UPPER KNIK ARM WETLANDS
A proposal for designation as an Area Meriting Special Attention
Prepared by:
David M. Dall Jon R. Nickles
United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service November 1982 i
Table of Contents
(1) Introduction••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1
(2) Basis for Designation•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2
(3) Maps and Description of Geographical Location•••••••••••••• 3
(4) Area Description...... 3
A. Dominant Physical Features •••••••••••••••••••• .'...... 3 B. Dominant Biological Features•••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7
(5) Current Land Use •....••.....•...... •...... 9
A. Ownership • . • . . • • . . . • • • . . • • . . • • • . . • • • • . • • • • . . • • . . . • • . . . 9 B. Jurisdication and Management Status ••••••••••••••••••• 9 c. Uses, Activities, and Proposed Developments••••••••••• 12
(6) Current and Proposed Use of Adjacent Lands and Waters •••••• 13
(7) Present and Anticipated Conflicts Among Uses and Activities Within or Adjacent to the Area ••••••••••••••••••••••• 14
(8) Proposed Management Scheme ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 14
(9) Recommendations ....•...... ••..•..•••.•..•.••••...... ••....• 14
A. Description of Proper and Improper Land and Water Uses Within the Area. . . . . • ...... • . . . . • ...... 14 B. Summary and Statement of the Policies Applied to Management of the Area ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 16 c. Identification of Authorities Used to Implement the Proposed Management Scheme ••••••••••••••••••••••• 16 ii
List of Figures
gure
1. Knik Arm Wetlands study area...... 4
2. Knik Arm Wetlands study area, landforms•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 5
3. Flood hazard and tidal influence areas, Knik Arm Wetlands •••••••••• 6
List of Tables
Table
1. Salmon streams within the Knik Arm Wetlands study area••••••••••••• 8
2. Breeding waterfowl averaged for 1975 and 1976 •••••••••••••••••••••• 10
3. Comparison of breeding duck densities in the study area and Cook Inlet area...... ••••.•...... ••.... 10
4. Moose harvest summary, Unit 14A···································· 11 Page 1
(1) Introduction
This report summarizes Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) interests in management of the Upper Knik Arm Wetlands. Supporting information is contained in the report titled Knik Arm Wetlands Study (1981), prepared for the FWS by Alaska Biological Research-.--The Upper Knik Arm Wetlands are located in the coastal zone between Anchorage and Palmer, Alaska, at the upper end of Knik Arm of Cook Inlet, in the general area of the Knik and Matanuska Rivers. The study area extends along the land-water interface from the Eklutna River across Knik Arm to Cottonwood Creek then inland to the 50-foot contour interval, except in the Jim Lake/Swan Lake area where the 100-foot contour interval is used. Part of this area is known locally as the Palmer Hayflats. Within the Hayflats is the Palmer Hayflats State Game Refuge, administered by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and the Hayflats Recreation Area Special Land Use District, administered by the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough.
Federal and state coastal zone management legislation provides for designation of Areas Meriting Special Attention (AMSA). Most of the study area has been proposed for AMSA designation by the Mat-Su Borough (Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Program, Phase 1 Completion Report, Maynard and Partch, and Woodward-Clyde Consultants, May 1981). We encourage such a designation by the Mat-Su Borough, along with cooperative development of a land management plan. Implementation could be through local ordinance and state and federal laws.
The Knik Arm Wetlands are biologically important and sensitive to change; they will be influenced by population growth in adjoining areas. Wetlands protection is necessary to maintain the area's hydrological and biological integrity. Waters and wetlands within and adjacent to the area make a valuable contribution to anadromous fish production in Upper Cook Inlet. Additionally, these wetlands provide an important resting and feeding area for migratory birds which congregate in large numbers during spring and fall migration. Several species of birds remain through the summer and breed here. A large moose population overwinters in lowlands and on adjacent uplands. Moose also use the lowlands for calving and for summer habitat. The abundant fish and wildlife and high scenic quality attract large numbers of both consumptive and non-consumptive outdoor recreationists.
Coastal wetlands are productive habitats; however, resource development often conflicts with resource protection. "Striking a balance between conservation and development of the wild and rich coastal resources ••• is the reason for coastal zone management" (Office of Coastal Management, 1979).
The Knik Arm Wetlands perform several important functions including the following:
a. Provide a major component of the food chain by producing bacterially enriched detritus;
b. provide nesting, spawning, rearing, and resting habitat for fish and wildlife; Page 2
c. establish drainage characteristics, sedimentation and current patterns, salinity gradients, and flushing characteristics;
d. shield other areas from wave action, erosion, or storm damage;
e. serve as valuable storage areas for storm and flood waters and act as prime ground water recharge/discharge and water-holding areas;
f. provide natural water filtration and purification, e.g. by acting as sediment accretion sites that reduce nutrient and sediment loads and increase oxygen content of waters which pass through them; and
g. provide areas for outdoor recreation and aesthetic appreciation of the natural environment.
Some development has occurred in the area and several projects have been proposed. More development proposals are expected as population increases in the Anchorage-Eklutna and Mat-Su Valley areas. Individual and cumulative project impacts could adversely affect wetland functions. Development of a management plan for the Knik Arm Wetlands will help ensure orderly development and resource protection. The emphasis should be on maintaining the area's natural qualities and the public benefits they provide.
(2) Basis for Designation
This AMSA proposal has been developed in accordance with the Alaska Coastal Management Program. It is consistent with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), as amended. Section 305(b)(3) requires that the management program for each coastal state shall include an inventory and designation of areas of particular concern [i.e. AMSA] within the coastal zone. Further, Section 306(c)(9) states that:
"Prior to granting apl?roval of a management program submitted by a coastal state, the Secretary Lof Commerce] shall find that the management program makes provision for procedures whereby specific areas may be designated for the purpose of preserving or restoring them for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values."
The Alaska Coastal Management Program defines an Area Meriting Special Attention as:
"•.•a delineated geographic area within the coastal area which is sensitive to change or alteration and which, because .••a claim on the resources within the area delineated would preclude subsequent use of the resources to a conflicting or incompatible use, warrants special management attention, or which, because of its value to the general public, should be identified for current or future planning, protection or acquisition•••• "
The Upper Knik Arm Wetlands possess the following features which qualify the area for AMSA designation (as defined in AS 46.40.210(1) and 6 AAC 80.160): Page 3
a. Unique, scarce, fragile, or vulnerable natural habitat;
b. high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources;
c. substantial recreational value or opportunity;
d. significant hazard due to storms, slides, floods, erosion, or settlement;
e. special scientific values or opportunities, including those where ongoing research projects could be jeopardized by development of conflicting uses and activities; and
f. essential area necessary to protect, maintain or replenish coastal land or resources including coastal floodplains and aquifer recharge areas.
(3) Maps and Description of Geographical Location
The proposed AMSA includes approximately 100 square miles, much of which is water (Figures 1 and 2). Virtually all the area is wetlands and flood prone lowlands (Figure 3). The FWS National Wetland Inventory Program has mapped wetlands in the area at a scale of 1:25,000. Because the objective of this proposed AMSA is to protect and manage valuable natural resources, the boundary is based on biophysical features. The Palmer Hayflats State Game Refuge is protected and managed by ADF&G; it is not recommended for AMSA designation. It is included within the AMSA boundary because its habitats and resources are similar to those elsewhere in the study area.
(4) Area Description
A. Dominant Physical Features
The study area is drained primarily by the 75-mile long Matanuska River, with a drainage area of approximately 2,190 square miles, and by the 25-mile long Knik River with a drainage area of approximately 1,180 square miles. These rivers originate at the Matanuska and Knik Glaciers, respectively. Smaller clear water drainages include Eklutna River, Rabbit Slough-Wasilla Creek, and Cottonwood Creek. Peak flows of the Matanuska River come in mid-summer when glacier melt is greatest. Low flows occur in late winter when there is little runoff or glacier melt. In the past, glacial outburst flooding occurred regularly in the Knik River floodplain. This has not occurred since June 1966.
Most of the area is of low relief near sea level; there is generally a distinct break between lowlands and uplands. The 1964 Alaska Earthquake caused wide-spread subsidence. With the exception of bordering slopes and limited uplands, water is at or near the surface. Much of the area is poorly drained and subject to inundation by high tides and/or surface runoff. Lakes and ponds are not common except in the Jim Lake/Swan Lake region.
In the Eklutna River and Cottonwood Creek areas, surficial geology has been influenced by glaciation. Topography is characterized by glacial moraines and associated drift. The channels and lowlands adjacent to the Knik and "v-....r..;o -., ' . ' \ .I ~ . '
Figure 1 Upp er Knik Arm Hetlands Study Area /
LANDFORMS:
SC&l.[ I COASTAL, COFFEE POINT, COTTONWOOD ... CREEK --- STUDY AIIEA BOUNDARY .. 2 BOG, BP PAD, UPPER PALMER SLOUGH '·. ~ 3 LAKE-BASIN COMPLEX, JIM AND SWAN :::.H..~ LAKES FIGURE KNIK ARM WETLANDS STUDY AREA, ALASKA 4 FLOOOPLAINS, MATANUSKA AND KNIK 2. RIVERS --- STUOY AREA 80UN04RY . KNOWN 100 YEAR R._OODPLAN . . (US. DEPT. Of HOUSING, 1960. /.. FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY MAPS) ,,. /,. APPROXIMATE LANDWARD RANGE FIGURE 3. FLOOD HAZARD AND TIDAL INFLUENCE AREAS, / Of TIDAL INFLUENCE ( BLM STATUS MAPS, COOK INLET, KNIK ARM WETLANDS, ALASKA ANCHORAGE, ALASKA) Page 7
Matanuska Rivers are generally well sorted floodplain, terrace, and alluvial fan deposits. The area between the Matanuska and Knik Rivers and south of the Knik River is underlain by numerous isolated masses of permafrost. The remainder of the study area is free of permafrost with a few localized exceptions.
The central portion of the area, centered on the Matanuska and Knik Rivers, is designated as a mineralized area with the occurrence of metallic minerals rated high. Sand and gravel occur along the Matanuska and Knik Rivers and some mining occurs. Test wells for oil have been drilled between the Matanuska River and Cottonwood Creek.
Soil associations include the Tidal Marsh-Clunie and Susitna-Niklason. The former includes poorly and very poorly drained soils in sediments on tidal plains, and very poorly drained peat soils that overlie tidal silt and clay. The latter includes well drained silt, or fine sandy soils that overlie coarser sediments on alluvial plains.
B. Dominant Biological Features
Vegetative cover in the area grades from sparsely covered mudflats to coastal marsh in the lower area to lowland spruce-hardwood on higher, better drained sites, and to upland forest on the bluffs surrounding the study area. Bottomland spruce-cottonwood forest occurs along the major drainages. The coastal marsh area is characterized by horsetails, sedges, rushes, and other herbaceous wetland species. Willows and dwarf birch also occur here as well as small areas with black spruce and alder in the better drained sites. This vegetation type occupies an area of slight topographic relief, including tidal flats. A large portion of the area is known locally as the Palmer Hayflats. This name derives from the natural grasses that were harvested for hay before the subsidence resulting from the 1964 earthquake.
The lowland spruce-hardwood forest vegetation type includes pure stands of black spruce. Characteristic deciduous trees include aspen, paper birch, and cottonwood. Lowland spruce-hardwood forest generally occurs in areas of shallow peat, glacial deposits, outwash plains, and on north-facing slopes.
Bottomland spruce-cottonwood forest includes white spruce mixed with cottonwoods. It occurs along the Matanuska and Knik Rivers and is characteristic of well drained floodplains, river terraces, and south-facing slopes at the lower elevations. Cottonwoods readily invade floodplain areas and grow rapidly, with paper birch and aspen as common associates. Through succession these species are gradually replaced by white spruce. Most of the study area is bounded by moderate to steep bluffs which support forests of aspen, birch, and white spruce.
Anadromous fish in the study area include five species of salmon: coho, chinook, chum, pink, and sockeye. Other sport fish include rainbow trout and Dolly Varden. Salmon species and the drainages in which they occur are listed in Table 1. Page 8
Table 1. Salmon streams within the Upper Knik Arm Wetlands study area.
Stream Species
Cottonwood Creek coho, sockeye Eklutna River coho*, sockeye* Jim Creek coho*, sockeye* Knik River coho*, sockeye Matanuska River chinook, chum, coho, pink, sockeye Palmer Creek sockeye Rabbit Slough coho* Wasilla Creek chinook, chum*, coho, sockeye*
*Spawn in the study area
The Rabbit Slough-Spring Creek-Wasilla Creek complex provides especially important coho salmon spawning and rearing habitat. Salmon production from this system makes a significant contribution to the Upper Cook Inlet commercial fishery. These streams receive an estimated 6,000 angler-days of fishing annually during a weekend only season. Other streams receiving heavy fishing pressure include Cottonwood Creek and Jim Creek. Fishing pressure on rainbow trout and Dolly Varden is light. Total fishing pressure in the study area is about 20,000 angler-days annually.
The area is important to migratory birds, especially waterbirds. The wetlands serve as a resting and staging area for ducks, geese, swans, and sandhill cranes. The geese and cranes feed extensively in upland grain fields outside the study area. Several species of waterbirds breed here, including Canada goose, mallard, wigeon, pintail, shoveler, green-winged teal, grebes, gulls, arctic tern, common snipe, and yellowlegs. Other breeding birds include the bald eagle and several other raptors and many species of song birds.
The spring migration, from early April to early May, is more spectacular than the fall migration due to the greater concentration of birds. This includes an estimated 100,000 ducks, 50,000 geese, and 5,000 swans. In spring the area is visited by an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 people viewing and photographing the birds. The fall migration peaks between mid-August and early October; during this period an estimated 50,000 ducks, 10,000 geese, and 15,000 swans use the area.
The Palmer Hayflats and Jim Lake/Swan Lake area rank high statewide in numbers of breeding waterfowl. Table 2 summarizes waterfowl production for 1975 and 1976. The two areas are compared with total Cook Inlet marshes in Table 3·
The Susitna Flats (west of proposed AMSA area, at the mouth of the Susitna River) and the Palmer Hayflats are the two major waterfowl hunting areas in the Cook Inlet area; they are among the top three areas statewide in total hunter days and duck harvest. In the three-year period from 1971 to 1974, there were 3,950 average annual duck hunter days spent in the Palmer Hayflats and the average seasonal harvest was 6,290 ducks. Page 9
Large mammals found within the area include black and brown bears and moose. Smaller mammals include wolf, coyote, fox, lynx, porcupine, beaver, and snowshoe hare. Black bears concentrate in the Jim Lake/Swan Lake area in the early spring to feed on new herbaceous growth. The area is important for moose, both as winter range and for calving; several moose remain here through the summer. Game Management Unit 14A, which includes the study area, supports about 4,000 moose. During the winter this population is usually found below 1,000 feet elevation, particularly along the Knik and Matanuska Rivers. However, during winters of sparse snow cover most of the moose remain on the normal summer range above 2,000 feet. Calving occurs in swampy lowlands from late May through June. Major calving areas include the Palmer Hayflats and Knik River Flats.
In unit l4A, moose numbers declined between 1970 and 1975 because of increased human encroachment, increased traffic mortality, increased poaching, and poor overwinter survival. By 1980 the moose population appeared to be stable and at a moderate level. Winter loss due to vehicles may decrease when moose remain at higher elevations because of sparse snow cover. In the winter of 1978-79, 108 moose were killed by vehicles. Losses dropped to 29 in 1979-80, to 13 in 1980-81, and rose to 72 in 1981-82. Moose harvest data are summarized in Table 4.
(5) Current Land Use
A. Ownership
Land within the exterior boundary of the proposed AMSA is under various ownerships; specific acreages have not been determined. The order from largest holdings to smallest is State of Alaska, Mat-Su Borough, private landowners, federal government, and Municipality of Anchorage. Within state ownership are all tidelands and the beds of rivers and streams, the Palmer Hayflats State Game Refuge, and most lands in the Jim Lake/Swan Lake area. The federal government owns a right-of-way along the Alaska Railroad and land in the Eklutna Flats area. The Eklutna Native Corporation has extensive selections throughout the study area.
B. Jurisdiction and Management Status
Jurisdiction within the proposed AMSA exterior boundary is shared by the Mat-Su Borough, Municipality of Anchorage, and state and federal authorities. The Mat-Su Borough and Municipality of Anchorage have planning and zoning authority. Most of the area administered by the Municipality of Anchorage is designated as a preservation resource unit (Anchorage Coastal Resource Atlas, Vol. 2, June 1981). The state has jurisdiction through the Alaska Department of Transportation, which retains a 200-foot easement along state highways; the Alaska Department of Natural Resources controls surface entry and land disposal on other state-owned lands. In anadromous fish waters, the state's Title 16 (A.S. 16.05.870) permit program, administered by the ADF&G, controls activities that use, divert, obstruct, pollute, or change the natural flow or bed of a specified anadromous fish river, lake, or stream. The ADF&G manages the Palmer Hayflats State Game Refuge which is within the AMSA exterior boundary but is not proposed for AMSA designation. Page 10
Table 2. Breeding waterfowl averaged for 1975 and 1976.
Palmer Hayflats Jim Lake/ State Game Refuge Swan Lake
Species Number Percent Number Percent
Dabbling ducks Gadwall 77 3 Green-winged teal 109 4 89 5 Mallard 488 18 345 18 Pintail 850 32 504 27 Shoveler 451 17 Wigeon 144 5 481 23 Subtotal 2,ll9 79 1,419 75
Diving ducks Bufflehead 12 1 Canvasback 50 2 51 3 Goldeneye 235 9 128 7 Scaup 267 10 256 13 Seaters 18 1 Subtotal 552 21 465 25 Total 2,671 100 1,884 100
Table 3· Comparison of breeding duck densities in the study area and Cook Inlet area.
Breeding Ducks/Square Mile
Area Size (mi. 2) Dabblers Divers Total
Palmer Hayflats 42.7 49.6 12.9 62.5 Jim Lake/Swan Lake 14.0 101.4 33-2 134.6 Total Cook Inlet Marshes 616.8 67.7 9-3 77.0 Page 11
Table 4· Moose harvest summary, Game Management Unit 14A. Year Harvest # Hunters Success
Bulls Cows Unk Total
1970 363 2 11 376 897 42% 1971 529 479 10 1,018 2,090 29% 1972 212 94 3 309 1973 337 1 8 346 1,506 23% 1974 164 0 3 167 1,225 14% 1975 164 1 0 167 893 19% 1976 1977 1978 329 1,547 21% 1979 201 1,053 19% 1980 285 1,735 16% 1981 358 2,005 18% Antlerless moose permit hunt summary. Harvest Year Total # Hunters Success
1978 53 100 53% 1979 89 200 45% 1980 76 200 38% 1981 67 150 45%
Data from: Annual Report of Survey - Inventory Activities, Parts I and II, ADF&G, 1981; and Jack Didrickson, ADF&G, personal communication. Page 12
The FWS has no regulatory authority over lands and waters in the proposed AMSA. However, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires consultation with the FWS and the ADF&G whenever the waters of any stream or other water body are proposed or authorized to be controlled or modified for any purpose by the federal government, or by anyone under federal permit or license. The purpose of the consultation is to determine ways to conserve or enhance wildlife resources in connection with the water resource development.
Federal agencies must also comply with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) and Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). Executive Order 11988 addresses the problems of development within the 100-year floodplain. The Order states that federal agencies shall avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practical alternative. Executive Order 11990 covers activities on federally owned property and activities which receive federal funding. The Order states that each agency is to avoid undertaking or providing assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless there is no practical alternative and the proposed action includes all practical measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use.
The Migrator.y Bird Treaty Act points out that effective protection of migratory birds and their environment requires not only substantial national effort, but also international cooperation. Various international treaties and conventions recognize that many species of birds migrate between countries and that cooperation is necessary in order to protect flyways, breeding, wintering, feeding, and molting areas. c. Uses, Activities, and Proposed Developments
Human uses on lands and waters within the proposed AMSA include both recreation and scattered development. Recreation includes hunting, trapping, fishing, boating, birdwatching and other wildlife observation, and photography. Development includes highways and other roads, railroad, small settlements at Eklutna Village and the nearly abandoned townsite of Matanuska, the Windsong subdivision adjacent to the Knik River, and limited agriculture. Development is sparse, mainly because of physical constraints.
Several developments have occurred or been proposed in the last few years which could individually and cumulatively cause major wetland impacts. These are described below:
1. Illegal wetlands fill - Cottonwood Creek parking lot near creek mouth. Gravel was deposited on about 3 acres of wetlands. A berm was created for a target range. The project was abandoned by the leasee.
2. Illegal wetlands fill - located approximately 2.5 miles north of the New Glenn Highway Bridge over the Matanuska River on the east side of the road. An extensive gravel pad was placed adjacent to the highway and a road fill was constructed perpendicular to the highway for an Page 13
unspecified purpose. A drainage ditch was constructed to Rabbit Slough. Construction activity was stopped by regulatory authority of the Corps of Engineers.
3· Illegal wetlands fill - located approximately 2.5 miles north of the New Glenn Highway Bridge over the Matanuska River on the west side of the road. A gravel access road was started which runs parallel to the highway. The developer was reported to be starting construction of a floatplane base and repair facility which would accommodate as many as 50 planes on an 80-acre site. This would result in extensive dredging of canals for takeoffs and landings of floatplanes, a road network, berms, etc. Construction activity was stopped by the Corps of Engineers under their wetlands regulatory authority. The violator has recently renewed activity and the Corps has issued a Public Notice covering additional work for a wheel plane repair and maintenance facility. When the violator renewed activity, the Corps again stopped the unauthorized work. A Public Notice was issued covering the previously unauthorized work and proposed development of a wheel plane runway and a repair and maintenance facility. A permit for this work is pending.
4. Proposed diking and drainage project - located west of Jim Lake. This proposed project would have resulted in diking and draining about 60 acres of wetlands for seed-grass production. Resource agencies recommended denial of the Corps' permit and a permit was not issued.
5. Proposed Wasilla by-pass Highway Project - one alternative would depart the New Glenn Highway south of the Palmer-Wasilla "Y" and join the Parks Highway west of Wasilla. This alternative would cross a large wetland and Rabbit Slough and Wasilla Creek. Natural drainage patterns are frequently altered by highway projects, as evidenced by the ponding of water that occurs upstream from the New Glenn Highway where it crosses the Palmer Hayflats. This alinement may be discarded in favor of another alternative.
(6) Current and Proposed Use of Adjacent Lands and Waters
Lands surrounding the proposed AMSA are under various ownerships including Mat-Su Borough, Municipality of Anchorage, state and federal government, and private. Jurisdiction and management lie with the authorities identified in Section (5)B. Land and water uses are similar to those described in Section (5)C. Expected developments include new or expanded subdivisions and rural residential development. Areas of greatest activity will probably be along the Old Glenn Highway, the Bodenburg Butte area, and the Glenn and Parks Highway corridors beyond the Palmer-Wasilla "Y." Many areas around the proposed AMSA probably will not be developed because of natural environmental constraints and ownership. Page 14
(7) Present and Anticipated Conflicts Among Uses and Activities Within or Adjacent to the Area
The Upper Knik Arm Wetlands provide vital habitat for anadromous fish, migrating and breeding birds, moose, and other game and non-game wildlife. Continued encroachments into the area would reduce the quantity and quality of the wildlife habitat and wildlife populations will decrease. This would result in a decrease of fish and wildlife oriented recreation activities and aesthetic enjoyment of the area.
It is difficult to determine how much disturbance or habitat alteration can occur before a given species will be affected. Gradual changes and piecemeal development have cumulative impacts which can result in significant damage. To protect habitats that support wildlife resources, essential habitat elements must be maintained. Vegetation, water quality and quantity, and drainage patterns are all essential in the function of wetlands. Alteration of any one element through filling, dredging, or other disturbance can result in habitat loss. The threat to valuable wildlife habitat is indicated by the occurrence of Section 404 permit violations and some of the proposed projects in wetlands within and adjacent to the area. Generally, development outside the Knik Wetlands will pose no direct threat to the habitat within the area. However, caution is necessary to avoid spillover effects from such things as water quality and air quality deterioration.
(8) Proposed Management Scheme
The primary focus of a management plan for the proposed AMSA area should be protection of wetland and floodplain habitats. Uses of transition areas and uplands are not considered in this AMSA proposal unless those uses could have a direct and significant spillover effect.
Traditional uses included outdoor recreation and agriculture, plus the small settlement of Matanuska. Subsidence resulting from the 1964 earthquake reduced agricultural suitability (harvest of native hay grasses). The present use of greatest importance is outdoor recreation.
Because the wetlands and coastal and river floodplains within the area have historically been, and presently are, used primarily for outdoor recreation, and because the fish and wildlife resources and the habitat which supports them are of state, federal, and international significance, the FWS believes that these lands and waters should be formally dedicated to outdoor recreational use and habitat protection.
(9) Recommendations
A. Description of Proper and Improper Land and Water Uses Within the Area
We recommend that land management within the proposed AMSA be directed toward maintaining or enhancing habitat used by spawning and rearing salmon, migrating and nesting waterbirds, moose, and other wildlife. Uses which are compatible with the principal goal of maintaining or enhancing fish and Page 15 wildlife habitat should generally be permitted within the area. These uses would be primarily transient or temporary activities which cause minimal surface alteration. Examples of uses considered proper include:
1. Fishing, hunting, trapping;
2. wildlife viewing and photography;
3. enhancement projects, approved by federal and state resource agencies, which increase fish and wildlife populations in the area, or which improve opportunities for human use and enjoyment of these resources;
4. scientific research and instruction;
5· use, maintenance, and expansion of existing public roadways and utility improvements.
Water dependent or related projects or facilities are usually considered to be appropriate uses of water or wetland areas when practicable, less damaging alternative sites are not available. A water dependent project/facility is defined as one that must have direct access or proximity to, or be located in, the water resource in order to fulfill its basic purpose. A water related activity is defined as one not directly dependent upon access to a water resource, but which provides goods or services that are directly associated with water dependence and which, if not located adjacent to the water, would result in a public loss of quality in the goods or services offered (State of Alaska, Office of Coastal Management and u.s. Dept. of Commerce, Office of Coastal Zone Management, 1979).
Uses considered proper in this proposed AMSA rely on and must meet requirements such as the Environmental Protection Agency's Guidelines, the Corps' Section 10/404 permit regulations, and the ADF&G's Title 16 permit program, where applicable. A wetland use would generally be permitted when the activity and site selected represent the least environmentally damaging practical alternative, and the project is essential as determined by the public interest.
Proposed activities within the area which are likely to cause major habitat damage which cannot be adequately mitigated should be considered improper. Examples of improper uses include:
1. dredge and fill operations which would convert wetlands, water bodies, and shorelands to fastland;
2. residential and other non-water-dependent development in wetlands and/or 100-year floodplains;
3. alteration of streams or other water bodies when such actions would destroy or alter salmon spawning or rearing habitat, or interfere with migration, or adversely affect the vegetation used by waterbirds and other wildlife; Page 16
4. construction of permanent buildings or facilities which would adversely affect the habitat or activities of fish or wildlife;
5. mining activities, including gravel extraction, when this would adversely affect fish or wildlife habitat; and
6. discharge of waste substances that degrade water quality.
B. Summary and Statement of the Policies Applied to Management of the Area
The recommended policies for managing this area are:
1. To manage the proposed AMSA to ensure the protection, maintenance and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources and their supporting habitat, and to guarantee the continued human use and recreation opportunities which this area provides;
2. to manage development by providing area for needed water-dependent and water-related projects, while discouraging development which is neither water-dependent nor related and which would cause major adverse habitat impacts; and
3· to ensure that local, state and federal government approved activities on lands and waters adjoining the proposed AMSA are compatible with the purposes for which the area is established. c. Identification of Authorities Used to Implement the Proposed Management Scheme
The proposed management scheme described in this report could be implemented through existing local, state, and federal authorities. Control of lands under Borough/Municipality and private ownership could be implemented through zoning ordinances, performance standards, and/or cooperative management agreements.
The FWS supports primary land management within this proposed AMSA's boundaries by a single authority in order to increase management efficiency and ensure protection of valuable habitat. We support local control and recommend that the Mat-Su Borough address this in their coastal zone management program.