necessary for theSusitna Area, and explains the types of decisions madeby the plan. It also provides a summary of the plan'sland management goals and a description of theplanning process.

Chapter 2 presents an overview of the goals,management guidelines, land allocations, andimplementation procedures that affect each majorresource or type of land use. This chapter explains howagriculture, fish and wildlife habitat, forestry, recrea-tion, settlement, subsurface resources, transportation,instream flow, lakeshore management, public access,remote cabin permits, stream corridors, trail manage-ment, wetlands management and "resource manage-ment/borough land bank" issues are handled by theplan throughout the planning area.

Chapter 3 is a detailed description of the land usedesignations in each of the plan's twelve subregions.The subregions are major geographical subdivisionsof the planning area. Each subregion is further dividedinto management units, of which there are 78 in theplan. A management unit is an area that is generallyhomogeneous with respect to its resources, topo-graphy, and land ownership. For each managementunit there is a statement of management intent; a chart

listing primary and secondary land uses, prohibitedland uses, and subsurface resource policies; andmanagement guidelines that are specific to thatmanagement unit. Designated land uses are shown onmaps of each subregion at a scale of 1:250,000(approximately 1 inch to 4 miles).

Chapter 4 explains how the plan will beimplemented. It includes sections on administrativemeasures to implement the plan (land classifications,land exchanges/relinquishments and land disposalschedules), and priorities for more detailed planning.It also lists proposals for special legislative andadministrative designations (e.g., state forests orrecreation rivers) and recommendations for developingtransportation systems within the study area.

Appendices. Detailed information on procedures formodifying or amending the plan is included inAppendix A. Appendix B is a glossary of key terms usedin the plan. Appendix C presents a listing of past publi-cations associated with this plan (e.g. information onagriculture, forestry and other resources; informationon past public meetings, etc.).

Colored maps of the entire study area at a scale of1:500,000 are enclosed on the inside of the backcover. These maps summarize surface and subsurfaceland use designations.

THE PLANNING AREA

The Susitna Area covers approximately 15.8 millionacres in southcentral Alaska (see Maps 1 and 2). Allof the lands in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough exceptthose in the Willow Sub-basin are included in theplanning area. Willow Sub-basin lands, which includeland in the vicinity of Wasilla, Houston, Big Lake andWillow, were covered by a land use plan completedin 1982.* In addition, lands within the Kenai PeninsulaBorough north of the Chakachatna River also arecovered by this plan.

The Susitna Area is an extremely diverse region thatrises from sea level at Cook Inlet to the summit ofDenali. In between are the valleys of major rivers —the Susitna, Chulitna, Talkeetna, Matanuska, Kahiltna,Yentna, Skwentna, Talachulitna, and Beluga — anduncounted smaller streams. Broad, forested lowlandswith abundant lakes and wetlands occupy approxi-

Copies of this plan are available from the Anchorage office ofthe Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land & WaterManagement, Resource Allocation Section. Boundaries of thisarea are shown on Map 2.

LOCATION OF THESUSITNA STUDY AREA

mately one quarter of the study area, mostly in theregion west of the Susitna River. The remaining landsare generally mountainous, with parts of the AlaskaRange, Talkeetna Mountains, and Chugach Mountainsall included in the planning area.

The State of Alaska owns or has selected approximately60% of the land in the study area (9.5 million acres).Another 30% (4.7 million acres) is in federalownership. Of the remaining land, 4% is owned bythe Matanuska-Susitna and Kenai Peninsula Boroughs,another 3% (0.5 million acres) by Native village andregional corporations, and 4% (0.6 million acres) isin other private ownerships. See Map 3 for a general-ized land ownership map.

The 1983 population of the Matanuska-SusitnaBorough was approximately 30,600. Most residentslive in Palmer, Wasilla, Talkeetna, and Trapper Creek;in small communities along the Parks and Glenn High-ways and Alaska Railroad; or in scattered settlementsthat are not on the main road system such asSkwentna, Tyonek, and Lake Louise.

Lands and resources in the Susitna Area serve a muchbigger population than that residing within theplanning area boundaries. The Susitna Area is closeenough to Anchorage and the Houston-Wasilla area

that many people from these areas hunt or fish, harvestfirewood, engage in a variety of recreational activities,or enjoy traveling within the region.

WHY PLAN FOR THE USE OF PUBLICLAND?

Through the management of public lands, the state,borough, and federal governments greatly influencethe physical development patterns and the generalquality of life in the Susitna Area. Major developmentprojects such as mining, timber harvests, or agricultureinfluence local job opportunities. Land sold forresidential or private recreational use clearly affectsthe character of community life, as does land retainedfor hunting, fishing, and other public uses. Becausethe use of public land has such great effects on thephysical landscape and quality of life, it is essential thatthere be an open public process of deciding how tomanage that land.

The Susitna Area planning process is a means of openlyreviewing resource information and public concernsprior to making long-range decisions about public landmanagement. It is also a way of resolving conflictingland use objectives and making clear to the publicwhat choices have been made and the reasons forthose choices.

r

Susitna Study AreaJUNE 1985

SUBREGiON BOUNDARIES_____The Susitna Area is divided into 12 large subregionsfor issue and resource analysis. A description ofthe resources and land management policies for

-....*.-.-. _.._ *._• „. ,~ .. each of these subregions is presented in thisUinds Not Addressed by this Plan (Denali chapter. Lands within Denali State Park, DenaliState Park, Denali National Park). National Park and Preserve are not addressed

by this plan.

Land managers, who face many day-to-day decisionsabout land use, such as whether to issue permits forroads, timber harvests, or sand and gravel extraction,need clear and consistent guidelines for their decisions.Therefore, it is essential that land managers have awritten document which establishes long-range com-mitments for the use of public land and provides clearpolicies for public land management.

A land use plan is also valuable for private landowners.If the state and borough are publicly committed to landuse patterns and policies, private investors can feelmore secure in making decisions about their own land.For example, if someone is contemplating developinga subdivision next to state or borough land, it is impor-tant to know whether the public land is likely tobecome a gravel pit or a recreation area.

THE PURPOSE OF A JOINT BOROUGH-STATE PLAN

A land use pattern which meets both local andstatewide objectives is fundamentally dependent oncooperative borough and state planning. Many of theimportant resource lands in the planning area are inmixed borough and state ownership. These lands canbe developed most productively through projectswhich entail joint land use commitments, jointplanning for roads and other infrastructure compo-nents, coordinated disposals, etc. For example, theproposal to extend the Oilwell road into the AmberLakes area is justified best when the state and boroughmake joint land use commitments in the area. Addi-tionally, the likelihood of receiving funds to build theroad is increased greatly when the state and boroughboth actively support the proposal.

Many of the benefits of joint planning are as obviousas they are critical to rational land management. Forexample, this document proposes parts of MooseCreek and Kroto Creek as undeveloped public recrea-tion corridors. It would make little sense for theborough to pursue that intent by restricting use on oneside of the river if the state were to sell land for houseson the opposite bank. In short, because what the statedoes with its lands affects the borough and vice versa,cooperative planning is essential.

Land disposals in particular require borough and statecooperation. The borough and state should agree onthe amount and type of settlement demand and whichpublic lands — borough or state — best meet thatdemand. Not only the amount of land sold, but alsoits location, require cooperative planning. The patternof land disposals dramatically affects service costs,community character, feasibility of providing access,and the ability to manage adjacent lands for other

purposes, such as mining or forestry. These areimportant matters that should be dealt with coherentlyand consistently by major public land owners. In lightof these considerations, the Matanuska-SusitnaBorough, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources,and the Alaska Department of Fish and Came are plan-ning jointly for the use of state and borough lands inthe Susitna area.

HOW WAS THE PLAN DEVELOPED?

The Statewide PlanThe Department of Natural Resources operates undera statewide land use plan that gives guidance toplanning on a regional and local scale and serves asan aid to decisions that require more than a localperspective. The statewide plan identifies general landuse designations and management guidelines for allstate land in Alaska. In regions such as the SusitnaArea, where more detailed resource information hasbeen collected and an area plan prepared, the landuse designations and management guidelines devel-oped in the area plan will be used to refine thestatewide plan. In the Susitna Area, therefore, the landuse designations in the statewide plan and area planwill be identical once the Susitna Area Plan has beenofficially adopted.

The Susitna Area Planning ProcessThe Susitna Area Plan is the product of over three yearsof work by an interagency planning team and over 40public meetings held throughout the study area. Figure1 illustrates the planning process that led to the finalplan. The following section describes the process inmore detail.

In 1982, an interagency planning team was formed.Team members included representatives from thevarious divisions within the Department of NaturalResources and the Department of Fish and Came aswell as representatives from the Department of Trans-portation and Public Facilities and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The U.S. Department of Agriculture,the Kenai Peninsula Borough, and the Bureau of LandManagement participated on issues specific to theirrespective areas of expertise or concern.

As indicated by the planning process diagram, theplanning team held public workshops in May, 1982to identify land use issues in the study area. At the sametime, the team, in conjunction with the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, prepared maps and reportsdescribing resource values and identifying existing andpotential land uses throughout the planning area. Theresource information and the issues identified in thepublic workshops were used to develop four alterna-

Susitna Study Area

LEGEND

u a A-C H M O U N T A I N S

The adopted Willow Sub-basin Land Use Planestablishes land use designations for state andborough lands in this area.

0 6 12 18 24^E=MILES

GENERALIZEDLAND OWNERSHIP

FEDERAL

I I STATE SELECTEDBOROUGH (includes selected lands)STATE

PRIVATE (includes Native, Native selected,university, university selected, and otherprivate lands)

PAST STATE AND BOROUGH LAND SALES

liTl'JI LEGISLATIVELY DESIGNATED AREA

NOTE: This information has been generalized to showownership in blocks of 640 acres of greater. Hence, manyisolated private lots are not shown, e.g., lots within paststate land disposals and private parcels surroundingmany lakes.

JUNE 1985

tive land use options. The land use alternatives repre-sented different ways to resolve land use issues in theSusitna Area. Each emphasized a different generaltheme.

The alternative themes were as follows:Alternative 1 —

Alternative 2 —

Alternative 3 —

Alternative 4 —

Emphasis on land sales forsettlement;Emphasis on land sales foragriculture;Emphasis on fish and wildlife,recreation; and forest resources;andEmphasis on economicdiversification.

The alternatives were presented to the public at work-shops in April and May, 1983. The information fromthe workshops was used to evaluate the alternativesand develop a preferred alternative which was circu-lated for agency review in March and April 1984, Thisagency review draft was not the same as any one ofthe four alternatives, but represented a combinationof parts of each of them. Following agency review ofthe preferred alternative, it was revised and a draft planfor public review was circulated. This draft wasreviewed by the public at hearings throughout thestudy area during late summer 1984. Public commentswere incorporated and necessary revisions madebefore the final plan was adopted by the Commissionerof Natural Resources and the Matanuska-SusitnaBorough assembly in early spring of 1985.

Public ParticipationOrganization: Public participation was an essentialpart of the planning process. In the spring of 1982 andagain in the spring of 1983, public workshops wereheld throughout the study area (in the communitiesof Lake Louise, Glacier View, Sutton, Trapper Creek,Talkeetna, Skwentna, and Tyonek) and in Anchorage,Wasilla, Willow and Cantwell. Approximately 250people attended the 1983 workshops dealing withalternative land use plans, and written comments werereceived from several dozen more. Results of theseworkshops are summarized in a separate documentavailable from the Department of Natural Resources(Susitna Area Plan — Public Workshops Spring, 1983).The hearings on the public review draft of the plan,held in August and September of 1984, were also wellattended. In addition to the approximately 250 peoplewho came to these hearings, over 100 people sent inwritten comments on the plan. The full set of publiccomments and responses is available in another DNRpublication (Susitna Area Plan — Response to PublicComments on the Draft Plan).

Figure 1SUSITNA AREA PLANPLANNING PROCESS——————1._______An interagency planning team was formedwith stale and borough members represent-ing each of the important resources in thearea: Forestry, Settlement, Agriculture, Fishand Wildlife, Recreation, Minerals andEnergy (Winter, 1982).

2.The planning team identified land use issuesand planning needs through publicworkshops and review of existing information(Spring, 1982).

3.Existing and potential resource values andland uses were identified and mapped bythe planning team. Most of this resourceinformation was derived from the US. Depart-ment of Agriculture / ADNR Susitna RiverBasin cooperative data Inventory process(1977-1983) and meetings with special in-terest groups (Winter / Spring, 1982-83).

4.-Alternative land use plans showing possibleresolutions to land use issues were devel-oped by the planning team and reviewedby the public in twelve workshops (Spring,1983).

5.Based on response to the alternatives, a draftplan was prepared by the planning teamand reviewed by affected agencies (Spring,1984).

6.After necessary revisions following agencyreview, a Public Review Draft was distributedand public hearings were held (Summer/Fall, 1984).

7.-Final revisions were made tallowing thepublic hearings The Commissioner of ADNRand the Borough Assembly approved theplan which now guides public landmanagement decisions in the Susitna Area.

Throughout the planning process, members of theplanning team and staff met informally with represen-tatives of many special interest groups to inform themof the plan's progress and provide them an opportunityto review resource data and plan proposals. Contactsincluded meetings with the Alaska Miners Association,Alaska Center for The Environment, forestryassociations, the Mat-Su Borough Agricultural AdvisoryBoard, Native corporations, Fish and Came AdvisoryBoards, the Resource Development Council andothers.

Results of the two key steps in the public participationprogram — review of land use alternatives and reviewof the draft plan — are summarized below.

Public Review of Alternative Land Use Plans: Themajority of people attending the Spring 1983 publicworkshops put greatest importance on the goals ofpreserving community character and protectingenvironmental quality. Opinions on the goals ofeconomic development and additional land sales weremore varied but less favorable overall. Overall, theland use designations and management guidelines inthe final plan approximate those presented in alter-natives 3 and 4, as preferred by workshop participants.The gross area available for land sales is greater thanthe amount proposed in either of these alternatives,however. This reflects additional information on publicopinion, including widespread interest in the home-stead program at public meetings held by the Divisionof Land and Water Management (February, 1984), andcontinued strong public response to the existingdisposal program.

Public Review of the Draft Plan. A large numberof minor and several major issues were brought upduring the public review of the draft plan. The majorissues included the plan's policies on land disposal,mining and the multiple use of state lands, and desig-nation of wilderness areas. While the overall directionof land management policy presented in the draft planwas not changed, public comments resulted in numer-ous specific revisions and clarifications of the plan.

SUMMARY OF LAND MANAGEMENTGOALS AND POLICIES

The major goals of the final plan are summarized inthe following section. In general, the purpose of theplan is to define a set of management policies for stateand borough lands that will allow these lands to pro-duce the greatest possible public benefits.

Under this plan, the majority of state and boroughlands will be retained in public ownership andmanaged for multiple use including forestry, develop-

ment of mineral resources, recreation, tourism, andprotection and use of fish and wildlife. The majorityof land with potential for agriculture will be retainedin public ownership for at least the near term andclassified "resource management," a category thatpreserves options for all possible uses until betterinformation and/or access is available. A moderateamount of agricultural land (approximately 26,000acres) will be offered for sale in the near term. Thiswill allow the state and borough to observe the resultsof agricultural efforts on land already committed tothis purpose while retaining the opportunity to expandagricultural production in the future.

Under the plan a substantial amount of land(approximately 110,000 acres of state land and 7,000acres of borough land) will be offered for settlementover the next 20 years. Offerings will focus on pro-viding land necessary for community expansion, landfor settlement associated with resource developmentand high quality accessible land for recreational/seasonal use and investment. Some land also will beavailable in more remote areas for recreational use andself-sufficient lifestyles. If past patterns continue, mostland will be used at least in the near term for recrea-tional/seasonal or investment purposes. In addition toland sales, the plan encourages development of apublic use cabin system and identifies areas forissuance of remote cabin permits.

Overall, this plan strives for development of resourceson state and borough lands while emphasizing pro-tection of environmental quality and communitycharacter. The plan proposes expanded use of thearea's resources, but controls the manner and locationof development so that many of the qualities that makethe area attractive are protected and enhanced.

Outlined below are the plan's major economic,environmental, social and transportation goals.

EconomyThe economy of the study area is at present almostexclusively dependent on government, service, retail,and construction sectors which in turn are largelybased upon the state's current oil wealth. A major goalof the plan is to use public lands for development ofbasic industries that can contribute to the local andregional economy when state oil revenues decline.Analysis of different development options show thatthe major way this can be achieved, at least in the nearterm, is through the use of public land for forestry,mineral and energy resource development, huntingand fishing, recreation and tourism. Agriculture is alsoseen as important at gradually expanded levels.

10

L,

Natural EnvironmentMaintaining environmental quality was rated the mostimportant goal for management of public lands by thegreat majority of people attending workshops on planalternatives held in the area and Anchorage. A primarygoal of the plan is to allow forestry, agriculture, miningand other types of development to occur but managethese uses to minimize environmental impacts. Thisgoal is not seen as contrary to the economic objectivesbecause the area's economy is likely to be verydependent on opportunities for hunting, fishing,sightseeing, etc., that require high environmentalquality. Protecting quality of riparian environments isa particular focus of the plan.

Social Environment and Land SalesA major goal of the plan is to use state and boroughlands to sustain the characteristics of the region thatattract people to the area: proximity to recreationopportunities, availability of local supplies of wood andfish and wildlife resources, visual quality, and plentyof open space. To achieve this goal for as many peopleas possible, and simultaneously to reduce fiscal costs,the plan strives for a pattern of settlement that resultsin relatively concentrated settlement areas separatedby large areas of open space where settlement is sparseand land is used for forestry, mining, fish and wildlife,and recreation. Another important way this goal isachieved is by developing a plan for the use of statelands with the consultation of local governments andwith consideration of their goals. Finally, the overallpace of land sales will be slowed gradually underpolicies in this plan.

Transportation and AccessThe final major goal of the plan is to open more landin the region to a variety of public and private uses.This is achieved in part by the pattern of land usedesignations in the plan. This pattern is specificallyarranged to combine designated uses in a manner thatmakes benefits of road construction greater than thecost. For example, in the region south of PetersvilleRoad,, forestry areas are designated to encourage con-struction of pioneer roads that will open adjacent landto use for public and private recreation and agriculture.Another result of the plan is the preparation of a jointstate and borough capital improvement budget for pre-sentation to the state legislature. This set of transpor-tation priorities will be coordinated with the DOT/PF'songoing transportation planning work. Finally, the planwill require future land sales of small lots (< 10 acres)in areas near roads to meet borough requirements forconstruction of physical access to all parcels. This willslow the pace of land sales and increase sale pricesbut reduce fiscal and environmental costs.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUSITNAAREA PLAN

The plan has been signed by the Commissioners ofthe Alaska Departments of Natural Resources and Fishand Game and is now state policy for the managementof state lands in the Susitna Area. All ADNR andADF&C decisions (land disposals, classifications,timber sales, road building, mineral leasing and allother actions on state lands) shall comply with the pro-visions of this plan. The plan also has been approvedby the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly andcontrols land use decisions on borough lands as well.All decisions on borough lands will comply with theprovisions of this plan. Where land managementpolicy is different for state and borough lands, forexample, the policy dealing with the use of land withagricultural potential, these differences are describedin the plan. In the case of federal lands, the Bureauof Land Management will consider the recommenda-tions of the area plan when preparing a managementplan for federal lands in the area.

The land use designations made on state lands in thisplan are officially established in state records throughthe state's land classification system. The system is aformal record of the primary uses for which eachparcel of state land will be managed. These classifica-tions will be shown on status plats which are availablefor public use at various offices of the Department ofNatural Resources. These plats will indicate theprimary uses designated by this plan and will refer thereader to the plan for more detailed information,including statements of management intent, secondaryland uses and land management guidelines. Classifi-cations for each management unit are shown in chartform in Chapter 4.

Another important step in the implementation of thisplan will be more detailed planning for specific man-agement units or for specific issues such as trails ortransportation. These detailed plans are referred to as"management plans" as distinguished from thisdocument which is an "area plan." An area plan setsforth permitted land uses, related policies and man-agement guidelines but at less detail than a manage-ment plan. For example, an area plan does not designindividual land disposals, pinpoint the location of newroads or utility lines, or establish the schedule fortimber sales. These design and scheduling decisionson state lands are addressed by management planswhich implement the provisions of an area plan ona site specific basis. Chapter 4 includes a list ofmanagement plans proposed for implementation ofthe Susitna Area Plan.

11

Other important implementation actions, alsoaddressed in Chapter 4, include proposals for legisla-tive or administrative designation of areas possessingparticularly valuable public resources (e.g., staterecreation rivers, state forests, etc.), plans for protectingthe routes of future roads and other possible improve-ments to the regional transportation system, and pro-cedures for determining the pace of state land disposal.

The Matanuska-Susitna Borough eventually will adoptthe Susitna Plan as part of the borough comprehensiveplan. The borough is currently working on its com-prehensive plan; the transportation and public servicescomponents are nearly complete and the land usecomponent is underway. The borough's comprehen-sive plan and the Susitna Area Plan are designed tocomplement one another: while the area plan dealswith public lands in more remote areas, the borough'scomprehensive plan focuses on the developed por-tions of the borough and includes consideration of useson private lands. Together these two efforts willproduce a regional land use plan covering lands in allownerships.

MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN

A plan can never be so comprehensive and visionaryas to provide solutions to all land use problems, norshould it be inflexible. Therefore, the land usedesignations, the policies, and the managementguidelines of this plan may be changed if conditionswarrant. The plan will be updated periodically as newdata become available and as changing social andeconomic conditions place different demands onpublic lands. An interagency planning team willcoordinate periodic review of this plan when theAlaska Department of Natural Resources and/or theMatanuska-Susitna Borough consider it necessary. Theplan review will include meetings with all interestedgroups and the general public.

In addition to periodic review, modification of the planor exceptions to its provisions may be proposed at anytime by members of the public or governmentagencies. Appendix 1 presents procedures for makingamendments to and minor modifications of the planwhich will be followed by the Department of NaturalResources with regard to state-owned land and by theMatanuska-Susitna Borough with regard to borough-owned lands. On borough lands, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly may approve changeswithout requiring approval of DNR as DNR mayapprove changes on state lands without approval ofthe borough. However, each will consult with theother prior to making such changes. Appendix 1 also

presents procedures for making special exceptions tothe provisions of the plan when modifications are notnecessary or appropriate.

12