HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA160II ,
I
1
CHAPTERS 7,8 AN09
DRAFT
NOVEMBER 15,1982
EXHIBIT E
FERC LICENSE APPLICATION
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJEC·r
Prepared hy:
I 1
Igi I
I
I
\.I I
....~__ALASKA.POWER ,l,UTHOR IT'(~__I 1
,.,.----
C-1-~q'
1Q'1-(('-jS,(J l'(Sf q/(!1 f..((r 1)'11)t3fJ (~)
\qL~\1..({Cf-rD (sj q,L(~t ~!\)l3 /3~3Li lJ)
1
t'91,q l't,&39 (lJ C1 I '1 '1 l \:3)J'B ~q5 l ~I'I I
;a~o I~d t~l'll 1 i ,°;«11 (\3)1 b 6 J{j l ~I
~F,
,L
i /j
I q "6'I 'i~~D ll)'I 10~\01 1 rS,1Cf"l (1 )
1 I,
.,p <V;\'1"~f4v ~Yltt£l$UHJ.,v
-fl,.Q.it,(~~i>~~.'tVl~(OV!-l.AfXV,~J ~.t.{IJ:fJ,JF"""yd;#t~
R-~l -3b I vcJ'v4.',1
Ut,.~.{I..V""1//'+~;.J)'·"v~<;.~~~~~;L.JV~A iff'c1..vCAL'-t.-/J~~,i~djl4M1J.,.~,
f.;-l-q 'lClt"\-1,:::J.1°(0
~:i.A'Gl h:1J I d,,4f)1f1yV,
~-~~,4-/'-~-V
Afl"~\'lA.:e\M yi/l,lrlfl ,dV'~b
~'ftf
~q ~0 ~.AMi~v ltduAA1
1('S'{)(Or~~~~~
~d~£,1,tO,
~~~i et10 J\j-~.~,·eM ~Wp~(j
~VYJ1.fJJC/UJJ~.<,,~~~~
g,-"1 -1 '1(,~.fi-',\
qfV)"J.f{)"J1.IJ;(u;J.1Apc,tJ-.rJ/)(J!0 !A oJee UJV~.N::tc";,,,fj.-v-1,lM-/.!'f{!'ilU:t •Vi ~.~(-0
APt"~~'4aL""
Ju.1J..(e E"l.l1.,,\?5loao ~~~)U~j.A....~~Cf~.jU'V
~5((j 0 ()x.q::;l b SI ()0 0
:j ~~~J-'C ~1fUL'~'lJ--.A-yJ-lvt,119 J'VJ~/.p-Ii~IA:1 4.~ttJ1;4 ,
-
------
~y(Al o."fAJi ·~~~,~.""V"1~..Q1
~~J.ty(,~:J I ~.z:t~A.U.,UJ,;;'.",1,,-';"--"11"",'~(}j ...y'!.41.",tt-i,I<Jf....,<:,i~~~
~~~.:;:~t~g)"~',8 VIL ~Jv ,J,;H4U -rv&t,~~&I :tJ4Y~~4.J24I.-p ~:;(u.P ~.-----'\~.....'(J
~~.:1.<.~J~-'~H ~ftAJ '1 ~~c.i:t;t1"AJ?A~Jl.J!4/d ~4i'~t~p-~.J<J.+tNJ',.f,tM
JL~~M~~jJ~'r i(-R.L4£-/)AcJv M (.Uf"~1 ,u..A-4UA·~'d M-~~d
w-~1..tv ~~~iJJ:laJ;Jh ~:.t.·f4).l.Jf ~1Wt Ct ct ~...i.P 1-<r-~
f -.1j '"
~.f-vvt 1-JN ~.u1i j\.L+rJ7.JAljJA ,w.J~;;"~~'i~J...r~:.~1 r
1LJ ~~:1J <A ~~~1J (J1.JJ )..i../.ul to-T'<LlJ~-w~.-vt~v>'Ji c.'c
(l i'
t~J rd.e A-9-~'~'J .J~tJ-fU \;Y..A..A4 ()A tJi'\i t·>fYt XhtAM..£,
.<fW',y.~'Jt4....'..-'-I ~~~1!"~'~~~,./<.~t;i..w/;-t._<.-.Lf4.e.t~J!(~lt/J'~'ti"tI'I[I~A.A",1 ~Li:h.v~~'t ~.•
{
~c V4",~1)
1foi{-'11.':it;
-
-r!<,qzs
l5fJ
r------------------:------,F~tl
n .tlo~
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC LICENSE APPLICATION
EXHIBITE
CHAPTERS 7,8 AND 9
DRAFT
NOVEMBER 15,1982
-
-
'"L!)
C")
O:l
CS;·Prepared by:
i.
(YJ:
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library &Informatlon Services
Anch.Jr~~,Alaska
-I__ALASKA POWER AUTHOR ITY __-","
7 -RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library &Information Senice
P•.rlChorage,AldSka
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
EXH IBIT E
VOLUME 4 CHAPTER 7
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 -INTRODUCTION •...•....•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.......•..••.•••...•E-7-1
1.1 -Purpose ••.•.•.••...•....•••••.....•...•.•..•••.......E-7-1
1.2 -Relationships to Other Reports •••••••••••••••••••••••E-7-1
1.3 -Study Approach and Methodology •••••••••••••.•••.•••••E-7-1
1.4 -Project Descriptions and Interpretation ••••••••••••••E-7-4
1.5 -Implications of Project Design and Operation on
Recreation Planning •.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••E-7-7
2 -DESCRIPTION ON EXISTING AND PLANNED RECREATION •••••••••••••E-7-9
2.1 -Statewide Setting ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••E-7-9
2.2 -Susitna River Basin ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••E-7-15
3 -PROJECT II~PACTS ON EXISTING RECREATION •••••••••••••••••••••E-7-24
3.1 -Watana Development •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••E-7-24
3.2 -Devil Canyon Development •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••E-7-28
3.3 -Access •.•••.•••..••••••.•...•.•......•••.•......•••••E-7-Z9
3.4 -Transmission .•.•....••••.••..•••...•..•..•••..•••..••E-7-32
3.5 -Indirect Impacts -Project-Induced Recreation Demand.E-7-33
4 -FACTORS INFLUENCING THE RECREATION PLAN •••••~•••••••~••••••E-7-45
4.1 -Management Objectives ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••E-7-45
4.2 -Facilities Design Standards ••••••••••••••••••••••••••E-7-53
4.3 -Financial Obligation and Responsibility of the
Alaska Power Authority •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••E-7-53
5 -RECREATION PLAN ••••••••.••••...••••.•••••.•.•.•.•.•.••••.••E-7-54
5.1 -Recreation Concept •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••E-7-54
5.2 -Recreation Opportunity Inventory •••••.•••••.••••••••.E-7-56
5.3 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation ••••••••••••••••••••E-7-59
5.4 -Recreation Plan •..•.••.•.•.•..•.••.•..•••...•.•.••.•..E-7-61
5.5 -Recreation Plan for Construction Camp and
Permanent Townsite ••••.•.••.•.•...•..••.•.•.•••.••..•E-7-84
5.6 -Alternative Recreation Plan ••••••••••••••••••••••••••E-7-89
6 -PLAN IMPLEMENTATION •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••E-7 -91
6.1 -Phasing .•.•.•••.••••••.••.•••••••.••.•••••••••••••.••E-7-91
6.2 -Monitoring and Future Additions ••••••••••••••••••••••E-7-95
LIST OF TABLES,
Table 7.1 ~Average Monthly Flows -Pre-and Post-Project
Table 7.2 -Statewide Inventory of Recreation Facilities
Table 7.3 -Statewide Inventory of Recreation Facilities by Region
Table 7.4 -Percentage of Adult Population Participation in Inland
Outdoor Recreation
Tabl e 7.5 -Summary of Visitor Count for Al aska State Parks
Table 7.6 -Existing Public and Commercial Recreation Development
Within and Adjacent to the Study Area
Table 7.7 -Future Regional Recreational Developments
Table 7.8 -Major Existing Trails in the Upper Susitna River Basin
Table 7.9 -Regional Population -Existing and Future
Table 7.10 -Average Regional Recreation Participation
Table 7.11 -Distances to Centroid of Recreation Area
Table 7.12 -Estimated Total Annual Recreation Days for Residents
of Selected Locations to Watana and All Other Locations
Equidistant from their Origins
'Table 7.13 -Total Estimated Regional Recreation User Day
Tabl e 7.14 -Assumed Recreation Capture Rates
Table 7.15 -Estimated Recreation Demand'
Table 7.16 -Annua 1 Visitor Days Denali National Park
Table 7.17 -Major Recreation Facilities as Presently Programmed
Table 7.18 -Recreation Plan for Construction Camps,Villages and
Permanent Townsite
Table 7.19 -Estimated Capital costs of the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project Recreation Plan
Table 7.20 -Estimated Cost of Recreation Plan Project Features
Table 7.21 -Additional Facilities and Equipment to Be Purchased for
Operation and Maintenance As a Part of The Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Recreation Plan
Table 7.22 -Additional Staff Required and Annual Staff Expenses
Required to Operate and Maintain the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project Recreation Facilities
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 7.1
Fi gure 7.2
Figure 1.3
Fi gure 7.4
-Study Methodology
-Proposed Project Features
-Deleted
-Later
Fi gure 7.5 -Key Map
Fi gure 7.6 -Existing Recreation -Northern Susitna Basin
Fi gure 7.7 Existing Recreation -Southeast Susitna Basin
Fi gure 7.8 EXisting Recreation -Southwest Susitna Basin
.Fi gure 7.9 -Recreat ion Opportunities -Northern Susitna Basin
Fi gure 7.10 -Recreation Opportuniti es -Southeast Sus itna Basin
Fi gure 7.11 -Recreation Opportunities -Southwest Susitna Basin
Fi gure 7.12 -Recreation Plan -Watana Road Area
Figure 7.13 -Recreation Plan -Watana Reservoir Area
Fi gure 7.14 -Recreation Plan -Devil Canyon Reservoir Area
Fi gure 7.15 -Recreat i on Areas:E -Brushkana Camp
F -Portal Sign
Figure 7.16 -Recreation Areas:0 -Watana Damsite
N-Fog Lakes
Figure 7.17 -Recreation Areas:I -Tsusena Butte
Figure 7.18 -Recreation Areas:L -Deadman and Big Lakes
M-Southern Chulitna Mountains
Fi gure 7.19 -Recreation Areas:J -Cl arence Lake
K -Watana Lake
Fi gure 7.20 -Recreation Area:G -Mid-Chulitna Mountains/
Deadman Mountain
Fi gure 7.21 Recreati on Area:S Devi 1 Canyon Damsite
Figure 7.22 -Recreation Area:R -Mermaid Lake
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph 7.1 -Middle Fox Chulitna Ri ver
Photograph 7.2 -Butte Creek
Photograph 7.3 -Town Site
Photograph 7.4 -Bruskana Camp
Pho.tograph 7.5 -Tsusena Creek
Photograph 7.6 -Tsusena Creek
Photograph 7.7 -lV1id Chulitna.Mountains
Photograph 7.8 -Mid Chulitna ·Mountains
Photograph 7.9 -lV1i d Chul itna Mountai ns
Photograph 7.10 -Tsusena Butte
Photograph 7.11 -Deadman Lake/Big Lake
Photograph 7.12 -Deadman Lake
t!'~Photograph 7.13 -Big Lake
Photograph 7.14 -Clarence Lake
Photograph 7.15 -Kosi na Creek
Photograph 7.16 -Watana Lake
Photograph 7.17 -Fog Lakes
Photograph 7.18 -Fog Lakes
~1fJIIl'II1
Photograph 7.19 -Stephan Lake
Photograph 7.20 -Devil Creek
Photograph 7.21 -Devil Creek/Devil Creek Fall s
Photograph 7.22 -Devil Creek/Devil Creek Fall s-Photograph 7.23 -Mermaid Lake
Photograph 7.24 -Mermaid Lake
Photograph 7.25 -Devil Canyon Damsite
Photograph 7.26 -South Creek
Photograph 7.27 -Soule Creek
Photograph 7.28 -Sou~hern Chulitna Mountains
r Photograph 7.29 -Sout~ern Chulitna Mountains
-
______"~---__•0._.-----------
7 -REPORT ON RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
1 -INTRODUCTION
1.1 -Purpose
The purpose of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Recreation Plan is to
provide organized recreational development for project waters and adja-
cent lands and to focus public access in the project area.This plan
is intended to be compatible with the existing environment and
consistent with the planned construction and proper operation of the
hydroelectric project.The plan has been designed to meet four primary
obj ect i ves:
To focus public access on project lands and waters and to protect the
scenic,public recreational,cultural,and other environmental values
of the project area;
-To est imate and provi de for the recreat i on user potent i al for the
project area;
-To accommodate project-induced recreation demand;and
-To offset recreat i ona 1 resources lost by construction of the proposed
proj ect.
1.2 -Relationships to Other Reports
This Recreation Plan is based,in part,upon the project description
presented in Exhibit A,project operations described in Exhibit B,and
the proposed construction schedule described in Exhibit C.While the
recreation plan constitutes a mitigation,it also becomes part of the
project features,and as such has i rnpacts in itself.Thi s pl an has
therefore been coordi nated wi th other sections of Exhi bit E;pri mari ly
Chapter 3,Fish,Wildlife,and Botanical Resources;Chapter 4,Historic
and Archaeological Resources;Chapter 5,Socioeconomic Impacts;and
Chapter 9,Land Use,so that they may assess its impacts.
1.3 -Study Approach and Methodology
(a)Approach
The planning approach is guided by the following factors;
-Construction phasing and access;
-Operational characteristics of the project;
-Management objectives of the interested agencies and Native
corporations;
-Recreation use patterns and demand;
E-7-1
-Intrinsic landscape resource opportunities and constraints,
-Facilities design standards;
-Financial obligations and responsibilities of the Alaska Power
Authority;and
-Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulations.
The approach is divided into six steps,as follows:
-Analyze and describe operational characteristics,construction
phasing,management objectives,and facilities design standards
related to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project;
Determine locations and levels of existing recreation and fore-
cast impacts of the project on existing recreation;
-Estimate existing and future recreation use patterns and
demand;
-Evaluate the intrinsic physical recreation opportunities and
constraints of the land;
-Develop the recreation use plan,develop conceptual designs of
proposed sites,determine development levels and estimated user
1evel s;and
-Describe mechanisms for plan implementation,construction and
maintenance.
Section 1.4 describes the proposed Sustina Hydroelectric Project.
Section 2 describes the existing recreation within the statewide
and regional settings.Included are descriptions of facilities,
activities,and the relationship of the project to existing recre-
ation use patterns.Section 3 describes the impacts on recreation
of the Watana and Devi 1 Canyon project features,access routes,
and the transmission lines,and projected demand for recreation
with and without the Susitna Project.
Section 4 describes the factors influencing the recreation use
plan.These factors include APA,agency,and Native corporation
management objectives,design standards,and Alaska Power Authori-
ty financial obligations and responsibilities.
Section 5 is the Recreation Use Plan including intrinsic recrea-
tion potential,recreation opportunity evaluation,development
levels and proposed sites.This plan constitutes mitigations for
impacts identified in Section 3.Section 6 describes the Recrea-
tion Use Plan implementation,phasing,monitoring and future addi-
tions.Section 7 describes the costs associated with construction
operations and maintenance of proposed facilities.
E-1-2
-
-
/8I'I!IPl'1,
I~'
-,
Every effort has been made to utilize the results of past studies
and agency plans both of the Susitna ProJect itself and of a more
general nature.Particular emphasis has been given to the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Subtask 7.08 Report,Recreation Planning,
May 1982,prepared for Acres American Incorporated by Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists,Inc.and the University of Alaska,
Fairbanks.Use was made both of that published report and the
field data and background files utilized in its preparation.
Additional results of a survey conducted as part of that effort
have also been utilized in the formulation of this Recreation
Pl an.
(b)Methodology
Figure E.?l illustrates the study methodology employed in devel-
opment of the Recreation Plan for theSusitna Hydroelectric
Project.Step 1 determined study objectives and developed a de-
tailed work plan.This activity included review of all relevant
agency documents and interviews with key agency personnel identi-
fied by the Alaska Power Authority.Objectives of each agency
were determined as they relate to this Recreation Plan.They are
reported in Section 4 of this document.When combined with FERC.
Order 184,they constitute the objectives of this study as found
in Section 1.1 of this report.
Step 2 included the parallel activities of an inventory of exist-
ing recreation facilities and plans,and an estimate of future
recreation demand with and without the project.An existing meth-
odo logy for est i mat i ng future recreat i on demand was used as a
basis for a project-related recreation demand methodology.In
addition,four other approaches were utilized as a general check
of resul ts.
Step 3 consisted of an on-site inventory of existing recreation
potential.This activity involved study of existing relevant pro-
ject documents and previous studies,and extensive on-site inves-
tigations.Step 4 evaluated recreation opportunity based on in-
formation from Step 2 and defined the qualitative and quantitative
aspects of site recreation potentials.
Step 5 is a further refi nement of the opportunity eva 1uat ion,and
constitutes alternative and recommended recreation plans for the
project.
Step 6 developed an implementation plan,including plan phasing,
demand monitoring,and estimated costs.
A detailed discussion of specific methodolgy employed is found in
the individual report sections.
E-7-3
1.4 -Project Description and Interpretation
In order to develop a recreation plan related to hydroelectric develop-
ment,it is first necessary to understand the project and its operation
as it relates to recreation.The Susitna Hydroelectric Project is com-
prised of two major dams with storage reservoirs,penstocks and under-
ground powerhouse,transmission lines,a railroad,and roads for con-
struction and operation,two temporary single-status construction
camps,two temporary married-status construction camps,a permanent
village,and a landing strip.The project transmission lines connect
to the Anchorage-Fa ;rbanks Intert ie,a separate project pl anned for
construction beginning late 1982 and scheduled for operation in Septem-
ber 1984.The Intertie is not considered in this Recreation Plan.
(a)Construction
(i)Watana Dam and Reservoir
The Watana schedul e ant i ci pates issue of the FERC 1i cense
by December 31,1984 (see Exhibit C)and is predicated on
having four units on line by the end of 1993 and an addi-
t ional two units by July 1994 in order to meet forecasted
load demand.Construction of an approximately 41-mile
access road commencing at mile 110 of the Denali Highway
and an airstrip near the site are planned to begin in
January 1985.(See Figure E.7.2.)Labor,equipment,and
materials will be mobilized beginning in 1985.A temporary
construction camp (single-status)ultimately housing 3,480
\'wrkers and a construction village ultimately housing 350
families (1,120 population)will be developed.These and
the various contractor yards and appurtenant construction
facilities ~"ill be served by a temporary 138-kV transmis-
sion line following the Denali Highway and the Watana
access route to the construction site.Construction labor
for the 885-foot-hi gh,4,lOa-foot crest 1engthembankment
dam and the 1020-MW powerhouse will peak in 1990 with about
3,500 workers.
Construction of the two 33.6-mile-long 345-kV transmission
lines will begin in 1989 and extend through 1992.They
wi 11 be constructed primari ly in the wi nter months.Im-
poundment of the 38,000-acre,54-mile-long reservoir with a
gross storage capacity of 9,470,000 acre feet will begin in
June-1991 and be completed in late 1993.As development
nears completion,a permanent town near the construction
camps,intended to house a permanent work force of 125,
plus dependents,wi 11 be constructed and the ori gi na 1 camps
will be relocated to the Devil Canyon site.
E-7-4
-
-
-
(i i)Devil Canyon Dam and Reservoir
Devil Canyon construction is planned to begin as Watana
approaches completion.Between early 1992 and mid-1994,an
access road wi 11 be developed between Watana and Devi 1
Canyon,i ncludi ng construction of a hi gh-l evel bri dge
across Devi 1 Canyon.(See Fi gure E.7.2.) A rai 1road wi 11
be constructed from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon.The Alaska
Power Authority will defer decision on the public use of
the access route from the Denali Highway until that time.
However,for the purpose of this recreation plan,it has
been assumed that this road,no longer being heavily used
for construction,will be opened to public access.Most
construction materials will be brought to Devil Canyon on a
new 14-mile railroad from Gold Creek.A single-status camp
for 1,780 workers and a married-status village for 170
workers (550 people)will be constructed,utiliZing struc-
tures brought from Watana,to the extent possible.One of
the 345-kW Watana transmission 1 ines will be tapped for
construction power and the temporary construction line from
Cantwell to Watana will be dismantled.Construction work-
force for the 646-foot-hi gh,1650-foot crest-l ength thi n-
arch concrete dam and the 600 MW powerhouse '",ill peak at
about 1,800 workers in 1999 and extend to 2002.Two addi-
tional 8.B-mile-long,345-kV transmission lines will be
built to connect with the Intertie.An additional parallel
345-kV will be added to the Intertie itself.Impoundment
of the 7,BOO-acre,32-mile-long reservoir with a gross
storage capacity of 1,090,000 acre feet will occur over a
two-month period in 2001.The project will then be on line
in 2002.The constructi on camp and vill age wi 11 be re-
moved,and both Watana and Devil Canyon will be operated by
the same personnel resident at the Watana townsite.It is
assumed that the road connecti ng Watana and Devi 1 Canyon
will be opened to the publ ic and the railroad,no longer
needed for continuous project use,will potentially be
available for public use.
(b)Operational Characteristics of the Project
(i)Watana Dam and Reservoir
The Watana Dam and Hydroelectri c Power Pl an is intended to
provide base load power supply supplementing existing and
planned thermal and hydroelectric sources for the Railbelt
beginning in 1993.Present plans also call for operation
of Watana as essentially a base loaded plant from 1993 to
2002 at which time it will be used as a daily peaking plant
for load following during the high demand winter months.
Watana Reservoir will have a typical width of one mile,
widening at tributary streams to a maximum of five miles at
maximum water level at Watana Creek.Crest elevation of
the dam will be 2210 feet,and water surface elevation
E-7-5
during maximum probable flood conditions will be 2202 feet.
Normal maximum operating elevations will be 2185 feet in
September with a lm-/of 2065 feet in April or May.During
breakup and through the most imporant recreation months of
June,July,August and September water levels will be
increasing,reaching a peak in September.Live storage
area wi 11 be 3,740,000 acre feet and drawdown fl ats may
range from a few hundred feet in canyon areas to several
mil es in fl atter areas such as Watana Creek.(See Fi gures
E.7.8,E.7.9,and E.1.10.
As indicated in Table E.7.1,the Susitna River exhibits
typical flow characteristics of arctic rivers.The table
shows existing (pre-project)flows at three locations:
Gold Creek,about 16 miles below Devil Canyon;Sunshine,
approximately 49 mil es further downstream,and Sus i-tna,
another 53 miles downstream.At Gold Creek,flows approach
6,000 cubic feet per second (cfs)in October,the start of
the water year.This rapidly decreases in November,
December,January,February and March (low:1,123 cfs)as
the river freezes for the winter.At breakup,flows are
over 13,000 cfs in May and peak at about 27,700 cfs in
June.Flows gradually decrease in July (24,000 cfs),
August (22,000 cfs),and September (13,000 cfs).The
effect of the Watanaproject as currently planned will be
to both moderate these wide fluctuations and also to
redistribute flows,raising them in the winter,to provide
energy in these high demand months.Flows ~"i11 fluctuate
only from about 7,700 cfs (April)to 13,400 cfs (August)
contrasted with 1,100 cfs (March)to 27,700 cfs (Ju ne)
under natural conditions.Flows will increase over natural
conditions in seven months:October through April.They
will decrease in the remaining months.In the important
recreation months of June through September,flows will be
decreased from current flows.At Sunshine and Susitna,the
same general patterns pertain,although the effects are
proportionately much less as additional water sources join
the river.The entire upper basin of the Susitna
contri butes 1 ess than 20 percent of the total Susitna
discharge into the Cook Inlet.
(i i )Devi 1 Canyon Dam and Reservo;r
The Devil Canyon Dam and Power Plan is intended to provide
base load power supply.It will also operate as a re-reg-
ulating dam for peaking flows from Watana,modulating
downstream flows.
Devil Canyon Reservoir will have a surface area of 7,800
acres,with a 1ength of 32 10;1es,contai ned ina narrow
E-7-6
,~
......
-'
-
-
"""I
canyon generally one-quarter to one-half mile wide.It
will extend nearly to the toe of Watana Dam at maximum ele-
vation.Crest elevation of the dam will be 1472 feet,and
water surface elevation during maximum probable flood con-
ditions will be 1466 feet.Normal maximum operating eleva-
tion will be 1455 feet most of the year with a low of 1405
feet in October (normal dradown:50 feet).(See Figure
E.7.4.)Unlike Watana,which will be operated with a
September-October hi gh and an Apri l-May low,Devil Canyon
\t/ill remain at its normal elevation from October through
July.It will be draw down in August and September,be at
a minimum elevation of about 1405 feet itl September,and
refill in October.Table E.7.1 also compares pre-and
post-project flows showing combined Watana and Devil Canyon
a perat i onsat the three downstream locations.Flows tend
to decrease slighlty in October,May,June,July and August
compared with the Watana-only operation,and increase
slightly in the remaining months.
1.5 -Implications of Project Design and Operation on Recreation
Planning
The physical character of the reservoirs themselves and the operational
characteristics of the projects have important implications for es-
tablishment of the recreation plan concept:
The fast-flowing river and the river canyon experience which attracts
a very sma 11 number of kay akers and other ri ver runners wi 11 be
changed into a lake experience between Vee Canyon and Devil Canyon.
-Both lakes will be cold and silty.Watana in particular is large
enough that wi nd and chop condit ions caul d constitute potent i a1
.hazards for small boat recreationists.
-The 1arge drawdowns,parti cul arly at Watana,wi 11 create 1 arge mud-
flats which will be unattractive,difficult to cross,and sources of
blowing dust and dirt.However,water levels will be relatively high
during the summer recreation months.Where canyon sides are steep,
unstable banks will be a greater problem than drawdown.In either
instance,development of boating facilities will be extremely
diffi cult.
-Large bank slumps,landslides and scales will be unattractive and
potentially dangerous.
Other lakes and streams in the project area already constitute recre-
ati on resources whi ch are far superi or to the proposed reservoirs.
Road access will greatly increase their use potential,particularly
to sports fi shermen •.
-Hunters,and to a 1esser extent sports fi shermen,will conti nue to
fly into the area.
E-7-7
-The image of the area will continue to be one of a very distant loca-
tion remote from population centers as the road position causes the
dams to be over 5 hours away from both Fairbanks and Anchorage.The
IIdead-end ll nature of the access road will discourage casual drive-
through tourism.
Whi le there is some opportunity for cross-country sk i development,
climate and di stance wi 11 1i mit the area to predomi nant 1y summer
recreati on.
-Opportunities are primarily for primitive-level recreation facilities
except at the dam and powerhouse sites themselves where some visitor
interpretation and related facilities are appropriate.
E-7-8
-
-
-
"'""
2 -DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING AND PLANNED RECREATION
2.1 -Statewide Setting
(a)Background
Recreation environments and the people who recreate in Alaska are
quite different in many ways from the lower 48 states.Therefore,
in order to understand the recreation issues of the Susitn-a Hydro-
electric Project,it is first necessary to know the issues facing
the state with regard to recreation and to know the attitudes of
Alaska residents and tourists..
The open spaces of A1 aska contai n some of the most pri sti ne and
spectacu1 ar scenery and the most sensit i ve wil d 1ands in the
nation.Having the smallest and youngest population with the
largest land area of any state,Alaska once seemed an endless
frontier.Less than a decade ago Al askans enjoyed virtually un-
limited potential for outdoor recreation opportunities.However,
as rapid land status changes take place,a reduction of the avail-
able public recreation land and opportunities is imminent.
The 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will transfer 44 nrr1-
lion acres of public resource lands to private ownership within
the next few years.The conveyance is still in progress;however,
many of the selected lands include established recreation areas.
In addition,the State Legislature has directed the Alaska Depart-
ment of Natural Resources (DNR)make available to the public state
lands for settlement or agriculture.Although the law has been
amended to establish an assessment method for determining the need
of private lands by region,this process continues to remove over
20,000 acres a year from public ownership.
The federal government has set as i de more than 100 mi 11 i on acres
through the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA),adding 43.6 million acres to the National Parks System
and 53.7 million acres to the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Two million acres were placed in BLM conservation and recreation
areas.Fifty-six million acres of the National Park Refuges and
Nat i ona 1 Forest 1and were gi ven wil derness protect i on.These
lands represent many beautiful and sensitive areas of Alaska and
greatly expand the area of lands in protected status available for
outdoor recreation.However for the most part,these areas are
remote and not easily accessible by either out-of-state visitors
or residents.
Alaska State Parks,a division of the Department of Natural Re-
sources,was formed in 1971,and currently controls 3 million
acres of land and water.DNRls policies and programs reflect the
recent land status changes.In 1979 DNR began the Public Interest
Land Identification Project to evaluate surface use values of
state lands.This ongoing project identifies the best areas for
E-7-9
wildlife habitat,agriculture,recreation,forestry and settlement
and locates the best sites for future state parks and recreation
areas.A statewide inventory of public recreation facilities done
in 1977 shows that approximately 157 million of Alaska's 367.7
million acres are now classified as public recreation.This in-
ventory is presented in Table E.7.2.
(b)Regional Setting
The Sus itna hydroelectric study areal i es within the Southcentra 1
Re-gion of Alaska.Recreation planning for this development must
fit within the framework of existing and future regional recrea-
tion.Therefore,it is important to understand the regional rec-
reation patterns and trends as well as the Di visi on of Tasks pl ans
for the future.
Thi s-region extends from the hydrographi c di vide of the Al aska
Range on the north to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough boundary on
the west,Kodiak Island on the south and the Alaska/Canada border
on the east.It abounds with ocean shorelines,freshwater lakes,
free-flowing river systems,massive mountains,·large quantities of
wildlife,and glaciers the size of states.
The large diversity of landscapes and resources here offer a wide
variety of outdoor recreational opportunities making it an attrac-
tive recreation environment.See Figure E.7.4 for Existing and
Proposed Regional Recreation Areas.
More than half of Alaska's population lives in Southcentral
Alaska.Anchorage,the largest city,had a 1980 civilian popula-
tion of 174,400.The region's economy is based on:support serv-
ices,commercial fishing,mining,forestry,petroleum,tourism,
and other private business.Economic trends are primarily toward
natural resource-rel ated development.Touri sm,although rated
second in importance for the state's economy,is the foremost i n-
dustry supporting the i~at-Su Borough economy.
Southcentral Alaska contains the most highly developed transporta-
tion system in the state.It is interconnected by paved highways
a nd gravel secondary roads provi ding good access to many areas.
An extensi ve airport system rangi ng from the i nternati onal 1evel
to gravel strips and water bodies permit plane access into much of
the remaining areas.The Alaska Railroad and ferry systems also
serve large portions of the region.All of these transportation
systems combine with the population concentrations to make the
Southcentral region's recreational opportunities the most easily
accessible and heavily used in Alaska.See Table E.7.3 for inven-
tory of statewide recreation facility distribution by regions.
(c)Existing Facilities
The Alaska State Parks System includes 82 park units;53 of these
are in the Southcentral Region of the state.Table E.7.3
E-7 -10
--
-
-
descri bes the di stri but i on of facil it i es throughout the state by
regi on and i 11 ustrates thi s development concentrat i on.Outdoor
recreat ion developments in the Southcentra 1 Regi on are pri mari 1y
located to serve the two major population centers of Fairbanks and
Anchorage and the Rai1be1t area connecting them.
The region1s largest and most popular attraction,for both out-of~
state tourists and state residents is the Denali National ~ark and
Preserve.It is located about 220 mi 1es north of Anchorage and
125 miles south of Fairbanks on the Parks Highway.It offers vis-
itors views of Mt.McKi n1ey and other major peaks as well as abun-
dant wildlife.The park attracted over 250,000 recreation visi-
tors in 1981.Facilities and services include several lodges,
visitor centers,campgrounds as well as trials,gas and bus
service.The adjacent Denali State Park,also accessed by the
Parks Highway,abuts the Susitna study area.It contains over
324,000 acres and offers 37 miles of scenic driving,a major road-
side campground,trials,picnic grounds and canoeing and fishing
areas.A total of 519,000 visitors utilized this park in 1981.
Seventy mil es from Anchorage,Nancy Lake State Park has 23,000
acres and 130 1 akes and ponds.It is heavily used by Anchorage
residents for water-related recreation as well as hiking and camp-
i ng (100 units).Chugach State Park,10 mil es to the east of
Anchorage,provides extensive hiking and cross-country skiing
opportuniti es.The park covers 494,000 acres and offers major
campgrounds (91 units),hiking,hunting,boating and fishing.
Lake Louise,northeast of Anchorage and reached off of the Glenn
Highway,is a popular fishing,boating and hunting area.The lake
is a desti nation poi nt for boaters and provides access to the
upper Susitna and Tyone rivers.
North of the Susitna project site,the Bureau of Land Management
maintains the 4.4-million-acre Denali Planning Block.This area
encompasses much of the Dena1 i Hi ghway and i nc1 udes several arch-
aeological sites of nationa.1 significance.The Bureau maintains
severa 1 small campgrounds and pi cni c areas a.10ng the hi ghway,boat
launches,canoe trail,and two campgrounds at Tangle Lakes.There
are campgrounds at Brushkana Creek and C1 earwater Creek.
The Susitna Flats State Game Refuge to the north of Anchorage and
the Chugach National Forest to the east also absorb a large por-
tion of recreation demand for the southern portions of the South-
central Region.A great many recreationists from Anchorage go to
the world-famous Kenai Peninsula parks,over 100 miles south of
the city.This area offers the widest range of Alaska recreation.
Features include superior fishing,big game hunting,scenic driv-
ing and skiing as well as lake and saltwater recreation.
Numerous private facilities in the region provide additional
formal and informal recreation opportunities.These include re-
mote lodges,cabi ns,restaurants,airstri ps and f1yi ng servi ces,
guide services,white-water rafting and other boat trips.
E-7-11
--,,~~-----
The town of Talkeetna serves as the operations center for Mt.
r~cKinley mountaineering expeditions.People from all over the
world come to this old mining town to fly out to the mountain base
and other recreation points.In addition to mountain climbing,
other recreation activities which serve as Talkeetna1s economic
base include:hunting,fishing,guiding,tours,and sightseeing.
A listing of existing recreation opportunitles in the region is
included in Appendix £o7.A.
(d)Existing Regional Recreation Use
Outdoor recreat ion is a way of 1 ife in Al aska.Accordi ng to the
major source document used by recreation planners in Alaska to
assess demand,the wide variety of recreation opportunities avail-
able is a major reason that people move to and stay in Alaska.
Only self-reliance is considered more important,and being close
to the wilderness was the third most important reason Al askans
gave in a recent survey.Selected Findin s from the Alaska
Public Survey,USFS,NPS,and University of Washington,1981 •
The percentage of Alaska's population that participates in outdoor
recreation activities is among the highest in the nation.Accord-
ing to that recent statewide recreation survey,59 percent of the
respondents in the southcentral area reported that they enjoy
driving for pleasure.Over half of the respondents walk or run
for pl easure and a full 42 percent go freshwater fi shi ng.Tabl e
E.7.4 lists and ranks the percentage of participation in various
inland activities within the region.Southcentral residents rank
their favorite recreation as fishing,tent camping,hunting,
trail-related activities,baseball and bicycling in that order.
(Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan,1981).In contrast,tourists to
the area have indicated driving for pleasure as their favorite
activity followed by camping,hiking and sports fishing.(Alaska
Division of Tourism,1977).
Table £07.5 outlines the total visitor count summary for Alaska
State Parks 1978 to 1980.Figures for the Mat-Su and Copper Basin
Park districts describe the Susitna River Basin as it was analyzed
for t hose data.
Over 389,000 visitors came to Alaska for pleasure trips in 1977.
Thi s represents a 13 to 15 percent annual growth rate si nee 1964.
Recreation growth rates are difficult to predict with confidence,
as they rely on many variables,including world economic condi-
tions.However,the State Division of Tourism projects that in
the year 1985 up to 1,000,000 tourists will visit Alaska.The
main reasons tourists give for being interested in Al aska were
studied in a poll by GMA Research Corporation in 1980 for the
Division of Tourism (Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan,1981).
E-7-l2
-
Main Reasons for Interest in Alaska
-Scenery,mountains,forest,outdoors
-Unique,different from other places
-People,Native cultures,Eskimos
-Unspoiled wilderness
-Other responses including:curiosity,
adventure,vastness,wildlife,fishing,
and hunt i ng
Percent
40
25
10
10
15
(e)
In terms of numbers of vi sitors,the most important out-of-state
tourist areas in Alaska are the Gul.f of Alaska,Anchorage,and the
Denali National Park which is within 80 miles of the future Susit-
na dam sites.
Future Recreation Trends
Southcentra 1 Alaska is reportedly experi enci ng overcrowdi ng in
some existing recreation areas near Anchorage and Fairbanks due to
recent population growth.Assuming that the present recreation
participation rate remains constant,the region will experience a
significant annual increase in demand.However,recreation par-
ticipation in the United States and Alaska may increase faster
than the popul at i on growth if current trends continue.Alaskans
have increasing amounts of leisure time and with flexible working
schedules are able to devote longer periods of time to recreation.
Thi s may result in longer tri ps at greater di stances from the
urban centers.In recreation areas which have received up to·50
percent of their users from the cities of Anchorage and Fairbanks,
intensity of use increased three-fold in the late 1970s and the
recreation season has lengthed by several weeks.(Source:Alaska
State Park System Southcentral Region Plan).
According to the Southcentral Regional Plan,sports fishing
1 i cense sales increased 40 percent from 1975 to 1980.Increased
use of accessible fishing streams has caused overcrowding in popu-
1ar areas throughout the regi on and in part i cul ar those streams
nearest the urban centers.Interest in boating is also rising.
Sales of boating equipment increased significantly in the late
1970s,and the Knik Kanoers and Kayakers Cl ub of Anchorage has
experienced rapid growth in recent years.There is also evidence
of a rapid increase of interest in winter recreation as surveys of
winter recreation equipment sales over the last seven years show.
(Clark &Johnson,1979 public survey).
A statewide 1981 public survey (Selected Findings from the Alaska
Publ ic Survey)polled Southcentral residents to determine their
recreation needs and priorities.Twenty-five percent of the resi-
dents responded that they would most like to do more fishing,12
percent more tent camping,7 percent said hunting,and 8 percent
said motorboating.Bad weather,lack of free time,closed sea-
sons,overcrowding and high transportation costs are reportedly
E-7-l3
the most common reasons that prevent res i dents from i ncreas i ng
their activities.When asked what priorities the State Parks
Department should have for future development,residents advised
the Department to acquire more campgrounds,hiking trails,develop
recreation trails,backpacking campsites and boat trails.How-
ever,Al askans woul d prefer only to mai ntai n exi sti ng wi 1derness
areas,not expand these further.
Also in the 1981 survey,sixty-one percent of the Southcentral
residents are reported to like more recreation opportunities at
weekend travel di stances,'and 62 percent waul d 1 ike more community
recreation development.When asked how many hours they would
travel for weekend recreation,17 percent said over 4 hours,11
percent said over?hours,and a full 20 percent were .willing to
go over 6 hours from home for a weeked trip.This is generally
believed to be supported by existing travel patterns.
The features that people most des ired in out-of-town recreat ion
areas i ncl ude:
-
-
Feature
-Fishing areas
-Water access
Developed camping and picnic sites
-Undisturbed natural areas
-Hunting areas
-ORV trails
%of Population in
Favor of Features
95
91
91
88
87
7
Source:Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan~1981
(f)Future Facilities
In 1982 the State Parks Division published an aggressive plan to
expand recreation opportunities within the Southcentral Region.
This plan reflects the leading role the State Parks Department has
in providing outdoor regional recreation.The plan has chosen to
respond to all of the existing unsatisfied demands and projected
needs of the region.(See Figure E.7.4 and Table Eo7.7 for future
Regional Facilities.)
State Parks development priorities include several recreation
sites that will affect the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Recrea-
tion Plan.They are listed in Figure E.7.6 and include the
following:
Denal i State Park,to the west of the Susitna project,has been
studied as the site of the Tokositna Resort which would offer
first-class hotel facilities,cultural attractions,commercial
developments,indoor recreation,alpine skiiing and other winter
sports as well as the traditional outdoor recreation already
offered in the park.While this project is no longer under active
consideration due to uncertain feasibility,preliminary studies
E-7-14
-
-
-
i
estimated a potential for over 2 million visitor nights and
300,000 day visitors by 1985.This year-round resort would have
become the premier recreation destination in Alaska.Should this
potential project ever be developed,it would accommodate sig-
nificant proportions of projected recreation demand in the state.
In other areas of the Denali State Park development is going for
additional picnic areas,campgrounds,boating facilities and
trails.Along the eastern portions of the park future trail heads
have been desi gnatedi n conjunction with railroad stops.These
trai 1s woul d connect into the western-most portion of the Susi tna
study area.
The existing Lake Louise Recreational Area to the southeast of the
Susitna study area is a popular boating and fishing area.Current
expansion plans will add 300 acres to the existing 50 and will
include several campgrounds,boating facilities and canoe portage
trails.This development also a high priority as the lake is
experi enci ng heavy use.The adjoi ni ng Susitna Lake and Tyone
River have been identified as possible boating recreation areas
for possible development at a later time.Boaters are able to
float from the Susitna bridge on the Denali Highway down the
Susitna and up to Lake Loui see Other opportunit i es for boati ng
include Tangle Lakes,Big Lake,and Kepler Lakes.
The State Parks Division has also identified the Talkeetna River
as a possi b 1eState Recreat ion Ri ver.These 1ands have been
sel ected by the CIRI Vi 11 age Corporati ons for conveyance.The
proposed recreati on area woul d extend from the ri ver mouth at
Talkeetna up to the confl uence of Talkeetna and Prairie Creek.It
is possible that new legislative designation will not need to take
pl ace but that means to protect the ri ver wi 11 be sought under
existing legislation.Boaters currently fly in to Stephan Lake
located at the head of Prairi e Creek,whi ch is in the Susitna
study area;then they float the Talkeenta River down and into the
Susitna Ri ver at the town of Talkeetna.This Cl ass IV waterway
attracts 4-5 parties per year,of 3-6 people each,and takes 2-3
days.(Personal communi cati on,Mary Kay Hessi on,Knik Kanoe and
Kayak Club).
Several other proposed new parks and park expansions given a high
priority by DNR are listed in Appendix E7B,Future Regional
Recreation Opportunities.
2.2 -Susitna River Basin
-
(a)Background
During the past decade the Upper Susitna River Basin has been
studied and evaluated by numerous state and federal agencies.It
has not met criteria required for inclusion in any of the follow-
ing recreation and conservation programs:
E-7-l5
-"""'--__,~...-~--A~,",·~-.-'-------~,
-National Park -Preserve System
-Wild and Scenic River System~(including recreation)
-National or Historic Landmark Status
-Wilderness Preservation System
-National Trail System
-National Forest System
-State Park System
As no federal withdrawals were made ~both the State and Native
Corporations have selected lands for transfer to state or Native
ownershi p.
(b)Existing Facilities and Activities
The upper Sus itna Ri ver has yet to be developed as a si gnfi cant
recreation resource and the present level of use is limited as a
result of several major restrictions.The study area is immense~
and isolated.Road access is limited to the edges.For the pur-
poses this Recreation Plan~the study area which was evaluated for
recreation sites is generally defined by the Parks Highway on the
west ~the Denali Hi ghway on the north ~the Sus itna Ri ver on the
east~and about 20 miles south of the Susitna River.The Parks
Hi ghway is separated from the area by a steep ridge system.
Denali Highway is about a five-hour drive from Anchorage and
three-hours from Fairbanks~which puts the area beyond the limits
of a one-day auto trip for most residents in the region.Interior
road access consists of a few all-terrain vehicular (ATV)trails
and rought roads into a few sett 1ed areas.Plane tr ips into the
river take approximately 2 hours from Anchorage and Fa irbanks.
Small planes are the most common form of access into the area
although a few ATV and hiking trails do exist.Boat access is
possible on a limited basis.Various types of watercraft float
and motor along parts of the ri ver above Vee Canyon and its trib-
utaries.
No public recreation facilities presently exist within the
study area except for the road-related facilities on the
Denali~Parks and Richardson highways.
Along the Denali Highway~BLM maintains several small
roadside campgrounds and picnic areas.A boat launch~
canoe trails and two campgrounds were also built at Tangle
Lakes.The most important of these facilities relevant to
E-7-16
-
-
...
-
-
""'"
-
-
the Sus itna Hydroe 1ectri c Project Recreati on Pl an are the
33-site campground at Brushkana Creek and the boat 1aunch
at the highway bridge over the Susitna River.
A complete listing of the existing public and commercial
developments within and adjacent to the study area is
listed in Table E.7.6.
Exist i ng pri vate recreation developments withi n the study
area include clusters of small seasonal cabins and commer-
ci al lodges.There are approximately 110 structures withi n
the study area.Chapter 9,Land Use,includes a comprehen-
sive table of all existing structures within the area and
lists their use,mode of access,location and condition.
The major concentrations of residences,cabins and other
structures are near:Portage Creek,High Lake.Gold Creek,
Chuni 1 na Creek,Stephan Lake,Cl arence Lake and Bi g Lake.
Most are used in associ at i on with hunting,fi shi ng and
other recreat i on act i vi ties.Some of these 1ocat ions ar e
accessible by ATV trails,but most are located near dirt
airstrips and large water bodies for access by/plane.
The greatest concentrations of physical developments are
located around Stephan Lake and Portage Creek.Portage
Creek is a mining area with some summer cabins;it contains
19 cabins and other structures.Stephan Lake is a commer-
cial lodge site.Other developments at Chunilna and Gold
creeks are primarily mining establ ishments.The 10 small
cabins along the Susitna River banks are currently used by
boaters,hunters,etc.passi ng through.The three commer-
cial lodges in the area are located at High,Tsusena and
Stephan Lakes.
Stephan Lake Lodge,located south of the Susitna River,is
the largest of the three commerical lodges.It includes 10
mai n structures and seven addit i ona lout lyi ng cabi ns,and
receives the greatest number of visitors annually.Serving
a predominantly European clientele,it offers a variety of
outdoor recreation activities in a wilderness setting
including hunting,fishing and float trips down the
Talkeetna and upper Sus itna ri vers andPr airi e Creek.
High Lake Lodge is the second largest complex lodge with 11
structures and is located northeast of the proposed Devi 1
Canyon damsite at Hi gh Lake.Hi stori cally,thi s lodge has
provided guests with services that are simil ar to Stephan
Lake Lodge for hunting and fishing activities in a wild-
erness area.The lodge is currently bei ng uti 1 i zed by
Susitna project personnel doi ng summer fi el d research.
E-7-17
Tsusena Lake Lodge is located north of the proposed Watana
dams ite and Tsusena Butte and adjacent to Tsusena Lake.
This lodge,with three structures,is used primarily by the
lodge owners and members of their families and friends.
The majority of use occurs during the summer and fall
months with little or no use during the ~'1inter months.
The existing trail systems were bui 1t for access by pros-
pectors,hunters,trappers and fishermen.(See Table E.7.8
and Figures E.7.5,E.7.6,and E.7.7 for a complete listing
of trail locations,condition and use).At figures present
these trai 1s and rough roads are used by horses,tracked
vehicles,ro11i90ns,dogsleds and hikers.They connect a
few scatte~ed recreation developments and mining
settlements and the camps used for researching the area1s
hydroelectric potential.Trail s emanate from scattered
structures out to airstri ps,1akes and adjacent fi shi ng
streams.
BLM is currently developing regulations for the management
of the public trails located on lands which the Native cor-
porat ions have selected.A tota 1 of six easements ha ve
been identified within the study area.(See Exh-ibit E,
Chapter 9).These include an access trail 50 feet wide
from the Chulitna wayside on the Alaska Railroad to public
lands immediately east nf Portage Creek;a state site ease-
ment and trail easements on Stephan Lake;and an access
trail running east from Gold Creek.
The following trail information was reported in the Area
Notes prepared by DNR Division of Research and Development
as part of the Upper Susitna Basin Recreation Atlas.
The Snodgrass Lake Trail begins at the Denali Highway near
the Susitna bridge and proceeds south to the lake.The
tra il reportedly recei ves use dur i ng summer,autumn and
winter months.Recreation activities include moose,brown
bear,caribou hunting;fishing,camping,off-road vehicular
use,picnicking,wildlife observation,berry picking,snow
machining,overnight camping,and cross-country skiing.
The Portage Creek Trail follows a sled road from Chu1 itna
to Portage Creek.Hikers access the trail via the A1 aska
Railraod at Chulitna.The trail is used in the autumn,
summer,and winter months.The trail is popular with
hunters of moose,car i bou,brown bear and black bear,as
well as hikers,campers,fi shermen,photographers and berry
pickers.Portage Creek also receives a light level of
fishing effort.Most of this trail transverses Cook Inlet
Region,Inc.(CIRI)-se1ec~ed lands.
The Butte Lake Area is used duri ng summer,wi nter and
autumn months.There is a CAT trail connecting the Denali
E-7-18
-
-
-
-
-
..-
,-
(i i)
Highway and Butte Lake.This trail is used by skiers,
snowmachiners,hikers,fishermen,berry pickers,and
campers.There is some fi shi ng effort for grayl i ng and
1 ake trout on Butte Lake.The Butte Lake area is a duck,
geese,and swan birding area.The Brushkana Campground at
Mile 105,Denali Highway,is reportedly one of the few
known habitat areas for the Smith's Longspur.
A trail runs from Denali downstream along the west bank of
the Susitna River.At the confluence of the Susitna and
Maclaren rivers the trail continues east up to the Maclaren
River and then turns south.This trail connects to other
trails leading to Lake Louise or Crosswind Lake and ulti-
mately to the Glenn Highway.This trail is used by off-
road vehicle drivers,snowmachiners,hunters of car'ibou,
moose and brown bear,fishermen and possibly dog mushers.
Bird watching is also popular along the Denali Highway
between the Susitna Lodge and Swampbuggy Lake.
Activities
Aside from these isolated lodges,cabins and trails which
constitute a commitment to a particular site,the predomi-
nant recreat i on pattern is di spersed and non-s i te specifi c.
Activities include the consumptive recreations such as
hunting,fishing,food gathering and rock hounding.River-
related activities include various types of power and non-
powered boating and rafting.Other dispersed activities
currently practiced in the area are:camping,hiking,
cross-country skiing and photography.
Sports and Trophy Hunting is a traditional activity in the
Upper Susitna Basin.The three commercial lodges in the
area serve as bases for hunting groups that fly in for
gui ded trophy hunts.The lodges typi ca 11y handl e 15-20
guests at a time and jointly total 120 guests per season.
(Source:Environmental Studi es Subtask 7.07,Land Use
Analysis).In addition,many hunters fly into the larger
1 akes and util ize the small lakeside cabins for both guided
and unguided hunting trips.Hunters also use ATV vehicles
and horses to gai n access to more remote areas.The most
popular big game include Dall sheep,moose,caribou,black
bears and brown bears.Alaska Department o~Fish and Game
data indicate that the recreation study area had about 600
hunter-days for moose,caribou and sheep in 1981.
Fishing is an activity which frequently occurs here in
association with other activities such as hunting,boating,
and camping.Local residents have long enjoyed high qual-
ity fishing in area lakes,streams and rivers.They com-
monly fly into the 1arger 1akes for a 11-day or weekend
trips.Lake fishing is concentrated at Fog,Cl arence,
Watana,Tusena,Deadman,Big and High Lakes,while stream
fishing occurs mostly along the creeks accessible by land
such as Portage Creek.
E-7-19
-----~,--_._........_---------------
Sa 1mon mi grate the Sus itna up to Portage Creek just below
Devil Canyon.Both guided and individual fishing trips are
popular here.Considerable salmon fishing also occurs in
Stephan lake and Pra ir ie Creek as boaters travel upstream
on the Talkeetna Ri ver to Prairie Creek.Other popul ar
salmon fishing spots include lower Portage and Chunilna
creeks and Indian River.There is litle stream fishing
elsewhere in the area.lack of road access is an important
1 imit i ng factor on fi shi ng in the area.There are many
popular salmon fishing areas further downstream on the
Susitna River and its tributaries.
Food Gathering.Very little site-specific data are cur-
rently available on food-gathering patterns within the
study area.Some berry-picking areas are known near
Chulitna to the east of the study area and several more are
along the Denali Highway.
Rock Hounding.Much of the mineral exploration which
currently takes place within the study area is commercial
in nature and as such is discuseed in Exhibit E,Chapter 5,
Soci oeconomi c Impacts.Thi s wi 11 change now that the BLM
1 ands have been opened for expl orat i on and as 1ands are
conveyed to Native Corporations.
Boating.There is summer boating on many of the lar.ger
lakes by visitors who are flown in.Riverboat and guide
servi ces are offered from Talkeetna and from the vari ous
lodges downstream of Devil Canyon.The river is considered
navi gabl e by a vari ety of craft i ncl udi ng rafts,canoes,
a irboats and ri verboats up to Portage Creek.
The Susitna River itself is used for fishing and access to
hunt i ng.Boating activity takes pl ace south of the study
area near boat launches at Willow Creek,Kashwitna Landing,
Sunshine bridge and Talkeetna.The upper Susitna above the
proposed reservoirs is calm and provides good canoeing.
Some boaters reportedly float the river from the boat
1 aunch on the Denal i Hi ghway down to the Tyone River then
motor up to the 1 ake at its source.A small number of
boaters continue down the Susitna to the gaging station
above Vee Canyon where they pullout and portage to Watana
Lake for fishing.The upper Talkeetna River in the south-
ern portion of the study area,rated Class IV,offers some
of the finest rafting and white-water kayaking in Alaska.
Talkeetna River is not easily accessible by land,and air
access is usually into Stephan Lake.It is reported that
four to five parties per year,consisting of three to six
persons,are air-lifted into Stephan lake.They float
Prairie Creek to the Talkeetna River.Alternate put-in
E-7-20
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
-
~-
.~
.~
(c)
points may be available by landing on sandbars in the
Ta lkeetna Ri ver.The take-out poi nt is usually at the town
of Talkeetna.This is a two-three day trip (personal
communication,Mary Kay Kession,Knik Kanover and Kayak
Club).
Riverboat traffic is heavy on the Talkeetna up to the
Larsen Creek confl uence.Ri verboat and ai rboat traffi cis
also common to the confluence of Prairie Creek,but is not
as intense as it is downstream.Fi shermen boat to the
mouth of Larsen Creek and lt/alk a mile into Larsen Lake.
Fishing is light on larsen Creek and Lake as well as at the
mouth of Disappointment Creek.
Two to three parties of two to three individuals venture
down through the rapids of Devil Canyon each year.This
wi 1d stretch of ri ver,cl assified Cl ass VI,whi ch roars
through 11 miles of a narrow vertical canyon is described
by veteran kayakers as the Mt.r~cKinley of kayaking •.The
first successful runni ng occurred in 1978.Less than 40
kayakers from various parts of the world have attempted it
since that time,·and at least five people have died
tryi ng.
Cross-country skiing takes places in the area,particularly
near Denali Highway.Occasional tour packages have been
offered by the local private lodges.Snowshoeing has also
become a purely recreational sport here.A limited amount
of trapping takes place on the south side of the Susitna
Ri ver near Stephan and Fog 1akes as well as on the north
side near Tsusena Creek and Clarence·and High lakes.In
the winter,dogsleds and snowmobiles travel through the
area.They most commonly use the frozen river as trail.
Their activities are reportedly centered around Trapper
Creek and Talkeetna to the south.
Future Activities and Facilities
Shoul d the Sus itna hydroe 1ectri c project not be developed,the
major obstacles which have limited past recreation activities will
continue make it difficult in the future,although Native
Corporations may seek to develop their lands for recreational
uses.Unless vehicular access is developed into the study area,
no major shift in the existing .low-level recreation patterns is
anticipated.The parties which will control future recreation
activities and development in the study area include:Alaska
state government,U.S.Bureau of Land Management,several Nat i ve
corporations and various other private landholders •
The policies of these groups concerning the land parcels they con-
trol along with overall increased pressures for recreation oppor-
tunities from Alaska residents will largely determine the future
£-7-21
patterns.The exact nature of specific activities and develop-
ments is difficult to predict as land ownership decisions are in
abeyance .and not likely to be resolved for several years.In
addition,several major projects within the region could signifi-
cantly affect future recreation.These are listed in Section 3.5
of this report.Additional public land sales could also change
the recreation emphasis in the area.
-
-
The Native corporations have selected much of the land aQjacent to
the river and along Portage Creek and Talkeetna River.The _
corporations have not identified any specific plans for develop-
ment if the hydroelectric development does not occur.
Development possibilities which have been discussed include:
mineral extraction and recreation home land development.Access
appears to be the prime determenent for development decisions.At
present two small improved vehicular trails provide access to both
the northern and southern sides of the river.
The Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga Cooperative Planning Studies have
analyzed the demand for recreation home lots ~~ithin their planning
areas (which i ncl ude the Susitna study area).They project a
demand for 29,000 acres of new lots by the year 1990 assuming a
population growth of 65,000 people.This is an exceptionally high
demand level relative to resident population figures and reflects
the region's popularity for recreation home sites with Alaskans
from other areas.
The lands selected Qy Native corporations near the Susitna River
meet all of the aesthetic criteria for prime lots according to the
study (Land Use Issues and Preliminary Resource Inventory,Volume
I,May 1982).However,without improved road access considering
the landis building limitations,the property was given a rating
of moderate capability and sales are unlikely to be significant.
Nat i ve corporati ons have a1so expressed a preference for 1and
leasing rather than sale.
BLM policies for the Denali Planning Block reflect the goals of
increasing recreation use of the area.Their plans include road
improvements to the Denali Highway and additional roadside im-
provements such as new campgrounds,picnic areas,and pull-outs.
BLM is projecting an increase of the average annual daily traffic
along the highway to 130 in the year 2000.Existing ADTis 50
cars.Formal designation of BLM land for additional ATV use
appears to be no longer under consider.ation.BLM lands have,
however,recently been opened to mineral exploration and mining
entry.
The private lodge owners in the area have not indicated any plans
for expansion.The existing levels of use are small and are not
expected to change substantially.
E-7-22
-
-
-
-
-
(d)Projected Demand Without the Project
Projections of demand within the study area assuming the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project is not constructed were calculated as a part
of this Recreation Plan in order to provide baseline data.These
calculations and the preparation methodology appear in Section
3.5.
E-7-23
-
3 -PROJECT IMPACTS ON EXISTING RECREATION
Impacts that the Susitna hydroelectric development wi 11 have on the
existing recreation patterns are of two types,having either a direct
or indirect effect.Di rect effects are defi ned as those whi ch rel ate
to physical changes to the natural resources which constitute recrea-
tion settings.Impacts to this setting might either increase or
decrease the des irabi 1 ity and probabi 1 ity of exi st i ng recreation ac-
tivity types and levels.They may also make possible new levels and
types of activity.In many cases the direct impacts on recreation
settings are synonymous with concerns for the environment expressed in
the fiSh,wildlife·and botanical chapter of Exhibit E.In this sec-
tion,such cases will be referenced to the detailed discussions in the
corresponding sections.Indirect impacts are those related to changes
in user demand levels.These include the impacts of construction wor-
ker recreation and the influx of recreationalists as a result of the
new road openings.This first section deals with direct impacts and
discusses major project developments separately.Construction and
operational impacts are also distinguished in each case.
Construction of the Watana Dam and related features invol-
ves construction of two cofferdams and diversion of the
river.It includes clearing of forest land.dredging of
the river and other borrow locations for dam fill material,
blasting for the underground powerhouse and other features
as well as other heavy construction activities at the dam
site.In addition,an access road will be constructed from
t he Denali Hi ghway and the construct i on camps bui 1t near
the damsite.(The access raod is discussed in Section 3.3)
The 38.000-acre reservoir area ~v.ill be cleared of trees
prior to inundation.It is anticipated to require three
years to fill the entire impoundment area.The primary
impacts of initial construction activities extend beyond
the relatively small physical areas being disturbed.An
immense change in i mage wi 11 affect a 1arge part of the
river basin as the prevailing ambience of an untouched,
unaccessible wilderness changes to one of intense acti vity
and heavy construction.This is an unavoidable impact of
development and can only be partially mitigated by careful
management of the remaining lands for public recreation and
appreciation.Specific impacts of construction within the
disturbed land areas include the elimination of small areas
of wildlife habitat in the primary construction areas to
the north of the damsite.This area contains.a small
concentration of black bear that would be eliminated,
E-7-24
----------~_..._------'"--~-,.,"',-,.---,"''''~
therefore reduci ng hunt i ng opportunities.Some fi shi ng
impacts will occur as a result of the effects of ri veri ne
construction on water quality.Tsusena Creek and the
Susitna itse1 f wi 11 be affected by gravel removal duri ng
construction.Impacts are expected to be qUickly dissipa-
ted in the Susitna River and not significantly affect
recreational fishing other than precluding actual construc-
tion areas from recreational use.
The 38,OOO-acre reservoir impoundment will inundate 10
small river-front cabins which are used seasonally by
hunters,fi shermen and other recreati oni st who arr i ve by
boat or plane.The impoundment will also inundate a large
area of prime habitat for such wildlife as wolverines,
moose and black bear and possibly disrupt migration of the
Nelchina caribou herd.While no direct correlations can be
drawn between these losses and a reduction of hunter days,
it can be expected that in general either fewer hunters,
particularly trophy hunters of black bear,will be attract-
ed to the area or that those who do wi 11 be 1ess success-
ful.Specific ilTlpacts and mitigations for this loss are
discussed in Exhibit E,Chapter 3,Fish,Wildlife,and
Botanical Resources.
(i i)Operati ons
Operational impacts on existing recreation are related to
the schedule,quantity,quality and temperature of water
retained in the reservoir and released from the reservoir.
Withi n the new reservoir area an entirely new recreat i on
setting will have been created which bears little simi-
larity to the existing river recreation patterns.Opera-
tions will heavily impact this new setting through water
f1uct~ation schedules.During the prime recreation months
of Ju1y,and August,water levels will be rising,with a
peak in September.
The lake shorelines will contain large mudflats and steep
banks of exposed tree stumps,and slumping soils.The sit-
uation will severely limit the development of the reservoir
as a recreation opportunity.A lack of fish population,
si Tty waters and col d water temperatures in the reservoir
reinforce this recreation limitation.
(b)Talkeetna to Devil Canyon Fishery
(i)Construction
Impacts of construction on this downstream sports fishing
area are directly related to the water quality changes
caused by gravel and soil dredge-and-fi1l operations in the
channel.Some periodic minor modification in turbidity
levels can be expected.
E-7-25
""'"
-
....
-
Recreational fishing could also be negatively affected
during the three year filling period in which summer flows
will be reduced.About 20 sloughs utilized for spawning
and/or rearing will potentially be impacted,and the
fishing experience may be some\'1hat diminished temporarily
by the lower water levels •.-
(i1)Operations
Potential fishing impacts after construction will also be
dependent on water quality and quantity.As flows stabi-
lize and as silt is trapped in the reservoir,it is antici-
pated that the Sus itna downstream of the dam may cl ear up
and become somewhat more fishable,particularly for coho
and chinook salmon.There may be minor increases in winter
turbidity between Talkeetna and the damsite,but an overall
improvement in fishing opportunities is anticipated.
(c)Other River-Related Recreation
(i)Construction
The existing level of boating activity both downriver from
Devil Canyon to Ta 1keetna and upr i ver from Watana wi 11 be
largely unaffected by Watana construction until actual fil-
ling of the reservoir begins.At that time,water levels
downstream will decrease in summer recreation months.
Depending on the precipitation and natural water level dur-
ing filling,the reach of the Susitna one to three miles
below Sherman (about six to nine miles below Gold Creek)
may be diffi cult to navi gate.Boaters who currently ven-
ture up the ri ver to Devil Canyon and Portage Creek may
find this difficult to do.Rafting and kayaking from
upri ver will be restri cted duri n9 constructi on for those
few users who currently raft down the Susitna and pullout
in the area of Stephan Lake and for the very small group of
kayakers who run the Devil Canyon Rapids (40 in 5 years).
During construction,these boaters will have to portage the
construction area.This obstacle will significantly affect
the wild river experience,even though the actual.length of
river where construction is in sight and sound is short.
-
(i i )Operat ions
Downstream boating may continue to be affected by reduced
water flows after construction.Water levels wil1.be lower
at Gold Creek during June,July,and August.Sunshine and
Susitna further down the river will be much less affected.
E-7-26
------""""'_....~-_.._------._...._,--~----
Continuous river trips by kayakers or rafters who float
down to a take-out below Stephan Lake or go on through
Devil Canyon will be e1 iminated as portage around the
Watana Dam would be difficult.Upstream the float trip
will change from a river to a lake experience as the reser-
voir backs 54 miles up the river valley.With a loss of
r api d ri ver water movement,boaters will need manual or
mechanical propulsion to navigate the new lake.New acti-
vities such as float planing and large motorized boats will
increase as recreationists take advantage of the recreation
setting created by the lake and the new access through Vee
Canyon.The experi ece \'Iil1 be quite qifferent in character
and can be expected to attract a different clientele than
the present users.
A major impact of thi s new reservoir is the loss of the
existing pristine riverine setting.The aesthetic experi-
ence for future boaters vii 11 be greatly deteri orated by the
effects of water fluctuation on the new shoreline.These
visual impacts such as mudsl ides,mudflats,etc.are dis-
cussed in Exhibit E,Chapter 8,Aesthetics.Safety will
also be a concern for future boaters using the lake as the
great 1ength and breadth of the impoundment may l.ead to
treacherous conditions for small craft in high winds.
(d)Other Land Related Recreation
(i)Construction
The land-based recreation activities and resources within
areas that Watana construction will effect have already
been modified by the presence of project researchers who
currently live and work in the vicinity.However,their
low level recreation activities have not caused adverse
impacts.
It is anticipated that during construction all land areas
associated with this project will be closed to the recrea-
tion public.Thus any existing activities and resources
will be eliminated for the duration of construction activi-
ties.
Existing recreation activities consist of hunting and fish-
ing in the area;these activities can easily shift to other
public lands for the duration of work.However,if con-
struction practices cause permanent degradation to the
recreati on environment or the fi sh and wi 1dl ife habitat,
the activities could be lost permanently.
E-7-27
.-
-.
~,
.-
.-
.-r
-
(i i)Operat ions
~ter construction the land areas associated with the dam
oJffll either be rehabil itated or util ized for operations
facil ities and a permanent townsite.The rehabil itated
areas may return to use as natural recreational areas.The
operations areas,however,will continue to be unavailable
for pUbl ic recreation use.The presence of workers and
their families will also continue to impact the recreation
resources.Ho\'/ever,with proper control by land owners and
managers,these effects will not be detrimental.
3.2 -Devil Canyon Development
(a)Reservoir
(i)Construction
Construct i on of the thi n concrete arch Devil Canyon Dam
related features involves construction of a high-level
bridge across the canyon,cofferdams and diversion of the
river,land clearing and blasting,and a major concrete mix
plant at the damsite.In addition,a railroad spur will be
constructed from Gold Creek,a road \'1111 be built between
Watana and Devil Canyon,and construct i on camps will be
built near the damsite.The 7,800-acre reservoir itself is
located within a steep canyon and will require less c1ear-
i ng than the Watana reservoi r.As at Watana,the pri mary
recreation impacts of construction will result from the
conversi on of a wi 1derness area to a construction area
inhabited by 1,780 single workers and 170 married workers
(550 people).Construction of the 34-mi1e road connecting
Watana and Devil Canyon will introduce a developed land use
and access pattern into an existing wilderness area •
The Devil Canyon reservoir,unlike Watana,will be rela-
tively narrow and largely confined within the canyon walls,
part i cul arly the downstream reaches.The major impacts
resulting from its creation will be the loss of 11 miles of
Class VI rapids.This is an irreplaceable loss of a scarce
worl dwi de recreat i on resource.Expert kayakers have come
from around the world to attempt this trip.Although the
actual number 'of kayakers are few (2-3 parties per year),
this does not diminish the significance of the loss.An
additional 32 miles of river canyon upstream from Devil
Canyon will also be lost.However,since a portage around
Vee Canyon is necessary to reach this area today,it is
also used by only a few recreationists.
E-7-28
-------------
(i i).Operations
Operationally the Devil Canyon reservoir 'ill show the same
limitations that effect the recreation opportunities of
Watana Reservoir,although lower drawdowns and steeper
sides will result in less severe mudflats.The loss of
rapids and canyon will be complete as the reservoir fills.
(b)Talkeetna to Devil Canyon Fishery
(i)Construction
With the exception of temporary water quality impacts
during construction of the cofferdam,no water quality-
related recreation impacts are foreseen.Filling will only
take about two months,and depending on season,will not
appreciably affect flow rates.No further impacts are
anticipated on downstream fishing and boating activity.
(ii)Operations
Operation of Devil Canyon will cause only minor changes in
flows from Watana operation flows below the dam and is not
expected to further affect the river downstream.Likewise,
mi nor increases in wi nter turbi dity are not expected to
affect recreational fishing.
(c)Other River-Related Recreation
During the construction and operation period of Devil Canyon Dam
no other impacts are anticipated.
(d)Other Land-Related Recreation
Land-related recreation impacts for construction and operations at
Devil Canyon dam are simil ar to those antici pated at the Watana
Dam development.
3.3 -Access
(a)Watana Access Road
(i)Construction
The 41-mil e·road from the Denali Hi ghway to the Watana dam-
site will provide logistics support for construction to the
dam.Construction will include a small temporary
construction camp near the Brushkana drai nage and several
borrow pits as material is required for construction.
E-7-29
-
""'"
-
-
The road will traverse a large area not presently acces-
sible by highway vehicle.While APA proposes to reserve
decision until completion of Watana construction,for the
purposes of this recreation plan,it is assumed that after
completion of the Watana Dam Phase in 1993 the public will
be allowed to use the road to access the areas south of the
Denali highway.Prior to 1993,use of the road is expected
to be 20-30 construction vehicle trips per day.An addi-
tional 200 private vehicle trip/days are anticipated as
construction workers living off-site commute from Cantwell
or e1 sewhere.
The roads will be designed for a maximum driving speed of
from 40 mph to 60 mph.Two dri vi ng 1anes VJi 11 be 12 feet
wide with additional 6-foot shoulders on each side.Road
surfacing will be compacted gravel.
Within the proposed road corridor,existing recreation con-
.sists of dispersed and low-level activities such as hunt-
.ing,fishing and hiking.During construction of the road
these patterns will be somewhat impacted by increased ac-
tivity and disruption to the environment.However,due to
t hei r inhere nt mobi lity and non-site specifi city,these
activities will temporarily be absorbed by the surrounding
1and.
More important than this are the impacts that the construc-
tion activities and increased numbers of people on site
wi 11 have on the natural resources which constitute the
activity setting.Within the 100-foot corridor identified
for the road,the recreati on setti ng 1 s major components
consist of fish and wildlife habitats and visual quality of
the landscape.Specific impacts and the guidelines for
protection of these areas are discussed in Exhibit E,
Chapter 3,Fish,Wildlife and Botanical Resources,and
Chapter 8,Aestheti cs.Current road ali gnments ~<Ji 11
adversely impact sensitive wetlands and fish-streams of the
Brushkana,Soule,and Deadman Creek drainages.
{ii}Operations
In 1993 if the road were opened to the pUblic,it is anti-
cipated that in addition to the attraction created by the
new dam and reservoir,additional hunters,fishermen,
sightseers and other recreat i oni sts wi 11 be attracted to
the newly opened lands.The Recreation Plans as presented
in Section 5 is intended to focus this new influx of users
to allow them to utilize the new recreation opportunities
created.
E-7-30
(b)Devil Canyon Access Road
(i)Construction
This 34-mile road connecting the Devil Canyon damsite to
the Watana damsite will be built in 1992.Its use during
dam construction will be primarily to transport equipment
and personnel from the Watana town to the Devil Canyon con-
struction site.The road traverses more difficult terrain
than the Watana access road,and as a result,requires
careful design guidelines to control potentially signifi-
cant impacts caused by large cut/fill sections.The selec-
ted road corridor will also affect the private recreation
lodg~at High Lake.Passing within a mile of the develop-
ment,the new access will change the character of the faci-
1 ity from a remote fly-i n retreat to a more auto-ori ented
commercial facility.
Several borrow areas will be required to construct this
road section.Impacts that these excavations and the road
path itself will have on the existing recreation resources
are primarily visual;thus,specific mitigations are dis-
cussed in Chapter 8,Aesthetics.
(ii)Operations
After construction work is complete in 2002,Devil Canyon
road may be opened to the public.Operations personnel
will also continue to travel to the Devil Canyon Dam from
the permanent towns ite at Watana.Devil Canyon Dam is
expected to become more of a tourist attraction than Watana
because of its striking design and impressive setting.The
road will functi on as an important recreation faci 1 ity in
that regard.The impacts of the public in this corridor
area are similar to those for the Watana access road.
(c)Gold Creek -Dev;l Canyon Railroad
(i)Construction
The construction of the rai lroad spur to the Devi 1 Canyon
Damsite will have little effect on existing recreation
patterns.The areas which it crosses are largely unused as
a recreation resource.As with the case of the road con-
struct;on,care must be taken not to degrade the exi st i ng
recreation setting.This involves protection of the shore-
1 i nes of the Sus itna and streams crossed by the tracks as
they constitute both fish/wildlife habitats and aesthetics
resources.Potenti al sources of impacts include:major
cut/fill operations,borrow excavation and stream cross-
ings.Impacts and mitigations for these issues appear in
the Fish,Wildlife and Botanical Resources and Aesthetics
Chapter 3 and 8.
E-7-3l
-
-
-
-
-
I~
(ii)Operations
After construction is completed at the Devil Canyon dam-
site,rail service will no longer serve an exclusive pro-
ject function.At this time it may become available to the
publ ic use.As such it will constitute a positi ve impact
On r.ecreation use.It has the potential of providing
recreational access into the project area within four hours
from Anchorage compared to the a1ternat i ve road access
i""'"which will take seven hours.It is likely that demand
woul d not be hi gh enough to provi de thi s servi ce without
some subsidy however •
.(d)Other Land-Related Recreation
(i )
(i i )
Construction
The primary areas of construction and related construction
areas support numerous game animals.The noise and dust of
constructi on and the di srupt i on caused by heavy equi pment
operat ions along with the presence of 3,600 constructi on
workers will disturb the habitats of area wildlife.Care-
ful pl ans shoul d be made to contai n the areas of di srupt-
ion,the result from construction activities,and increased
human presence to prevent unnecessary degradation of the
adjacent recreation environment.An important impact will
be the introduction of civilization into an essentially
wild area.It is anticipated that all hunting by project
personnel wi 11 be prohi bited.Fi shi ng activity will be
managed by the State Department of Fi sh and Game.For pur-
poses of enforcement,it is likely that all recreation
access,by project personnel and the general public,will
have to be managed during construction.It is likely that
some areas now utilized for hunting and fishing by persons
using floatplanes and all-terrain vehicles will be managed
more restrictively during construction than at present.
Operation
During operation,only a few hundred people will reside in
Watana village,and personnel and operation/maintenance
activities will have only a minor impact on recreation
resources.
3.4 -Transmission
-
(a)Project Area
Construction of the east-west connection from the powerhousesdams
to the Intertie will be done primarily in winter,except for the
western portion from Gold Creek to an unnamed creek south of the
Susitna Ri ver about four mil es west of Devil Creek,where a
E-7-32
,__--__...---~..•---_.M _
pioneer road already exists.No impacts are anticipated on the
existing recreation patterns either during construction or during
operation of these lines.
(b)Intertie and Stubs
Intertie construction is scheduled to begin in 1983.These lines
and the future stubs from Healy to Fairbanks and from W"illow to
Anchorage are not anticipated to effect existing recreation
patterns during construction.Cleared transmission corridors are
commonly used by hunters and hikers and to the extent that these
activities take place,recreation will be positively impacted.
Future studies are planned by APA to develop a recreation plan
related to these corridors.
3.5 -Indirect Impacts --Project-Induced Recreation Demand
(a)Background
Estimation of demand for recreation related to the Susitna Hydro-
electric Project involves a number of complex and unusual circum-
stances due to project 1ocat i on,the characteri st i cs of the pro-
ject and the construction schedule.Added complexities result
from historically unpredictable regional growth pattern and lack
of consistent and verifiable data concerning regional recreation
projections.Some of.these circumstances include:
-Alaska Recreation Environment.As discussed in Section 2 of
this Report,recreation in Alaska has unique characteristics due
to the size of the state,the sparse population,the lack of
roads and long distances between facil ities.The untouched
wilderness conditions and abundance of wildlife have attracted
new state residents who enjoy the primitive recreation experi-
ence.Recreati on patterns and uses do not fo 11 ow those common
at many hydroelectric projects in the lower 47 states.Usual
recreation standards are not,for the most part,applicable in
Alaska.
-Newness.Al aska became a state in 1959.The State Department
of Parks was formed in 1971.There consequently is not the long
history and background of user data,public preferences,demand
data and so on which is usually availale to recreation planners.
Whi 1e important useful data are bei ng generated by state agen-
cies,the backlog of experience helpful to confidently make
long-range predictions does not yet exist.
-Uncertainty of Population Growth.Population growth has two
components --natural growth (surpl us of births over deaths)and
immigration.In Alaska,a major component of growth is immigra-
tion.Growth has been dependent in the past on external causes,
such as the discovery and price of oil and the \'/Orld economy,
and is largely unpredictable by standard demographic methods.
£-7-33
-
~,
(~
-
(b)
-Population Mobility.A1aska 1 s population is among the youngest
in the nation and unusually mobile.As energy,mineral develop-
ment and construction projects begin and end,and as the large
proportion of military and governmental personnel change assign-
ments,the population composition changes.Public opinion and
preference surveys can become qui~k1y outdated as new immigrants
repl ace former res i dents.These changes may not,however,
appear in total population counts,because the numbers may not
reflect change in composition.Likewise,whole cy1ces can occur
and be "missed ll by the decennial census.
-C1 i mate.Wi ntersi n the project area are long and severe.The
Denali Highway,the only ground route penetrating the area,is
not maintained in winter.Landing strips and lakes used for
airp1ace access are also hazardous during the winter season.In
addition,the short winter daylight period decreases available
time for outdoor work,recreation and travel.
-Setti ng.The Susitna project area,compared \I~ith many other
places in the United States,appears to be an outstanding
recreati on resource.However,in compar i son with other
resources in A1 aska,(with some important exceptions such as
Devil Canyon Rapids),it is not unique.
-Changing Land Ownership.Major portions of Alaska have histori-
ca 11y been owned by the federal,and more recently,the state
government.Large portions of land are currently in the process
of being distributed to private Native corporations.(See also
Section 4.1.)While many of the exact impacts of these actions
are as yet unknown,it appears that the hi storica1 patterns of
open recreation access to most lands within the state are chang-
ing in some instances.
-International Travel.Recent years have seen wide fluctuations
in international travel patterns as the dollar,Mark,yen and
other currencies have ~hanged in value.As a remote and
somewhat exotic tourist destination,tourist recreation levels
in Alaska may vary greatly according to unpredictable outside
i nf1 uences.
Assumptions
The proposed recreation plan is designed as a mitigation for
recreation opportunities due to project development,to'utilize
the recreat i on opportunit i es gai ned due to proj ect development,
and to provide for the demand induced by project development.
In projecting demand,a number of simplifying assumptions have
been made which obviate the effects of the uncertainties in
A1aska1 s recreation future.In addition,to these assumptions,
the recreation plan is phased and a monitoring program is proposed
which will allow periodic adjustments to be made in the plan as
assumptions and recreation conditions change.
E-7-34
'~_._----------._-"---------_._'---
Assumptions of these demand projections include the following:
-The population projections presented in Exhibit E,Chapter 5,
Socioeconomics Impacts,are valid for Anchorage,Fairbanks North
Start Borough and the Railbelt.Population projections for the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough,as developed by the Borough in
October 1982,will continue to be valid and are included by
inference in the Railbelt projections.
-The project will be developed according to the general designs,
operating characteristics and schedule presented in Exhibit E,
Chapters 1 and 2.Specifically,the current drawdown schedules
for Watana and Devi 1 Canyon will pertai n.The access roads from
the Denali Hi ghway to Watana and from Watana to Devi 1 Canyon
will be developed as currently planned.A railroad spur will be
built from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon,and will be opened to the
public upon construction completion.An access road will not be
connected from Devil Canyon to Hurricane.
-The Denali Highway will be upgraded and new facilities will be ("'"'I
install ed,as currently proposed by the Al aska Department of
Transportation.The road will be kept open in the winter from
the intersection with the Watana access road (approximately at ~,
Milepost 110)to the Parks Highway at Cantwell.
-The Alaska Department of Parks,the U~S.Bureau of Land Manage-
ment,the U.S.Forest Service,the Municipality of Anchorage and
Fairbanks and other appropr i ate governmenta 1 units wi 11 continue
to pursue their plans for increased recreation facilities to
serve increased demand.Many of the facil i ti es documented here
~"ill be closer to population centers than the Susitna project
and will accommodate a portion of future demand by city
dwellers.
-The Alaska Power Authority will evaluate the decision to open
the access road from Watana to the Denali Highway at the time
Watana constructi on is compl eted.For the purposes of th is
recreation demand projection and plan,it is assumed that the
road will be opened to full public access in 1993.If it is
determi ned in the future that the road shoul d not be opened
then,demand for recreation will be less than projected.Speci-
fic elements of the recreation plan will then be deferred as
appropriate through the monitoring/implementation program.
-The Native corporations will pursue a course of paced develop-
ment of their lands,including selected mineral development,
recreation home development and commercial recreation develop-
ment.These uses are assumed to be complementary to this Recre-
ation Plan.
-The Alaska Department of Fish and Game will adopt regulations
appropri ate to protect those resources withi n the project area
and appropriate to the general levels of projected demand.
E-7-35
-I
-
""'"
-The dams wi 11 have an inherent "curi osityll val ue whi ch wi 11
attract one-time visitors.Watana,in particular,is not
regarded as a major sustained attraction for repeat visitors.
Devil Canyon Dam,the hi gh-l evel canyon bri dge,and the ra;lroad
spur have more inherent attraction as recreation potential •.
Both reservoirs will be characterized by slumping side walls,
scal es a nd landscapes on steep banks.Watana,in part i cul ar,
will have 1arge mudfl ats in many 1ocat ions when drawn down.
Neither reservoir will be an attractive recreation resource for
sport fishing or boating.Watana in particular,and Dev"il
Canyon to a lesser extent ,wi 11 not be attractive resources to
kayakers,canoers,rafters and other small boat recreationists,
due to wind,chop and temperature conditions.
-EXisting private lodges will continue to operate in a manner and
scale similar to 1980 operations.While some changes undoubted-
ly will take place,they will not be of a scale to influence
demand projections significantly.
-The Alaska Railroad will continue to operate as a passenger
recreation facility,with daily whistle-stop service in the
summer season and weekend Whistle-stop service off season.
-Whil e there will cont i nue to be
select facilities,the project
recreation attraction and will
international tourist attraction
an international clientele for
will primarily be an "in-state
not be a major national or
such as Denali National Park.
(c)
-Because of climate,winter darkness and distance from population
centers,the project will be primarily a summar (mid-June to
mid-September)recreation resource.
Estimated Recreation Demand
Ava il abl e recreati on studi es were surveyed and eval uated for
applicability to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.A wide
vari ety of non-comparabl e and to some extent di sparate data were
found.A series of per capita participation projections developed
by the U.S.Soil Conser¥ation Service for the Susitna River Basin
Study (John OINeill,November 1978,unpublished)were chosen as
the most appropriate methodology and assumptions for this recre-
ation plan.That methodology and major portions of the base data
employed in that projection are used and referred to as the "per
capita participation method".The projections have been modified
for purposes of this Recreation Plan by updated population data
and projections.Allocations of regional recreation demand de-
'rived from these projections are assigned to the Susitna Hydro-
electric Project recreation area through a series of assumptions
and judgmental evaluations.The results of this estimation are
then compared with four estimates,prepared by other methods,and
identified for the purposes of this report as:
E-7-36
-Willingness to Drive Comparison
-Denali National Park Comparison
-Denali Highway Travel Comparison
-Opinion Survey Comparison
(i)Per Capita Participation Method
This method was developed by the U.S.Soil Conservation
Service and applied to the 13-million-acre Talkeetna
Subarea in 1978 as part of the Susitna River Basin Coopera-
t i ve Study,a joi nt effort with the A1ask a Department of
Natural Resources,the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
and other cooperating agencies.The method utilizes em-
pirical participation rates for eight outdoor recreation
activities and applies them to existing population figures.
The demand projection presented in thi s report uses the
general methodology and recreat i on data developed by
S.C.S.The actual calculations presented herein,however,
were performed by the Susitna Recreation Pl an Study Team
s pecifi ca lly for this study.The pl anni ng year 2000 was
chosen for conveni ence and comparabil ity as the future
demand project time.Assumed percentage increases in
annual partiC"ipatiol')days are utilized,as well as year
2000 population projections.The following formula was
utilzied to estimate 1980 recreation demand:
TOTAL 1980 POPULATION X AVERAGE ANNUAL PARTICIPATION
DAYS =TOTAL DEMAND IN USER DAYS
To estimate 2000 recreation demand:
TOTAL 2000 POPULATION X AVERAGE ANNUAL PARTICIPATION
DAYS X ASSUMED PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN PARTICIPATION =
TOTAL DEMAND IN USER DAYS
This procedure is followed for each of eight separate ac-
tivities.Populations used are shown in Table E.7.9.Rec-
reation participation is shown in Table E.7.10.
Both participation days and assumed increases are taken
directly from the 1970 Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan.
While more recent participation and preference data were
published in the 1976 and 1981 AlasKa Outdoor Recreation
plans,average annual participation days per capita were
not provided in those reports.While newer data,if avail-
able,would have been preferable,it is assumed that the
projected increases in participation published in the 1970
Pl an are suffi ci ently representative for the purpose at
hand.Comparisons of the activity participation rates
which appear in all three plans support this assumption.
E-7-37
-
-
-
-
-
-
-"-----
The River Basin Cooperative Study utilizes the travel cost
method,which is based on the premise that other things,
being equal,per capita use of recreation sites will
decrease as travel time and cost increases.This appears
to be generally true according to empirical data in Alaska.
The data base employed di stri butes the sum total of tri ps
withi n gi ven hourly dri vi ng times.For the Susitna Hydro-
e1ectri c Project,dri vi ng times,distances and percentage
of trips are shown in Table E.7.11.The total demand
previously calculated is multiplied by these percentages
for each trip origin.Note that for this study (unlike the
River Basin Study which uses actual mileage distances in
the Willow subbasi n)Mat-Su Borough fi gures are used to
represent popul ati on between Anchorage and Fa irbanks,and
an assumed centroi d of Mat-Su popul ation was chosen for
calculation purposes.While the potential market area for
project recreation demand undoubtedly exceeds these areas,
it is anticipated that population growth rates and demand
percentages are sufficiently conservative to adequately
represent maximum demand.
The centroid of the project recreation area is assumed to
be 10 miles north of the Watana damsite,determined by
observation.Table E.7.12 gives estimations of total
recreation demand (in user days)for all recreation sites
within 250 miles (or 5-6 hours)of Anchorage,200 miles (or
4-5 hours)of Fairbanks,for the population of Anchorage,
Fairbanks,and Matanuska-Susitna Borough.It is important
to note that these demands are for all sites withi n the
given time-distance,not specifically for the Susitna hydro
site.For instance,other sites 5-6 hours 'drive from
Anchorage could include those south on the Kenai Peninsula
or east in the Wrangell Mountai ns.Ti me-di stance factors
are based on empirical evidence as developed by S.C.S.,
whereby the number of trips in each hourly travel band is
estimated as a proportion of the whole.These estimates
were calculated separately for each type of recreation
activity using the population given in Table E.7.9,the
factors in Table E.7.10 and the distances in Table E.7.11.
Table 7.13 summarizes these demands.In order to apply
total demands to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Recre-
ation Plan Area,a number of additional assumptions were
made.
-The Project Recreation Plan area was generally defined as
the area extending from the Parks Highway on the west,
the Denali Highway-Nenana River on the north,the Susitna
River on the east,and about 20 miles south of the Susit-
na River on the south.This area was determined based on
the areas directly affected by development,known recre-
~tion resources of the area and the recreation opportuni-
ty settings determ·i ned by the study team in the fi e1d.
E-7-38
It also takes into consideration Alaska Department of
Fish and Game Management subunits.Si nce those units
relate to big game (moose)management areas and not human
recreation areas,it was neither necessary nor desirable
to correspond exactly to those boundaries.
-Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1981 Geowonderland
hunting statistics for moose,caribou and Dall sheep were
reviewed.These data indicated that in 1981,fewer than
700 hunter days were spent in the area.Only data for
the hunting year 1981 were available for review.There-
fore,in order to be conservative it was assumed that the
existing condition is 800 hunter days.Table E.7.14 and
Table E.7.15 show assumed existing (1980,for simplicity)
use of the area in numbers of recreat i on days and in
percentages of the total days given in Table E.7.13.
-It was assumed,based on observation and personal conver-
sations with informed local sources,that there are cur-
rently 100 waterfowl hunting days in the area.This
activity is generally limited to the lakes along the east
side of the Parks Highway,an area only peripherally con-
nected with the project area in terms of recreati on
setting identity.~
-Assumptions of current sport fishing were made from in-
.terpretati ons of the Al aska Department of Fi sh and Game
Statewide Harvest Study (1981 data).This report lists
angler days for 1977 through 1981.Data include the
number of anglers resident in the upper Copper/Susitna
River area who fish in all locations.This number is
decreasing from 1,885 in 1977 to 1,195 in 1981.Charts
of the number of angl er days fi shed in the West Cook
Inlet/West Susitna drainage and the East Susitna drainage
show that these figures have generally decreased over the
last four years.The level of fishing in this area as a
percentage of statewide fishing has also decreased.
-Whi 1e these data do not directly correspond to the pro-
ject area,in combination with personal conversations
with knowledgeable local sources,the project team esti-
mated 1,500 angle days/year to be in the area.Fishing
activity is assumed to be quite low in the areas because
it is inaccessible by auto and has no salmon runs except
on the Susitna River below Portage Creek and on Prairie
Creek.
-Number of user days were assumed to be 4,000 at the only
developed campsite in the area.The BLM camp at Brush-
kana Creek on the Denal i Hi ghway was 33 campsites and is
reportedly at capacity duri ng hunti ng seasons.The
assumed current numbers represent a capaci ty use,wit h
three persons per camps ite,duri ng a month-long hunting
E-7-39
-
season.Two addit i ona 1 months of capacity use,with two
persons per campsite,were calculated for the weekends of
the other two summer recreation months.
-It is assumed that there is essentially no hiking or
picnicking occurring in the area that is not associated
with other activities such as hunting,fishing or camp-
i ng.As hiki ng trai 1s are not ri gorously desi gned for
specific capacities at the primitive level of design
anticipated,and as picnicking in this remote area is
most frequently associated with camping,this simplifying
assumption is appropriate.
-Cross-country sk i i ng is known to exi st in the Chul itna
Mountains south of Cantwell,and 100 user days have been
assumed for the study area.
As indicated in Table E.7.15,it is calculated that ap-
proximately 6,700 recreation days per year occur in the
area today.In order to project the future user days for
the area if the Susitna Hydroelectric Project is not built,
1980 to 2000 population growth rates (Table E.7.9)and
increased participation rates (Table E.7.10)are applied to
the 1980 usage.That is,usage in the year 2000 will
increase as does population and propensity to recreate,
given no other actions such as construction to access roads
into the area.This simplication do~s not take into consi-
deration the changing attraction values of other recreation
opportunities in the state.Those woul d be assumed to
cause a decrease of demand at Susitna and therefore rei n-
force a conservative estimation.
In the case of the future camping estimate at developed
campgrounds,a different procedure was followed.Whi le
demand,as calculated above,shows an increase to 9,700
user days,it is typical for campground supply to lag
demand for the unaccommodated increment to go to unde-
veloped sites.The BLM Denali Block Management Plan calls
for three three-unit pull-offs in the area,and it is
understood that an expansion of the Brushkana Campground is
under consideration.Therefore,a doubling of developed
campground space has been assumed for the year 2000.
In summary,without the hydroelectric project,about 12,500
recreation days could occur in 2000.This is almost a 90
percent increase over 1980 figures.
In order to estimate recreation demand in the year 2000,
assuming the Susitna Hydroelectric Project is built,the
baseline (without project)recreation growth rates shown in
Table E.7.14 were examined.and compared with project
impacts as described in Section 2.In addition,the team1s
E-7-40
knowledge of the project area derived from a careful recre-
at i on opportunit i es assessment and study of a lternat i ve
opportunity was applied to the area.
-For big game hunting,increased road access will lead to
an increased activity.The 1981 Geowonderland data base
indicates that most hunters currently fly into the area.
Because the resource is limited and regulated,a maximum
increase of 0.2 percent is assumed (from today's capture
rate of 0.3 percent of total demand in the hourly inter-
val to a year 2000 capture rate of 0.5 percent).(See
Tables E.7.14 and E.7.15.)
-No waterfow·1 hu nt i ng increase over basel i ne fi gures is
anticipated as no proposed project features will affect
the waterfowl hunting lakes.
~Presently freshwater fishing is very limited due to lack
of automobile access.Most exist;ng fi sheri es sites are
used principally by fly-in fishermen.It;s assumed that
this demand like hunting will increase 0.2 percent,
attacting.approximate1y double the number of fishermen as
in the base case and triple the current use.
-Developed campground demand is a funct i on of both the
demand for other resources (e.g.,hunting and fishing)
and the opportunities available to meet theoretical
demand.Because of the wilderness nature of the area and
the stated objective of protecting the natural resources,
demand is expected to be directed toward small primitive
campgrounds.Demand is anticipated to be limited to an
additional 4,000 to 6,000 visitor days per year.
After the Susitna project is completed,part of the river
resource for canoeing and kayaking,and in particular the
important Devil Canyon Rapids,wi11 be eliminated.User
days are estimated to decrease to half their 1980 levels.
-Demand for hiking and picnicking is anticipated to be
equal to that for camping.
Demand for cross-country.sk ii ng is assumed to increase
about 50 percent over the base case,due to increased
accessibility and ,interest in the area.
A total of about 43,500 to 50,200 visitor days per year
are projected for post-project conditi ons in the year
2000.The Recreation Plan has been developed to accommo-
date thi s growth,phased to the Watana and Devil Canyon
portions of the project.Other recreation uses,such as
driving and sightseeing,are assumed to be included in
E-7-41
-
-
..."
this estimate.This appears to be a reasonable assump-
t i on because recreat i on demand often takes 10 or more
years to build up after facilities are developed and the
curiosity value of the project is assumed to wane over
time.
(ii)Willingness to Dri~e Comparison
The Alaska Public Survey (1982)indicates that 20 percent
of the population is willing to drive five hours to a week-
end recreation opportunity,and an additional 11 percent
will drive six or more hours.Applying these data to the
projected year 2000 population (.31 x 450,570),it can be
estimated that approximately 140,000 persons from the Rail-
belt,Anchorage and Fairbanks could be attracted to a site
the di stance of the study area ina si ngl e year.Assumi ng
a captor rate of,33 percent,approximately 46,000 persons
could be attracted to the Susitna.This estimate is in
reasonable accord with that developed by the participation
method.
(iii)Denali National Park Comparison
The entrance to Denali National Park is about 80 highway
miles from the Watana site.With Mt.McKinley,North
America1s largest mountain,the Park is a world-renouned
recreation attraction.In 1981,the ara attracted 256,500
recreation visitors and has shown generally a high rate of
increase since the Parks Highway was opened in 1971.(See
Table E.7.16.)While the National Park Service has not
projected visitation to the year 2000,the Denal i State
Park Visitor Facility Market Analysis and Economic Feasi-
bil ity Study (Al aska Department of Natural Resources,June
1,1980)projects total recreational visitors to Alaska to
increase from about 550,000 in 1982 'to 1,100,000 in 2000
(high range).If Denali National Park increases at the
same rate as the state as a whole,visitation in the year
2000 would be approximately 513,000.
The recreation attraction of the Susitna Project has a very
different character and appeal than Denal i National Park
and offers only a small portion of the attractions.Today,
the area appears to draw about 2.5 percent of the number of
visitors drawn to the national park.If,after project
development,it were to draw,for example,10 percent of
the visitation of the national park,that would be 51,000
in the year 2000.This too is similar to that estimated in
the per capita participation method.
E-7-42
~---_._-------_.-~---------------~----------
(iv)Denali Highway Travel Comparison
Because the primary access to the Susitna recreation area
will be via the Denali Highway,comparisons can be made up
to e lsting and future recreation traffic volumes along the
highway.Results from a 1975 University of Alaska outdoor
recreation study for the Denal i Hi ghway area (Off-Road
Vehicle Use and Its Impact on Soils and Vegetation on
Bureau of Land Management.Land Along the Denal i Hi ghway,
Alaska:A Report on the 1975 Outdoor Recreation Survey,L.
Johnson,1976)indicate that 90 percent of the highway
travel ers were recreat i oni sts and that average vehi cl e
occupancy was 3.2 persons.The Environmental Assessment
for the Denali Highway (Alaska Department of Transporta-
tion,1981)reports existing average daily traffic (ADT)on
the midsections of the highway as 50 vehicle trips per day.
The study projects thi s to ri se to 130 by the year 2000.
130 trips/day x 3.2 persons/vehicle x 365 days/year x .90
recreation =135,656 recreation trips per year.
If the Susitna area captures 33 percent of these trips (as
in Comparison ii),a total recreation demand of 45,100
trips could be anticipated.This method also has results
similar to the other projections.
(v)Recreation Participation Survey Method
The University of Alaska and TES Inc.conducted recreation
participation surveys as a part of early studies of the
Susitna Project (Phase I Environmental Studies Report Sub-
task 7.08 Recreation Planning,Analysis of Participation
Survey Results.Terrestri al Environmental Systems.May
1982).The survey was mail ed to a random sampl e of 3,116
Railbelt residents;603 were returned by respondents,a
response·rate of 23 percent.Of those who responded,148
or 25 percent stated that they currently use the study area
for recreation purposes.By simple extrapolation,25
percent of the 1980 Railbelt population (284,166)is given
in that report as 65,973 persons who could presently recre-
ate in the area.If,however,non-response to the ques-
tionnaire were assumed to be a no-use response,'as few
as 14,339 persons reportedly were cons;dered to recreate
there by the authors of that study.Based on detailed
knowledge of activities in the area,it seems highly
u n1 ikely that thi s many peopl e recreate there (see Table
E.7.15),and that the responses were skewed to "yes "
repl;es from persons who recreate there and who responded
in hi gher proportion than thei r proportion in the entire
population.However,even taking the average value of
these two figures,40,156,and projecting it at the growth
rate of 55 percent,the rate of popul at i on growth,62,200
would recreate in the area by the year 2000.
E-7-43
-
-
.-
-
-
-!
Estimates of future use in that study based on questions
regarding anticipated future use of the project are not
considered reliable due to changes in the project features
since the survey and the generally unreliable nature of
asking how people would like to recreate rather than how
they actually recreate.
(vi)Concl usi on
Project demand for recreation is estimated using method (i)
to be:43,520 -50,220 user days/year.In comparison,
other estimates are:
Based on the assumpti ons set forth in thi s secti on,and
considering the variable predictability of recreation
estimates for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project,project
demand will be considered to be:
43,000 -50,000 recreation user days/year at the completion
of the project in 2002.
These are proportioned as shown in Table E.7.15 and
summarized as follows:
'"'"'
Acti vity
Big Game Hunting
Waterfowl Hunting
Freshwater Fishing
Developed Camping
Canoeing/Kayaking
Hik i ng
Picnicking
Cross-country Skiing
E-7-44
Annual Visitor Days
2,200 -2,400
170
4,800 -5,200
12,000 -14,000
100
12,000 -14,000
12,000 -14,000
350
-~---...,-----------r---
4 -FACTORS INFLUENCING THE RECREATION PLAN
The approach utilized in this study recognizes six major factors that
influence the ultimate design of the recreation plan.They are:
-Construction phasing and access;
-Operational characteristics of the project;
-Recreation use patterns and demand;
-Management objectives of the interested agencies and Native
corporati ons;
-Facilities design standards;and
-Financial obligation and responsibility of the Authority.
These factors were analyzed and utilized to set parameters for the plan
determination process.An iterative process of plan generation,re-
finement and component selection was used to maximize congruence with
these factors.The first two factors were descri bed in Secti on 1.4.
The third factor was di scussed in Secti on 3.5.The remai ni ng three
factors are discussed below.
4.1 -Management Objectives
In addition to the Al aska Power Authority,various federal and state
agencies and several Native corporations establ ished under provisions
of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)have interests in
this plan.
(a)Alaska Power Authority
At this time no specific official statement of recreation policy
has been developed by the Authority.The following policy state-
ment regarding fish and wildlife aspects of the project was issued
by the APA in January 1982.
"A mandate of the Al aska Power Authority charter
is to develop supplies of electrical energy to
meet the present and future needs of the State
of Alaska.Alaska Power Authority also recog-
nizes the value of our natural resources and
accepts the responsi bil ity of ensuri ng that the
development of any new projects is as compatible
as possible with the fish and wildlife resources
of the state and that the overall effects of any
such projects will be benefi ci al to the state as
a whol e.
E..,7-45
-If development of the hydroelectric potential
of the Susitna River proceeds,it is the
Power Authority's goal,and its intent to
achieve no net loss in fish and wildlife
product i vity;
-In achieving no net loss,mitigation measures
that avoid or minimize impacts on existing
habitat,all else being ~qua1,are preferred
over other types of measures;
-The base line for assessing post-project
impacts and the effectiveness of mitigation
measures or enhancement opportunities,;s the
existing condition;
-The Power Authority wi 11 work cooperati ve1y
with any responsible entity to explore ways
the Susitna Project can complement the fish
or wildlife enhancement plans of these
entities;
-The feasibility report will present previously
identified enhancement plans for the Upper
Susitna River Basin and assess the Susitna
Project's impact on the ability to rea11ze
those plans;and
-The feasibility report will present,as the
proposed plan of development,a project con-
figuration that maximizes power benefits.
Concurrently,all reasonable mitigation
measures,including the maintenance of
sufficient river flows to avoid appreciable
impact,will be identified,and their
effectiveness and costs will be estimated.II
To the extent that fi sh and wi 1d1 ife resources constitute a part
of the recreation experience,the general intent of this policy
can be imputed to apply to recreation also.
In addition,the following recreation-specific objectives have
been identified by the study team:
-The plan should attempt to meet the demands of project-induced
recreation with facilities appropriate to the Alaska wilderness
setting;
-The plan should respond to the identified opportunities and con-
straints;
E-7-46
-
-
-
-The plan should make use of roads,materials and facilities
deve loped dur i ng construct i on or a1ready ex i stent.Th is wi 11
require coordination with the construction plan and schedule.
Such construction roads and facil iti es shou1 d,wherever poss i-
ble,be designed to conform with final recreation requirements;
-The plan shall be compatible with acceptable public safety and
environmental'health requirements;.
Recreation should be designed and operated in a manner such that
they will not create unreasonable demands on construction
operation,resources for the project,or other public services;
-Various combinations of ownership and management by the state or
by Native corporations may be appropriate for particular ele-
ments of the plan;
-Irreversible losses will be identified and reasonable mitigation
and/or compensation will be provided whenever possible;
An area-wide systems approach which complements existing region-
al facilities and provides a balance of recreation opportunity
should be taken in programming recreation activities and faci1i-
ties.
(b)Alaska Division of Parks
The following goals are stated in the Divisionis Alaska Outdoor
Recreation Plan,1981:
"-Provide for and enhance A1aska l s outdoor recre-
ation land base to meet the needs of present
and future generations of Alaskans and visitors
to the State;
-Establish state and local recreation programs
and respond to a diversity of outdoor recreation
needs as expressed through an assessment process
and based on full public participation;
-Integrate outdoor recreation values and diversity
of recreation opportunities and programs into
coordinated interagency programs,community pro-
grams,and private sector developments;
-Promote and balance the development of outdoor
recreation opportunities in proximity to or
within urban and rural communities;
-Recognize and provide for the needs of special
populations.
E-7-47
Strengthen the capabilities of public agencies
to establish,operate and maintain outdoor
recreation programs through technical and
financial assitance programs;
-Support the development and expansion of tourism
in Alaska and its role to outdoor recreation;
-Preserve.maintain.or enhance Alaska1s scenic
resources,environmental quality,natural areas
and cultural and historic identify;and
-Foster the growth and development of a strong.
central role of the State in meeting outdoor
recreation needs through a system of park and
recreation units and historic and recreation
trail s and waterways."
In addition.discussions with the Division of Parks staff have
suggested preferences for the following recreation characteristics
specific to the Susitna project:
-Selected sites should be intrinsically suitable for and the best
sites available for recreation.not merely areas available by
virtue of project development;
-The Susitna Project Recreation Plan should become an integral,
logical extension of an overall state recreation network;
Construction and operations costs will require contributions by
the Power Authority;and
The Division welcomes participation in the provlslon of recre-
ation opportunities in the state by private entities such as the
Native corporations.
The Alaska State Parks S stem Southcentra 1 Re ion Pl an.February
1982.published by the Alaska Division of Parks pg.66).identi-
fies one proposed acquisition which could influence the Susitna
Project Recreation Plan:The Talkeetna State Recreation River.
This proposal would entail legislative designation of the river
corri dor,preparation of a ri ver management pl an.and subsequent
development in conformance with that plan.The Talkeetna River is
presently reached vi a portage from the Susitna Ri ver to Stephan
Lake and Prairie Creek by river recreationists originating on the
Susitna.Tyone or Lake Louise areas.Current division thought is
that the objectives of this plan may be met without actual legis-
lative designation.Portions of this area have been selected for
conveyance to the CIRI Village Corporations.including Stephan
Lake.Prairie Creek.and the upper reaches of the Talkeetna
River.
E-7-48
~'
-
-
-
-
~-
-
-
(c)Alaska Department of Fish and Game
As a part of the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Review Group,the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game participated in the development
of the "Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation
Pol icyll publ ish~d by the A1 aska Power Authority.This policy
states that it is the basic intent of the Authority lito mitigate
the negative impacts of the Susitna project on the fish and
.wildlife resources.1I (April 1982,Paragraph 3.1).
While the Department of Fish and Game has not issued a specific
forma 1 statement of objectives regard i ng project-related recre-
ation,discussions involving the recreation team and Department
staff have suggested the following objectives:
-Protect from over-fi shi ng the trophy-c1 ass gray1 i ng popul ati on
in Deadman Creek;
-Protect from highway traffic dangers the Ne1china caribou herd;
Mai ntai n important fi shi ng resources downstream·of Devil
Canyon;
-Protect back country from unregulated access along construction
of other project-related roads;and
-Regulate·hunting and fishing activities of the construction
force.
-
-
(d)u.s.Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)is manager of substanti al
federal ·1 and holdi ngs generally north of the Susitna Ri ver and
along the Denali Highway.Statements ofBLM objectives are found
in the agency's BLM Land Use for Southcentra1 Alaska:A Summary,
September 22,1980.This plan acknowledges development of the
Susitna project and the access cooridor from the Dena1 i Hi ghway
which can serve to:IIfacilitate public access to the back
country."Specific policy statements which can relate to
development of recreation plan for the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project include:
-Develop a water trail on the Maclaren River downstream from the
Dena1 i Hi ghway crossi ng to the Susitna Ri ver and up the Tyone
River to Lake Louise;
-Rehabilitate the Brushkana Campground on the Denali Highway;
Develop a series of "three-unit wayside camping areas ll along the
Denali Highway.(Seven are indicated,including three between
Cantwell and the Susitna River.)
E-7-49
Develop interpretive signs,etc.along the Denali Highway to
explain natural history and archaeology;
-Protect the shelter cabins built along the Cantwell-Valdez Creek
Trail by the Alaska Road Commission during the 1920s.(Three
are identified near the juncture of the project access road and
the Denali Highway);
-Protect caribou migration routes from adverse effects of human
activity;
-Create protecti ve buffer stri ps around 1 akes and water bodi es
used by waterfowl;.
-Protect from fire the portions of the caribou range that have a
strong lichen component;
-Protect Da 11 sheep wi nter range and 1ambi ng areas from all acti-
vities not consistent with maintaining the population;
-Identify and protect salmon spawning areas;and
-Allow saddle and pack horse grazing in the Brush/Kana Creek-
Dena 1i Hi ghway and the Sus i tna Ri ver-Dena1 i Hi ghway areas upon
lease application and determination of carrying capacity,in
order to benefit local guides.
Two off-road (ORV)study areas are designated in the project vici-
nity comprising most of the BLM lands between the Susitna River
and the Dena1 i Hi ghway.These areas are presently open to ORV
use,as are all BLM 1 ands in the area,except Tang1 e Lakes.
C1 earwater drai nage has been closed by the State Fi sh and Game
Commi ss i on to mechani zed hunti ng.In addit i on,recent federal
action has opened major portions of the Denali Block to mineral
exploration and mining entry,which could be in conflict with
recreation and wildlife objectives.The Denali Highway is cur-
rently under study for possible designation as a scenic highway.
Mining access has been withdrawn within one mile of the highway
for this reason.If the highway receives scenic designation,it
is likely that the temporary project electric transmission line as
well as any borrow pits would have to be located out of sight of
the highway.
(e)CIRI and Village Corporations
Land ownership patterns in Alaska are unique and will have sig-
nificant impacts on the Recreation Plan.Prior to statehood in
1959,most lands in the project area were owned by the federal
government and managed by the Bureau of Land Management.With
statehood,Alaska was allowed to select lands from federal hold-
ings for patenting to the State.In 1971 when the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)was passed,this process of land
E-7-50
-
-
~
I
transfer to the State was incomplete.Within the Susitna project
vicinity~some lands had been selected by the State and patented
to the State;other lands,while selected by the State,were not
yet patented to the State.Under terms of ANCSA,further action
on these lands has been suspended in favor of Native lands select-
ion.These lands are identified as State Selection Suspended on
Project Land Status maps.
ANCSA provides land and money as compensation for the aboriginal
land rights of Alaska Natives and established corporations respon-
sible for managing these assets for the benefit of Native share-
holders.Cook Inlet Region,Inc.(CIRI)is one of the 13 regional
corporat ions estab 1i shed by the Act and has recei ved port ions of
both its monetary and land entitlements under conditions of the
Act.Port ions of these ent it 1ements are in turn to be reconveyed
to village corporations who are currently in the process of
selecting lands from the region's master selection.Villages also
have their own entitlements not related to CIRI selections.Major
portion of the Susitna project area have been selected by CIRI.
Port ions of that area wi 11 be reconveyed to CIRI vi 11 age
corporati ons.When the process of reconveyance and patenti ng is
complete,the village corporations will own surface estate to
significant portions of the lands;CIRI will own subsurface estate
to those lands and also surface and subsurface estate to the lands
in their master selection which the villages did not select for
themselves.These lands will be private ownership,not public.
Twenty years from the date of conveyance,they wi 11 be subject to
property tax assessments.
Discussions with the village corporations and CIRl have led to the
following understanding of their objectives:
-CIRl wi 11 defer to the vill age corporations regardi ng the devel-
opment of recreation facilities;
-Project land ownership of the reservoirs should be confirmed to
the high water line,giving the Native corporations maximum
flexibility for later private development;
-Native corporations must find and develop economic uses of their
lands,including recreation uses,to meet future tax liabili-
ties;
Native corporations want to actively participate in the recrea-
tion planning,decision-making,and management process;
-They do not necessarily want to lose land ownership in order to
prOVide public recreation;
-Pub1 ic use must be carefully managed to avoid over-use and en-
vironmental degradation;
-Trespass must be regulated;
E-7-51
-The State must assume liability responsiblity for any project-
related recreation use of Native lands;and
The Native corporations would benefit from provlslon of tech-
nical recreation planning assistance subsidized by the Power
Authority.
The Native corporations have expressed willingness to participate
in a cooperative recreation planning process to assure provision
of recreation opportunities while meeting Native objectives.Pos-
sibilities under discussion include but are not limited to:
-Ownership of recreation areas by the Native corporations and
lease to the State;
-Ownershi p and management of recreation areas by the Nati ve
Corporations;
-Ownership by the Natives and joint management by them and the
State under Sec.907,Alaska Land Bank,of PL 96-487,the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act;
-Purchase of 1 ands by the State but facil ity management by the
Nat i ves under a preferred concessi onaire or si mi 1ar agreement;
and
-Lease by the State of lands for project construction camp facil-
ities and reuse by the Natives for recreation use.
(f)Matanuska-Susitna Borough
The project area is located in the Talkeetna Mountains Special Use
District of Matanuska-Susitna Borough.As such,any development
is subject to a permit from the Borough.
The Matanuska-Susi tna Borou h Coastal Mana ement Pro ram (Draft,
September 1,1982 ,includes the Susitna River up to Devil Canyon
where the river ceases to be navigable from downstream,and the
Talkeetna River south of the study area.The Devil Canyon damsite
is designated a "potential"Areas l\.1eriting Special Attention(AMSA)
in that document.Under Alaska statute,should the area be desig-
nated an AMSA,a proposed management scheme would have to devel-
oped by the Borough and appropriate state agencies.In 1982,the
Borough also published a draft Trails System report designed to
identify trails that ought to be preserved or established in the
Borough.None are identified in the immediate vicinity of the
project area.The Borough does not manage any recreation areas,
but rather parti ci pates in joi nt pl anni ng with the State Depart-
ment of Natural Resources.In some instances,they have provided
lands and monies to the State for park development.
E-7-52
......
-
-
-
(g)Alaska Department of Transportation
The Alaska Department of Transportation (DOT)utilizes the Ameri-
can Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO)Geometric De-
sign Guide for Local Roads and Streets,November 1970,as desTgn
standards for rural roads such as the project roads.Average
Daily Traffic (ADT)design year is 20 years from the present.
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is
currently proposing the upgrade the Denal i Hi ghway between the
Richardson and the George Parks highways.A need for improvements
has been identified on the basis of a traveler survey,numerous
interviews and predicted future traffic,and on significant inter-
agency coordination.,Upgrading 134 miles of roadway will correct
roadway structure deterioration and substandard elements and will
accommodate recreat i ona 1 use demand along the hi ghway.Pr oposed
project activities include minor road realignment and widening,
pavi ng and pavement repair,bri dge and cul vert repl acement,.and
turnout and stream access improvements.No relocation was con-
sidered necessary in the location and environmental impact studies
done in 1981.
4.2 -Facilities Design Standards
State of Alaska,Division of State Parks
for the proposed recreation facilities.
operat i ona 1,manageri a 1 and mai ntenance
State Park management.
design standards will be used
This is intended to minimize
costs of the facil iti es for
4.3 -Financial Obligation and Responsibility of the Alaska Power
Authority
Financial commitment is related to numerous tradeoffs to be made by the
Authority in terms of satisfying,with limited resources,the needs of
many concerned user groups.This commitment varies with the number and
complexity of other factors addressed within overall project plans and
must be viwed in light of these and general project goals..However,
Alaska Power Authority,as a state agency,has stated that it will
provide for the public interest and implement an appropriate recreation
plan.The ultimate responsibility and obligation for development,
operation and maintenance of the recreation facilities relative to the
project rests with APA.The Al aska Department of Natural Resources
expects the licensee to be responsible for meeting initial and future
project-related recreation needs for the duration of the license.
The extent and nature of the licensee's responsibility will necessarily
be dependent upon the conditions of the FERC license.In the event
that the recreational needs within the project area should change or
other specific needs not outlined in this Exhibit are identified,
periodic reviews as outlined in Section 6.2 will provide an opportunity
to make adjustments to the plan.The cost for providing for changes
and the level of financial and operational responsibility between the
parties concerned will be negotiated at that time subject to approval
by FERC.
E-7-53
-
-
-
-
.....
5 -RECREATION PLAN
5.1 -Recreation Concept
(a)I ntroduct ion
The intent of this Recreation Plan is to satisfy recreation
demands created by hydroe 1ectri c development and to accommodate
public use and access of the project areas.The Plan offers
compensat i on for recreation opportunities lost as a result of
development.It does not attempt to exactly dupl icate or replace
these opportunities.The Plan is also intended to fit within the
framework of regional recreation opportunities and to provide
additional options.The proposed Plan accommodates these diverse
recreation concerns in a manner which fits the inherent
opportuni ties and constrai nts of the study area 1andscape and
protects its scenic,cultural,and environmental qualities.
The Susitna study area is rich in special large-and small-scale
landscape settings and features.It includes wooded stream
valleys and gorges,tundra and muskeg landscapes,and mountainous
glaciated terrain filled with lakes,bogs,waterfalls,glacial,
and many other special features.These landscapes al so offer a
wide variety of plant communities and wildlife inhabitants.This
area has great potential for a wide variety of recreation uses.
The recreation concept was formulated to take advantage of these
opportunities and the best natural features of the Susitna Basin
rather than respondi ng only to specifi c project faci 1 it i es.The
Plan,therefore,encompasses lands beyond the project boundaries.
In fact,after analysis the highest quality recreation
opportunities were found to be in the diverse landscapes adjacent
to the reservoir sites and not at the reservoirs themselves.
(b)Public Input
During earlier studies of recreation needs for the Susitna project
the University of Alaska distributed a Concept Plan Survey to the
public in order to solicit public input into the recreation
planning process.The questionnaire pertaining to public
preferences for activities and level of development as well as
thelr perceptions of recreation potential in the project area were
mailed to potential users in Anchorage,Fairbanks,and other areas
of the Railbelt.An abbreviated form of this was also used at
public workshops to gain additional information regarding public
interests and desires regarding recreation development.
Early concept plans were incorporated into these questionnaires
which do not reflect later engineering and schedule planning
decisions and project modifications.However,those survey
E-7-54
portions which identify publ ic recreation opportunity spectrum
preferences continue to be valid and these identified preferences
serve as the framework of the proposed recreation plan.
The 2,145 survey recipients were given a choice of five
alternative approaches to development and asked to rank the five
in order of value.The choices were:
Approach A -mi nima lly developed and managed wilderness with no
access;
Approach B -managed wilderness with limited access;
Approach C -Watana Dam Development;
Approach D -Devil Canyon Reservoir development;and
Approach E -highly developed and managed throughout.
Results of the 549 responses were separately analyzed by region
(Anchorage,Fairbanks,and other railbelt)and by residence
classification (urban,rural,remote rural,and other)but no
signif.icant statistical differences were found.Approach B was
found to have the highest overall value to the respondents.
Therefore,the recreation concept is based on minimal and primi-
tive development having only limited access within a managed
wilderness area.
Further analysis of the attached comments indicated that facili-
ties should be developed and managed on an as-needed basis,
starting with minimal services and expanding only when demand
warrants it.This preference has been reflected in the proposed
phased implementation program.
(c)The Concept
The recreation concept was developed after a careful evaluation
of the recreation opportunities and constraints within the study
area,regional recreation concerns,and estimated demands.It
also utilizes information gained from early public participation
programs,and recognizes that the Division of Parks number one
pri ority is the development of more trails in the State.A
principal objective of the recreation concept is to help meet
this priority in appropriate portions of the project area.
The resulting concept provides for a challenging variety of acti-
vities and experiences within a development range from natural
wilderness to semi-primitive recreation facilities.Road and
access has been 1 imited.Other options such as airplane,boat,
train,and foot access are also provided to certain areas.Off-
road vehicular use will continue in existing BLM areas.
E-7-55
-
-.
-
""""
Trails as proposed in this Plan,meets the Division of Parks
"Priorities Trails"standard.They are intended to have an
18"-24"tread surfaced in the parent material,with half logs in
wetlands.They would be brushed out to 48"where necessary.
They would be hand constructed and following existing topograpy.
Development focuses activity on a core of recreation facilities
and diverts the greatest number of users away from sensitive
operations or environmental areas.Hydroelectric facilites which
have appeal as a recreational resource have been incorporated
into this concept.
A primitive undesignated camp does not eV1Slon any developed
hardened sites,but rather signifies the estimated carrying
capacity of each site.Shelters are log structures of a design
prepared by the Division of Parks.
The concept also cons i ders the comp 1ex recreat i on needs of the
temporary construction camp workers and ultimately the permanent
village.At these locations the concept is intented to provide a
variety of highly developed recreation facilities,both indoor
and outdoor,whi ch wi 11 sati sfy demands without over-taxi ng the
area1s limited recreation capacity.
5.2 -Recreation Opportunity Inventory
The site inventory includes three steps to define the recreation
resources inherent to the site;
-Attractiveness (physical description);
-Recreation preference type;and
-Accessibil ity.
The aim of the approach is to inventory the 1and base of those 1and-
scapes which support the most diverse a range of possibilities.
Attractiveness is a measure of a landscape1s unique or special settings
and features.These can be both cultural and natural •.However,they
are almost exclusively natural within this study area.The landscape
was i nventori ed for features,thei r frequency and si gnifi cance,whi ch
bear on the potential for recreation~The natural featues and their
typical characteristics which were determined to be important in the
study area are as follows:
Mountaintops:rocky,craggy,often snow-capped,usually above tim-
berline,glaciated or glacier forms most unique and impressive;
-Tundra 1andscapes:tundra 1andscapes,both wet and dry,with close-
up beauty and photographic resources;
-Lakes:naturally occurring,degree of enclosure,habitat,formation,
glaciated lakes and beaver ponds most unique;
E-7-56
Rivers:glaciated,ruggedness and enclosure,quality expressive of
Alaska,size,edges;
Streams:character,clarity,size,edge;....
-Water features:
ice;
waterfalls,cascades,beaver ponds,snow-fields,--Hunting habitats:locations of big game animals and birds;
Fishing habitats:location of fish species;
-Botanical interest sites:unusual plants,or systems;and
-Special aesthetic features:unique exploratory vistas,features and
sett i ngs.
The proCedure for the inventory of the land base and the analys is of
the intrinsic recreation potential of the sites was as follows:
(a)Review an planimetric information,USGS quadrangles,previous
inventories and aerial photographs.
(b)Locate the occurrence of all attracti ve features as understood
from (a),.and including local knowledge and previous work,
(e.g.,the recreation plan published in Phase I Environmental
Studies,Subtask 7.08 for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project,May
1982)•
(c)Field check all sites located in (b)plus new potential sites,
using the inventory shown in Appendix B.Define the quality and
extent of the various landscape features.
(d)l"'lap all features and settings depicting of the distribution and
location of the recreation resources.Included are indications of
special or significant views and vistas.(See Figures E.7.8,
E.7.9,and E.7.10--Recreation opportunities and constraints.)
(e)Hunting,fishing,and collecting sites are not specifically
located or symbol i zed.The opportunity ex i sts to experi ence the
wildlife in many ways as they naturally inhabit the entire land-
scape.
A principal objective of the Recreation Plan is to provide a variety of
recreation activities within a spectrum of recreation "preference
types"(USDA Recreation Opportunity Inventory and Evaluation).The
preference types in relate to the character and quality of the existing
land base.The recreation activities also relate in terms of their
appropri ateness to a part i cul ar sett i ng.Patterned after the USFS
Recreat i on Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)approach,the four recreation
preference types used in this report are:
£-7-57
.....
-
active-appreciative:natural,unmodified environment,a
intellectual or physical challenge;seeking solitude;
stimulation.The landscape setting should be remote,
people,with a stimulating natural environment;
source of
aesthetic
devoi d of
-active-extractive:natural or semi-primitive environment,a source
of enjoyment of settings which provide fish or game species,rocks,
edible plants,etc.The landscape setting should be natural,removed
from human influences,and difficult to access;
-passive-appreciative:semi-primitive,1 ightly developed locations,
natural surroundings,a source of relaxation.The appropriate physi-
cal settings are natural-semi-primitive sites,with relatively easy
access;and
-developed:man-made developed sites,with easy access.The appro-
priate settings are developments which embody many people and site-
specific interests.
Recreation opportunity activities have been identified in relationship
to the above reference types as follows:
-active-appreciative:mountaineering,kayak-canoeing,backpacking,
hiking,snow-shoeing,ski touring,nature study,and photography.
-active-extractive:backpacking,hiking,photography,nature study,
big game hunting,fishing,rock hounding,berry picking,and plant
gatheri ng.
passive-appreciative:car camping,pleasure driving,boating,
lodges,snowmobiling,hiking/walking,and picnicking.
-developed:
driving.
sports,snowmobiling,tours,picnicking,and pleasure
Another major consideration is accessibil ity.The study area is very
remote and must be considered as such in evaluating demand.A related
consideration is the competition for the recreation user within the
same framework for "remoteness'l from such pl aces as Denal i National
Park,the Wrangell Mountains,the Chugach Mountains,the Alaska Range,
and the Kenai Peninsula.
Accessibility refers to the kind of roads,four-wheel-drive trails,
foot trails,etc.,which are in or surround the study area.Access to
the landscape occurs in four modes:foot,auto-ORV,boat,and plane.
After the Susitna project is constructed,the damsite access roads will
"access"new areas to the auto-related recreationist which were before
inaccessible except by less convenient modes.Appropriate access to
the various settings is important in maintaining the setting prefer-
ences,e.g.,active-appreciative activity preferences need to be away
from road access.This relationship is determined during the on-site
field review.
E-7-58
-------_._~--------
5.3 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation
The major considerations for the evaluation of the recreation resources
are:
-Physical characteristics;
-Relative scarcity;
-Inherent durabi 1 ity;
-Visual quality;
-Carrying capacity;and
-Present land status.
(a)Physical Characteristics
The physical characteristics of a site are those site features and
settings which define and describe the site.These characteris-
tics establish the relationship of the site1s own experiential
potential to the regional opportunities available.
(b)Relative Scarcity
Relative scarcity is an extension of the physical characteristic1s
relationship to the regional and local scales.The sites were
evaluated on an on-site basis in a three-level rating:
-High:unique local resources,or state resources,symbolic of
A1 ask a 1a ndscapes or carryi ng unique recreat i on potent ia 1;
-Medium:moderately uncommon,expressive of local characteristic
landscapes,exposure to abundant recreation resources;and
-Low:commonly occurring landscapes with few features with
recreation potential.
(c)Inherent Durability
Durability is a general measure of the physical ability of a site
to absorb the impact of recreation development.The evaluation is
based upon known physical data and field observation of each
recreation resource site.There are four aspects to determining
durability for each site as described in the following matrix:
-
-
-
-
encroach-
abiotic Vegetation wi ld 1ife ment
durabl e rock formations upland and waterfowl rural
well-drained 1owl and
soil s,low-slope forest ~
gradient
moderately poorly drai ned moist caribou countryside
durable soil,moderate-tundra wintering
slope gradient -
E-7-59
Vi sua 1 quality is a measure of the sceni c quality and importance
of the site.The relative availability of significant landscape
features and settings contained in each potential recreation site
can be measured by:
-Uniqueness based upon frequency and scale;
-Levels of quality of the resource;and
-Imageabil ity (rei nforcing the Al aska landscape image)and visual
quality of each setting..
Unique settings and features are important to describe in terms of
their quality and imageability,and are related as indicated in
the following matrix:
Unique
Al askan
Landscapes
Rare or
Unusual
Landscapes
Common or
Extensive
Landscapes
few extraordinary
features,with
hi gh apparency
Hi gh High Medium
several special
features and
settings
High Medium Low
LowMediuml\1edi um
encroachment
and created
landscapes
Carrying Capacity
Carryi ng capacity is a measure of the i ntri nsi c durabil ity of a
particular place.The goal is not to reduce the experiential
potent i a1 through over-use.The carryi ng capaci ty is measured by
examining the site variables of size,location,degree of access,
design capacities,usability,and seasonal availability.Often
intensity of recreati on use is the major factor in determi ni ng
capacity.
(e)
--
There are three categories of use intensities used in this study:
(i)High--which have high impact,high number of users,formal
management and control.Hi ghly developed parks,horse
camps,ORV trails are examples;
E-7-60
(ii)Medium--which are for smaller groups,with less accessibi-
lity,small-scale facilities;campgrounds and trails are
examples;and
(iii)Low--which have low impacts,little or no access,minimal
development.Foot trails,mountaineering sites,and
undesignated camping are examples.
The general carryi ng capacity of the var i ous preference sett i ngs
are as follows:
Active-appreciative:low carrying capacity;
-Active-extractive:low,moderate carrying capacity;
-Passive-appreciative:moderate carrying capacity;and
-Developed:high carrying capacity.
The carrying capacities of the active-appreciative,active-
extractive and passive-appreciative sites were field checked on a
site-specific basis.The demand is far exceeded by the capability
of the resources,therefore,limiting the conflict of over-use.
The above criteria are evaluated and field checked to determine
the appropriate Recreation Opportunity Summary.This is a compi-
lation of appropriate recreation activities as a result of the
above inventory and evaluation.The selections also consider the
variety and diversity of the available resources to best suit the
site.The choices also integrate the recreation needs inventoried
in Section 3.5 of this report.
The proposed recreation facilities are determined on the basis of
supporting the proposed recreation activity within the setting.
They are introduced to fit withi n exi st i ng operat i ona 1 and manage-
ment guidelines and objectives of the APA and the various
rearranging agencies within the study area,(Sections 4 and 6).
5.4 -Recreation Plan
The Susitna Hydroelectric Project Recreation Plan includes the
following sites and proposed facil ities.There are three maps (Figures
E.7.12,E.7.13,and E.7.14)which cover the entire study area,
indicates extensive facilities such as long trails,and locate the
other site-specific recreation facilities.All sites have a key letter
relating to text and maps.There are eleven additional maps which
depict important features of the individual recreation sites.Projects
are described by their phase of development and are as follows:
Phase One -Watana Construction Phase
-
-
Key Number
E
D
Name
Brushkana Campground
Tyone Confl uence with Susitna
E-7 -61
-
Phase One -Watana Construction Phase
Key Number
B
A
H
C
F
Name
Butte Creek
Middle Fork-Chulitna River
Tsusena Creek,northern half
Watana Town Site
Portal Entry
Phase Two -Watana Implementation Phase
0 Watana Dam Site
U Watana Town Site
H Tsusena Creek,southern half
I Tsusena Butte
f~L Deadman/Big Lake
J Cl arence Lake
K Watana Lake
Phase Three -Devil Canyon Construction
.-G Mid-Chulitna/Deadman Mountain
Phase Four -Devil Canyon Operation
Q
S
R
Devi 1 Creek
Devil Canyon Damsite
Mermaid Lake
Phase Five -To be Developed only if Demand Reguires
T Soul e Creek
M Southern Chu 1itna Mounta ins
N Fog Lakes
P Stephan Lakes
W Rehabilitation Sites
(E)Brushkana Camp
(i )Physical Characteristics
An existing developed campground with 33 campsites,includ-
ing picnic,fire,and toilet facilities on the Denali High-
way.Although surrounded by wonderful views to the Alaska
Range and its glaciers,the campground is set in a nonde-
script brushy environment along Brushkana Creek.See
.Photograph E.7.4.
(ii)Recreation Preference Type
Developed;man-made environment with easy access,in a
semi-natural state.
E-7-62
(iii)Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Car camping;
-Picnicking;
-Fishing;
-Big game hunting;
-Photography;and
-Berry pi ck i ng.
(iv)Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Uniqueness:Low
-
Inherent Durabi 1ity:abiotic:
vegetation:
wildl ife:.
encroachment:
Medium
Medium
Durabl e
Durab 1e -
Visual Quality:Low,a commonly occurring brushy
gravelly environment.Brushkana
Creek tumbles past the campground,
and there are expansive views of the
Al aska Range.
Carrying Capacity:Developed;high.
Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management
(v)Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.12)
25 new campsites,similar to the existing development,with
tables,fire,and toilet facilites;and
1/4-mil e ci rcu 1at i on road for proposed site.
(vi)Accessibility
The Denal i Hi ghway,approximately mil e 100,is immedi ately
adjacent and intersects the Parks Highway approximately 30
miles to the west.
(D)Tyone River
(i)Physical Characteristics
The site is located at the confluence of the Tyone and
Susitna rivers at a point where the Susitna River becomes a
fixed-channel river just beyond the eastern 1imits of the
Watana Reservoir site withi n a roll i ng open landscape the
Gulkaa uplands.See Photograph E.7.5.
E-7-63
-
(i i i)Recreation Opportunity Summary
Boating;
Kayaking-canoeing;
Camping;
Big game hunting;and
Fishing.
(iv)Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Uniqueness:Medium
Inherent Durability:abiotic:
vegetation:
wil dl i fe:
encroachment:
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Fragi 1~
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
Moderate;this is an extensive river
channel environment,dotted with
lakes and rolling hills.Panoramic
views are possible toward the
Clearwater Mountains,but primarily
restricted within the river basin
foreground.
Active-extractive;low.
,r-Present Land Status:State of Alaska,Department of
Natural Resources
(v)Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.13)
1 shelter
(vi)Accessibility
Boat,put into Susitna River from Denali Highway mile ;
and the Tyone River/Lake Susitna/Lake Louise route from the
Glenn Hi ghway.
(B)Butte Creek
(i)Physical Characteristics
This is a broad valley in which Butte Creek meanders from
the tundra upl ands and the headwaters of Watana Creek to
its confluence with the Susitna River.A wide and boggy
E-7-64
.._----_.---,_.------
valley fitted with tiny ponds,lakes and wetlands is in
contrast to the rocky Talkeetna Mountains immediately to
the south.In the area of the confluence with the Susitna
River,downstream of the Denali River crossing,the river
is broad,braided and shallow.See photograph E.7.2.
(ii)Recreation Preference Type
Butte Creek:
Butte Lake:
Active-appreciative;a natural unmodified
environment with aesthetic stimulation.
Active-extractive;a semi-primitive experi-
ence,with a natural setting.
~,
-
-
-
Susitna River:Passive-appreciative;highly developed
natural surroundings,with relatively easy
access.
(iii)Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Butte Creek:
•Wildlife observation;
•Botanical interest sites;
•Fishing;
•Big game hu nt i ng;and
•Photography.
-Butte Lake:
• Fish i ng;and
•Big game hunting.
-Susitna River:
•Fishing;
•Photogr aphy ;
•Boat i ng;
•Ski touring;and
•Snowshoeing.
(iv)Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
-
~.
Natural Uniqueness:Medium
Inherent Durability:abiotic:
vegetation:
wildlife:
encroachment:
Fragi 1e
Fragil e
Moderate
Fragil e
Visual Quality:Moderate,cohesive,a very wet valley
bottom,typical of Alaska lowlands in
this region,set amongst moderately
sloped mountains,this is a pristine
environment.
E-7-65
Carrying Capacity:Active-appreciative;low.
Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management
(v)Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.12)
Butte Creek:
Butte Lake:
No additional recreational developments.
No additional recreational developments;
consider removing ATC access to this area.
Sus itna Ri ver:Boat ramp development at Denali Hi ghway
bridge across the Susitna,including
storage for 6 vehicle-trailers.
(vi)Accessibility
Butte Creek:
Butte Lake:
None except via cross-country on foot
from Deadman Lake or by boat on River
ATVls and airplanes currently access the
1 ake.
(i )
Susitna River:The Denali Highway and boats.
(A)Middle Fork Chulitna River
Physical Characteristics
Extending from the town of Summit through the Summit Lake
chain,this corridor runs 27 mires east into the Chulitna
Mountains.It follows along the Middle Fork of the
Chulitna River,and the upper reach of the Jack River,and
the headwaters of Tsusena Creek.The corridor includes the
lakes of Caribou Pass,and begins in a broad river valley
eventually 1eadi ng into a narrower V-shaped vall ey where
intersections of other drainages form a visually complex
mountainous and glaciated landscape.At the southern
boundary,at E1.3,900,it crosses a pass and leads to
Tsusena Creek,Site F.The background views of the Alaska
Range are dramatic from the Middle Fork Chulitna drainage
basi n.See photograph E.7.1-
(ii)Recreation Preference Type
Active-appreciative:a natural unmodified environment,
which offers solitude,aesthetic stimulation,a source of
intellectual or physical challenge.
E-7-66
-------,~~~-------
(iii)Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
-Backpacking;
-Camping;
-Collection sites;
-Botanical interest sites;
-Wildlife observation;
-Ski touring (Broad Valley only);
-Snowshoeing;
-Big game hunting;
-Fishing;and
-Meet state priority of trail development.
(iv)Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Uniqueness:High
Inherent Durability:abiotic:
vegetation:
wil dl He:
encroachment:
Moderate
r~oderate
Moderate
Fragile
-
Visual Quality:Moderate;much of the corridor con-
sists of line environments.Oppor-
tunities for panoramic views of the
Alaska Range exist throughout the
corridor.There are many areas of
foreground interest areas,and water-
forms which offer a high level of
visual interest and integrity.-
Carrying Capacity:Active-appreciative;moderate.
Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management and Ahtna
Village Corporation selection.
(v)Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.12)
2 overnight shelters along trail;
Primiti ve Trail development,25 mil es;and
Trailhead and parking for 6 cars.
(vi)Accessibility
-Railroad stop at Summit;
-Parks Highway;
Foot trails proposed in Tsusena Creek,Site H;and
-Cross-country access to Jack Creek and Soule Creek drai n-
ages.
E-7-67
-
(i)
-
(H)Tsusena Creek
P hys i cal Characteri st i cs
Descend i ng from the headwaters of Ts usen a Creek and adj oi n-
ing the Middle Fork of the Chul itna River receation set-
ting,the valley runs southward toward the Tsusena Lakes
which are almost 250 acres in si ze..Evidence of its
glacial history,there are many unusual and interesting
rock formations,waterfalls,and glacial deposits.The
valley floor is covered with wetlands,ponds,and brush,
with an overstory of mixed woods,and scattered stands of
spruce.See Photographs E.7.5 and E.7.5.
(ii)Recreation Preference Type
Active-appreciative;a natural unmodified environment,a
source of physical and intellectual challenge,solitude,
and aesthetic stimul ation.
(iii)
( i v)
Resreation Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
- Bac kp ac kin g;
-Sotani cal interest sites;
-Rock hounding;
-Wildlife observation;
-Photography;
-Snowshoeing;
-Ski touring;
-Mountaineering;
-Fishing;and
-Meet state priority of trail development.
Recreat ion Opportunity Ev aluat i on Summary
Natural Uniqueness:Hi gh
Inherent Durability:abiotic:
vegetation:
wil dl He:
encroachment:
Fragil e
Fragile
Fragile
Fragile
Vi sual Qual ity:High,with a great natural diversity
of mountainous ridgelines,waterfalls
rock formations,streamside and wet-
1 and env ironment s , t he area has
unique foreground and middleground
views in every direct ion.The poten-
tial for wildlife observation occurs
everywhere in this diverse natural
environment.
E-7-68
Carrying Capacity:Active-appreciative;low.
Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management
(v)Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.12)
2 shel ters;and
Primitive trail development,20 miles Phase One;20 miles
Phase Two.
(vi)Accessibility
-Foot trail from the proposed Middle Fork of the Chul itna
River (Recreation Site A);
-Airplane at Tsusena Lakes;and
-Foot trail from the Watana access road within the Tsusena
Butte recreation setting,(Recreation Site 1).
(C)Watana Town Site
See Section 5.6,Photograph E.7.3.
(F)Port a 1 Sign
At the entry of the Watana access road on the Denal i Highway is
the site for an expl anatory project sign and visitor information
service.Parking pull-off for 2-3 cars is necessary.
(0)WatanaDamsite
(i)Physical Characteristics
Located above the Watana damsite on the south side of the
Susitna River within the Fog Lakes recreation setting
(Recreat ion Area N),thi s site has views both up and down
the Susitna River and toward the Chulitna Mountains.See
photograph E.7.13.
(ii)Recreation Preference Types
Developed;a man-made environment with easy access
(;i i)Recreat ion Opportunity Summary
Viewpoint
Visitor information
Photography
Picnicking
Walking
E-7-69
-
-
-
(iv)Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Uniqueness:Moderate
Inherent Durability:abiotic:
vegetati.on:
wildlife:
encroachment:
I~oderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Visual Quality:Moderate;high potential exists here
for exploratory viewing of the Watana
damsite.In addition~'views north-
ward as well,as along the ri ver pro-
vide excellent contextual settings
for the dam.
....
Carrying Capacity:Developed,high
Present Land Status:Private (CIRI Village Section)
within designated Pryell Boundary
(v)Proposed Recreation Facilities (See Figure E.7.13)
Access road,.15 mile;
Parking,20 cars;
Exhibit building:
-Souvenir shop;
-Mu seum;
-Restrooms;and
-Food service.
Indigenous plants botanical trail;and
4 pi cni c sites.
Boat ramp to reservoir,possibly via emergency spillway.
Note:Powerhouse tour headquarters to be located on north
side of dam at operations headquarters.
(vi)Accessibility
Access road across Watana Dam.
(U)Watana Townsite Phase II
See Section 5.6.
Photograph E.7.3
(I)Tsusena Butte
.-.
(i )Physical Characteristics
The southern extent of the Tsusena Valley divides around
Tsusena Butte~which is a prominent solitary mountain.The
Tsusena Lakes 1ie between the butte and the foothi 11 s of
E-7-70
-------~-----_._~-
_.
'j
-the Chulitna Mountains,and are over a mile in length.The
Tsusena Valley ends here and becomes part of the upland
terrace above the Susitna River where Deadman Creek
meanders through alpine tundra.See Photograph E.7.10.
(ii)Recreation Preference Type
Passive appreciative;a semi-primitive area with lightly
de vel oped facilities and natural surround;ngs .whi ch has
easy access.~
(iii)Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
-Backpack i ng;
-Photography;
-Wildlife observation;
-Ski touring;
-Snowshoeing;and
-Fishing.
(iv)Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Uniqueness:High
Inherent Durability:abiotic:
vegetation:
wildlife:
encroachment:
Moderate
Moderate
r~oderate
Moderate --Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
Hi gh;t hi s area has background vi ews
south to the Talkeetna Mountains,and
north into the Tsusena Creek Basin,
(Recreation Area H),as well as
foreground views of well-defined
Tsusena Lakes.The sportsman lodge
at the 1 ake adds a cultural feature
in this otherwise pristine
environment.
Moderate
-
Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management
(v)Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.12)
Primitive trail development,4 miles;
Trailhead,with 10 parking spaces;and
2 to 4 undesignated campsites.
(vi)Accessibility
Auto,vi a the Watana access road,mi 1e _
E-7-7l
-
!~,
(L)Deadman Lake/Big Lake
(i)Physical Characteristics
Two lakes of approximately 1,800 acres lie at the southern
base of Deadman Mountain amongst a complex set of ro11ing~
rocky hills.Above the surrounding Watana and Butte Creek
drainages,Deadman Creek meanders through the lake basin on
its way to its confl uence with the Susitna Ri ver.See
Photographs E.7.11 and E.7.12.
(i i )Recreation Preference Type
Active-appreciative;a
environment,offering
aesthetic merit.
natural,
sol itude,
stimulating,unmodified
and possessi ng great
(iii).Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
-Back pack i ng;
-Photography;
-Wildlife observation;and
-Fishing.
(iv)Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natura 1 Uni queness:Hi gh
Inherent Durability:abiotic:
vegetation:
wild1 ife:
encroachment:
Durable
Moderate
Fragil e
Fragile
Visual Quality:High;with panoramic views across the
Susitna Basin to the Talkeetna
Mountains,the foreground lakeside
settings are subtly complex rock,
tundras,and are brushy in character
with spectacu1 ar fall color vari ety.
Carrying Capacity:Active-appreciative;low.
Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management,State
Selection Suspended Lands.
(v)Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.12)
Primitive trail development,4 miles;
~4 undesignated campsites;and
Trailhead,with 6-space automobile parallel parking.
E-7-72
(vi)Accessibility
Airplane at Big Lake.
road,mile ---
(J)Clarence Lake·
Foot trai 1 to the Watana access
-
(i )Physical Characteristics
This popular fly-in fishing lake is set in a rolling upland
terrace above the Susitna River.The lakes outflow,
Gilbert Creek flows westward to its confluence with Kosina
Creek which tumbles northward to the Susitna River Valley.
A1 pi ne tundra covers the 1arge undul at i ng terrace,with
mixed woodlands occurring only at Kosina Creek.See Photo-
graph E.7.14.
(ii)Recreation Preference Type
Active-expressive;a natural or semi-primitive environment,
for the enjoyment of game speci es and removed from human
influences that is difficult to access.
(iii)Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
-Back pack i n9 ;
-Photography;
-Wildlife observation;
-Fishing;and
-Big game hunting.
(iv)Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Uniqueness:Low
~l
-
-
Inherent Durability:abiotic:
vegetat ion:
wil dl ife:
encroachment:
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Present Land Status:State suspended lands
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
Medium;the site has many opportuni-
ties for views out to the surround-
ing mountains in all directions.The
primary views and experiences rel ate
to the streams i de,where sma 11 ca n-
yons,woodlands,and stream create a
pleasant and interesting micro-
environment.
Active-extractive;moderate.
-
E-7-73
(v)Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.13)
Primitive trail development,9 miles;
1 footbridge;and
4 to 6 undesignated campsites.
(vi)Accessibility
Airplane on Clarence Lake;and
Primitive trail from Watana Reservoir river mile ---(boat only access).
(K)Watana Lake
(i)Physical Characteristics
Mt.Watana and Watana Lake are set at the northern extent
i"""of the Talkeetna Mountains,rising above the Susitna River
Valley.Alpine tundra covers a gently undUlating uplands
which extends to the Talkeetna Mountains.See Photograph
E.7.16.
(ii)Recreation Preference Types
Active-expressive;a natural or semi-primitive environment,
enjoyment of game species,and difficult to access.
(i i i)
(i v)
Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
-Back pack i ng ,
-Photography;
-Wildlife observation,
-Fishing;and
-Big game hunting.
Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natura 1 Uni queness:Low.
Inherent Durability:abiotic:
vegetation:
wildlife:
encroachment:
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
Moderate;the extensive broadness of
the upland terrace plus the lack of
foreground variety reduces the poten-
tial for interest even considering
the pristine nature of the setting.
Cultural interest exists because of
the sportsmen1s cabins on the lake
edge.
Active-extractive;moderate
E-7-74
-----
Present Land Status:State-suspended lands.
(v)Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.13)
Primitive trail development,3 miles
3 undesignated campsites
(vi)Accessibility
Airplane on Watana Lake
Hiking trail from Kosina Creek (boat only access)
(G)Mid-Chulitna Mountains,Deadman Mountain
(i)Physical Characteristics
A complex environment of spectacular sawtooth ridges and
high,wet tundra landscapes.The western half of the set-
ting is a unique combination of multi-colored mountaintops,
snow,gl aciers,and tundra.The headwaters of Deadman
Creek originate here,twisting through a broad,flat tundra
muskeg,then abruptly descending toward the east at Deadman
Mountain.See Photographs E.7.7,E.7.8 and E.7.9.
(ii)Recreation Preference Type
Active-appreciative;a natural unmodified environment,this
area is a source of intellectual and physical challenge,
solitude,and a highly aesthetic experience.
(iii)Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
-Backpacking;
-Photography;
-Wildlife observation;
-Botanical interest sites;and
-Meet state priority of trail development.
-
-
(iv)Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Uniqueness:High
Inherent Durability:abiotic:
vegetation:
wildlife:
encroachment:
Moderate
Fragil e
Moderate
Fragile
-
Visual Quality:High;this area has spectacular pan-
oramic views north to the Alaska
Range and vi ews into the hi ghly com-
plex,colorful and interesting
Chulitna Mountains only a few miles
away.The high wet tundra offers
E-7-75
fall color and interesting foreground
wetlands and waterforms.Unique pos-
sibilities exist to experience a wide
variety and scale of interesting
1 andscapes.
Carrying Capacity:Active-appreciative;low.
Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management
(v)Proposed Recreation Facilities (See Figure E.7.12)
2 vista auto pull-off areas,7 autos;
1 trailhead with 3-car parallel parking;
Primitive trail development,7 miles;and
2 to 4 undesignated campsites.
(vi)Accessibility
","",Auto,vi a the Watana access road.Mountai neer route to
Tsusena Creek drainage,recreation Area H.
(Q)Devil Creek
(i )
(i i )
Physical Characteristics
Set in an upland tundra landscape of great complexity,
Devil Creek cascades down into the Susitna Ri ver gorge.
Withi n a very narrow enclosed seri es of canyons and ti ght
valleys,the creek twists through a brushy and partially
wooded valley.Devil Falls roars through a narrow slot in
the cliffs and joins another small tributary which also has
a spectacul ar waterfall in the same small gorge.Th is
setting is highly scenic and a major resource of the study
area.See photographs E.7.20,E.7.21,and E.7.22.
Recreation Preference Types
Active-appreciative;a natural unmodified environment for
seeking solitude with great aesthetic stimulation.
(iii)Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
-Nature observation;and
-Photography.
(iv)Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
-
Natural Uniqueness:High
E-7-76
Inherent Durability:abiotic:
veget at ion:
wildl ife:
encroachment:
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Fragile
-
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
·Higt1;this is dynamic enclosed
small-scale environment with great
experiential potential.Unusually
s pectacu 1ar ser i es of fa 11 sand
roari ng streams provide an exciting
and unique recreation resource.
Active-appreciate;low
Present Land Status :State suspended lands,CIRI Village
Selection Lands
(v)Proposed Recreation Facilities (See Figure E.7.14)
Primitive trail development,9 miles.
(vi)Accessibility
Gravel road,the Devil Canyon access road.
(S)Devil Canyon Damsite
(i)Physical Characteristics
Above the Devil Canyon dam,perched high above the Susitna
River,are openly forested uplands.Expansive views west
and north,but of particular note into the very deep canyon
below.See photograph E.7.25.
(ii)Recreation Preference Type
Developed,a man-made site with easy access,with~n a
natural setti ng.
(iii)Recreation Opportunity Summary
Visitor information service;
-Walking;
-Picnicking;
-Nature observation;
-Photography;
-Ski touring;and
-Snowshoei ng.
E-7-77
-.
-
""""
(iv)Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Uniqueness:High
Inherent Durability:abiotic:
vegetation:
wil dl ife:
encroachment:
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Fragile
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
High;the site is located above the
deep gorge of the Susitna River and
reveals an awesome scale of the
natural forces below.Panoramic
views also exist toward the west and
the lower Susitna valley.
Developed;high
.palo.
(v)
Present Land Status:Private (CIRI Village Selection)
within designated Project Boundary.
Proposed Recreation Facilities (See Figure E.7.14)
1 shelter;
-Exhibit building;
-Food service;
-Souvenirs shop;and
-Restrooms
8 picnic sites;and
15 parking sites
Boat access and ramp down river of dam via project
construction road
Note:The auto oriented camp ground at Mermai d Lake (Site
R),about 4 road miles northeast,is the destination
camp ground associ ated with Devil Ca nyon Vi s itors
Center.
(vi)Accessibility
Devil Canyon access road.
(R)Mermaid Lake
"-
(i)Physical Characteristics
This is undulating upland tundra landscape dotted with many
medium to large lakes set in shallow wet basins.The
physiography has great diversity in its topographic
character.The Chulitna Mountains rise to the north of
these uplands,and Devil Canyon of the Susitna River forms
the southern edge.See photograph £.7.23.
£-7-78
(ii)Recreation Preference Type
Passive-appreciative;a semi-primitive location in a natur-
al surrounding,with relatively easy access.
(iii)Recreatoin Opportunity Summary
-Car camping;
-Snm..,shoei ng;
-Sk i tour i ng;
-Nature observation;
-Wildlife observation;
-Fishing;and
-Big game hunting.
(iv)Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
,~
-
Natural Uniqueness:
Inherent Durability:
Hi gh
abiotic:
vegetation:
wil dl ife:
encroachment:
Moderate
Fragile
Moderate
Moderate
-
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
High,a unique visual environment,
this area has great foreground
appeal,and Vistas toward the color-
ful Chul itna Mountai ns.Tremendous
fall color potential n this setting.
Passive-appreciative;moderate
-
Present La nd St atus:Bureau of La nd Ma nagement,State
Selection Suspended Lands
(v)Proposed Recreation Facilities (See Figure E.7~14)
8 campsites,tables,tent pads,parking;
1/4 mile small-scale road;
2 toilet facilities;and
1 shelter .•
(vi)Accessibility
Airplane,Mermaid Lake,and High Lake,auto;and
Devil Canyon access road,mile ---
(T)Soul e Creek
(i)Physical Characteristics
The site extends westward from the Watana access road
withi n the Brushkana drainage.The proposed trail hugs the
E-7-79
-
(i i)
north side of the drainage affording vistas to the Alaska
Range to the east.To the west the narrow enclosed Soul e
Creek valley ends in a complex array of mountaintops and
ridges.Often snow covered and comprised of multi-colored
rock with a large hidden lake basin of 5 miles containing a
long (2 miles)linear lake,this valley isa strikingly
compl ex,natural environment.See photographs E.7.26 and
E.7.27.
Recreation Preference Type
Active-appreciative.
(i i i)Recreat i on Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
-Back pack i ng;
-Wildlife viewing;
-Primitive camping;
-Photography;
-Fishing;
-Big game hunting;and
-Meet state priority of trail development.
(iv)Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Uniqueness:High
Inherent Durability:abiotic:
vegetation:
wildlife:
encroachment:
Moderate
Moderate
Fragile
Fragi 1e
-
Vis ua 1 Qu ali ty :High;this is a symbolic mountainous
landscape,offering exploratory
vistas to the Alaska Range.A high
degree of natural diversity of land-
forms,rock and snow landscapes,and
waterforms exists here.
Carrying Capacity:Active-appreciative,low
Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management
(v)Proposed Recreation Facilities (See Figure E.7.12)
Primitive trail development,8 miles;
5-6 capacity undesignated campsites at the northern edge of
the lake;and
5 car parallel park trailhead.
(vi)Accessibility
Proposed Watana access road;and
Existing airplane access upon lake.
[-7-80
(M)Southern Chulitna Mountains
(i)Physical Characteristics
Set within the southwestern foothills of the Chulitna Moun-
tains this small valley is surrounded by a rugged skyline.
The valley is covered by an a1pi ne tundra,with a rocky
base,which is very wet in places.A small lake,created
by an old moraine,lies at the lower end of the valley,
opening to views toward the Susitna basin below.See pho-
tographs E.7.28 and E.7.29.
(i i)Recreation Preference Type
Active-appreciative;a natural unmodified environment,a
source of intellectual or physical challenge,solitude,and
aesthetic stimulation.
(iii)Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Backpacking;
-Hiking;
-Nature observation;
-Snowshoeing;and
-Sk i touri ng.
(iv)Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Uniqueness:High
-
-
-
-
Inherent Durability:abiotic:
vegetat ion:
wil dfl ife:
encroachment:
Fragi 1e
Fragile
Moderate
Fragi le
Vi sual Qual ity:High;this small-scale mountain val-
l ey has jutting mountai nous edges
surrounding a tundra-covered valley
floor.A pristine hidden lake is the
foreground setting to distant pano-
ramic views of the Susitna basin and
beyond to the Talkeetna Range.
Carrying Capacity:Active-appreciative;low
Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management
(v)Proposed Recreation Facilities (See Figure E.7.12)
Primitive trail development,3 miles;
3 undesignated campsites;and
Trail head with 3 parallel auto parking spaces.
E-7-8l
-
(vi)Acccessibility
The Watana Dam access road.
(N)Fog Lakes
(i)Physical Characteristics
This cluster of long,linear lakes paralleling each other,
each over one and one-half miles long,are within a par-
tially wooded upland above the S~sitna River.The
Talkeetna Mountains from a dissected,glaciated complex
landscape to the south.Fog Creek originates here and cas-
cades through its small canyons to the Susitna River (see
Photograph E.7.17).
(i i )Recreation Preference Type
Passive-appreciative,the area is semi-primitive,lightly
developed,with natural surroundings and relatively easy
access.
(iii)Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hiking;
-Car campi ng;
-Nature observation;
-Wildlife observation;
-Photography;
--Fishing;and
-Meet state priority trail development.
(iv)Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
Natural Uniqueness:
Inherent Durability:
Moderate
abiotic:
vegetation:
wi 1dl ife:
encroachment:.
Moderate
Fragile
Moderate
r~oderate
f""",
Visual Quality:
Carrying Capacity:
Moderate;these are very visually
interest i n9 1arge 1akes with back-
ground views toward the Chulitna and
Talkeetna mountai ns.Fog Creek
possesses a wonderful small-scale
series of cascades,cliffs,and small
enclosures providing an interesting
and pleasurable environment.
Passive-appreciative,Moderate
Present Land Status:Private land
----------_._~---~----
E-7-82
._,-------------'-
-
(v)Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.13)
Active-extractive;a semi-primitive environment of settings
which provides a variety of game species,in a natural
setting which is difficult to access.
(vi)Accessibility
Airplane to Fog Lakes
Road access across Watana Dam
ModerateNaturalUniqueness:
15 campground units,picnic tables,fire pits,and tent
pads
3 toilet facilities
Primitive trail development,15 miles
(iii)Recreation Opportunity Summary
-Hi king;
-Back pack i ng;
-Kayaking-canoeing;
-Wil dl ife observation;
-Photography;
-Fishing;and
-Big game hunting.
(i v)Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary
(P)Stephan Lake
(i)Physical Characteristics
Stephan Lake is a 3-1/2-mile-long lake set in a wooded val-
ley in the upl ands south of the Susitna Ri ver.The area
contains Prairie Creek which winds its way south to the
Talkeetna River.The Talkeetna Mountains form the southern
boundary to the valley setting and evidence the glaciated
hi st'ory of the area.See photograph 7.15.
(i i)Recreati on Preference Types
Inherent Durability:abiotic:
vegetation:
wil dl He:
encroachment:
Moderate
Moderate
Low .
Moderate
Vi sua 1 Qual ity:.Moderate;the area has a relatively
common forested upland and lake char-
acter.Many opportunities exist for
viewing into the Talkeetna Mountains
in the distance.
E-7-83 -
(v)Proposed Recreation Facilities (See Plate E.7.12)
"-Primitive trail development,5 miles,and
5 campsites.
"""
(W)
(vi)Accessibility
-Airplane,on Stephan Lake
-By foot trail from the Susitna River
Rehabilitation Sites
In addition to those recreation opportunities which are intrinsic
to the natural environment,there are areas under consi derat ion
for development within construction activity areas such as the
proposed borrow areas.Under these circumstances,additional rec-
reat i on improvements and acti vit i es coul d occur as necessary to
meet unforeseen recreation demand.
It is of utmost importance in these cases to rehabilitate the dis-
turbed environment (see Chapter 8,Aesthetics)and to allow a
recovery period prior to future recreation development.It is
necessary to re-create the physiographic character and indigenous
plant communities as closely as possible and cr·eate new recreation
opportunities,e.g.fisheries of native species,plant materials
for gatheri ng,etc.
These rehabil itated areas shoul d be consi dered for development up-
on the completion of the 4-phased site-specific facility program.
These recreation opportunities would be part of Phase Five in the
recreation plan.They have not been given a specific location or
preferred use,designation in order to be flexible to unforeseen
demand and recreation needs.
5.5 -Recreation Plan for Construction Camps and Permanent Townsite
(a)Background
Because of its remote location,Alaska Power Authority is planning
for sequential development of construction camps at both the
Watana and Devil Canyon sites,each to be occupied for approxi-
mately 8 years,by at least a part of the work force.Because the
peak number of workers will be there for less than the entire con-
struction period,and average work force will approximate half of
the peaks,facilities ca~generally be programmed to provide fewer
opportuni ties both in range and extent than those in permanent
communities.Prospective workers will understand that the project
entails hardship circumstances and not expect all the amenities of
urban life.Experience has shown that there will be a turnover of
work force,through attrition.This means that while a particular
job may last the life of the project,it will not necessarily be
filled by the same person for the entire period.
E-7-84
Operation of the camps and the length of work days and work weeks
will influence both the proportion of the work force who chose to
live in camp compared to those \'iho chose to live elsewhere (if
that option is given)and the amounts and types of recreation re-
quired.In addition,climatic consideration will require seasonal
adjustments.The 1argest work force wi 11 be active from Apri 1
through October,and a mi nimum work force of 30%of that year IS
peak will continue through December and January.The work pattern
is planed to be four weeks on and one week off.There will be two
10-hour shifts per day,seven days per week.
Current estimates by the project are that 50 percent of the
workers will travel to the jobsite by project-organized bus;35
percent by pri vate vehi cl e;10 percent by project-organi zed ai r
services (senior management);and 5 percent by private airplane.
(Letter,M.M.Grubb to P.Rogers,September 13,1982).While some
Watana workers may choose to live in Cantwell or elsewhere,it is
assumed that the vast majority wi 11 1i ve at the camp and commute
to their families·places of residence only periodically.
This recreation plan is intended to meet the needs of construction
workers in residence at the construction camps;it is not intended
to address the recreation needs of workers while not at the site.
(b)Project Plans
-
-
-
-
Table 7.20 indicates recreation facilities proposed in the March
1982 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Report,Vol.3.
A single-status worker camp with a peak capacity of 3,600 workers
and a family-status vil age desi gned for a peak capacity of 350
families.(1,120 people).The village is currently planned to be
located about 1-1/2 miles north of the damsite,and the construc-
tion camp another 1-1/2 miles northeast.An airfield will a1sd be
developed.After construction,the vi 11 ages wi 11 be removed and
relocated at Devil Canyon and a permanent townsite for 125 oper-'!"'"':
ators and their families will be developed adjoining the construc-
tion village.Current plans call for no pre-construction of the
permanent town facilities,necessitating a duplication of facili-_
ties in the temporary village and townsite.The Devil Canyon
project is p1 anned to be constructed from a temporary si ngl e-
status construction camp,and temporary family-status construction
vllage located about three and four miles,respectively,from
Devil Canyon.The camp is planned for a peak of 1,780 workers and
the village for 170 workers and their families,totalling 550
persons.No permanent residential facilities are planned for
Devi 1 Canyon.
The temporary camps and vil ages are designed to be largely se1 f-~.
contai ned and fenced.They wi 11 have hi gh1y regu1 ated environ-
ments.It is anticipated that hunting by project personnel will
be prohibited and that fishing will be regulated.Recreation
programs sponsered by the camp management will occur largely
within these compounds.
....
E-7-85
(c)
The Feasi bi 1 ity Report programs major recreati on facil ites for
each of the four temporary camps.Tabl e 7.18 shows the major
facilities as anticipated in March 1982.Actual recreation facil-
ities at the permanent town will be planned in detail during
subsequent project design phases.
Recreation Programming
Quality of life objectives are very difficult to achieve at con-
struction camps.The type,number and qual ity of recreation fa-
cilities and non-structural opportunities available will be impor-
tant factors in determining that quality of life,and could impact
product i vity,turnover,and abil ity of the project to attract
qual ity construction workers.It will also affect the number of
workers who choose to 1i ve and recreate out of the camp.Other
things being equal,total environmental impacts can be reduced by
concentrati ng the work force in camps rather than 1i vi ng el se-
where.Other important non-recreation components which will
affect quality of life are design considerations such as ability
to achieve privacy~which experience has shown to be as important
as recreation opportunities.Color and the use of interior plant-
scapes are also important.Other considerations which are mana-
gerial in nature includes food quality,management styles,special
event planning and holiday celebrations (See also Chapter 5~
Socioeconomic Impacts)•
.Ancillary construction camp facilities are typically programmed
for 1ess than peak work force because of the peak I s rel at i vely
short duration.In terms of Susitna recreation~this concept is
rei nforced by the fact that annual peaks wi 11 occur in the summer
months when outdoor non-structural recreati on wi 11 increase the
range of recreation opportunities.While the peak work force at
Watana will reach 3,480 in June and July 1990,the average annual
work force will more closely approximate 1,600 total workers.
Only in the five years between 1987 and 1992 will the workforce
exceed this average~and then only during half of the year.Fa-
cilities will be completed by the 1990 peak~and therefore 1987-
1989 will incur the heaviest use.Devil Canyon construction
activity will peak in 1998-2000~and facilities will have maximum
use in 1997.The permanent Watana townsite wll be planned for 125
families~or 400 total population.
Assumi ng that the proporti on of family and si ngl e-status workers
remains constant,recreation in the Watana camps will be pro-
grammed as follows:
Single-Status Camp:
Family Vi 11 age:
1~600 workers
160 workers (500 total population)
For Devil Canyon,comparable working forecasts are:
Single-Status Camp:
Family Vi 11 age:
1,100 workers
110 workers (350 total population)
E-7-86
Private recreational standards vary widely and are affected by
location,cl imate,user profiles and other factors.Representa-
tive standards,intended however to be applied to larger permanent
communities,are:
Population
Facility Standard
Softball 1 per 1,000
Tennis 1 per 2,000
Basketball 1 per 500
Pool 1 per 20,000
Center 1 per 25,000
Go 1f Course 1 per 25,000
Source:National Recreation &Park Open Space Standards
(1971)
Other standards use 1 per 3,000 popul at i on for softball fi e1ds.
Most planners would not use as high as 1 per 500 persons for bas-
ketball courts.Outdoor courts will be 1 imited by cl imate.Sim-
ilarly,other·standards use 1 per 50,000 persons for a golf
course.Other standards determine athletic field needs in terms
of acres per 1,000 population,typically 1.5 acres per 1,000 for
field sports (adults and older children)and 1.0 per 5,000 popula-
tion for tennis,outdoor basketball and other sports.(DeChiara &
Koppelman,1978 pp.363-5).
These types of standard planning criteria are not directly appli-
cable to programming for these facil ities.Some of the other
factors which have influenced the Recreation Plan are the:
-extreme remoteness of the site;
-long duration of construction period;
-extreme harshness of climate from October through April;
short daylight hours in winter months and long daylight hours in
summer months;
- 1ang{lO-hour)work days;
-pattern of four weeks on.one week off;
-necessity to protect fish and wildlife from over-use;and
-homogenous user profile.
Current construction plans call for five essentially separate
communities which will require duplication of facilities and
increase infrastructure and recreati on costs.Thi s Recreation
Plan is designed to provide essentially equivalent facilities for
si ngl e-and fami ly-status workers.If family-status workers are
not allowed,as is more typical with civilian projects in Alaska,
.significant savings can be achieved.In addition,if permanent
townsite facilities are pre-built for the Watana village,some
duplication can be eliminated.
E-7-87
-
~
I
-
~I
,~
(d)Proposed Recreation Plan
The Recreation Plan as presented is designed for the peak year for
Watana,1990-1991,and Devil Canyon,1998-2000,and will be de-
veloped incrementally in the prior years,as needed.The Plan is
detailed in Table 7.18.
Recommended facilities take into consideration those presented in
the March 1982 Feasibility Report,recent comparable experience in
construct i on camp programmi ng,and reference to recogni zed
sources,including:
DeChiara and Koppelman,Urban Planning and Design Criteria,Von
Nostrand Rei nho1 d Company,New York,1975.
-Mountain West Research,Inc.,Construction Worker Profile:
Final Report.Old West Regional Commission,Tempe,Ariznoa,
1976.
-Myhra,David,Energy Plant Sites:Community Planning for Large
Projects.Conway Publications,Atlanta,1980.
DeChiara and Koppelman,Site Planning Standards.McGraw-Hill
Book Company.New York,1978.
-DeChiara and Callender.Time-Saver Standards for Building
Types.McGraw-Hill,Inc.New York,1973.
Many of these proposed recreat i on uses can be accommodated in
multi-purpose space.For instance,the gymnasium can be a multi-
purpose space suitable for jogging~basketball,volleyball,
tenni s,badmi nton,etc.Such areas are not necessari 1y a separate
building but are developed by clustering residential modules with
flooring and roofing spanning the intervening space.The swimming
pool can serve as the camp fire protection reservoir and as an
important image generating and social gathering place.The ~club
house~may be a separate structure or may be di vi ded into small er
social groupings throughout the camp.
Exterior uses likewise "do not require separate space dedicated to
a particular activity but can utilize single fields for multi-
purpose sports.Utilization of recreation directors is an
important component both in maximizing the multi'-use potential of
the facilities and in contributing to the quality of life for the
residents.
It is also recognized that some of the non-structural activities
recommended in this plan carry liability risks for the APA."Care-
ful consideration will have to be given to the tradeoffs involved
between quality of life and potential risks.Potential activities
such as fi shi ng wi 11 have to be carefully coordi nated with the
Al aska Department of Fi sh and Game,to protect the resource.
E-7-88
Other issues~such as storage of fish caught by camp residents~
have important Health Department implications.It is anticipated
that no storage of fish will be permitted,nor will angler fish be
cooked in camp kitchens.
Further recreation planning for the camps,villages and townsite
will be required as APA progresses with policy decisions regarding
details of the construction program and as actual facility design
is undertaken.
5.7 -Alternative Recreation Plans
In developing the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Recreation Plan,a full
range of alternatives was considered~including alternative levels of
development,locations~and numbers of facilities.In addition,the
II no recreation facil ityll alternative was considered.
(a)No Recreation Facility
Based on the physical character and operational characteristics of
the'project~it was determined that the reservoirs themselves do
not constitute resources for recreation.The silty water,wide
mudflats,slumping sidebanks,and potential choppiness are
expected to discourage their use by the ,recreating public.
Furthermore,potenti al safety hazards for small boaters suggest
that public policy not encourge use of project waters for
r ecreat ion.
However,if this "no development ll alternative were chosen,project
objectives of mitigating recreation losses would not be met,nor
would induced recreation demand due to improved access be
accommodated.Not only will project roads increase access,but
the reservoirs wil become transportation routes for hunters.This
alternative was therefore rejected and other recreation resources,
not reservoir based,were considered for development of the Plan.
(b)Additional Facil ities and Development
In addition to the proposed recreation plan,the alternative of
additi ana 1 recreation development was consi dered.Thi s occurred
in two ways;(1)additional new sites and,(2)more intense
development on the proposed sites.
From the inventory,several sites were considerd which had limited
potential for recreation which were not chosen because of inherent
limiting factors.These factors included physical characteris-
tics,accessibility and recreation potential.
Each proposed recreation site was evaluated for additional facil-
ities.This was considered on a one-site basis for each site.
E-7-S9
-
-
,1fIi!l'lli\
-
(c)
Because recreation demand is low (Section 5),there is great
fitness between the carrying capacity of the recreation sites and
recreation demand.Therefore the "additional development"
alternative was rejected because of not satisfying project
objectives of accommodating user demand,and appropriate levels of
recreation development.
Other Access Route Alternative
Many access route a1ternat i ves have been consi dered by proj ect
designer for access to the Watana and Devil Canyon damsites.The
proposed recreation pl an and subsequent phas i ng has been deter-
mined considering accessibility as a major determinent.The
difference between the proposed recreation plan and another access
plan would be in the phasing order of the various recreation sites
for development and in the substation of some sites along that
access for some of those along the current access.For instance,
if the access to the Denali Highway were not built,the sites
along it would not be recommended for deve 10 pment.If the nort h
(east-west)access route were developed,sites along it (e.g.
Mermaid Lake)would be moved from Phase 4 to Phase 2 for fly-in or
hike-in use.If the southern access route were chosen,all sites
along or near the reservoirs would be developed only for fly-in or
hike-in access,until Phase 4 when the railroad would convert to
recreation use.
As part of the Phase 5 monitoring,new sites might be located if
demand warrants.
--
(d)Future Additions
Because of uncertainties in both recreation demand and other fac-
tors such as ultimate land ownership,flexibility has been built
into the Recreation Plan.(This is more completely discussed in
Section 6,Plan Implementation.)Future additions may be selected
from the Phase 5 projects which were not selected for inclusion in
the Recreation Plan but which may be considered in reserve for
future additions,should demand be generated or should sites in
Phase 1 through 4 not be available due to land ownership or other
reasons.
E-7-90
6 -PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
6.1 -Phasing
Phasing of the proposed Recreation Plan is dependent upon a number of
factors,including:
-The schedule on which Watana and Devil Canyon projects are actually
implemented,including dates as which reservoirs are filled and dates
at which project access roads are opened to the public;
Agreement among APA and the various parties on the schedule of provi-
si on of those recreation areas whi ch are not dependent on access
roads utilized in project construction;
-Agreement among the various parties on a recreation schedule.This
schedule is expected to meet and possibly exceed FERC requirements
for provision within three years,due to the extent of the project
area,the extensive nature of recreation activity in Alaska,and the
extremely long and phased construction period;
Sat i sfactory and timely agreement among the agenci es and pri vate
landowners regarding possible recreation features on private lands.
-Demand for recreation,which is difficult to predict with confidence
over the long project implementation period and in a state where pop-
ulation growth,and hence the demand for recreation,is subject to
major unpredictable variations in immigration rates.Availabil ity of
other regional recreation resources will affect demand in
unpredictable ways as massive land status changes occur;
-Schedule of selection and transfer of land title to the State of
Alaska and the Native corporations,which will determine actual
ownership at the time of implementation of project recreation fea-
tures,and whether a suffi ci ent peri od (20 years)has passed to
enable the native corporations to sell the land;and
-Potential information developed in the recreation-use monitoring
program described in Section 6.2 below.
Implementation of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Recreation Plan is
divided into five phases:
Phase 1,Watana Construct i on Phase,cons i sts of recreation features
intended to mitigate the impacts of recreation opportunities lost due
toconstructi on acti viti es and associated 1 and closures,to provide
recreat ion opportuniti es for project construct i on workers,and to pro-
vide the general public with some early-on recreation benefits derived
from the public investment in Watana.Phase 1 projects are generally
planned to be developed contemporaneously with the start of project
construction.
E-7-91
Phase 2,Watana Implementation Phase,consists of recreation features
intended to mitigate the impacts of recreation lost due to the
operation of Watana,to provide for the recreation use potential of the
project,to accommodate project-induced recreation demand,to allow
public access to project lands and waters,and to protect the
environmental values of the project area.Phase 2 projects are
intended to be developed within three years of the operational date of
the Watana project,or when necessary agreements are reached ~/ith
private landowners,for those projects on private land.
Phase 3,Devil Canyon Construction Phase,consists of projects intended
to mitigate the impacts of recreation opportunities lost due to Devil
Canyon construction activities and to provide recreation opportunities
for construction workers.Phase 3 projects are generally planned to be
developed contemporaneously with the start of access construction to
Devil Canyon,or when necessary qgreements are reached with pri vate
landowners,for those projects on pri¥ate land.In addition,they will
be designed to adjust to post-project recreation demand at Watana.
Phase 4,Devil Canyon Implementation Phase,consists of recreation
features intended to mitigate the impacts of recreation lost due to the
operation of Devil Canyon,to provide for the recreation use potential
of the project,to accommodate project-induced recreation demands,to
allow public access to protect lands and waters,and to protect the
environmental val ues of the project area.Phase 4 projects are
intended to be developed within three years of the operational date of
the Devil Canyon project,or when necessary agreements are reached with
private landowners,for those projects on private land.
Phase 5,Post-Construct ion Monitori ng Phase,cons i sts of monitori ng
recreation use.To begin when the first project recreation facilities
are available in order to determine actual recreation use of the
project features and to trigger adjustments in the recreation plan as
required.The triggering mechanicsm is designed to initiate any
necessary adjustments in the Phases 2,3 and 4 plans and at lO-year
interval s thereafter throughout the 1i fe of the project 1i cense.
The following list indicates elements of the Recreation Plan by their
intended Phase of development.
PHASE ONE (Sites E,D,B,A,H,C,F)
~-
-
-
E
D
Brushkana Camp
Tyone Ri vel'"
confluence with
Susitna
E-7-92
25 campsites west of
exi st i ng camp
water supply
3 vault toil ets
1 shelter
E Brushkana Camp
~
D Tyone River
confluence with
Susitna
E Butte Creek
~
C Watana Town Site
A Middle Fork
Chul itna Ri ver
H Tsusena Creek
northern half
of proposed trail
~F Portal sign
PHASE TWO (Sites 0,U,H,I,L,J,K)
a Watana Dam Site
Vi si tor Center
25 campsites west of
existing camp
water supply
3 vault toilets
1 shelter
1 boat 1 aunc h at
Sus itna Br i dge
Temporary camp and
town fac il it i es
2 overnight shelters
25 miles primitive trail
trail head and parking
2 shelters
20 miles of primitive trail
Tra il head and park i ng
Explanatory entry sign
2-3 can pullout
Parking,20 spaces
Visitor exhibit building
Food serv ice
Souvenir shop
IVluseum
Restrocms
Powerhouse tour facil ity
Indigenous botanical trail
Boat 1 aunch
C
H
I
L
Wat ana Town site
(Phase 2)
Tsusena Creek
southern half of trail
Tsusena Butte
Big Lake/Deadman Lake
E-7-93
2 mil es of pr imit ive tra il
-to Tsusena Fall s
Tr ail he ad/par king
2 shelters
20 miles of primitive trail
4 miles of primitive trail
1 tra il head
3-4 capacity primitive camp
1 trailhead
5-6 capacity primitive
campsite
4 miles of primitive trail
J
K
PHASE THREE
G
Cl arence Lake
Watana Lake
Mid-Chulitna Mountains
Deadman Mountain
9 miles of primitive trail
4-6 capacity primitive
campsite
1 foot bridge
3 miles of primitive trail
2-3 capacity primitive
campsite
2 vista pull-offs
1 trailhead
7 mil es of primit i ve tr ai 1
2-4 primitive designation
camps
-
-
PHASE FOUR (Sites Q,S,R)
Q
S
K
Dev il Creek Drainage
Dev i 1 Can yon Dams i te
Visitor Center
Devil Canyon/
Mermaid Lake
7 miles of trail
Shelter
Vi s itor center
Dam exhibit
Food service
Souvenir shop
Restrooms
Boat 1 aunch
8-10 campsites,tent pads
Shel ter
Restrooms
PHASE FIVE -To be developed only if demand requires.
(Sites T,M,N,P,W)....
T
M
N
P
W
Soul e Creek
Southern Chulitna
Mountai ns
Fog Lakes
Stephan Lakes
Rehabil itation Sites
E-7-94
8 miles of primitive trail
5-6 capacity primitive
camps ite
3 miles of primitive trail
5-6 capacity primitive
campsite
Trailhead and parking
15 miles of primitive trail
15 units campground
5 miles of primitive trail
5-7 campsites,semi-primitive
(fire pits,tent pads)
Dock
As appropriate
""'"
-
.....
'"""
.....
6.2 -Monitoring and Future Additions
The Recreation Plan consists of five phases and all the components
identified therein.However,discussions with FERC,and other relevant
agencies recognize the peculiar difficulties associated with this
project,including:
-Limited confidence levels in long-range recreation projections;
-Long period of project construction (19 years from filing of FERC
application to operation of Devil Canyon);
-Changing land ownership;and
-Geographic extent of project area,and the extensive nature of Alaska
recreat ion.
Therefore,Phase I of the Recreation Plan would be initiated at the
time of starting construction.Phases 2,3 and 4 may be modified based
on Phase 5 monitori ng.In general,the Al aska Power Authority I s com-
mitment beyond Phase 1 is to acquire and develop the facilities listed
in Phases 2,3 and 4 or their equi val ent as agreed to by the relevant
agencies and landowners as spelled out in the FERC license.Modifica-
tions to the Plan may be according to the provisions of Phase 5,Post
Construct ion Monitori ng Phase,as detail ed below.Th is proposed Moni-
toring Phase is written with the assumption that the ~aska Division of
Parks will operate and maintain,with the financial support of the
Alaska Power Authority,recreation elements located on state lands and
through cooperative agreement,on BLM lands.However,should the
parties deem it desirable,separate agreements could be drafted with
the BLM and "BLW'be substituted for "Division"accordingly.For
project elements located on lands belonging to the Native corporations,
a variety of ownership and management options may be available and it
is anticipated that similar agreements will be drafted.Construction
of proposed facilities on these private lands tied to acquisition of
necessary agreements with the Native corporations.If,at a reasonable
amount of time,the Authority and the Native corporations are not able
to reach agreement on a particular element of the recreation plan,the
Authority in cooperation with the Divison of Parks,will endeavor to
find a site or sites suitable for the proposed recreation development
on pub 1i c 1 and withi n the study area whi ch are appropri ate to the
particular recreation opportunity matrix classification.
Proposed Monitori"9 Phase
The Division of Parks,with support of the Power Authority,will be
responsible for maintaining facility use records and surveying use of
Phase 1 recreation projects accordi ng to standards consi stent with
Division practice and sufficient to determine their level of use.At
the time Watana reaches operation,or 10 years after the completion of
construction of Phase 1 recreation facilities,whichever is earlier,
E-7-95
the Division and the Authority will jointly meet to evaluate recreation
use patterns and to plan schedules and levels of subsequent development
accordingly.The Phase 2 (Watana Implementation)Plan will be evalu-
ated at this time and will be verified or modified as required con-
sistent with the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)classification
appropriate for each proposed element.Construction of the Phsae 2
recreation developments will be completed within three years of the
joint determination of need by the parties.Need will be determined
both by use levels of existing facilities anQ anticipated demand gener-
ated by the completion of the Watana project.
The Phase 3 (Devil Canyon Construction)Recreation Plan will be simi-
larly evaluated when construction of the Devil Canyon project begins.
The elements recommended in this Plan will then be verified or modified
as required,based on experience at Watana and anticipated demand,con-
sistent with the appropriate Recreation Opportunity Spectrum c1assifi-
cati on of each project e1 ement.Phase 3 wi 11 be constructed withi n
three years of the joint determination of need by the parties.
When Devil Canyon begins operation,or 1D years after the completion of
construction of Phase 3,whichever is earlier,the Division and the
Authority will jointly meet to evaluate the Phase 4 Plan (Devil Canyon
Operation)and similarly verify or modify it as required.
At the la-year anniversary of completion of construction of each phase,
throughout the license period of the project,the Division and the
Authority will jointly agree upon a plan for a major rehabilitation
and/or construction relevant to the phase1s initial projects.It is
anticipated that the Division of Parks and the Alaska Power Authority
will enter into an agreement whereby the Division agrees to perform the
survey,evaluation,design,constrlJction,operation,and maintenance of
said recreation facilities on public lands with the costs to be borne
by the Authority.It is also anticipated that agreements of similar
intent will be entered into with the U.S.Bureau of Land Management and
the Native corporati ons as appropr i ate.
It is intended that the Authority will commit to the costs of the
facilities specified in this Recreation Plan.Should any phase be
modified by joint agreement of the Authority and Division under the
terms of this proposed monitoring plan,budgeted monies may be trans-
ferred from proposed element to element and from phase to phase.This
is with the provision that total development costs in anyone phase do
not increase over those in the original plan for that phase and that
the total development cost for Phases 1,2,3 and 4 does not exceed the
currently anticipated total cost,as measured in constant 1982
dollars.
E-7-96
-
-
.,...
-
.-.
7 -COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED FACILITIES
7.1 -General
The foll owi ng cost estimates associ ated with the proposed recreation
facilites and use are based upon 1982 prices for labor and materials
and the assumption that the Alaska Divison of Parks will adminster the
construction,operations',and maintenance of the project areas.No
land costs are included in this exhibit.Additionally,all financial
responsibil ities will be borne by the Al aska Power Authority.Costs of
recreation facilities recommended for inclusion in the construction
camps,construction vill ages,and permanent town are not i ncl uded in
this exhibit.No costs are included for Phase 5 projects as they will
become a part of the Recreation Plan only if monitoring determines that
will be necessary.
7.2 -Construction
A summary of estimated capital costs for each phase of the Recreation
Pl an is presented in Table E.7.18.Breakdowns for these costs by
project features are shown in Table E.7.19.The costs have been
prepared based on State Division of Parks data and discussions with
Alaska contractors.
7.3 -Operations and Maintenance
It is intended that project recreation facilities will be operated and
maintained by the State Division of Parks and/or the U.S.Bureau of
Land Management,as appropriate.Table £.7.20 estimates additional
equi pment necessary to operate the proposed faci 1 it i es.Tabl e £.7.21
summarizes estimated average annual costs for supplies,equipment and
personnel to operate the facilities.The State Division of Parks
recommends that no user fees be assessed •
E-7-97
-----------------._------_.--,------------>-~---~
-
-
8 -AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED
The following list documents public agency,Native corporation,and
University of Alaska consultations in the course of preparing this
Recreat ion Pl an.Wr itten records of these conversat ions are avail ab 1e
at offices of the Alaska Power Authority.
E-7-98
------------~-----------------------.,......-
AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED
Federal
Agencies Person Date Communication Subject---
F.E.R.C.Mark Robison 9/29/82 Phone Land Status
Phasing
~Implementation
Demand
F.E.R.C.Frank Karwoski 9/30/82 &Phone Land Status
10/30/82 Phasing
Imp lementation
Fish &Wildlife
Demand
Access Routes
Alternatives
F .£oR.C.John Haimes 9/29/82 Phone Impacts
U.S.B.L.M.John Rego 10/15/82 Meeting Review Proposed
Recreation Plan
U.S.B.L.M.Dave Dapkus 9/17/82 Meeting Recreation Data
~U.S.B.L.M.Mike Wrabetz 9/17/82 Meeting Visual Study
Bob Ward Denali Highway
U.S.F.&W.S.Date Patterson 9/21/82 Meeting Rec.Demand
U.S.F .5.
Chugach Natl.Forest Jim.Tellerico 9/22/82 Phone Rec.Data.-U.S.N.P.S •Larry Wright 9/15/82 Meeting Rec.Data
Demand
U.S.N.P.S.
Denali Natl.Park Bob Gerhardt 10/20/82 Phone User Data
State
Agencies
F&G Tom Trent 10/16/82 Meeting Fisheries Data
Rec.Impacts
Borrow Areas
F&G Nancy Tankersley 9/21/82 Meeting Big Game Data
10/22/82
F&G Mike Mills 9/21/82 Meeting Fisher ies Oat a
Carolyn Crouch
F&G Karl Schneider 10/22/82 Meeting Big Game Data
Stephen Burgess Mitigation
DNR Sandy Rabinowitch 9/14/82 Phone State Rec.Planning
Div.Parks 9/15/82 Meeting State Policy
Maintenance
Demand
10/28/82 Meeting Plan Review
Cost Estimate
DNR Kyle Cherry 10/28/82 Meeting Cost Estimate
Div.Parks Maintenance
DNR Jack Wiles 9/15/82 Meeting Rec.Data
Div.Parks Peste Martin 10/20/82 Meeting Demand
Transportat ion
Uses
State Planning &
Policy
Public Participation
Land Ownership
Plan Review
JiWI::..M
DNR Chris Beck 10/19/82 Meeting Demand
R&D Randy Cowal EXisting Facilities
&Use
DNR Dave Stephans 9/22/82 Phone Exist.Fac.&Use
DNR Bill Beatty 10/4/82 Meeting Scenic Resources
DOT Mike Tooley 9/14/82 Meeting Standards
Construction
Techniques
DOT Bill Humphrey 9/24/82 Phone Traffic Demand
DOT Roger Maggard 9/24/82 Phone Traffic Demand
Canst ruction
Techniques
DOT Andy Zahare 9/24/82 Phone Design Standards
AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED (Cont'd)
Local
Agencies
Mat-Su Borough
Planning Dept.
Native
Corporations
CIRI
Tyonek Village
Corp.
Tyonek Village
Corp.
AHTNA Development
Corp.&:Knik Village
Corp.
University
of Alaska
Museum
Ag.Expt.Station
Person
Claudio Arenas
Roland Shanks
Carl Ehelebe
Agnes Brown
N.Roy Goodman
LJ.Dixon
Alan Jubesv ille
Jo Feyl
Date
9/21/82
10/18/82
9/15/82
10/14/82
9/22/82
9/28/82
10/14/82
9/28/82
10/14/82
9/22/82
9/28/82
10/14/82
9/20/82
9/9/B2
9/24/82
Communication
Meeting
Phone
Meeting
Meeting
Phone
Meeting
Meeting
Meeting
Meeting
Phone
Meeting
Meeting
Meeting
Phone
Phone
Subject
Population Proj~ctions
Borough Concerns
Rec.Demand
Borough Parks Planning
Trails
Coastal Plan
Native Concerns
Recreation Preferences
Legislation
Land Acquisition
Rec.Plan Review
Rec.Planning
Nat ive Preferences
Land Acquisition
Plan Review
Aesthetic Concerns
Native Input
Project Boundaries
Land Ownership
Rec.Mgmt.Issues
Aesthetic Concerns
Plan Review
Nat ive Input
Project Boundaries
Land Ownership
Aesthetic Concerns
Plan Review
Historic &:
Archaeological
Resources
Rec.Plan
Rec.Plan
Data Sources
-.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.Acres American Incorporated,Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Trans-
mission Line Selection Route,prepared for the Alaska Power Au-
thority,Final Draft,March 1982.
2.,Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Transmission
Line Corridor Screening Closeout Report,Task 8 Transmission
Final Report,prepared for the Alaska Power Authority,March
1982.
3..,Susana Hydroelectric Project,·Access Plan
Recommendation Report,prepared for the Alaska Power Authority,
August 1982.
4.,Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Feasibility
Report,Vol.1-7,Final Draft,prepared for the Alaska Power
Authority,undated.
5.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Susana Hydroelectric Project,
Big Game Studies,Vol.I-VIII,Phase I,Final Report,submitted
to the Alaska Power Authority,March 1982.
6.Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Parks,Alaska
Recreation Trail Plan 1972.
7.Chugach State Park Master Plan,
1980.
Februa ry
8~
9.
10.
,Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan 1981.-----,------
Estimated Facility Costs,unpublished,Janu-
ary 1981.
Catalogue of the Alaska State Park System,
July 1981.
11.,Alaska State Park System:Southcentral Re-
gion Plan,February 1982.
work,June 1982.
13.,and USDI National Park Service,Environmental
Investigation and Site Analysis,Tokositna Study Area,Denali State
Park,July 1980.
12.Alaska State Park System:Statewide Frame-
14.Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Research and
Development,Recreation Use Patterns and Recreation Area Notes,
unpublished appendices to Susitna River Basin Land Use/Recreation
Atlas,1980.
15.
16.
Susitna River Basin Land Use/Recreation
Atlas,1980.
Scenic Resources along the Parks Highway,-
1981.
17.Statewide Natural Resources Plan,FY 81,
October 1981.
18.Statewide Natural Resources Plan,FY 81,Ap-
pendix I,undated.
19.____~--~~~--~'Statewide Natural Resources Plan FY 81,Ap-
pendix II,Allocation Units,undated.
-Denali Highway Location Study Report,---;:R=S~-0=7=5=0(T";I'"')-,-;:F:-a0:;-:11;--:;"'19'81.22.
_=-=-_-:-----::,....-,et al.,Matanuska-Susitna Beluga Cooperative
Planning Program -Land Use Issues and Preliminary Resource In-
ventory,Vol.1,May 1982.
21.Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,Denali
Highway Environmental Assessment,Fall 1981.
20.
23.Alaska Division of Tourism,Alaska Travel Directory,June 1981.
24.Alaska Geographic,A Photographic Geography of Alaska,Vol.7,
No.2,1980.
25.Alaska Magazine,The Alaska Almanac,1982 Edition,September 1981.
26.Alaska Power Authority,Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Fish and
Wildlife Mitigation Policy,Revised April 1982.
27.American Association of State Highway Officials,Geometric Design
Guide for Local Roads and Streets,Washington,D.C.,1971.
28.Braund,Stephen R.and Associates,Susitna Hydroelectric Project,
Subtask 7.05,Socioeconomic Analysis,Sociocultural Report,Final
Draft,prepared for Acres American Incorporated,March 1982.
29.Carter,M.Floating Alaskan Rivers,Aladdin Publishing,1982.
30.Childers Associates,Roadside Recreational Facilities Study,
Richardson Highway,M82.6-185.5,prepared for the Alaska Depart-
ment of Natural Resources,Division of Parks,July 1,1982.
31.Clark,Roger N.,and Johnson,Darryll R.,Selected Findings from
the Alaska Public Survey - A Summary of Responses from Southeast
and South Central Alaska,Joint Report of U.S.D.A.Forest Service
and University of Washington,College of Forest Resources,
August 1981.
Mi"1
32 ..Cook Inlet Region,Inc.,1981 Annual Report.
33.DeChiara,Joseph and Callender,John,Time-Saver Standards for
Building Types,McGraw-Hill,Inc.,New York,1973.
34.,and Koppelman,Lee,Urban Planning and Design
Criteria,Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,New York,1975.
35.--:~--;,,;,--:,-"':""'::"=-__'Site Planning Standards,McGraw-Hill,Inc.,
New York,1978.
45.
36.Economic Research Associates,Summary -Denali State Park Visitor
Facility Market Analysis and Economic Feasibility Study,prepared
for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources,June 1,1980.
37.Feyhl,Jo and Jubenville,Alan,The Recreation Plan for the Pro-
posed Susitna Hydroelectric Project,University of Alaska,Fair-
banks,Agricultural Experiment Station,April 1982.
38.Joint Federal State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska,Out-
door Recreation'in Alaska,January 1979.----
39.Jones,Sally W.and Associates,Sno-Engineering,Inc.,Trigon
Sports International,Inc.,1981 Winter Recreation Facilities,
Preliminary Projections for Use and Conceptual Design,prepared
for the Municipality of Anchorage,February 1981.
40.Jones and Jones,Upper Susitna River -An Inventory and Evaluation
of the Environmental,Aesthetic and Recreational Resources,pre-
pared for D.O.A.,Alaska District,Corps of Engin.eers,14 r~arch
1975.
41.Jubenville,Alan,Procedures Manual:Recreation Planning for the
SusitnaHydroelectric Project,Subtask 7.08/10.06,June 1980.
42.Matanuska-Susitna Borough,Trails System,Discussion Draft,1982.
43.Mayna rd and Partch,Woodwa rd-Clyde Consultants,Matanuska-Sus i tna
Borough Coastal Management Program,Public Hearing Draft,Septem-
ber 1,1982.
44.Mills,Michael J.,Statewide Harvest Study -1980 Data,Alaska
Department of Fish and Game,1981.
_;::--_-;-----:'_-;:--;::=-:--;--'Statewide Harvest Study --1981 Data,Alaska
Department of Fish and Game,1982.
4'.Mountain West Research,Inc.,Construction Worker Profile:Final
Report,prepared for the Old West Regional Commission,1976.
47.Myhra,David,Energy Plant Sites:Community Planning for Large
Projects,Conway Publications,Atlanta,1980.
48.Nash,Roderick,lITourism,Park and the Wilderness Idea in the His-
tory of Alaska,1I Alaska in Perspective,Vol.IV,#1,1981.
49.R &M Consultants,Inc.,Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Processed
Climatic Data,Vol.1-6,prepared for Acres American,Incorpo-
rated,March 1982.
50 ..Terrestrial Environmental Specialists,Inc.,Susitna Hydroelectric
Project,Land Use Analysis,Navigational Use,prepared for Acres
Ameri can,Incorporated,April 1982..-
51.,Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Subtask 7.07
Land Use Analysis,Phase I Report,prepared for Acres American,
Incorporated,April 1982.
52.__~~~~~~,and University of Alaska,Fairbanks,Phase I,
Environmental Studies Final Report,Subtask 7.08,Recreation
Planning,prepared for Acres American Incorporated,May 1982.
53.The Alaska Environmental Group,Summary Development Guide for the
Lake Louise Study Area,undated.
54.Trihey,E.Woody,Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Instream Flow As-
sessment,Issue Identification and Baseline Data Analysis,1981
Study Pl an,prepared for Acres American Incorporated,May 31,
1981.
55.U.S.Bureau of Land Management,BLM Land Use Plan for Southcentral
Alaska - A Summary,September 22,1980.
56.,Federal Land Openi ng for Mi nera 1 Leas i n9 and
Mineral Entry,Denali Planning Block,undated.
57.U.S.Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Planning Consid-
erations for Winter Sports Resort Development,undated.
'"""
-
58.
59.
_____~---~=--~-'Northern Region,Recreation Opportunity In-
ventory and Evaluation,June 1974.
__=--~~~=_-,The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum:A
Framework for Planning,Management and Research,GTR PNW-98,
December 1979.
60.,Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Chugach National Forest Plan,June 1982.
61.U.S.Department of the Interior,Heritage Conservation and Recre-
ation Service,A Proposal for Protection of Eleven Alaskan
Rivers,undated.
~I
62.IJ.S.Geological Survey,Alaska Accomplishments During 1977,Cir-
cul ar 772-B.
63.,Alaska Accomplishments During 1978,Circular
804-B.
64.U.S.Government,96th Congress,P.L.96-487,Alaska National In-
terest Lands Conservation Act,94 Stat.2371,Dec.2,1980.
65.University of Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station,Fairbanks,
Exhibit E,Report on Recreation Resources,Subtask 7.08,undated
draft,received by Acres American Incorporated 24 June 1981.
j ]1 !1 ]j J J j 1 J 1 J
TABLE E.7.1
AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS -PRE &POST PROJECT -ers
Gold Creek Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar ~May Jun Jul ~Sept
-Pre Project 5,757 2,568 1,793 1,463 1,243 1,12.3 1,377 13,277 27,658 24,38.5 21,996 13,175
-Post Project
Watana 8,014 9,186 10,693 9,708 8,951 8,327 7,740 10,404 11,420 9,'185 13,nS ·9,840
-Post Project
Watana &
Dev il Canyon 7,765 9,631 11,271 10,597 10,191 9,286 8,100 8,706 9,885 8,387 12,634 10,510
Sunshine
-Pre Project 13,690 5,829 4,199 4,199 2,952 2,631 3,177 27,717 64,198 63,178 55,900 32,304
-Post Project
Watana 16,029 12,362 13,017 13,017 10,620 9,81 'I 9,517 24,866 47,881 ~8,290 47,407 28,970
-Post Project
Watana &Devil
Canyon 15,819 12,943 13,604 13,664 11,851 10,726 9,838 V,185 46,202 47,579 46,792 29,595
Susitna
-Pre Project 30,055 12,658 8,215 7,906 7,051 6,320 6,979 60,462 '123,698 131,932 110,841 65,963
-Post Project
Watana 32,392 11,991 17,053 16,108 14,705 13,500 13,319 57,61"1 107,381 117,044 102,348 62,629
-Post Project
Watana &Devil
Canyon 32,184 19,772 17,620 16,973 15,922 14,415 13,640 55,930 105,702 116,333 101,733 63,254
Source:Acres American Inc.,October 11,1982
TABLE E.7.2
STATEWIDE RECREATION INVENTORY -BY LAND OWNERSHIP
Federal Military State Local School Sites
Acreage 153 million N/A 4.7 million 7,883 2,000
Facilities II PAOT U PAOT 1/PAOT II PAOT II PAOT
Camping Units 1270 6299 229 824 1218 4384 477 1717 --
Remote Cabins 221 1'135 30 180 2 8 3 6 --
Picnic Tables 270 1368 34 161 1747 8735 323 1583 --
Picnic Shelters 22 220 1 '10 32 320 ----
Clam Beaches ----28 miles ----
Boat Launches 34 34 4 4
26 26 12 12 --
Boat Moorages --25 25 --4378 4378 - -
Canoe Trails(mi)332 1932 --47 280 26 160 --
Horse Trails(mi)214 1070 49 240 8 40 --.--
Waik/Rull Trails(mi)973 9730 --443 4430 23 230 --
Bicycle Trails(mi)--1 10 --76 760 --
ATV/ORV Trails(mi)535 2130 70 280 142 670 14 104 --
X-C SKi Trails(mi)101 1010 132 1320 256 2510 80 800 --
Dog-Mushing Trails(mi)----750 3000 ----
Ski lifts/Tows 6 -15 - -
-4 ---
Golf Courses --1 ---4Loc/---
(Pvt)
Tennis Courts --23 ---59 -40 -
Basketball Courts --14 ---20 -223 -
Volleyball Courts ---"I ---9 -72 -
Swimming Pools --2 -10 -7 -11 -
Softball/Baseball Fields --41 ---75 -69 -
Soccer/football Fields --14 ---12 -20 -
Track &Field --4 ---5 -13 -
Target Shooting Ranges --4 -3 -1 -,!I -
Ice Skating Rinks --12 ---20 -81 -
Source:Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan,1981
I 1 I J ,I J J .J I ,~!I J J ,~,)J
~TABLE E.?3
STATEWIDE INVENTORY OF EXISTING RECREATION FACILITIES BY REGION
Southwest
Region:Southcentral Southeast Interior Northwest Total
F""Facilities:
Camping Units 2328 35'1 484 31 3194
Remote Cabins 70 149 33 252
,~Picnic Tables 1185 332 767 20 2304
Picnic Shelters 16 30 9 55
Boat Launches 79 38 44 -1 162
Boat Moorages .1723 2759 1 4483
Canoe Trails(mi)339 34 22 395
Horse Trails(mi)271 271
Walk/Run Trails(mi)944 409 84 2 1439
Bicycle Trails(mi)76 1 77
ATV/oRV Trails(mi)702 59 761
X-C Ski Trails(mi)523 2 44 569
Dog-mushing Trails(mi)450 300 750
Ski Lifts/Tows 11 7 7 25
Golf Courses 5 5
Tennis Courts 89 20 13 122
Basketball Courts 183 35 38 256
Volleyball Courts 62 19 11 9Z
Swimming Pools 13 2 15 30
Softball/Baseball Fields 134 27 20 4 185
~~Soccer/Football Fields 32 8 6 46
Track &Field 14 4 2 2 22
Target Shooting Ranges 9 2 1 12
Ice Skating Rinks 106 2 5 '113
Playgrounds 215 20 11 246
Source:Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan 1981
._._-_._._----
TABLE E.7.4
PERCENTAGE OF ADULT POPULATION PARTICIPATION
IN INLAND OUTDOOR RECREATION ..,..,
Activities
Dr iv ing for Pleasure
Walking/Running for Pleasure
Fishing (freshwater)
Attending Sports Events
Tent Camping
Motor Boating
Cross Country Skining
RV Camping
Hiking.w/Pack
Baseball/Softball
Flying for Pleasure
Kayaking/Canoeing
Sledding/Tobogganing
Winter ORV's
Alpine Skiing
Outdoor Tennis
Swimming,Freshwater
Summer ORV/Motorcycles
Other
Footb all/Soccer
Swimming,Freshwater
Outdoor Basketball
Horseback Riding
Sailing (freshwater)
Water Skiing (freshwater)
Golfing
Outdoor Hockey
Hang Gliding
Southcentral Region
Percentage of Participation
59%
53%
42%
37~~
31%
30%
269~
24%
22%
19%
19%
17%
17%
17%
17%
17~~
17%
14%
11%
7%
16%
7"'0
7%
5%
5%
4%
20''0
0%
-
Source:Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan 1981
and Selected Findings from the Alaska Public Survey,1981
-,
)j ]i J J }I -)))]l 1 1 j ]
TABLE E.7.5
ALASKA STATE PARK SYSTEM VISITOR COUNT SUMMARY
Park District
1978*
Resident Non-Resident
1979*
Resident Non-Resident
1980*
Resident Non-Resident
Note:*1978 and 1979 field data is based upon non-standardized format.
*1980 field data is based upon a computer stratified sampling system
with incidental counts.
1980 data does not include the months of October through December.
I
Mat-Su
Copper Basin
Chugach
Kenai
Interior
Southeast
Total
Comb ined Tot al
343,532 69,513 572,212 61,958 580,829 94,523
85,364 59,071 167,014 82,682 66,6'15 32,148
490,823 76,869 1,456,556 234,671 516,976 10B,507
116,197 29,118 418,986 84,470 615,542 146,132
39,510 18,312 197,500 41,866 19,702
367,256 630,883 .126,841 59,729 119,026 89,747
1,442,682 883,766 2,738,909 523,510 '1,940,854 490,760
2,326,448 3,262,429 2,431,61/~
Source:Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan 198'1
TABLE E.7.6
EXISTING PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE STUDY AREA
ADJACENT TO HIE PROJECT AREA:
4 Denali National
Park and Preserve
A Riley Creek
Campground
B Morino Campground
C Savage River
Campground
D Sanct uary River
Campground
E Teklanika River
Campground
F Igloo Creek
Campground
G Wonder Lake
Campground
5 Denali Planning
Block
A Brushkana River Denali Highway,Mile 105
Campground
National Park
Service
Bureau of Land
Management
228 campsites
33 campsites
2,306,790 hectares
(5,696,000 acres)
1,821,125 hectares
(4,500,000 acres)
Source:The recreational plan for the Proposal Susitna HYdroelectric Project,April 1982,University of Anchorage.
J I 1 J ,J J J J J J I I ~I
1 i ]J 1 j
TABLE E.7.7
]1 ]i 1 j
FUTURE REGIONAL RECREATION DEVELOPMENT
Site Development
Moose Creek
State Recreation Site (existing)
Matanuslea Glacier
State Recreation Site (existing)
Kepler-Bradley
State Recreation Area (existing)
Independence Mine
State Historic Park (existing)
Hatcher Pass
State Recreation Area (proposed)
Nancy Lake
State Recreation Area (existing)
Willow Creek
State Recreation Area (existing
and proposed)
Lditarod Trail (existing)
Location
Glenn Highway
Glenn Highway
near Palmer
Glenn Highway
WIllow Creek Road
Hatcher Pass Road
Parks Highway
Parks Highway
Alaska Range
west of Anchorage
Managing Agency
Alaska Division of Parks
"
"
"
Alaska Division of Parks
"
"
Proposed Action
Implemented Site Plan
"
Acquire no acres and develop plan.
Develop existing 271 acres,acquire and
develop addit ional area.
Acquire land and develop.
Acquire additional 150 acres,and trail
12 D.W.expand development particularly
winter recreation opportunities.
Upgrade existing site
Acquire property and implement plans.
Lake Creek
State Recreation (proposed)
Little Susitna
State Recreation River (proposed)
Alexander Creek
State Recreation River (proposed)
Talachulutna
State Recreation River (proposed)
Lake Creek
State Recreation River (proposed
Kroto Creek
State Recreation River (proposed)
Near Cook Inlet
A tributary to the Alaska Division of Parks
lower Susitna River
II II
II II
II "
Designate river corridor and develop plan.
Designate river corridor and prepare
management plan.
"
"
"
TABLE E.7.7
fUTURE REGIONAL RECREATION DEVELOPMENT (ConL'd)
Site Development
Worthington Glacier
State Recreation Site (existing)
Little Neldr ina
State Recreation Site (existing)
Neldrina Tazlina
state Recreation River
Location
Richardson Highway
Glenn Highway
Glenn Highway
Managing Agency
Alaska Division of Parks
"
II
Proposed Action
Acqui re addit ional 460 acres adjoining
glacier terminals develop funded projects
Acquire 620 acres plan and implement.
Designate river corridor,prepare river
plan.
Source:Alaska State Park System,Southcent ral Region P lan,february 1962
"I )I .J J ~J ~.J I j .1 "I I I
TABLE E.7.8
MAJOR TRAILS IN THE UPPER SUSITNA BASIN
~
Cat,ORV
Cat,ORV
Packhorse
Cat
Foot
Packhorse,
Foot
Packhorse,
Old Sled Road
ATV
Beginning
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Sherman
Alaska Railroad,
mile 232
Curry
Talkeetna
Chunilna
Denali
Highway
Middle
Ridge top west
of VABM Clear
North of
Disappontment
Creek
Portage Creek
Butte Lake
End
Devil Canyon
Confluence of
John &Chunilna
creeks
Confluence of
John &Chunilna
creeks
Chunilna Creek
Cabin 3 km (2 mi.)
east of VABM Dead
Stephan Lake
Mermaid Lake
Tsusena Lake
Years Used
1950's-present
1961-present
1948
1957-present
1926
1948
1920's-present
1950's-present
Source:Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Land Use Report
TABLE E.7.9
REGIONAL POPULATION -EXISTING AND FUTURE
1980 2000 IV'.
Anchorage 174,431 252,940 +45~~
Fairbanks/Northstar1 53,983 119,130 +121%
Mat-Su Boroush 2 17,938 78,500 +338%
Total 246,352 450,570 +55%
NOTE:Population projections include Susitna Hydroelectric Project but do not
include new capital move to Willow or Knik Arm Crossing.
Sources:1980:1980 Census
2000:Frank orth &Assoc.,4/82
2 1980:
2000:
1980 Census
80rough Planning Department,10/2 '1/82
-
-
}I J ]])1 »)1 I j ~
TABLE E.7.10
AVERAGE REGIONAL RECREATION PARTICIPATION
Average Annual Per Capita
Participation Days,1980
Assumed Percentage Increase
in Annual Per Capital
Participation Days 1980-2000
Big Game
Hunting
2.9
B%
Waterfowl
Hunting'
0.9
8%
freshwater
fishing
7.7
('6%'/
,,-_//
Developed
Camping
3.0
57%
Canoeing/
Kayaking
0.7
20%
Hiking
3.0
27%
Picnicking
11.7
12~~
X-Country
Skiing
0.6
40%
Source:1970 Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan
TABLE £.7.11
DISTANCES TO CENTROID OF RECREATION AREA
Trip Origin Miles 1 HI's.®45 mph Hourly Interval
Anchorage 250 5.5 5-6
Fairbanks 200 4.5 4-5
Mat-Su 3_4 2
%of Demand Type ~t
Hourly Interval
35'i;1
30%
30%~,
NOTE:Centroid of project recreation assumed to be 10 mile~north of Watana Damon access road
(40 miles from Cantwell via Denali Highway and Access Road).
Sources:Rand McNally &Co.Alaska map,undated
2 Centroid of Recreation Population in Borough assumed to be at this distance
3 Susitna River Basin Study,John McNei.ll,11/78
-
-
-
-1 ]J )]1 1 j I 1 1 1 ]1
TABLE E.7.12
ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL RECREATION DAYS FOR RESIDENTS OF SELECTED LOCATIONS,
TO WATANA AND ALL OTHER LOCATIONS EQUIDISTANT FROM THEIR ORIGIN
\\
TABLE E.7.13
TOTAL ESTIMATED REGIONAL RECREATION USER DAYS,BY ACTIVITY
1980 AND 2000
Big Game
Hunting
Waterfowl
Hunting
Freshwater
Fishing
Developed
Camping,
Canoeing/
Kayaking Hiking Picnicking
X-Country
Skiing
Estimated Total Regional
Recreation User Days -1980 2'14,000 120,000 502,000 196,000 46,000 196,000 762,000 39,000
Estimated Total Regional
Recreation User Days -2000 465,000 119,000 1,000,000 578,000 103,000 406,000 1,395,000 103,000
NOTE:Rounded to nearest 1,000
Source:EDAW calculations based on Susitna River Cooperative Study Methodology.
John O'Neill,Nov.1978.
J J J J I J J J I ,I J .1 J
1 I }1 1 %j ]1 1 -1 1 J )i '\
i!
NOTES:1.For big game hunting t derived from Alaska Fish &Game Geowonderland Data for 1981.for fishing t assumed from Alaska Fish &
Game Statewide Harvest Study t 1981 data.Others assumed based on personal interv iews.
2.Derived by applying assumed percentage increase in annual per capita participation days and year 2000 projected regional
population to 1980 use.
3.Assumed doubling of 1980 capacity only.Capture rates as calculated in Note 2 would be 1.7%.
TABLE E.7.15
ESTIMATED RECREATION DEMAND
Assumed 1980 Use of
the Project Recrea-
tion1 Area,User
Days
Estimated 2000 Use
of the Project
Recreat ion Area
Without Susitna
Hydroelectric P~o
ject,User Days
Big Game
Hunting
BOO
1,300
Waterfowl
Hunting
100
170
freshwater
fishing
1,500
2,500
Developed
Camping
4,000
B,0003
Canoeing!
Kayaking Hiking
200
370
Picnicking
X-Country
Skiing
100
220
Total
6,700
12,540
Estimated 2000 Use
of the Project
Recreation Area With
Susitna Hydroelectric
Project Proposed
Recreatio~Plan,
User Days
2,200-
2,400 170
4,BOO-
5,200
12,000-
14,000 100 5 12,000614,000
12,000614,000 350 6 43,520
NOTES:1.Project Recreation Area is the area enclosed by the Parks Highway,Nenana River,the Susitna River to the east,and about
20 miles south of the Susitna River.
2.Derived by applying assumed percentage increases in annual per capita participation days and projected regional population
increase to 19BO use.
3.Assumed doubling of 19BO capacity only.Demand as calculated in Note 2 would be 9,700.
4.EDAW estimate.
5.Decreases due to impacts on resource.
6.Same as developed camping.
J J ]J ,I I "
,I !J J J J I I }
TABLE E.7.16
ANNUAL RECREATION VISITOR DAYS -DENALI NATIONAL PARK
Year
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
Recreation
Days
44,528
88,615
137,418
161,427
160,600
157,612
170,031
222,993
251 ,105
216,361
256,493
~~Increase
Since 1971
99%
209%
263%
261~~
254%
282%
401%
464%
386~~
476~~
\~
Source:U.S.National Park Service,Robert Gerhardt,personal
communication,10/20/82
-------------------------------------
TABLE E.7.17
MAJOR RECREATION FACILITIES AS PRESENTLY PROGRAMMED
INTERH R FACILI TIES EXTERIOR FACILITIES
Rec Hall Clubhouse Gym Swim Pool Baseball I Softball I Football I Hocke~
Watana---
25,000 4,000
•Single Status Camp 20,500 400 40,000 11,500
45,500 4";4U"i1
3,600 Workers
•Village &Townsite
1,120 Temp.Pop.8,000 0 10,000 10,000 Not Specified
350 Temp.Familie!
•125 Perm.Families Not Specified
Devil Canyon
•Single Status Camp 20,500 3,200 40,000 12,5000
1,780 Workers
•Village 8,000 0 10,000 10,000 Not Specified
550 Temp.Pop.
170 Workers
(families)
Source:Susitna Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Report,Vol.J,March 1982.
J .,!)I i I J J J .J I
}j J }j 1 1 »1 l!~'!~t 1 }~iI
TABLE E.7.18
RECRE~!lON PLANfQB CONSTRUCTION CAMPS,VILLAGES,AND PERMANENT TOWNSITE
Watana Family Watana Permanent Devil Canyon
Recommended Recreation Watana Single Status Village Townsite Devil Canyon Family Status
Plan for Construction Status Camp 350 Families 125 Families Single Status Camp Village
Camps,Villages,and 3,480 Workers 1,120 Population 400 Population 1,780 Workers 170 Families
Permanent Townsite Peak 1990-91 Peak 1990-91 Post 1992 Peak 1997 550 PopUlation
Inter ior Uses
•Gymnasium
Basketball/Volleyball X X ®school X X
Track X X ®school X X
Weight/Exercise Room X X ®school X X
Tennis
Swimming Pool X X ®school X X
Sauna/Steam Room/Jacuzzi X X ®school X X
Shower/Locker Rooms X X ®school X X
•Recreat ion Hall
Movie/Multi-purpose Space X X ®school X X
Lounge/Video Tape Viewing X X X X
Game Room-Darts/Video
Games/Cards X X X X
Hobby Room/Workshop X X X X
Community Greenhouse X X
Rest Rooms X X X X
Darkroom X X X X
Auto Workshop
(if pr ivate cars allowed)X X
•Clubhouse
Library/Reading Room X X ®school X X
Snack 8ar/Vending Machines X X X X
Bowling Alley X X X X X
Convenience/Sundry Store X X X X X
Post Office X X X X X
Bank X X X X X
Rest Rooms X X X X X
TABLE E.7.18 (Cont'd)
Watana Family Watana Permanent Dev il Canyon
Recommended Recreation Watana Single Status Village Townsite Devil Canyon Family status
Plan for Construction Status Camp 350 Families 125 Fami lies Single Status Camp Village
Camps,Villages,and 3,480 Workers 1,120 Population llOO Populat ion 1,780 Workers 170 Families
Permanent Townsite Peak 1990-91 Peak 1990-91 Post 1992 Peak 1997 550 Population
Exterior Uses
Baseball X X ®school X X
Softball X X ®school X X
Football/Soccer/Lacrosse X X @ school X X
Basketball/Volleyball X X @ school X X
Tennis X X If!]school X X
Picnic/Barbecue Area X X
Playground/Totlot X @ school X
Allotment Garden X X X X
Community Park X
Ice Hockey Rink On football field On football field
Handball/Squash X X X X X
Non-Structural Activities
Ice Skating/Hockey ®Lakes If!]Lakes ®Lakes
Ice Boating ®Lakes ®Lakes ®Lakes
Hiking/Jogging Trails X X X X X
Regulated Fishing X X X X X '
Cross Crountry Ski Trails X X X X X
Canoe/Kayak/Sailboat Areas X X X X X'
Rock Hounding X X X X X
Gold Panning X X X X X
Snowshoeing X X X X X
Sledding X X X X X
Source:EDAW,Inc.
••I J I ,I ,-!,J I I t I I t .J t J I
TABLE E.7.19
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS FOR THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT RECREATION PLAN
Capital Costs
1983 Dollars
Phase One
Phase Two
Phase Three
Phase Four
Total Facilities
Phase Five,if developed
565,836
1,136,354
18B,759
891,251
$2,651,547*
$354,476
-
*These estimates are based upon January 1,1983 cost figures.
TABLE £.7.20
ESTIMATED COSTS OF RECREATION PLAN PROJECT FEATURES (Cont'd)
NOTE:Assumes no land acquisition costs for
unappropriated state or federal lands.
Land acquisition costs for pr ivate
land not included.
TABLE E.7.21:ADDITIONAL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT TO BE PURCHASED FOR
OPERATION AND MAINTENAI\CE AS PART CF THE SUSITNA HYDRO-
ELECTRIC PROJECT RECREA TlON PLAN -1983 $
Facilities &:Total Cost
Phase Equipment Unit Cost 1983 $
ONE pickup $11,000 $11,000
tools 500 500
supplies 4,000 4,000
$15,500
(~TWO 2 pickups 11,000 22,000
tools 1,000 1,000
supplies 4,000 4,000
management center*
ff!<'Y2 (1 SOD sq ft)
shop and star age*
(3500 sq ft)
$27,000
THREE no additional °
FOUR pickup 11,000 11,000
suppl ies 15,000 4,000
$15,000
TOTAL (PHASES 1 -4 )$57,500-
*to be prov ided by APA in project buildings
--------=-""_.._-"---~..._--------""-,------------------------
TABLE £.7.22:ADDITIONAL STAFF REQUIRED AND ANNUAL STAFF EXPENSES TO
OPERATE AND MAINTAIN SUS ITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
RECREATION FACILITIES
TOTAL ANNUAL STAFF COST DURING EACH PHASE:
Phase
ONE
TWO
THREE
FoLR
Job Class
1 park technician,6 mos.
uniform allowance
+25%oorninistration costs
2 park t echn ic ians,6 mos.
1 rang er,12 mos.
uni fo rm allowance
+25%administration costs
no add it ion al staff
ranger,12 mos.
park technician,6 mos.
+25%administration costs
Phase
One
Two
Three
Four
Annual Cost
1983 $
10,500
300
2,700
$13,500
21,000
28,800
900
$58,800
14,700
$75,5Ob/year
$28,800
10,500
39,300
9,800
$49,100
1983 $
$13,500
87,000
87,000
136,100
-
-
-
-
-.
INTRINSIC 3
RECREATION
POTENTIAL
-quality
-attractions
-access
-features
(SITE INVENTORY)
STUDY 1 EXISTING RECREATION 2 4 5 6
OBJECTIVES -location RECREATION DESIGNATE
-management -access OPPORTUNITY RECREATION
objectives -type EVALUATION SITES
I'"'"-use -quality of sites -priori ty-agency PHASING
objec,tives -durabil i ty -content
-recreation 2 -variety &use IMPLEMENTATION
goals RECREATION -need and demand -obj ecti ves
,e<-..,USER NEEDS -site capacity -demand COSTS
-demand numbers -management -site details
-user profile objectives -capacity
-operational char-(THE PLAN)
acteri stics
r~
STUDY METHODOLOGY
Figure 7j
.~
·~~~_n:._""',j'·•••"'""""""~"""'i'."""''''-=-------~----~-------"'------------"I'""'"-
'-"l"":.-,.,-....
.'-or;
r
PROPOSED PROJECT
FEATURES.Figure Z2
_L-_~.__...~..--t--..."..._~.....,.,::/"~t.
".
"
~...-J'::.'.
'...~1"_",;~;::r--;:~
';.•':.:..i:
..~
EXISTING-P1E.C~E.ATIO~
LEGEND
(JJ HIKING ~TAKE-OUT POINT •~"'P'\U e...-aU P')e:.~
,..,..,m BOATING ~PUT-IN POINT •••••'PO?-\TA c.:::r E.If"1AIL-
~CAMPING m PHOTOGRAPHY .EXl~TIt---.JGr P'\OAD5
~HUNTING II SHELTER •TOWN'::,
==FISHING ---~OUL:fH nOA.D~
a WILDLIFE
FLYING -rP"'lAI Leo~.........-
t:I BIRD WATCHING MOOSE
~~i CROSS COUNTRY ~CARIBOU
SKIING CO~ROCK HUNTING SHEEP
~SNOW MACHINING ~DUCK/GOOSE
fIj ~'.'SNOWSHOEING BROWN BEAR
,,,",,,,,~rm MOUNTAINEERING BLACK BEAR
==OFF-ROAD DRIVING
~HORSEBACK RIDING
g DOG SLEDDING
~BERRY PICKING
~._------~----------------------------------------~
---------.----------------------------------
-
~E.G~E:ATJON
LEGEND
PLA~
rJI HI,KING ~TAKE-QUT POINT
~BOATING ~PUT-IN POINT
~CAMPING m PHOTOG RAPHY
~HUNTING iii SHELTER
=FISHING
WILDLIFE~FLYING
~BIRD WATCHING ~MOOSE
f;i CROSS COUNTRY ~CARIBOU
SKIING ~~ROCK HUNTING SHEEP
~SNOW MACHINING (g DUCK/GOOSE
~~'.'SNOWSHOEING BROWN BEAR
~MOUNTAINEERING ~BLACK BEAR
==OFF·ROAD DRIVING •c:..A.M PC::t P'1 aUNt::'=::.
C HORSEBACK RIDING )VIE:'JV~
e!DOG SLEDDING ---\F\~IL-'::::>
~BERRY PICKING Pp'-opose:..o "P"lOAD
-
EC ATIO
Flgur
LAN
7j3
RECREATIO p~,...
Flgur 7.:14
.'
7.1
o
r-__~I
\
7.16
TO T USENA CR c
\
),
7.17
,
.'
,.
7.18
..
....
,
7.19
"'.
DE:ADMAN QIl."""''''
----------------:-----=-----=-=---~------='
r
J------
7.20
• I
<'.
. 1
,....
...1:1
~~SKI AREA'Y'J X-COUNTJIY ~
~~
7.22
'l
9
.'"
<\E R'iol
123
STEPHAN L KI:
P
.24
~:-.~--,......
-'~
.f .'e.,_,
,----,.!
"---7
.32/
{--->
r~-'5
.,LF 0 f k
!"...-
8
,\
/'.
,
\
..;.~J.;.
"i
...1
"-
..',-~~../~-
'"-
--1·
I
.9
'..---.-
33
i_,
..-::/
-~~._..._-
"~~,-...--
",/'---,/
~····t-.:l-:-··_.._..
j'J,/ •-:1-/
7.25
Photo E.?l Middle Fork of Chulitna River;view to
the south through Caribou Pass
Photo E.?2 Butte Creek;Susitna Bridge on the Susitna
River
...--........-
Photo E.7.3
Photo E.7.4
Watana Townsite
Brushkana Camp
Photo E.7.5 Tsusena Creek;view west into the Tsusena
Creek drainage from the Chulitna Mountains
Photo E.7.6 Tsusena Creek
Photo E.??Mid-Chulitna Mountains;looking south at
lake
Photo E.?8 Mid-Chulitna Mountains
Photo E.7.9 Mid-Chulitna Mountains
Photo E.7.l0 Tsusena Butte;looking south toward
Tsusena Lakes from Tsusena Creek
Photo E.7.ll Deadman Lake/Big Lake;view north between
the lakes
Photo E.7.l2 Deadman Lake;view looking northeast
Photo E.7.13 Big Lake;view toward south end
Photo E.7.14 Clarence Lake;Gilbert Creek view west
Photo E.7.15 Kosina Creek;view north along creek
Photo E.7.16 Watana Lake; view toward the north
Photo E.7.17 Fog Lakes;view toward the east
.....
Photo E.7.18 Fog Lakes;view south toward the
Ta 1 keetna Range
Photo E.7.l9 Stephan Lake;view toward the south
Photo E.7.20 Devils Creek;view along Devils Creek
TO BE ADDED AT A LATER DATE
Photo E.7.2l Devils Creek;Devils Creek Falls
Photo E.7.22 Devils Creek;Devils Creek Falls
Photo E.7.23 Mermaid Lake;south end of lake
Photo E.7.24 Mermaid Lake,north end of lake
Photo E.7.25 Devil Canyon Damsite;view of Susitna
River from the Portage Creek confluence
Photo E.7.26 Soule Creek;view toward the west of
Soule Lake
Photo E.7.27 Soule Creek;upper Soule Creek
Canyon viewing toward the east
Photo E.7.28 Southern Chulitna Mountains;viewing
southeast from lake
Photo E.7.29 Southern Chulitna Mountains;viewing
eastward into the Chulitna
Mountains
J i j 1 1 )ti 1 I .~1 -}1 }
Site Development
APPENDIX 7A
(a)
Location
REGIONAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Managing Agency Area Accommodations
Susitna Area Recreation Developments
High Lake Lodge and Airstrip
Stephan Lake Lodge and
Airstrip
Tsusena Lake
Lodge and Airstrip
5 kilometers (3 miles)
N.E.of Devil Canyon
damsite at High Lake
16 km (10 miles)S.W.
of Watana damsite at
Stephan Lake
16 km (10 miles)N.W.
of Watana damsite at
Tsusena Lake
Private
Private
Private
45 hectares
(111 acres)
17 hectares
(42 acres)
20 hectares
(49 acres)
8 units
24 units
8 units
Denali Highway Recreation Development
Brushkana River Campground Denali Highway,Mile 105 Bureau of Land Management 19 hectares 17 campsites
(47 acres)
(b)
Adventures Unlimited Denali Highway,Mile 100 Pr ivate Unknown Unkown
Lodge &Cafe
Gracious House Cabins,Denali Highway,Mile 82 Pr ivate Unknown Unknown
Cafe,Guide Services
Clearwater Creek Denali Highway,Mile 55.9 Bureau of Land Management 8 hectares No development
Camping Area (20 acres)
Tangle lakes Campgrounds Denali Highway,Mil e 21.5 Bureau of Land Management 16 hectares 13 campsites
and Boat Launch (47 acres)
Upper Tangle Lakes Denali Highway,Mile 21.7 Bureau of Land Managemeant 10 hectares 7 campsites
Campground and Boat Launch (25 acres)
Parks Highway Recreation Areas
Mt.McKinley View Lodge
McKinley KOA
Denali National Park
and Preserve
Parks Highway,Mile 325.8
Parks Highway,Mile 248
Parks Highway,Mile 237.7
Private
Private
National Park Service
Unknown
Unknown
2,306,790
(5.7 m.acres)
Unknown
70'campsites
228 units
APPENDIX 7A REGIONAL RECREATIONAL fACILITIES (Cont'd)
Site Development
(a)
Location Managing Agency Area Accommodations
Parks Hi.ghway Recreation Areas (Cont'd)
McKinley Village Motel,
Restaurant
North face Lodge
Grizzly Bear Camper Park
Campground,Raft Trips
Carlo Creek Lodge
East Fork Rest Area
Chulitna River Lodge &Cafe
Cabins,Fly-in Fishing,
Glacier Trips,Raft Trips
Mt.McKinley View Lodge
Montana Creek Lodge
Campground,Cabins
Willow Creek Recreation Area
Willow Creek Wayside
Nancy Lake Recreation Area
Nancy Lake Wayside
South Rolly Lake Campground
Houston Campground
Big Lake,South and
East Waysides
Parks Highway,Mile 231.1
Mt.McKinley Park Road
Parks Highway,Mile 231.1
Parks Highway,Mile 223.9
Parks Highway,Mile 185.7
Parks Highway,Mile 156.2
Parks Highway,Mile 134.5
Parks Highway,Mile 96.5
Parks Highway,Mile 71.2
Parks Highway,Mile 71.2
Parks Highway,Mile 67.2
Parks Highway,Mile 66.6
Parks Highway,Mile 67
Parks Highway,Mile 57.3
Parks Highway,Mile 52.3
Private.
Private
Private
Private
Alaska Division of Parks
Private
Private
Private
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Alaska Division of Parks
Community of Houston
Alaska Division of Parks
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
97 hectares
(240 acres)
36 hectares
(90 acres)
9,181 hectares
(22,685 acres)
14 hectares
(35 acres)
Unknown
32 hectares
(80 acres)
14 hectares
(35 acres)
Unknown
15 campsites
Unknowl
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
17 campsites
136 campsites
30 campsites
30 picnic sites
106 campsites
20 picnic sites
42 campsites
28 campsites
8 picnic sites
)I J 1 .,.J _.1 1 J J f J .1 t
i }J
APPENDIX 7A
-ci
REGIONAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (Cont'd)
1 I i ~1 J
Site Development
(a)
Location Managing Agency Area Accommodations
Parks Highway Recreation Areas (Cont'd)
Finger Lake Wayside Parks Highway,North of Alaska Division of Parks 19 hectares 14 campsites
Restaurant Wasilla (47 acres)
Rocky Lake Wayside Parks Highway,Mile 52.3 Alaska Division of Parks 19 hectares 10 campsites
(48 acres)
Denali State Park Parks Highway,Mile 132 Alaska Division of Parks 170,427 hectares Unknown
to 169 (421,120 acres)
Tokositna Parks Highway,West of Alaska Division of Parks 17 ,095 hectares
Mile 135 (43,240 acres)Undeveloped
Byers Lake Rest Area Parks Highway,Mile 147.2 Alaska Division of Parks Unknown Unknown
Byers lake Wayside Parks Highway,Mile 147 Alaska Division of Parks Unknown 61 campsites
15 picnic sites
Recreation Areas Along the Glenn Highway
Lake Louise Recreation Area
Lake Louise Wayside
ToIsona Creek Wayside
Little Nelchina Wayside
Matanuska Glacier Wayside
Long lake Recreation Area
Long Lake Wayside
Bonnie Lake Recreation Area
Glenn Highway,Mile 157 Alaska Division of Parks
Glenn Highway,West of Alaska Division of Parks
Glennallen
Glenn Highway,Mile 172.5 Alaska Division of Parks
Glenn Highway,Mile 137.4 Alaska Division of Parks
Glenn Highway,Mile 101 Alaska Division of Parks
Glenn Highway,Mile 85 Alaska Division of Parks
Glenn Highway,East of Alaska Division of Parks
Palmer
Glenn Highway,Mile 82.5 Alaska Division of Parks
.35 hectares Unknown
(90 acres)
20 hectares 6 campsites
(50 acres)
243 hectares 5 campsites
(600 acres)
9 hectares 6 campsites
(22 acres)
94 hectares 6 campsites
(23'1 acres)
194 hectares Unknown
(480 acres)
151 hectares 8 campsites
072 acres)
52 hectares Unknown
(129 acres)
APPENDIX 7A REGIONAL RECREATIONAL fACILITIES (Cont'd)
Site Development
(a)
Location Managing Agency Area Accommodations
Recreation Areas Along the Glenn Highway (Cont'd)
Bonnie Lake Wayside Glenn Highway,Northeast Alaska Division of Parks 1 J hectares 8 campsites
of Palmer (31 acres)
King Mountain Wayside Glenn Highway,Mile 76.1 Alaska Division of Parks 8 hectares 22 campsites
(20 acres)2 picnic sites
Moose Creek Wayside Glenn Highway,Mile 54.7 Alaska Division of Parks 16 hectares 8 campsites
(40 acres)'
Mirror Lake Wayside Glenn Highway,Mile 23.5 Alaska Division of Parks 36 hectares 30 campsites
(90 acres)
Peters Creek Wayside Glenn Highway,Mile 21.5 Alaska Division of Parks 21 hectares 32 campsites
(52 acres)
Richardson Highway Recreation Areas
Black Rapids Picnic Area
Summit Lake Lodge -Motel,
Restaurant,Airstrip,
Guide Service
Richardson Highway,
Mile 225.4
Richardson Highway,
Mile 195
Alaska Department of
Transportation
Private
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Paxson Lake Wayside
Paxson Lake Campground
and Boat Cavern
Dry Creek Recreation Area
Dry Creek Wayside
Sourdough Creek
Campground
Richardson Highway,
Mile 179.4
Richardson Highway,
Mile 175
Richardson Highway,
Mile 117.5
Richardson IHghway,
Northeast of Glennallen
Richardson Highway,
Mile 147.4
Bureau of Land Management 1.6 hectares 4 ,campsites
(4 acres)
Bureau of Land Management 16 hectares 20 campsites
(40 acres)
Alaska Division of Parks 151 hectares Unknown
(372 acr'es)
Alaska Division of Parks 52 hectares 58 campsites
(128 acres)4 picnic sites
Alaska Division of Parks 65 hectares 20 campsites
(160 acres)
J t 1 J J I J J I t J J ,
t 1 ~]1 1 ~.~~1 }1
APPENDIX 7A REGIONAL RECREATIONAL fACILITIES (Contld)
Site Development
Other Recreation in the Region
(a)
Location Managing Agency Area Accommodations
Chugach State Park East of Anchorage Alaska Division of Parks 200,3Z7hectares Unknown
(49S,OOO acres)
Knik Wayside
Talkeetna Riverside
Boat Launch
Independence Mine
IIistoric Area
Approx.64 km (40 miles)
North of Anchorage
Talkeetna
Hatcher Pass Road
Unknown
u.S.Coast Guard
Alaska Division of Parks
16 hectares
(40 acres)
O.B hectares
(2 acres)
'11 0 hectares
(271 acres)
Unknown
Unknown
Undeveloped
(a)Locations of site developments taken from the 19BO Milepost.
(b)This list is not an all inclusive list of privately-run facilities,but only a representation
of most types of recreational opportunities offered by the private sector.
Source:Susitna Hydroelectric Project feasibility Report,Volume 2 Environmental Report,
Section 7 Recreational Resources.
)J }1 I I 1 1 )I i ]'1 1 ~~
1 if E
APPENDI X.78
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Soule Creek Drainage
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mounta in Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White Water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoi rs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
L NOTATIONS
Spectacular views
Glacial features -valleys,etc.
Caribou,bear and Dall sheep
Soule Cr.and its lake source
Long linear lake -source of Soule Cr.
Soule Cr.-nearby Brushkana Cr.-Jack R.
Tundra with some mixed forest
Proposed walk-in camp at Soule Cr.Lake
Canoeing on lake
Trail from North Access Road along Soule Cr.to
Jack R.and Caribou Pass to Cantwell or Tsusena Cr.
Trail heads north and south along access road and from
Cantwell
Potential at Soule Cr.Lake
Ice fishing and x-country skiing
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Jack River Drainage to Cantwell
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
r~ountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fi shing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White Water
Ri vers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoi rs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access**
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
H
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
L NOTATIONS
Spectacular mountains
Glacial features -carved valleys
Moose,caribou,bear and Dall sheep
Jack R.and tributaries and la~es
Potential
Several large lakes
Tundra -mostly and some mixed forest
Potential
Recommend primitive camping only
May be possible to kayak down river from confluence
with Soule Cr.
Proposed trail along Soule Cr.and through Caribou Pass
to Cantwell or to Tsusena Cr.
Trail head from 2 points along the North/South Ac-
cess Road at Cantwell
X-country skiing for experienced people
**Caribou Pass is an existing route for people
traveling through this area.
I J )I',_I .1 J •J
)I ]J i j 1 )I ?i n l l ~1 j
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mounta in Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cl iffs/Bl uffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White Water
R-j vers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoi rs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Wi nter Sports
**There are existing non-defined
routes through Tsusena Cr.drainage
and into or from Caribou Pass and
to or from Cantwell
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
**
Tsusena Creek Drainage
NOTATIONS
Elevations range from 2600'to 5800'
Glacier in mountains North of Tsusena Cr.
Valley -floor is approximately 1 mile wide
Moose and bear -Dall sheep in mountains
Grayl i ng and trout
Potential
East side of Tsusena Butte
Some white water
Tsusena Cr.and tributaries
Along water course
Tundra -on mountain slopes and mixed forest on valley
floor
Diverse vegetation types
Drains into Susitna below Watana Dam site
Non-developed -primitive
Proposed trail through valley and continuing along
Jack R.and Caribou Pass
North Access Road near Tsusena Butte
At lake side of Tsusena Butte and from Cantwell and the
North-North Access Road near Brushkana Cr.
At an additional trail head site*
X-country skiing,ice fishing and snowmobiling
*Proposed trail follows Soule Cr.
to Caribou Pass.
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Mountain Area West of Proposed North/South Access Route
Midway/West of Deadman Mountain
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White Water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoirs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Tra 11 s/Tra 11 Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Wi nter Sports
H M L NOTATIONS
X Excellent mountain views
X
X
X
X
X
X Caribou,Dall sheep and bear
X Lakes with outlets
X
X Only one of any significant size -good number of small
ones -scenic
X Nearby Brushkana Cr.
X Nearby Brushkana Cr.and tributaries
X Valley floors
X Tundra
X
Proposed walk-in camp at larger lake
From North Access Road to lake and overlooks*
Trail head at about midway North Access Road
X-country skiing
*Overlook areas/points should be attempted only by those
with good hiking skills -knowledge of terrain in this area
or similar.Potentially dangerous.
I J J I f }I ,
1 J I 1 l )'\~,7)1 ~1 ]
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Mountain Area Immediately North of Tsusena Butte and
West of the Proposed North Access Road
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Glaci ers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White Water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
L
X
NOTATIONS
Very high scenic quality
Caribou and Dall sheep
Larger lakes with outlets
Potential
Northeast of Tsusena Lake toward Deadman Lake
Tundra and willow
Dams/Reservoi rs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visi tor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Wi nter Sports
Proposed walk-in camp at lake
Potential for lake boat launch
*Proposed trail west from North Access Road
North Access Road trail head or by float plane
Potential if not existing
Ice fishing and x-country skiing
*Potentially dangerous hiking to overlook points.Good
skills (hiking)and knowledge of similar terrain tra-
versing are recommended.
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Tsusena Butte Area
X Bear and moose -Tsusena Cr.
X Grayling and lake trout
X
X East side of Tsusena Butte
X
X Tsusena Cr.
X Near lakes
X Mixed forest -Tsusena Cr.
X Potential Tundra
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mounta in Peaks
Gl aei ers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White Water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoi rs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Wi nter Sports
H
X
M
X
X
X
L
X
X
X
NOTATIONS
View to mountains
Tsusena Butte -landmark
Proposed campground at lake
Existing boat launch
Hunting/fishing cabin
Proposed trail to lake and along creek
North Access Road -float plane
Fly-in float plane -existing
Ice fishing
)!l I ,l t,1 ,I r I I
)1 1 ~j 1 !~,f }J }1 1 -"J 1,j
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
X Better known for fishing -caribou
X Grayling and lake trout
X Potential -big game,waterfowl and raptors -eagles
X Big Lake -largest in study area
X Deadman Cr.
X Near lakes and streams
X Tundra -marshland
X Potential
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White Water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoi rs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Wi nter Spo rts
H
X
M
x
L
x
X
X
X
Big Lake and Deadman Lake Area
NOTATIONS
Views to mountains
Big Lake -proposed
Walk-in canoe
Trail from North Access Road
Good access -North Access Road
Possible to land on both lakes
Ice fishing and x-country skiing
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Butte Creek Drainage
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mounta in Peaks
Gl aci ers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White Water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoi rs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
H M
X
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
X
X
X
X
X
**
NOTATIONS
Immediate area is not spectacular -vie\'Is are fair to good
Broad,flat valley primarily
Moose,bear and caribou
Grayling -lake trout at Butte Lake
Butte Lake -large number of small lakes -Snodgrass Lake
Insignificant .
Tributaries/Butte Cr.-close to Watana Cr.
Most of the drainage is in a flat,poorly drained area -
large percentage of bogs
Mixed forest and tundra (upland slopes)
Recommend primitive
Butte Lake
Existing sport lodges at Butte Lake
Potential for trail from Big Lake to Susitna River bridge
on Denali Highway
North Access Road or Susitna River bridge on Denali Highway
Big Lake -Deadman Lake or Visitor Information Service
X-country skiing,snowmobiling
**Comparatively,area is not very scenic -linear land-
scape with few areas of significant interest.Might
best be developed for hunting access.
»J J J J I )J ~J _I
1 J .~]\}oJ ]_k.,"J 1 )1 }1 ~1 1
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Clarence Lake Area
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Gl aci ers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White Water
Ri vers /Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoi rs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
H
x
M
x
x
X
L
X
X
X
X
NOTATIONS
Distance views to mountains
Caribou
Lake trout at lake and grayling
Clarence Lake -long and linear
Gilbert Cr.&nearby Kosina Cr.
Most of the area is very wet
Primarily tundra and willow
Tundra
South of proposed Watana Res.
Existing launch at lake
Existing sport lodge
None recommended
Float plane -one could walk in along Clarence Lake
drainage outlet to Susitna-Watana Reservoir;however t
it is very wet
Existing at lake
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Watana Lake Area
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoi rs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
I~inter Sports
H
x
X
X
M
x
x
X
X
L
X
X
X
X
NOTATIONS
Mt.Watana 6255 1
Moose,bear and caribou
Watana Lake and its outlet -lake trout,etc.
Potential -spotted waterfowl and eagles
Watana
Nearby Susitna R.,Kosina and Tsisi creeks
Tundra and willow -small amount of mixed forest -marsh
South of proposed Watana Reservoir
Existing boat launch at lake
Existing sport lodge
Potential for trail around south side of Mt.Watana to
link with proposed trail through mountains to Fog Lakes
Float plane or trail from Fog Lakes
Existing at lake
J J J t J ,1 ~...1 ,J J J ~J ..!-I31
1 i 1 J 1 J 1 J \.1·i }I '},
1 ]
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Mountains (immediately south and east of
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Gl aci ers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Ci rques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botani ca 1 Interes t Sites
Dams/Reservoi rs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Infonmation Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
L NOTATIONS
Spectacular peaks -rugged mtns.
Permanent snow
Glacier-formed valleys,etc.
A number of crystal-clear cirque lakes
Caribou,bear and Dall sheep
Small waterfalls
X Lower valley areas
Tundra
Tundra
Views to proposed reservoir sites
Primitive -recommended
None
None
Proposed loop trail from Fog Lakes -also from Watana Lake
Float plane to Fog Lakes or from proposed trail head at
Watana Dam
If not existing -recommended
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING f.Q9..Lakes Area
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mounta in Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Ci rques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoi rs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Vi s itor Informati on Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
H
x
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
NOTATIONS
Excellent views to mountains
Moose,bear and caribou
Fog Lakes -lake trout,etc.
Fog Creek
Area is very wet
Moderately dense mixed forest-willows and tundra
Diverse vegetation types
South of proposed Watana Dam &Reservoir
Primitive
Proposed trail head at Watana Dam
Float plane -see above -also proposed trail from
Stephan Lake and Devil Canyon Reservoir
I J J I 1 I J !J J J J
1 1 1 J 1 r I 1\--1 -l 1 ~1 1 I 1
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mounta in Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Ci rques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/White water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botani ca 1 Interes t Sites
Daills/Reservoi rs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Winter Sports
H
x
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
Stephan Lake Area
NOTATIONS
Views
Moose,bear and caribou
Fog Lakes and Prairie Cr.-salmon,lake trout,etc.
Second largest in study area
Prairie Cr.**
Prairie Cr.and lake outlets
Low areas
Mixed forest
South of proposed Devil Canyon Reservoir
Recommended primitive
Existing boat launch
Existing high use sport lodge
Proposed trail through area to or from Devil Canyon Dam
and Fog Lakes
Float plane -trail head at Devil Canyon Dam,trail access
from Devil Canyon Reservoir northeast of lake and from
trail head at Watana Dam
Existing**
**According to Alaska Dept.of Natural Resources Susitna
Basin Land use/Rec.Atlas,there is an existing float
plane-use lake southwest of Stephan Lake.Prairie Cr.
is also identified as a canoeing/rafting resource.
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Devil Canyon Damsite to Watana Dam Site along South Side
of Susitna River
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Gl aci ers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfall s
White water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
H
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
L
X
X
NOTATIONS
Good views primarily to mountains to the north
Susitna River valley -Devil Canyon
Moose,bear and caribou
Tributaries of Susitna,Stephan and and Fog Lakes
Large number -Stephan Lake and fog Lakes are the most
significant
Tributaries to Susitna River
Tributaries to Susitna River
Tributaries to Susitna River
Dense mixed forest -tundra on uplands
Potential
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Wi nter Sports
Dams/Reservoi rs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Views to both proposed dams and reservoirs
Proposed walk-in camp directly south of Devil Creek at
lakes
~I,1Jt
Ice fishing and x-country skiing
Existing abandoned structure at campsite lake
Along the south side of reservoir staying up high above
the reservoir a proposed trail from Devil Canyon Dam to
Stephan Lake to Fog Lakes and to Watana Dam
Trailhead at both damsites or float plane to a number of
lakes in the area
Potenti a1
Both damsites
JJJI
J 1 1 ~1 j J "r'
!)i J ]!
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Lakes Area Northeast of Devil Canyon Dam
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Ci rques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfall s/white water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoi rs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facil Hies
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Wi nter Sports
H
x
x
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
X
X
NOTATIONS
Views to mountains
Moose,caribou and bear
Lakes
Potential
High scenic quality -large to small
Close to Devil Canyon and Portage Cr.
Primarily tundra and willow -some mixed forest
Tundra and other alpine species
Just north of Devil Canyon Dam and Reservoir
Proposed campground near East-West Access Road
Walk-in canoe use at lakes
Close to High Lakes Lodge
Proposed loop trail through lakes
East-West Access Road near Devil Canyon Dam
Ice fishing and x-country skiing
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Devil Creek Drainage
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS
Mountain Peaks
G1 aci ers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Ta 1us Slope/Rock Envi ronment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/white water
Rivers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoi rs
Campg rou nds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trail Head
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Vi sitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
Wi nter Sports
H
x
x
M
x
X
L
X
X
X
X
X
NOTATIONS
Vertical canyon in areas
Salmon,grayling below falls
Most spectacular falls in area
Devil Cr.
Proposed overlook trail from High Lakes
Devil Canyon Dam Road
J J j J -cID I ).f .1 J ."I I J I
J )}]1 i J j ..)I ]E 1
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Portage Creek Drainage
SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS H M L NOTATIONS
Mounta in Peaks
Glaciers
Geological Interest Sites
Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs
Talus Slope/Rock Environment
Cirques
Rock/Mineral Collection Sites
Big Game Hunting Habitats
Fishing Habitats
Wildlife Observation Areas
Lakes
Waterfalls/white water
Ri vers/Streams
Bogs
Vegetation Patterns
Botanical Interest Sites
Dams/Reservoi rs
Campgrounds
Boating Facilities
Resorts/Lodges
Trails/Trailhead
Access
Float Plane Facilities
Visitor Information Service
Historical/Archeological Sites
I~inter Sports
x
Steep,narrow river canyon
X Potential
X
X Salmon,trout and grayling
.X
X X Fast -white water
X Very sceni c
X Mixed forest -spruce and aspen
X
Proposed put~in kayak
Trail down to Portage Cr.
Devil Canyon Dam Road East and West
8 -AESTHETIC RESOURCES
SUSIINA HYUKUELECIKIC PKOJECI
t.XHIIH I E
VOLUME 4 CHAPTER 8
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 -INTROUUC r ION •.......................•............•.........E-8-1
1.1 -Purpose E-8-1
1.2 -Relationship to Other Reports ....•..............•....E-8-1
1.3 -Environmental Setting E-8-1
2 -METHOUOLUGY •••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••.•.•••.••E-B-5
2.1 --Procedure '1 ••••••••••••••••E-8-5
~.2 -Definitions E-8-7
~.J -Project Faci lities E-8-8
3 -EXISTING ENVIRONMENT E-8-14
3.1 -Landscape Character Types E-8-14
3.2 --Viewer Sensitivity E-8-34
3.3 -Aesthetic Value Rating and Absorptlon
Capability Rating ...............•....................1::.-8-J/
3.4 --Composite Ratings E-8-4.3
4 -AESTHETIC IMPACrS E-8-4b
4.1 -Relationship Between Proposed Facilities and
the Inherent Quality of the Landscape E-8-45
4.2 -Mitigation Planning E-8-45
4.3 --Impact .summary E-8-46
5 -PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES E-8-97
6 -AESTHEIIC IMPACT EVALUATION OF THE INTERTIE E-8-107
7 -AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED
REFERENCES
LIST OF FIGURES
APPENDICES
E-8-114
-
-
....
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure £.8.1 -Regional Map
.Fi gure E.8.2 -Methodology Diagram
Fi.gure £.8.3 -Proposed Project Features
Fi gure E.8.4a -Landscape Character Types--Northern Stub
Figure E.8Ab -Landscape Character Types--SolJthern St IJb
Fi gure E.8.5 -Transmission Phasing Diagram
Fi gure E.8.6 Landscape Character Types--Susitna Bas in
-
8 -REPORT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
1 -INTRODUCTION
1.1 -Purpose
The purpose of the Sus itna Hydroelectric Project Report on Aesthet ic
Resources is to describe the aesthetic resources of the proposed pro-
ject area and the project design.The report outlines the expected
impacts of project development on those resources,and describes steps
to be taken during project construction and operation to prevent or
minimize degradation to the visual environment.~teps are also given
t'or methods to enhance the aesthetic and related resources of project
lands and waters.
1.2 -Relationships to Other Reports
This report is based,in part,upon the Project Description
in Exhibit A and Project Operations described in Exhibit B.
inputs to this plan can also be found in Exhibit E,Chapter
on Fish,Wildlife,and Botanical Resources,and Chapter 4,
Historic and Archaeological Resources.
1.3 -Environmental Setting
presented
Important
3,Report
Report on
(a)Regional Setting
The Susitna Hydroelectric Project area is primarily within the
State of Alaska's Southcentral Region,but also extends at least
100 mi north into what is known as the Interior Region (see Figure
E.8.1).
The Southcentral Region is geographically bounded by the Alaska
Range to the north and west,the Wrangell Mountains to the east,
and the Chugach Mountains and Gulf of Al aska to the south.Char-
acterized by rugged mountainous terrain,plateaus and broad river
valleys,the region is home to 55 percent of the State's popula-
tion (1982 Alaska Almanac).Anchorage,with nearly half of
Alaska's population and only 100 air miles from the project area,
is located near the northeast end of Cook Inlet in the ~outhcen
tral Region.
Mount McKinley,the state's single most significant geographical
feature,is located on the region's northwest border.Spruce hem-
lock and spruce-hardwood forests,wet lands,moi st and wet tundra
as well as plateau/uplands and a number of active glacier bedded
mountain valleys are other significant natural environments here.
In addition,this diversity of landscapes is complemented with a
wide variety of wildlife and flsheries.
The Interior Region is bordered by the Brooks Range to the north,
the Bering Sea coast to the west,the Canadian border to the east
and the Alaska Range to the south.It is generally characterlzed
E-8-l
--------------~---,
".,..
-
~
I
E--S-2
'fo~q.(•
i•i•i:
E3I;lIe\I
tl....-.....····..
REGIONAL MAP
Plate 8.1
-
.....
as a broad open landscape ot large brai ded and meanderi ng ri vers
and streams.River valleys are primari Iy vegetated with spruce-
hardwood forests gi vi ng way to tree less tundra and brush covered
highlands and large wetland areas.The Yukon River,which bisects
the Interior Region,is its single most significant natural fea-
ture.Again,as in the Southcentral region,wi Idlife and fish-
eries are as diverse as the landscape environments.
Fairbanks,100 air miles north of the project area,is Alaska1s
second largest urban center with around 30,000 residents.Due to
a harsh winter climate and general inaccesSlbillty other than by
air,the Interior Region is stifl predominantly a wilderness
area.
(b)Susitna River Basin
The Susitna River Basin is located entirely in the Southcentral
Region.The 39,000 square mi Ie area is bordered by the Alaska
Range to the north,the Chulitna and Talkeetna Mountains to the
west and south,and the northern Talkeetna plateau and Gu f kana
uplands to the €ast.
Although the basin is not considered as scenic in comparison to
other natural resources in Al aska,the aesthetic resources are
valued because of the basin's location between the two populatlon
centers of Anchorage and Fairbanks.
The basin has distinct and diverse combinations of landforms,
waterforms,vegetation and wi Idl ife species.The deep V-shaped
canyon of the Susitna River and tributary valleys,the Talkeetna
Mountai ns and up I and plateau to the east are the domi nant topo-
graphic forms.Elevations in the basin range from approximately
100 feet to over 6000 feet.Distinctive landforms include pano-
ramic tundra highlands,active and post glacial valleys,and num-
erous 1akes of both simp J e and comp Iex forms.The most we II known
features in the basin are the vertical walled Devil and Vee
Canyons on the Susitna River.Devil Canyon contains some of North
America1s roughest whitewater.
Seasonal changes in the basin,as throughout much of Alaska,are
very dramatic.Lush green summers are replaced by the red,orange
and golden colors of the tundra and hardwood species during the
short autumn.Snow,ice and below zero temperatures create a
harsh,threateni ng but sceni c wi nter Iandscape.Late Apr;I and
May brings ice breakups on the rivers and the once snow-and ice-
covered ground begins to come back to 1ife.The 1andscape turns
green again as the cycle repeats.
Other than the Susitna River itself,the silt-laden Maclaren and
Ushetna rivers,the clear Tyone River,Portage,Devi I,Fog,
Tsusena,Watana,Kosina,Jay and Butte creeks are the other major
drainages in the Susitna Basin.Scenic waterfalls,occur on
several of the creeks near their incised canyon confluences with
the Susitna River.The most notab Ie occur on Devi I Creek .
E-8-3
Spruce and mixed spruce-deciduous forests cover the bottom and
slopes of river and tributary valleys below 2,500 f-eet elevation
and west of the Oshetna River!Susitna confluence.Tundra and
muskeg replace the mixed forests to the east and on the highlands
with more drought resistant vegetation.Mountaln slopes are bare
or lightlY covered.
Wi ldlife species in the Susitna l:3asln lnclude Dafl sheep,moose,
caribou,and grizzly and black bears.Avian species include bald
and golden eagles,trumpeter swans,and numerous migratory water-
fow I.Fi sheri es of the area inc Jude a II flVe AI askan sa Imon
species,grayl ing,burbot,rainbow,and I ake trout.Because of
the extremely turbulent waters of Devil Canyon,salmon are gener-
ally only found below the canyon.
Existing access into the interior ot"the basin is generally
limited to hiking,float planes,aJI-terraln vehlcles (ATV),and
watercraft.Uenall Hlghway passes through the northern portion of
the basin linking the George Parks Highway to the west with the
Richardson Hi ghway to the east.Severa I short road!trai Is tra-
verse the tundra to mlnlng clalms and flshing!huntlng lodges.
Primary human use of the basin is recreational hunting and fishing
for subsistence use by local residents.Small mining operations
are also found in the basin.
In general,the Upper Susitna Basin is a relatively uninhabited
diverse environment with regionally important aesthetic values.
Any major project has the potential of creating significant
aesthetic impacts to the basin and to the SouthcentraJ and
Interior Regions.The lower Susitna Basin contains a significant
portion of the State1s population and development while retaining
extensive areas of both undeveloped and wilderness land.
E-8-4
-
""'"
-
..-
,..,..
2 -METHODOLOGY
2.1 -Procedure
Figur E.8.2 illustrates the methodology followed to produce this
report on Aesthetic Resources.Project resources were assessed
according to the following steps:
(a)Step 1
-Establish study objectives through consultation with key
agencies and project designers;
-Prepare a detai led work program and study out line;
-Review past Susitna Hydroelectric Project reports and other
related visual studies;
Perform ai r and ground reconnai ssance of the project area and
proposed facility/features sites;and
-Identify specific concerns of agencies and special interest
groups.
(b)Step 2
-Identify and analyze locatlOns,design and aesthetic character
of proposed project features.
(c)Step 3
-Identify and describe existing landscape character types wlthin
the study areas.
(d)Step 4
Identify viewer types and their estimated sensitivity to
Aesthetics.
(e)Step 5
-Assign Aesthetics Value Ratings to each landscape character
type based on the criteria of distinctiveness,uniqueness and
harmony/ba lance.
(f)Step 6
-Rate the absorption capability of landscape character types
according to their ability to absorb visual modification on the
basis of such factors as vegetation type and density,slope and
topographic features.
E-8-5
------~~
STEP 1
Establish
Study
Objectives
STEP 2
Proposed Hydro Facilities
-dams and reservoirs
-construction camps
-roads
-borrow areas
-transmission 1;ne
I
STEP 3 ~
Identify Landscape
Character Types
-landfom
-waterfom
-vegetati on
-views
STEP 4 ...v
Describe Vi ewer
Sensitivity
-types of vi ewers
-duration of views
-expectations of
viewers
-concern for aes-
thetic quality
STEP 5
11.-...--,--1'
STEP 6
STEP 9
"
Assign Aesthetic Value Assign Absorption Capability
~atin9 to Each Character Rating to Each Character Type
ype based on:based on:
1.-distinctiveness IE'/---~---'~-site relationships
2.-uniqueness ",.-aesthetic values
3.-harmony and -human experience
ba lance
STEP 7
Detennine 1/
Composite IE'.....-----....Ratings I •
STEP 8
Analyze Relationship between
Proposed Hydro Facilities and
the Inherent Quality of the
Land.scape (using Composite
Ratings)
-Compatible
-Design solutions
equal ins trength
and compatible in
character to
existing landscape
-Compatible with mitigation
-can create hamony and
balance with proper
mitigation
-Incompatible
-negative contrast
-discord
-Incompatible with Mitfgation
-negative contrast
-negative impacts
lessened
Develop Appropriate
Mitigation Measures
to Reduce Adverse Aes-
thetic Impacts
-siting and alignment
adjustments
-design adjustments
-screening
-vegetation recovery
techniques.
E-8-6
"/
STEP 10
Prepare
Report on
Aesthetic
Resources
(Section 8)AESTHETIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
METHODOLOGY
Plate 8.2
".."
-
(g)
(h)
Step 7
-Determine the composite ratings of each landscape character
type based on a synthesis of Steps 5 and 6.
Step 8
-Analyze the impacts and relationship of proposed faci lHies to
the exi st i ng Iandscape character types.Us i ng the compos ite
ratings in Step 7,proposed facilities are determined to be one
of the fol I~wing:
·compatable
·compatable with mitigation
·incompatab1e no mitigation possible
·incompatab1e mitigation is possible
""'"
.....
(i)Step 9
-Develop mitigation measures to reduce adverse aesthetic impacts
of the project on the landscape.
2.2 -Definitions
The following definitions apply to terms used in this report.
(a)Landscape Character Type
A unit of the 1andscape used as a frame of reference to classify
the physical features of a given area.This is based to a large
degree on physiographic sections as defined by Wahrhaftig
(1965).
-
(b)
(c)
(d)
Compatibil ity
A relationship between the existing landscape and man-made fea-
tures in which the proposed elements are designed in t·itness with
the character of the existing landscape.
Viewer Sensitivity
An indicator of peoples'concern for aesthetic quality and their
Ieve1 of expectation of aesthetic qual ify;necessari 1y somewhat
subjective.
Aesthetic Value
A relative measure of overall importance of the visual landscape,
including such components as distinctiveness,uniqueness,harmony
and balance.
E-8-7
-----,---_..:....._------_.------_.-._-.....---------------------
(e)Oistinctiveness
A measure of the visual impression of an area;i.e.,a landscape
where landforms,waterforms,rocks,vegetative or soi I patterns
are of outstanding and memorable aesthetic quality.
(0 Uniqueness
A measure of the relative scarcity or commonality of the land-
scape.Due to Alaska's vast and numerous high-quality land-
scapes,uniqueness will have two levels of meaning for the pur-
pose of this report:
Landscapes and natural features mayor may not be unique on a
statewide scale;and
-
Landscapes and natura I features mayor may not be un i que on -
project area scale.
(g)Harmony and Balance
A measure of the degree to which all elements of the landscape
torm a unified composition.This includes the lntegration level
of man-made elements in a natural setting.
(h)Absorption Capability
A measure of a landscape's natural sensitivity of a landscape to
alteration.Factors such as the potential for human experience,
compatible site relationships,and aesthetic values are commonly
considered.
2.3 -Proposed Project Facilities and Features (Step 2)
The Susitna Hydroelectric Project has proposed a number ot faci Ilties
and features which will potentially have aesthetic impacts upon the
existing landscape.The tacilities and features are as follows:
Appendix 8A shows the proposed layout of these facilities,and Appen-
dix 88 includes photos of the sites for major items along with simula-
tions of the faci lity itself.
(a)Watana Project Area
Earth-fill dam and two temporary cofferdams
Reservoir
Main and Emergency Spi I Jways
Borrow Area (material for dams)
Access roads
Switchyard at damsite
Temporary airstrip
Construction camp (single status)
Construction vlliage (married status)
Permanent town
E-8-8
-
""'"
"'"
F""
I
-I
(b)
(c)
Two 345-kV transmission lines (Watana Dam to Intertie)
Switchyard at Intertie
138-kV transmission line (power for constructlon of Watana)
Devil Canyon Project Area
Concrete arch dam,saddle dam and two temporary cofferdams
Reservoir
Main and emergency spillways
Borrow areas (material for saddle and cofferdams)
Access roads
Switchyard at d~TIsite
Construction camp (single status)
Construction vlliage (married status)
Two 345-kV transmission lines (Devil Canyon to Intertie)
Rai lroad (Gold Creek to Devi I Canyon)
Watana Access Road
Gravel road from Denali Highway to Watana Dam
Borrow areas (material for road construction)
.....
(d)Devil Canyon Access Road
Gravel road
Hi gh 1evel bri dge (be low Devi I Canyon dams He)
Borrow areas (material for road construction)
(e)Transmission Line Stubs
Two 345-kV transmission lines from Healy to rairbanks (north
stub)
Three 345-kV transmission lines from Willow to Anchorage (south
stub)
(See FiguresE.8.4a and E.8.4b)
(f)Intertie
Initially one 138-kV transmission line from Willow to Healy.For
successional stages,see Figure E.8.5.It should be noted here
that the Intertie between Wi llow and Healy is not a part of the
Sus itna Hydroe 1ectri c Project,and its exami nat ion here wi 11 be
cursory in-nature.
-
(g)Recreation Facilities and Features*
Dam visitor centers
Road pulloffs and parking
Semi-developed campgrounds
Primitive camping
Trai 1 heads
Developed and primitive trails
Warming shelters
*These faci lities are described in Uetai I in Exhibit A,Project
Description,or Chapter 7,Recreation Plan.
E-8-9
-_._------
I'
, I.I,,
/
/
/
/
/
{,(
./,
/
I,
I
/
~/
'1.:.(
I
I
I
I'I n II
"I e Ro
-'
P OJECT
la .3
Intertie--".,
Proposed--~-.,;,--_
Willow
Substation-
LANDSCAPE
SOUTHERN
E-:.8-11
CHARACTER TYPES
STUB Plate 8.4a
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPES
NORTHERN STUB Plate 8.4b£-8-12
W1L-LCJV..I
INTERTIE
1983
HE.ALY
f-r---l-~?l'-V
N~-tlA ~ub
WATANA DAM
1993
DfJ/lL C;A\N"'(ON t:I'\AA
OE~~~=\f\II(~rtA.NA~~
WILl-O't'V
I DEVIL CANYON DAM
2002
E-8-13
TRANSMISSION
PHASING
DIAGRAM
Plate 8.5
3 -EXISTING ENVIRONMENT (STEP 3)
3.1 -Landscape Character Types
Landscape Character Types are a description and classification of
coherent units of the landscape used as a frame of reference to class-
ify the physical features of an area.They are t for the most part t
based on physiographic units t and represent land areas with corrmon
distinguishing visual characteristics such as landform t geologic for-
mation t water form and vegetation pattern.They are an important fac-
tor in aesthetic analysis and form the basis for evaluating the
impacts of change on the 1andscape.Fi gure E.8.6 and the fo 11 owi ng
charts (Step 3)identify the landscape character types used to
classify lands in the vicinity of the project area.
E-8-14
usit
Up'
Terrace
*3
A D CAPE CTYES
STEP 3
-
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
MID SUSITNA RIVER VALLEY
LANDFORMS
•Valley is 2 to 6 mi wide with steep slopes.
•Flat terraced land adjacent to Indian River near cOlifluence with Susitna.
WATERFORMS
Moderately braided and silt laiden river up to 1/2 miles wide.
•Wetland areas are common adjacent to the flat terraced areas,as are islands,sandbars and cobbles.
•Gold Creek tributary to Susitna here has high aesthetic value -flows through narrow forested canyon.
VEGETATION
•Dense mixed forest of spruce and deciduous trees.
•Tundra and brush species only on steeper valley slopes.
•Spruce/green is most prominent color -small amount of yellow/gold fall color by deciduous trees and
willows.
•Tundra cover provides good red/orange tones in the fall.
views
Views are directed wi thin the river channel,valley slopes and the commonly snow-capped Chul itna
Mountains to the North.
E-8-16
STEP 3
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
DEVIL CANYON
-
LANDFORMS
•Steep to vertical rock canyon walls -medium to dark brown colors for several miles -nearly 1,000
feet deep.Unstable environment.
•Deeply incised valley overall for over 20 miles.
•Giant rock shelves and angular boulders in river channel.
•The canyon is a significant Alaska natural feature.
WATERFORMS
•High volume and fixed channel river through a deep canyon.
•Contains an 11-mile stretch of world class kayaking whitewater (Class VI).
•Portage,Cheechako and Devil creeks are all notible -steep to vertical canyoned tributaries.
•Devil Creek Falls are the most scenic falls in the basin.
VEGETATION
•Slopes are densely covered with a good mixture of spruce and deciduous trees -good fall color.
•Small pure stands of poplar species prav ide interesting tree patterns in the fall and winter.
•High color contrast with foamy gray water.
VIEWS
•Views are primarily restricted within the immediate canyon/valley.
Views are dramatic in the vertical and near vert ical rock canyon port ions of the river.
E-8-17
STEP 3
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
SUSITNA RIVER
LANDFORMS
•Broader vaLley -up to 4 mi wide -in comparison with Dev i1 Canyon area.
Occasional dark colored rock outcropsQr bluffs are found along the valley.Up river from Tsusena
Creek on the northside is shear cliff of light colored rock,sail and cobble.
The river bottom also has a law terrace before it steeply rises to the uplands.
WATERFORMS
Mildly braided river with large islands of cobble and sand.
Fag,Tsusena,Deadman,Watana,Kosina and Jay creeks are all significant and scenic tributaries to
this portion of the Susitna.All have steep and narrow canyons near their confluences with the
river.
•Tsusena,Deadman and Watana creeks all have notable falls.
•The tributaries'clear-water confluence Nith the silt-water river is of visual interest.
VEGETATION
Moderatel y dense to dense spr uce-deciduous forest covers much of the river and tributary valleys.
Good fall calor.
•Willow and other shrub species are found along the river banks and terraces.
VIEWS
The broader valley allows for mare expanded views and although mostly river and valley oriented,
views out of the valley are possib Ie an the langer-straight portions of the river.High mountain
tops can be seen.
E-8-18
STEP3
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
1rVPE
l~
RIVER CANYON
LANDFORMS
Steep and meandering river valley.
The 1/4 mile to 1 mile wide valley rises up over 500 feet from the river bottom.
•Vee Canyon displays a unique,very tight v-shaped rock feature in a double hairpin bend of the Susitna
River.Colorful.
•Goose Creek,Oshetna River and other smaller tributary creeks have deep valleys themselves near their
confluences with the river.
WATERFORMS
•The Susitna flows very fast here through a f hed channel.
• A well known stretch of rough whitewater occurs through Vee Canyon.
•Begins to meander several miles up river from Vee Canyon.
•Numerous islands and sandbars with gravel cobble edge.
VEGETATION
•Tundra,brush and rock slopes dominate on the south side while moderately dense to sparse spruce
forests cover the northside slopes and river bottom.
VIEWS
The deep and narrow nature of the canyon/valley restricts views to the foreground area.
•Some of the higher points adjacent uplands can be seen fran the more open areas of the river.
•Adjoining tributary canyons offer additional foreground views of interest.
E-8-19
STEP 3
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
SUSITNA UPLAND WET TUNDRA BASIN
LANDFORMS
•Low,flat and rolling terrace above the banks of the Susitna River.
WATERFORMS
•The Susitna River here is mildly to heavily braided.Becomes more braided as it nears its glacial
headwaters.
•River varies from 1/8 mile to voer 1 mile wide.
Several hundred lakes ranging froo very small to over 500 acres in size.Dense patterns.
Oshetna,Tyone and Maclaren rivers and Clearwater,Butte,Windy and Valdez creeks are all
significant tributaries.
VEGETATION
•Tundra (wet)is the dominant vegetation type.
•Sparse stands of spruce are scattered throughout the area.
•Dense willow and other shrub types are found along the river and many lake banks.
•The tundra foliage in the fall creates an extensive variety of colorful patterns over the landscape.
VIEWS
The wide open character of the river basin allows scenic views of the Alaska Range and the Talkeetna
Mountains.
•Susitna and West Fork glaciers -the source of the Susitna River -can be from 30-50 miles distant.
•Views in the foreground landscape are not particularly scenic -except the fall tundra color.
E-8-20
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
PORTAGE LOWLANDS
STEP 3
LANDFORMS
•The lower portion of Portage Creek forms a distinct winding fixed channel and steep-sloped
va.l.ley..
•large eroded sidewalls are common on the many hairpin turns in the river.
•Flat terraced areas along the upper creek are also common.
'NATERFORMS
Portage Creek is a very scenic,fast-flowing and clearwater tributary to the Susitna below Devil
Canyon.
• A number of small streams cascade down into Portage Creek.
VEGETATION
•Moderately dense spruce-deciduous forest covers most of the valley up to an average elevation of
2,500 feet.
•The well mixed forest provides scenic fall color.
•Bright green spring foliage of the hardwoods also provide color.
V1EWS
•Views are generally restricted to the deep and forested valley.
•Overall,the combination of natural features provides a very aesthetically pleasing environrrent.
Forest views are in marked contrast to many locations in the region.
E-8-21
_ _.~-.l..
STEP 3
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
CHULITNA MOIST TUNDRA UPLANDS
LANDFORMS
•Wide variety of small and large scale topographic relief.
•Large,well defined and enclosed lake beds.
•Long,flat as well as rolling terraces above the Susitna River,with a variety of canyon sizes.
•Dark brown colored rock outcrops are common along upper terrace,canyon and lake edges.
•Several long shallow valleys.
WATERFORMS
Dozens of irregular shaped lakes up to several hundred acres in size.
•Bog and wetland areas are common throughout the area.
•Many small streams flow through the canyons down to the Susitna.
•Indian River,Portage and Devil creeks are part of this area.
-VEGETATION
•The upland area east Portage Creek is predominantely tundra.
•The upland area west of Portage Creek is covered with a moderately dense spruce forest.
•Willow and other shrub species are commonly found in dense cover near lake banks and
wetland areas.
Scattered and sparse stands of spruce are found east of Portage Creek and mixed woods in the creek
valley.
•Tundra colors are gold and light brown during winter months -If not covered by snow.Medium to dark
green in spring and summer.Bright red,burgundy and yellow tones in the fall.
VIEWS
Foreground and middleground views are scenic and common except in the denser forested areas.
•Vantage points are limitless.
•Views of the Chulitna and Talkeetna mountains occur often and views of the Alaska Range are possible.
•In late fall,the brilliant blue color of the lakes are in contrast to the snow covered landscape.
•Scenic views to adjacent drainages.
E-8-22
_______________-.l
STEP 3
I_ANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
CHULITNA MOUNTAINS
ILANOFORMS
•Over 900 square miles of rugged glacially carved mountains.
•Narrow and broad v-shaped valleys.
•Glaciers and permanent ice fields.Rock glaciers.
•Steeply rise up to over 6,000 feet in elevation.
•Many extensive talus slopes.
WATERFORMS
•Cirque lakes of aqua-blue color.
Five or six lakes of several hundred acres in size.Largest one is in Caribou Pass.
•Tsusena,8rushkana,Soule,Deadman and Honolulu creeks and the Jack,Middle and East Fork
Chulitna rivers are all significant drainages.
VEGETATION
Tundra and shrill species cover the valley floors and slopes creating an interesting edge as they
meet the barren steeper rock slopes.
•Scattered stands of spruce-hardwoods along the Jack,Middle and East Fork Chulitna rivers.
•Tsusena Creek forms a unique green spruce-deciduous forest over 20 mles through the Chulitnas.
VIEWS
Views are scenic most everywhere.
•Impressive and awesome natural features.
•Mountain rock colors of light to dark gray (primarily talus slopes)and medium to dark brown (higher
mountain tops)provide a variety of textures and patterns with the seasonal color changes of the
tundra.
E-8-23
lANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
STEP 3
WET UPLAND TUNDRA
LANDFORMS
•Flat to rolling upland area with several large surficial creeks.
•Gentle to moderately steep gr adient slopes from Chulitna highlands to the creeks.
•Mild to moderately depressed lake beds with adjacent glaciated bluffs and hills.
WATER FORMS
Big Lake and Deadman Lake are the largest examples of lakes in the upper basin.Big Lake is
approximately 1,080 acres.
•Deadman Creek is a long unique meandering watercourse.
•Brushkana and Butte creeks are other significant drainages of the area.
•Bogs and wetland areas are common and extensively occur in this upland.
VEGETATION
Wet tundra cover is prevalent with occassional stands of spruce.
•Willow and other shrlb species are common near creek banks and lake shores and in wetland areas.
VIEWS
Panoramic views of the Chul itna,Talkeetna and Clearwater mountains and the Alaska Range are
possible.
•In the.fall and early winter,ice forming on Deadman Creek creates very interesting patterns and
textures.
•Fall color of the,tundra,combined with all other natural features;is highly scenic.
E-·8-24
______1.
I.ANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
STEP 3
TALKEETNA UPLANDS
ILANDFORMS
•Flat to rolling upland plateau.
•Slopes are primarily moderately steep to steep.
•Several knobs rise above 4,000 ft with the average elevation of 3,000 ft.
•Drainages in the area form deep and steep,sloped valleys and canyons.
•Rugged rocky hilltops and outcropping are common.
'WATERFORMS
Tens of lakes which are 20-50 acres in size.Simple and complex forms.
•Massive areas of muskeg bogs.
Chunilna Creek is a very significant drainage in the area with many tr ibutar ies.
•Many of the lakes are topographically enclosed.
VEGETATION
•Moist and west tundra is dominant.
Moderately dense spruce-deciduous tree cover is primarily restricted to drainages.
•Chunilna Creek valley is densely forested.
VIEWS
Foreground and background views are scenic throughout most of the landscape.
•Panoramic views are possible from higher points.
•The Chulitna and Talkeetna mountains and the Alaska Range can be seen.
•Good views of the Susitna and Talkeetna river valleys are possible.
E-8-25
STEP 3
ILANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
'TYPE
TALKEETNA MOUNTAINS
LANDFORMS
•Rugged and steep sloped mountain range covering several thousand square miles.
•Elevations over 8,000 ft.
•large glaciers,permanent ice fields and glacial features.
•Large moderately sloped terraces.
•Long,narrow and broad v-shaped valleys.
•Large talus slopes.
WATERFORMS
•Cirque lakes.
Numerous lakes up to several hundred acres in size.Scattered to dense concentrations.
•Over ten rivers and creeks.
V·EGETATION
Primarily tUldra and shrub species throughout the mountains below the steeper rocky slopes and
peaks.
•Except for the drainages on the northeast area of the range,dense spruce-deciduous forests cover the
river valleys.
VIEWS
Views are scenic and limitless.
•Views are panoramic to semi-enclosed depending on viewer position.
E-8-26
STEP 3
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
SUSITNA UPLAND TERRACE
LANDFORMS
•Terraced,flat and rolling terrain.
•Slopes have gentle grad ients.
•Depressed lake basins.
WATERFORMS
•Large linear glaciated and irregular formed lakes.Stephan Lake is the second largest in the upper
Susitna basin.
Fog Lakes (5 adjacent lakes of several hundred acres in size each)create a pattern unique to the
area.
•Fog Creek forms a narrow and deeply incised canyon leaving the Fog Lakes area and flowing into the
Susitna.
VEGETATION
•Densely forested with spruce and some deciduous trees,except for an area of approximately 10 square
miles northeast of Fog Lakes,which is predominately tundra.
•Spruce-green is the dominant color for most of the year,white (snow)in the winter.
VIEWS
Views are often restricted due to the forest cover and depressed lake beds.However,the higher
mountains (Talkeetna and Chulitnas)still rise above the horizon.
•Open vantage points for panoramic views are present.
E-8-27
STEP 3
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
'TYPE
SUSITNA UPLANDS
LANDFORMS
•Terraced,flat and rolling terrain.
•Elevation range is approximately 3,000 -5,600 ft.
•Slopes are primarily flat to moderately steep.
•larger lake beds are depressed.
•Stream valleys are broad and fixed channel.
Rock outcrops,cliffs and rocky hilltops are common in the area.Rock colors are light tan to dark
brown.
WATERFORMS
• A number of small lakes are scattered throughout the area in dense patterns.
•The two largest lakes,Watana and Clarence,are narrow and linear in form.Both are several hundred
acres in size.
•Large number of small creeks.
•Tr ibutar ies of the Susitna,Kosina,Tsisi,Gilbert and Goose creeks and the silt laiden Oshetna River
are all scenic and significant to this area.
VEGETATION
Upland moist tundra and shrub species cover most all of the land except for the rock environments.
•Fall colors of this massive tundra area create a variety of patterns.
•Spruce are found within some of the drainages in sparse to moderately dense stands.
VIEWS
Views are expansive.
•Many areas at the same elevation and higher in the upper basin can be vie'1'Ied from this high upland.
•Views of the Talkeetnas are particularly scenic.
E-8-28
STEP 3
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
ANCHORAGE,ALASKA
LANDFORMS
•Rolling and flat terraced lowlands of Knik and Turnagain arms (upper Cook Inlet).
•Rolling and moderately steep slopes of Chugach foothills.
•large sunken areas caused by 1964 earthquake.
•Urbanized town landscape.
WATERFORMS
•Several small creeks traverse through the area and into Cook Inlet.
•Several large man-made lakes.
•Scattered natural lakes -low density.
•Dominated by the adjacent Cook Inlet and connecting arms.
VEGETATION
•Denser urban areas have sparse ornamental tree cover with some natural spruce and deciduous trees.
•Undeveloped areas,lakes and foothills are generally covered with moderately dense to dense
forests of spruce-deciduous trees and willow.
•Natural drainages are usually forested and/or have dense shrub cover.
VIEWS
Due to the flat to undulating terrain,views are open.
The adjacent Chugach Mountains create a high quality aesthetic setting.Covered with snow in the
winter,green in the summer and colorful in the fall.
•The Alaska Range,nearby Mount Susitna,Kenai Hountains and the Cook Inlet,with its unique mud
flats,are all seen.
STEP 3
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
'-YPE
SUSITNA RIVER LOWLANDS
I_ANDFORMS
•Very flat to gently rolling lowlands.
•Larger lake areas are enclosed by small hills.
•Mount Susitna,a flat topped remnant volcano,rises over 3,000 feet above the lowlands.Adjacent
Little Mount Susitna and nearby Beluga Mountain also steeply rise above the landsoape.
WATERFOAMS
•Wet bog and wetlands cover a large percentage of the land.
•Hundreds of small lakes make dense patterns.
Numerous topographically enclosed lakes several hundred acres in size.
•Heavily braided Susitna River varies from 1/2 mile to several miles wide;many islands.
·Numerous meandering tr ibutar ies to Susitna.
VEGETATION
•Thin stands of black spruce cover many bog areas.
•Marsh grasses.
•Moderately dense to dense cover of spruce-deciduous trees around higher reliefed and larger lake
areas -good faLl color -also along Susitna River andtr ibutar ies.
•The dark green color of the spruce is most dominant.
VIEWS
Views of the immediate area are generally monotonous because of the expansive commonality and flat
topography of the landscape.
Views of the Alaska Range,Chugach and Talkeetna mountains and the Mount Susitna landmark are
possible from open areas.
•Weather permitting,Mount McKinley dominates the scene.
£-8-30
STEP 3
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
NENANA UPLANDS
LANDFORMS
Relatively flat meandering river valley terraces several miles in width with steep slopes rising up
to the Alaska Range foothills.
•Exposed rock and soil cliffs and highly eroded banks a.re commonly found along the Nenana River.
•Rock outcrops are also common along r-isingterrace edges;light tan to dark brown in color.
WATERFORMS
The moderately braided and large Nenana River is the most significant water form;silty glacial
water.
•Several relatively small tributaries.
•Scattered small lakes.
•Bog areas and wetlands.
•Many islands,broad floodplain.
VEGETATION
•Variable patterns of sparse to dense spruce and mixed forest over most of the area.
•Scattered open spaces of tundra and bare ground.Soil colors are light.
VIEWS
Vie'A's are oriented to the Alaska Range in the south and the higher reliefed foothills in the east.
•Views of the river are not particularly scenic in comparison to mountain views.
•Rock cliffs and outcrops do provide visual interest.
•Transmission lines (existing)are very visible.
E-8-31
STEP 3
....c..~~:.",..."_'
~:"'.~~:~,',..~
;.y,t·:.:,:;:;)~\~~~..
_,'J"",:""o.
.'".'
--
NENANA RIVER LOWLANDS
LANDFORMS
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
'TYPE
•Extremely flat terrain.
Numerous small drainages and the Nenana and Teklanika rivers.
•Sand,gravel and cobbles.
WATERFORMS
Braided channels and heavily meandering Nenana,and Teklanika rivers create a distinct pattern on
the land.
•Numerous smaller and also meandering tributaries.
•Adjacent to and tributaries of the larger and heavily braided Tanana River.
•Many scattered small lakes and expansive wetland areas.
•Many islands.
VEGETATION
•Expansive cover of thin to moderately dense spruce forests west of Nenana River.
•Linear bands of spruce along drainages east of Nenana River.
•Tundra and wetland-bog species cover most the the area.
VIEWS
•Views of the immediate area are monotonous because of the lack of relief and lack of distinctive
features to view on ground.
•Views are across river and directed to the high and forested Tanana hills to the north and the Alaska
Range to the south.
•Transmission line~(existing)are very visible.
£-8-32
STEP3
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
TANANA RIDGE
LANDFORMS
•Distinct rounded hills interrupted by small valleys.
•Slopes are moderately steep to steep.
•Rise several thousand feet above the lowlands.
WATERFORMS
•Bounded to the south and west by the heavily braided Tanana River (sixth longest in Alaska).
•Numerous creeks throughout the area.
• A few small scattered lakes.
•Goldstream Creek is a very distinctive meandering watercourse dividing Tanana Ridge from the higher
hills to the north..
VEGETATION
•Distinct stands of pure deciduous trees occur here as well as pure stands of spruce and mixed forests.
•Forest cover is generally dense.
•Foliage color patterns have high aesthetic value in the spring and fall.
•The white trunks of the birch also provide interesting winter textures.
VIEWS
The views are moderate in scenic quality.However,fall color is an exception.
•Views are limited due to the dense forest cover.
•Clear-cut r ight-of-ways of existing transmission lines and roads are distinctly visible from many
areas.
E-8-33
".,...
I
t
r-
!
r
Il
r
3.~-Viewer Sensitivity (Step 4)
Viewer Sensitivity Categories are indicators of people's concern for
aesthetic quality and their level of expectation of aesthetic quality.
::>ensitivity levels are estimated for six different types of viewers
who will see project features.Each viewer type is characterized,and
the estimated duration and expectation of views noted.Finally,for
each viewer type,an assumption is made regarding the viewer1s concern
for the aesthetic quality of the visual environment.These indicators
are difficult to establ ish and necessari Iy somewhat sU.bjective.The
range of aesthetic value ratings includes hlgh,moderate and low
expectations,or a variation among them.The following chart (Step 4)
presents this step.
E-8-34
~~I"'~~_----_O_"""_·_0--~----'-_-
VIEWl:R
SENSITIVITY STE A
TYPES OF VIEWERS .-
(A)HUNTERS AND FISHERMEN
Alaska residents who hunt
and fish with the prImary
purpose at provIding food
for themselves and
familIes..
CB)OUTDOOR RECREATION
ENTHUSIASTS
(Alaska Residents)
Residents of the state and
local areas who will use or
currently use the area for
many forms of outdoor
recreatIon (I.e.,hIking,
cross-country skiIng,rock
climbing,wlldl I fe observa-
tIon,hunting anf fishIng).
(Cl AUTOMOBILE ORIENTED USERS
Residents and nonresidents
who wll I not venture far fl im
from their vehIcles.
(8)Participation In most out-
door activities of this
nature requires an hour to
several hours of time.
Vlewfng the landscape will
be a high percentage of that
time.OutIngs may range from
severa I hours to a week or
more.Views may be from air
as well as ground.
CAl Due to the nature of hunt-
Ing and fIshing,view
tImes are from a few
minutes to several hours
daily.Outings range from
1 day to several weeks.
DURATION OF vIewst---------------r---------------r--------------.:"""!.
(C)VIewIng times will be rel&'j
tlvely short--few minutes
to an hour or so.Weather-
conditIons are of Importan(~.
-
EXPECTATION OF views
(Al Not partIcularly hIgh.
Though some hunters and
fishermen may prefer more
scenic areas.Prime con-
cern Is bagging their game
or catching their limits.
(B)Moderately hIgh to high
expectations for scenic
views.Strongly associated
'II Ith type of outdoor act I v-
Ity and where It takes
place.Project features
will also attract vIewers.
eCl Desire to view scenIc natu!"'"
seM'I ng as we I I as dams and
reservoirs.
....
CONCERN FOR
AESTHETIC QUALITY
CA)Wide range.High to low.(8)High.(C)High.
E-8-35
'I
I
iT
i
VIEWER
SENSITIVITY
TYPES OF VIEWERS
(Ol NONRESIDENT OUTDOOR
RECREATION ENTHUSIASTS
Out of state or count~y
vIs Itors who 'II III use the
area fo~a var Iety of out-
door activities Including
hunting and fishing.
DURATION OF VIEWS
(D)Up to several hours dally.
OutIngs may be 1 day to
a week or mo~e.Re I ated
to weather conditions.
Views may be from air as
wei I as ground.
EXPECTATION OF VIEWS
(D)Scenic views of natural
setting will be expected
due to avera II expecta-
tions of Alaska.Desire
to see as I I tt I e man-made
Impacts as possible.
CONCERN FOR
AESTHETIC QUALITY
(0)High.
(E)PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
WORKERS AND FAMILIES
People working on various
project facilitIes and
operations.
(E)Several mInutes to hours--
longer periods for non-
wo~kers.People will be In
the project areas on and off
for weeks at a time for
several years.
eE)Views of al I project fael t 1-
ties and overall large-scale
construction operatIon fea-
tures will be expected.Due
to the remoteness of the
site,scenic views will be
expected.
(E)WIde range.High to Low.
E-8-36
STEP 4
<F>RESIDENT OPERATORS OF
PROJECT FACILITIES
Workers and their families
who will live at the perma-
nent townsite,operate and
maintain the project facili-
ties.
(F)Several minutes to hours.
Depends on type of work.
Potential for long viewing
perIods as workers wrll live
and recreate In proJ ect area
IndefInItely.Related to
weather conditions.
(F)Views of man-made features,
associated project elements,
and scenic landscapes will be
expected'.
(Fl Generally high.
-
I~
3.3 -Aesthetic Value Rating (Step 5)
and Absorption Capability Rating (Step 6)
Each Landscape Character type identified in Step 3 is evaluated and
rated for its Intrinsic Aesthetic Value
Hlgh (A)
MOderate (8)
Low (C)
It should be noted that these ratings are relative and not absolute in
nature,and must be considered in view of the relatively high level of
Alaskan landscapes.
Each Character Type is concurrently rated for its Absorption Capabil-
ity;that is,its relative ability to absorb visual change.Absorp-
tion Capability is rated as:
High (H)
Medi urn (M)
Low (L)
The fo I IOWl ng charts present the rat i ngs determi ned dur i ng Steps 5 and
6.
E-8-37
AESTHETIC VALUE AND
ABSORPTION CAPABILITY RATINGS .STEPS 5,0'..,....------~I"'------,-------,...-------------
•Man-made elements must be sensitive J
to the existing landscapes.A highly _.1..·
aesthetic and recreational resource.~"'
SUSITNA RIVER
RIVER CANYON
SU5ITNA UPLAND WET
TUNDRA BASIN
A
A
B
E-8-38
M
L
M
•Distinct ive and impress ive deep
valley--large-Rcale.
•Good variety of landform,vegetation
and water edges.
•Variety of scenic large-to small-
scale features.
Able to absorb some man-made impacts
on semiforested,less steep areas.
Small-scale impacts.
•Unique and distinctive river canyon.
•Steep slopes make the area sensitive
to developrrent.
•Due to the lack of substantial
forest cover,the o~rall open
character of the canyon requires
highly compatilile design solutions.
•Impress ive scale but landscape
character is common in Alaska.
•Distant scenic views to mountains
along with a variety of land,water
and vegetative edges in foreground
gives the area moderate to high
aesthetic value.
•Flat and open character of land will
not easily absorb man-made elements/
impacts.However,existing roads
and small structures are nat dis-
tractive.
1
l
I'"""
L
L
AESTHETIC VALUE AND
ABSORPTION CAPABILITY RATINGS STEPS 5,6
-
,-
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
PORTAGE LOWLANDS
CHULITNA MOIST TUNDR
LPLANDS
CHULITNA MOUNTAINS
WET UPLAND TUNDRA
TALKEETNA UPLANDS
AESTHET1C
VALUE
A
A
A
B
B
ABSORPTION
CAPABlllTY
L
M
L
L
L
E-8-39
COMMENTS
•DisTincTive deep and winding tribu-
tary river canyon to The Susltna
River.Variety of vegeTaTion types
and river botTom Terrain.
•STeep erodible slopes would be sen-
siTive TO any developmenT.
•High aesTheTic qualiTy due to diver-
siTy of landforms,water and vegeTa-
Tion paTTerns.
•The landform diversiTy and varieTy
of foresT edges and densiTies 10111 r
a I low for some vIsua I Integratl on
and absorpTIon of man-made elemenTs.
•Highly disTinctive area,rich In
signifIcanT naTural aTTracTive
feaTures.
•Camplex glacIaTed landforms of all
scales.
•Man-made elemenTs and Impacts will
be very visible on this predomi-
nanTly Treeless and steep sloped
landscape.
•Basically a wilderness area.
•The variety of water forms and their
disTinct edges with land and vegeta-
tion,along with highly scenic views,
gives this landscape an aesthetic
value raTing of moderate to high.
•1\Ithough the area Is bas Ical Iy open.
the rolling terrain would not be
significantly Impacted by man-made
elements if they were properly sited
and sensitively designed.Elements
musT be subordInate to the land-
scape.
•The overall aesthetic value of this
area is hIgh due prfmarl Iy to
variety of landforms.NOT as scenic
(middle and foreground views)In
comparison to many of the other
character types.
•The bisecting forested river valleys
create a diSTinct and interesting
panern.
AESTHETIC VALUE AND
ABSORPTION CAPABILITY RATINGS STEPS 5,J
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
TALKEETNA UPLANDS
(contd)
TALKEETNA MOUNTAINS
AESTHETIC
VALUE
B
ABSORPTION
CAPABILITY
L
L
COMMENTS
•Man-made features would be visible
in most areas due to the flat to
rolling open terrain.
•Sensitive siting is mandatory with
the landscape dominating the
character of development if any.~
•Highly distinctive mountain range
with a complex variety of land and
water forms,and patterns.
As with the Chulitna Mountains,this
area can be considered a wilderness
area and even to a greater extent.~
•Medium-to large-scale man-made
features will be highly visible in
this treeless steep sloped mountain
environment.
•Recreation trails here and in the
Chulitna Mountains should not be
aesthetically disruptive.j
SUSITNA UPLAND
TERRACE
B L
,
•This setting of large lakes,dense J
forest and scenic views to the moun-
tains is bas ically of high aesthetic I,
value.
•Unique and distinctive to the basin
but not to Alaska.
•Clearing of trees for most any type
of development would be highly
visible in this densely forested
area.
•Any major man-made impact (medium-
to large-scale)must be carefully
considered to emphasize site fit-
ness.
1
j-
SUSITNA UPLANDS B
E-8-40
L This landscape character is COOlman
in Alaska with the exception of its
large number of dist inct ive stre ams
and rivers.The open landscape is
significantly enhanced by the scenic J,
views of adjacent and distant .
character types.I
Other than recreational trails--if 1·,
properly sited--most all other man-
made features would be highly
visible.
1
..
STEPS 5,6RATINGS
AND
CAPABILITY
AESTHETiC VALUE
ABSORPTION
LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER
TYPE
AESTHETIC
VALUE
A8S0RPTION
CAPA81L1TY
COMMENTS
ANCHORAGE.ALASKA C H
..
•AlThough The cJTy Is In a high
qualiTy aesTheTic setTing,the
vIsual Image of the ciTY Itself Is
nOT high In aesTheTic value.
•WITh The exceptIon of the Chugach
fOOThills,The large-scale urban
environmenT shoo Id be ab Ie To absorb
new man-made feaTures.However •
proper design.siTing and alignmenT
of features wI II be assenT Ia I TO
lessen any potenTlat aesthetic
Impact.
SUSITNA RIVER
LOWLANDS
C H •Low In aestheTic value because of
The lack of aeSThetically attracTive
features.
•Scale Is large and common.
•Flat terrain and diverse vegeTaTIon
paTTerns should be ~Ie to effec-
tively absorb mosT man-made features
AesthetIc ImpacTs will nOT be sIgni-
ficanT.
,"
NENANA UPLANDS B M •Landscape has good varIeTy of land-
forms and vegetaTion patterns and a
large diSTinctive river.
•AeSTheTic value is not high In c0m-
parison to many other Alaskan
charaCTer types_
•This rich diversity and patTerns of
natural elemenTS and generally open
landscape will be able to absorb
limiTed man-made feaTures with sensl
tlve planning and design.
NENANA RIVER
LOWl...ANDS
C H •This landscape has complex patTerns
of vegeTaTion and water features bUT
no topographic rei Jef or signifi-
canTly unIque and attractive feaTure
to give IT a higher aeSThetic value.
•Man-made features should be visually
absorbed by this flaT expansive ran~
scape wiTh a variety of vegeTatIve
patterns_
TANANA RIDGE B L •DistincTIve and unique landscape to
general geographical area.
E-8-41
AESTHETIC VALUE AND
ABSORPTION CAPABILITY RATINGS STEPS 5.6
L
t
t
LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC ABSORPTION COMMENTS LCHARACTERVALUECAPABILITY
TYPE
TANANA RIDGE B L •Again,this character has loca!hl9h[(contd).aesthetic vo!Ilue but not signIficant ~
In compar I son to other AIaskan Iand-'~
scapes.
•The dense forest cover and steep
slopes do not provide a condition
allowing for visual absorption 01
medium-to large-scale man-made
development.Sensitive sitIng will Ibeessentialtolessenaesthetic
Impacts.
I
t
I
\
,
-1
..
i>'
(Ii
I,
\
~
I
I
I
E-8-42
3.4 -Composite ~atings (Step 7)
In order to determi ne the potent 1 a I lmpacts of deve 1opment on each
Landscape Character Type,composite ratings are determined taking into
consideration both the aesthetic value of the type and lts absorptlon
capabi lity.Nine different combinations are possible,as shown on the
accompanying chart.
COMPOSITE
RATINGS
AESTHETIC VALUE
ABC :::r:
"
L .4(C/L)t
M .;2(C/M)U
H.3(B/H)1(C/H)i
~HIGH~AESTHETIC ~LOW..J
.IMPACT
>I--..J
iii
~«
()
za
i=
0..a:a
UJ
I:C«
These composite ratings can be grouped and further defined as
to 11 ows:
Composite
Rating
9-8
Description
Landscape has high aes-
thetic value with moderate
to little ability to
absorb man-made features.
Therefore,facility design
solutions should be equal
in strength and compatible
in character to the land-
scape.
Design Criteria
Faci lity design solu-
tions should be similar
in character and equal
in boldness with the
landscape in order to be
compat ib1e.
E-8-43
Composite
Rat i ng
7-6-5
4-3-2-1
Description
Landscape has moderate to
high ability to absorb man-
made features.
Landscape has low to moder-
ate aesthetic value with low
to hlgh abi lity to absorb
man-made features.Landscape
will accept a new variety of
harmonious design solutions.
E-8-44
Des i gn Criteri a
Facility designs should
be in harmony with the
surrounding landscapes.
New elements may add to
the aesthetic quality
beyond existing condl~
tions by introducing.
visual interest and/or
complementing the land-
sc ape.
""'"
.-
4 -AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING (STEP 8)
4.1 -Relationship Between Proposed
Facilities and the Inherent
Quality of the Landscape
Impacts are the result of the visual intrusion of various project
structures or man-made landscape elements such as transmission right-
of-way swaths into the existing environment which is seen and valued
by people.Impact may also result from the loss or inundation of
sceni cally va luab I e natura I features and thei r repl acement with a fea-
ture of different value .
The following charts describe each project feature (Step 2)~identi-
fies the Landscape Character Type within which it occurs (Step 3)and
1 i st s the Landscape I s Composite Rat ing (Step 7)Aesthet ic Impact
rat 1 ngs are determi ned by compan son ot"the features to the rat i ngs of
their setting (Step 8).Refer to Appendix 8A for Project Faci 1 ities
design features.Appendix 8B shows site photos and slmulations of
major project facil ities.
Two aesthetic impact ratings are possible:
(a)Compatible (C)
The facility is subordinate to the landscape and compatable in
characater;and·
Design solution is equal or greater in strength and compatible
in character to the landscape.
(b)Incompatible (I)
There is negati ve contrast between the feature and landscape
creating visual discord.
I~
-
4.2 -Mitigation Planning
Except for a few project features~it is possible to reduce the
aesthetic impact of features by employing appropriate mitigation
measures.In the last column (W/ll1itigation),the generic type of
mitigation measure that could be applied is indicated there.
Each feature was first rated in the impacts column lias proposed u -
that is~as currently sited and designed uti lizing available informa-
tion.If the rating is (C),no mitigation is necessary and the miti-
gation column may remain blank.If the rating is (I)and no mitiga-
tion is possible without significant design changes~the mitigation
column remains blank.If mitigation is possible,the t"eature's
adjusted rating is shown taking into consideration the mitigation
measure~which may change the rating to (C)in some cases.In other
cases~impacts may continue to be (I)~but may be lessened.
E-8-45
If mitigation could be accomplished through redesign,the feature is
assigned a new rating in the last column,listed in brackets on second
line,to indicate the potential for decreasing aesthetlc impact of the
feature through new design.
To achieve the proposed level of mitigation,one or more of the fol-
lowing four generic types of mitigation can be employed:
(a)Addltional study required to consider alternative solutions,
sites or corridor alignments with less impact on scenic quality;
(b)The use of best development practices to minimize construction-
re 1ated effects on the 1andscape and to gu i de post-construction
cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas;
(c)The use of creati ve engi neeri ng design to assure that project
features are well designed and are in themselves positive visual
features;and
(d)The use of form,line,color or textures appropriate to the land-
scape character type.
The type of mitigation suggested is indicated on the charts with
letters;for example,a Ca rating would indicate that a feature could
be made compatable with proper employment of type (a)mitigation.
4.3 -Project Impacts Summary
(a)Watana Project Area
-The Watana Dam has been rated incompatable (no mitigation
possible)to the Susitna River Landscape Character Type (LCT).
The area is incapable of absorbing such a massive element which
contrasts in texture and color.The dam form itself is in
character to the river banks,however,its orientation in the
val ley causes it to be visually dissimilar.
-The Main Spillway is also rated incompatable (I).The proposed
lOO-foot deep cuts wi II leave large scars on the river valley
side and the concrete channel is in sharp contrast to the dark
colors of the Susitna River LCT.With proper mitigation,the
spi llway coul d become compatab leo
-The emergency spillway which is rated I will have impacts slmi-
Iar to the malO SPl I Jway.In addition,the channel wi 11 have a
significant impact on dam visitors who will view the its entire
length as they cross the spi Ilway brldge.Mitigation is pos-
sible which would improve the situation.
E-8-46
-
-
-
.....
-Watana's Powerhouse Access Road also in the Susitna River LCT
will cause significant impacts to the area of the dam as viewed
by vi s itors and workers.The road wi 11 requi re 1arge steep
cuts in the val ley wall WhlCh wi II be difficult to recover with
native vegetation.The road is rated I but could become a C
with proper mitlgation.
-Watana Reservoir wi II essentially e Ilminate the Susitna River
and Ri ver Canyon LCTs in the areas of impoundment and are
therefore rated Incompatible in this setting (no mitigation.
possible).Although reservoirs are not necessarily a negative
element aesthetically,the large drawdown areas of Watana wi II
be a negat i ve impact to vi s itors and workers at the dam area as
well as to recreationists on the reservoir itself.
-The Watana switchyard wi II be located in the Wet Upland Tundra
LCT and has been rated as 1.Th is is because the form and tex-
ture of switchyard equipment is in sharp contrast to the land-
scape,and the area is not capable of absorbing the feature.
Mitigation could improve these impacts but not eliminate them.
-The Watana Borrow Areas may potentially be a very significant
impact on the areas around Watana if their ultimate form is in
contrast to existing character,and natural vegetation does not
hide the scar.The Borrow areas are rated I,with mitigation a
C is possible.
-The tailrace tunnel access road will have simi lar impacts as
the powerhouse access road on the south side of the dam and it
h as been rated I.
The Wat ana Ai rstri pis rated compatab Ie.It will not be in
contrast to the wet upland tundra (LCT)and the area is capable
of absorbing this visual change .
.-Watana Permanent Town is rated I but could receive a C if
redesign studies were done.The town is very disruptive visu-
ally.
(b)Devil Canyon Dam Area
-The Devi 1 Canyon Dam area wi 11 be a very strong element in the
Devil Canyon LCT.The dramatic size and form wi [I be a posi-
tive element and is in character to the setting.
-Devil Canyon Saddle Dam is not a visually existing element,
therefore,the contrast of form,co lor and texture it i ntro-
duces into the sensitive Devil Canyon LCT will be incompatable.
No mitigation is possible to make it compatable although some
improvements are possible.
E-8-47
-Devil Canyon spillway is incompatable to the area.The form of
its deep cut and the color of the concrete and denuded slopes
wi 11 be a significant visual impact to visitors at the Dam and
Visitors Center as well as to workers in the area.
-The Devi I Canyon Emergency Spi Ilway has very simi 1ar impacts as
the main spillway and is also rated I.This spillway,however,
is not as prominent from the main vantage points of the Canyon
bridge,Dam and Visitors Center.
-Devil Canyon Reservoir,like Watana,will eliminate the exist-
ing LCT.1t has been rated 1.fhe visual impacts of this
reservoir will not be as severe as Watana because a lower fluc-
tuation differential and steeper banks wil I result 1n less area
during drawdown becoming exposed.However,the areas will be
visible during the times at heaviest visitation to the dam and
reservoir.No mitigation is possible.
-Devil Canyon Powerhouse Tunnel Access road has been rated I as
a resu It of the maj or cut s and areas at"veget at 1on removal
required to construct the road down the steep slopes.
-The Devi 1 Canyon Switchyard wi 11 be in sharp contrast to the
existing 1andscape character as 1S the switchyard at Watana.
Ihe yard is rated I because the setting cannot absorb this
feature,however,mitigation is possible to lessen the
impacts.
-Devil Canyon Transmission Lines will be visible from the access
road.the bri dge and the dam.They have been rated I 1 n the
[Jevil Canyon LCT because they are difficult to hi de here and
the points of viewing are important within the Mid-Susitna
River Val ley LCT.The lines have been given a C rating because
they will be more easily hidden by scattered trees and proper
alignment in the topography.
(c)Access Roads and Rail
-The Watana Access Road runs through the wet upland tundra LCT
which has a high composlte rat1ng and the Chulitna Mountains
LCT which is also rated high.In both of these areas,the road
has been rated incompatable because of the LCTs low capab111ty
to absorb visual change such as the significant cuts and fills
required for construction as the road is proposed.A Crating
is possible within these LCT settings with the proper mitiga-
tion and careful road design.
-The Borrow Areas for Watana Road are located 1 n the same LC I S
as the road and have been rated as i ncompatable.These areas
are very sensitive to disruption and excavation activities wi II
be very difficult to hide.
E-8-48
-
-
(d)
(e)
The Watana to Gevil Canyon Access Road traverses three distinct
LCTs:Wet Upland Tundra~Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands and
Devil Canyon.The road has been rated I in all of these set-
tings for the same reasons as the Watana road.However,"in the
first two LCTs the road could become compatable if carefully
mit i gated because these areas can more easi ly absorb the change
and their character is more compatable with road forms.Wlthin
the Devi I Canyon LCT,however,there are no methods to make the
road compatable due to the constraints of topography and the
areas high visual sensitivity.
Borrow Areas for the Devil Canyon Access Road occur in the same
LCTs as the road and are incompatab Ie for the same reasons.
-The high level bridge below Devil Canyon Dam has also been
rated as incompatable as it is currently proposed.The bridge
Wl II ofter visitors an opportunity to view the dam and canyon.
This bridge when viewed from other points will be a very
prominent element in the Devil Canyon LeT,and unlike the dam
has not been engineered to be a visually exciting and positive
visual element in the area.
-The rai Iroad spur from Go Id Creek to Devi I Canyon runs through
the Mid-Susitna River Valley and has been rated incompatable to
this LeT as a result ot the extensive disruption and scars
Whl ch wi 11 result from construction.
Construction Worker Accommodations
The Watana Vi 11 age and Camp are located in the Wet Upl and Tun-
dra LCT and have been rated as i ncompatab Ie because ot the
large areas WhlCh wlil be disturbed,and the introduction of
1 arge numbers of structures into an area whi ch cannot absorb
the change.Proper des i gn wi II mit i gate thl s impact but cannot
make the towns compatable to the setting because of their great
contrast to the existing landscape setting.
-The Devil Canyon Camp and Village are located within the mid-
Susitna River Valley LCT and are rated incompatable for the
same reasons as the Watana Camps.However,mitigations will
need to be modified to respond to the unique character of this
settlng.
Transmission Lines
-Temporary 138 kV transmission line.This line from Watana to
the Denali Highway is rated incompatable to its setting.The
Chulitna Mountains and Wet Upland Tundra cannot absorb this
feature,however,with proper siting~the views of lt can be
limited.
E-8-49
-The two 345 kV transmission lines from Watana to Gold Creek
pass through fi ve distri ct LCTs.Within the Devi 1 Canyon and
SusHna River environments,lt has been rated as incompatable
because of its high visibility and this areas inability to
screen the lines from view.Within the mid-Susitna River
Valley and the Talkeetna Uplands,the lines are rated compat-
able because they are not in conflict and the settlngs are cap-
able ot absorblng the drainage.The Chulitna Moist Upland
Tundra could absorb the lines if proper mitigation is followed,
however,at present the lines are lncompatable.
-The Gold"Creek Switchyard is rated compatable to the mid-
Susitna River Valley because the area is capable of absorbing
the feature as designed.
-The Anchorage to Willow Transmission stub line passes through
the Anchorage and Susitna River lowl ands and have been rated
compatable because these settings are capable of absorbing the
new features without causing degradation of the eXlstlng visual
character.
-Healy to Fairbanks Transmission stub line is rated as compat-
able in the Nenana River lowlands for the same reasons discuss-
ed above.Within the Nenana Uplands and the Tanana Ridge LCTs,
the line has been rated I because of its high visibility and
the area1s low absorptlon capabi lity.
-Recreation Features have been all rated cornpatable to their LCT
settings because they do not,for the most part,constltute a
slgnlflcant visual modification to the environment.The excep-
tion to this is the visitors center,one on the south side of
Devil Canyon Dam and other on the north side of Watana Dam.
With proper design,these will also be visually compatable to
thelr settings.
-The Construction Practices have also been evaluated for their
aesthetic impacts which will last after activity has ceased.
Th 1 s inc I udes rock cru sh 1 ng Whl ch cou I d potent 1 a I I Y create
large amounts of blowing dust and visual degradation.Vegeta-
tion clearing for construction activity areas,and spoil sites
will leave lasting scars on the landscape.All of these are
considered for the proposed aesthetic evaluation to be lnher-
ently lncompatable to their environments and careful mitiga-
tions will be needed.
E-8-50
-
.....
~l
-
..,,"
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RAT1NGS
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA PROJECT AREA
WATANA DAM
FEATURE DESCRIPT10N
•EarTh-fl II dam.
•885 fT high.
•4,100-fT crest lengTh.
•Rough (consls"l'ent)textured rock surface.
•Will be one of the hIghest dams In the world.
STEPS 7,8
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Susltna River
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
S(AlM)
E-8-51
AESTHET1C IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA MAIN SPILLWAY
STEPS 7,·OJ
.
1
FEATURE DESCRIPTION I
~
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Susitna River
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
8(A/M)
E-8-52
AESTHET1C IMPACT RATING I
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation ~
L
(Ca,c)
I
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
STEPS 7,8
-•Rock cut channel,over 5,000 ft long,200 ft wide and 30 -50 ft deep.
•Concrete spillway.
•As engineered will require cuts up to and over 100 ft deep on the river's upper north terrace.The
entire length will require cuts of this magnitude.Cut side slopes are 4 ft vertical to 1 ft
horizontal.
-
-~
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Susitna River
Wet Upland Tundra
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
8(A/M)
7(B/L)
E-8-53
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
(Ic,d)
(Ca)
(Ic,d)
(Ca)
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA POWERHOUSE ACCESS ROAD
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
STEPS 7.-
.
l
1
I
•Gravel road of +24 ft wide and over 1.5 miles long.Several hairpin turns as it traverses down 400 ft
in elevation on the river's south slope before it continues down and across the dam face •
•Significant cuts will be required to place the road on these steep slopes.I-
1
L
l
L
L
I
I
~....-.....-------....------....-----------------II!AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation In
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Susitna River
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
8(A/M)
E-8-54
(Ca)
L
\
!
~I
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA RESERVOIR
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
STEPS 7,8
~,
..-
-.
•Approximately 54 miles in length and over 5 miles wide at the confluence of Watana Creek.
•Surface area of 38,000 acres.
•Maximum depth at normal operating level of 680 ft.
•Normal maximum operating elevation is 2,185 feet and a low of 2,065 ft in Apr il or May--dr awdown of
120 ft.
•All timber will be cleared in the reservoir area and will probably be burned.
Drawdown will create extensive mud flat areas up to and over 1 mi in ,~idth at maximum drawdown.
•Extensive slumping,scaling and landsliding is expected along steep side slopes,possibly extending
hundreds of feet up sidewalls,when reservoir is fi.lled.Will continue until angle of repose is
reached.
•In winter,ice shelves will form along the shoreline.
•The impoundment wi.ll inundate small to sign if icant port ins of 7 major tr ibutaries,2 waterfalls,and a
large amount of Vee Canyon.
.....
-
W1THIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Susitna River
River Canyon
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
B(A/M)
9(AIL)
E-8-55
AESTHET1C IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
_________________.....J
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA SWITCHYARD
FEATURE DESCRIPT10N
•WI'J occupy an ar-ea of approximately 650 ft )(750 ft above the dam on the north terrace.
•MIscellaneous electrical equIpment.
•Area wi II be paved with gravel and fenced.
•Origin point of two 345-kV transmfsslon lines.
STEPS 7,l:S
1,
f
1
1
I•
1
1
1
1
AESTHET1C IMPACT RAT1NG •
Feature as Proposed W/MitigatIon!
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Wet Upland Tundra
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RAT1NG
7(S/L)
E-8-56
Ic.d 1
1
1
i
i
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA BORROW AREAS
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
STEPS 1,8
,-
-
•Material for Watana Dam.
•Extracted by draglines in the river;blasted in other areas.
•Existing islands and several miles of the low north river terrace below the dam site are designated as
.borrow areas.
• A borrow area of approximately 640 acres is located on the high north terrace adjacent to Deadman
Creek.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
Susitna River
Wet Upland Tundra
Susitna Upland Terrace
8(A!M)
7(B!L)
7(B!L)
E-8-57
I
I
(Ie)
(Ca)
Cd
I
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS STEPS 7,
••,
•I,
J
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA TAILRACE TUNNEL ACCESS ROAD
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•Gravel road of +24 feet in width and over 1"mile in length.
•Traverses down the south river slope some 500 ft in elevation.Several hairpin turns.
•Significant cuts will be required to build the road on these steep 51 opes.
1
1
!
1,
I"L.;.
1
L
l
L
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING IW1THINLANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Susitna River
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
8(A!M)
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
(Ca)
L
L
!
L
I
~...._-------_....._---_....._-------_....------..
E-8-58
-
.....
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA TEr-PORAAY AIRSTRIP
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•Gravel airsTrip of approximaTely 2,500 ft In lengTh •
STEPS 7,8
WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE...COMPOSITE
RATING
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
-
-
Wet Upland Tundra 7(B/U
E-8-59
c Cb
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA PERMANENT TOWN
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•Town Center -approximately 20 buildings.
•Road -perimeter.
•Surrounds a small lake approximately 35 acres in size.
•Supports 400 people of which 125 will operate both dams and facilities.
•Dwelling Units (125).
•Hospital.
•Water and Sewage Treatment Plants.
STEPS 7,-
"
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
[
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING 1
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation ~..
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTEFt TYPE ...
Wet Upland Tundra
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
7(B!L )
E-8-60
(IC(d)
(Ca)
1
,
1
L
L
L
,-
-
-
RELATIONSHIP BEtWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA PERMANENT TOWN
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•Town canter -approximately 20 buildings.
•Road -perimeter.
•Surrounds a small lake appr~lmately 35 acres In size.
•Supports 400 people of which 125 will operate both dams and facilities.
•Dwelling Units (125)•
•Hospital.
•Water and Sewage Treatment Plants.
STEPS 7,8
-,
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
''''et Up Iand Tundra
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RAT1NG
7(B/L)
E-8-61
AESTHET1C IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
(I c,d
(Ca
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
TWO 345-kV TRANSMISSION LINES
(See Plate 8.5)
STEPS7,J
!'!"l1----------------------------1FEATUREOESCRIP1-10N
•Parallel and adjacent lines for 33.6 miles.
•Towers are guyed steel pole "x"structures (CORTEN)J
+100 ft high
+85 ft to top of main structure ...
+3 -single circuit conductors per transmission line for a total of 6 conductors.
+Base width of 45 ft.J.
•Right-of-way width of 300 ft.
•Complete clearing of right-of-way is not necessary -top trees to a 30-ft radius distance of the .1
conductors including maximum sag.
•Additional towers
+single steel pole angle structure,also 100 ft high.Generally one pole per conductor.J.
+single steel pole structure for slopes 30 percent or more.Three conductors per pole.
•30 percent slope structures are typically 116.5 ft high...
•Typical distance between towers is 1,300 ft
•Adjacent towers or poles are 115 ft apart.1
•Foundations for all structures,except hill side single poles,will consist of steel piling or rock
anchored concrete pedestals ..
•Single pole structure will have a foundation pedestal anchored to rock or a concrete cylinder
approximately 6 ft in diameter and 25 ft deep in other soils.
•Nonspecular conductors.L·
•Winter construction in roadless areas along with helicopter construction in sensitive or steep
terrain.A good portion of west end can be done frOOl an existing road.IIO'l.
1
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Mid Susitna River Valley
Dev il's Canyon
Susitna River
Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands
Talkeetna Uplands
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
5(B/M)
9(A/L)
S(A/M)
S(A/M)
7(B/L)
AESTHET1C IMPACT RATING I
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation ~..
C Cb,d 1
1 Ib,c
I Ib 1
I Cb,d
C Cb,d 1
1
L
E-8-62
-
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
DEVIL CANYON PROJECf AREA
DEVIL CANYON CONCREfE ARCH DAM
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
STEPS 1,8
"...
-
.~
•Arch dam will be double curved with a maximum height of 645-ft,spans approximately 1,300 ft across
lower Devil Canyon
-
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Devil Canyon
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
9(A!L)
E-8-63
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
C
i
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS -STEPS 7,I
t-P_R_O_J_E...;.C_T-...,;..F;;;;.E~AT_U;;;.;R..;;.;E;;;"j.'.I
DEVIL CANYON SADDLE DAM
(Adjacent to Arch Dam);
J....-_..._-------------------------
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•Earth-fill
•Saddle dam is an extension of the arch dam.Same crest elevation and approximately 1,000 ft long.I·
Rough (consistent)textured rock surface.
~,
J
1
1
1
1
1
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING I
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation !
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Devil Canyon
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
9(A/L)
E-8-64
Ib,c 1
1
1
l
L
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
DEVIL CANYON MAIN SPILLWAY
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
STEPS 7,8
-,
,-
..-
•Steeply sloping concrete channel over 1,000 ft long with a tapered width no less than 75 ft.Channel
depth of approximately 25 ft •
•As engineered,will require cuts up to and over 100 ft deep on the north river slope.Cut side slopes
are 4 ft vert ical to 1 ft hor izontal.
-
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Dev il Canyon
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
9(A!L)
E-8-65
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
(Ca,c)
-~-~---------~--,--;;;"",,-,,"'--=_.-.----"-----
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
DEVIL CANYON EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
-
STEPS 7,-
l
1
I
•Sloping rock cut channel over 1,400 ft long with an extending pilot channel -concrete -approximately
BOO ft in length.Main channel width is approximately 250 ft.Pilot channel is approximately 50 ft
wide.
•As engineered,will require cuts up to 100 ft deep on the river's high south terrace.
•Cut side slopes vary from 1.4 ft vertical to 1 ft horizontal and 10 ft vertical to 1 ft horizontal.
•Pilot channel terminates in a ravine which empties into the river.
•Concrete spiLlway -fuse plug.
1
1
1
1
1
1
l
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Devil Canyon
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RAriNG
9(All)
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING I
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation 1.
I Ic lCa
L
L
L
L
E-8-66
~
!
,-,
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
DEVIL CANYON RESERVOIR
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
STEPS 7,8
-
-
•Approximately 32 miles long (backs up almost to Watana Dam)and its broadest point is near the dam.
•The reservoir will inundate most of the Wort d Class whitewater through the canyon.
•Surface area of 7,800 acres.
•Maximum depth at normal operating level of 550 ft.
Normal maximum operating elevation of 1,455 ft for most of the year.Low of 1,405 ft in August or
September (drawdown of 50 ft).
•All timber in the reservoir impoundment area will be cleared and probably burned.
•Exposed areas due to drawdown will coincide with heaviest visitor season.
•The impoundment will inundate a few major tributary canyons.Devil Creek Falls will not be covered.
.-
-
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Dev il 's Canyon
Susitna River
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
9(A!L)
8(A/M)
E-8-67
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
I
I
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
DEVIL CANYON POWERHOUSE TUNNEL
ACCESS ROAD
STEPS 7,
•Gravel road +24 ft in width and over 2.5 miles long from the swil;ehyard to tunnel entrance.
•Makes 3 hairpin turns as it traverses down the north slope some BOD rt in elevation.
•Significant cuts will be required to build the road on these steep slopes.
j....---------------------------------........'
FEATURE DESCRIPT10N
J
J
J
j
J
1
1
.....-----.........--.....,....--1
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Devil Canyon
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
9(A/L)
AESTHETIC IMPACT RA1"ING !
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation!
I Ie 1Ca
1
1
1,
l
E-8-68
-
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
DEVIL CANYON SWITCHYARD
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
STEPS 7,8
-
•Occupies a space of approximately 800 ft x 1,000 ft on the north terrace above the dam.
•Miscellaneous electr icaI equipment.
Area will be gravelled and fenced.
•Origin point of 2 additional 345-kV lines,which will join the 2 lines from Watana after crossing the
canyon below the dam.
-
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Dev il Can yon
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
9(A/L)
E-8-69
AESTHET1C IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
Ic,d
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS STEPS 7,-
PROJECT FEATURE
DEVIL CANYON TWO 345-kV TRANSMISSION LINES -
Adjacent to and parallel to the two 345-kV lines from the Watana phase
(see Plate E8.5)
1
11-----....---------------------------
FEATURE DESCRIPTION I
•See Watana Project Area description of transmission lines •
•Increases right-of-way width to 500 ft.
J..
1
1,
1
1
I...."
L
L
Cb,d
Ib,cI
C
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING !
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
9(A/U
5(8/M)
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
Mid Susitna River Valley
Devil Canyon
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
L
L
L
L
L...........i
l
£-8-70
r
i
l.
-
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
SWITCHYARD AT GOLD CREEK INTERTIE
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
STeps 7,8
.....
•Termination point for the Watana phase transmission lines and also the 2 additional lines from Dev il
Canyon ata later date.
•Miscellaneous electrical equipment.
•Located approximately 75 ft above the Susitna River on the south bank terrace north of Gold Creek •
,~
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
Mid Susitna River Valley 5(B/M)
E-8-71
C Cc,d
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
RAILROAD SPUR FROM GOLD CREEK TO DEVIL CANYON
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
.....
STEPS 7,\
]
•Approximately 14 miles in length.
Minimum disturbed section width of 31 ft.
•Pr imary purpose of operat ion is hauling mater ials and equipment for the construct ion of Dev il Canyon
Dam.
•Railhead facility at Gold Creek and Devil Canyon construction camp.Requires a space of approximately
600 ft x 3,000 ft.Includes:
-engine turnaround
-fuel storag:?
-loading docks
-workshop,stores and management office.
•Will require extensive cut and fill to construct railroad bed at 2 percent maximum slope.
J
J
J
1
1
1
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING I
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation J..
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Mid Susitna River Valley
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
5(S/M)I Cb,d 1
1
1
L
£-8-72
-
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA ACCESS ROAD -DENALI HIGHWAY TO WATANA DAM
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
STEPS 7,8
-
•Gravel road of approximately 40 miles in length.
24 ft wide,44 ft minimum disturbed section.
•Design speed is 40 -60 mph.
•Significant cut and fill will be required to construct road on the variety of landscape and terrain
conditions
+wet bog areas
+permafrost
+steep slopes
+creek and ravine crossings
•Will first serve as a temporary access road for construction of Watana Dam and will not be open to the
pub lic unt il dam completion (1993).
•Long-term use of road will be for recreationists and project operators.
•Will have puHoff -small parking areas for 3 - 5 cars
+vista points
+trailhead
+campground
•Culverts
-
-
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Wet Upland Tundra
Chulitna Mountains
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
7(8!L)
9(A!L)
E-8-73
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
Ca,b,c,d
.Ca,b ,c ,d
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS STEPS 7,
BORROW AREAS -Material for Construction of Watana Access Road
PROJECT FEATURE
J
.......J
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•Rock/gravel extraction areas for road material.
•large pits in selected locations adjacent to the proposed road.
•Upland sources of rock material may also be chosen.May require temporary roads for extraction.
1
1
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING •
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation lWITHINLANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Wet Upland Tundra
.Chulitna Mountains
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
7(B/L)
9(A!l)
E-8-74
Ca,b,d
Ca,b ,d
1
1
1
1
I-
-
-
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA TO DEVIL CANYON ACCESS ROAD
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
STEPS 7,8
•Constructed after the completion of Watana Dam (1993).
•Gravel road of approximately 34 miles in length.
•24 ft widp.-44-ft minimlJll disturbed section.
•Design speed is 40 -60 mph.
•Significant cut and fill will be required to construct road on the variety of landscape and terrain
condit ions.
+wet bag areas
+permafrost
+steep slopes
+significant river and ravine crossings.
•Major purpose is for operators of Devil Canyon Dam who live at Watana Permanent Town.Also has
long-term recreation purposes.
•WH 1 have pulloff -small parking areas for 3 -5 cars
+vista points
+trailhead
+campground.
Culverts and bridges
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RAT1NG
AESTHET1C IMPACT RAT ING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
-
Wet Upland Tundra
Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands
Dev il Canyon
7(B!L)
8(A!M)
9(A!L )
E-8-75
I
I
I
Ca,b,c,d
Ca,b,c,d
Ia,b,c,d
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
BORROW AREAS -Material for Construction of Watana to Devil Canyon Access Road
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
STEPS 7'J
•Rock/gravel extraction areas for road material.
•Large pits in selected locations adjacent to the proposed road.
•Upland sources of rock material may also be chosen.May require temporary roads for extraction.
j
J
J
1
1
1....---------....------.,...----------------WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Wet Upland Tundra
Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands
Devil Canyon
LANDSCAPE
COMPOS1TE
RATING
7(B/L)
8(A!M)
9(/\/L)
E-8-76
AESTHET1C IMPACT RATING ,
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation ~
I Ca,b,c,d I~,
I Ca,b,c,d
I Ia,b,c,d 1,
1
1
L
""'"RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEA1"URE
HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE OVER DEVIL CANYON BELOW DAM
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
STEPS 7,8
-
•Steel suspension bridge approximately 2,600 ft in length and 600 ft above the river bottom.
•The bridge,as engineered,is not horizontal.The south end is nearly 100 ft higher in elevation than
t he north end.
•Primary purpose is to aid in construction of Devil Canyon dam.
•Shallow curved suspension.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Dev il Canyon
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
9(A!L)
E-8-77
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
Cc
-
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS STEPS 7,.3
....---------------------------------------'~PROJECT FEATURE
ANCHORAGE TO WILLOW TRANSMISSION STUB LINE
(see Plate E8.5)
-
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•Two 345-kV transmission lines after completion of Watana Dam.An additional J45-kV line will be
constructed with the completion of Devil Canyon Dam.I
~63 miles in length •
•Se~feature description of transmission lines for Watana Project Area for detail.""'~
J
J
1
1
1
1
AESTHET1C IMPACT RAT1NGI
Ca,b,d
Ca,b,d
c
c
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation ..,
1
1
1(C/H)
1(C!H)
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
Anchorage,Alaska
susitna River Lowlands
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
1
l
L
,
E-8-78
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
HEALY TO FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION STUB LINE
(see Plate E8.5)
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•Two 345-kV transmission lines after completion of Watana Dam •
•·98 miles in length •
•See feature description of transmission lines for Watana Project Area for detail.
STEPS 7,8
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Nenana Uplands
Nenana River lowlands
Tanana Ridge
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
5(B!M)
1(C!H)
7(B!L )
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
I (Ib,d)
(a,b,d)
C Ca,b ,d
I (Ib,d)
(Ca,b,d)
E-8-79
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE
RECREATION FACILITIES AND FEATURES
WATANA DAM VISIT~CENTER
(To be desIgned)
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•ExhIbit building ",Ith food service,souvenir shop,museum,restrooms and tour facIlity.
•Indigenous botanl~1 garden.
•Perking for 20 cars.
•Located above the dam on the south side of the river.!
1
1
"
I
l
L
L
Ca,'c:,d
AESTHETiC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
8 (A/M)
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATiNG
Sus I tna Rive,.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
L
L
L
L
-....--L
E-8-80
.....
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
DEVIL CANYON DAM VISITOR CENTER
(To be designed)
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•Located above the dam on the south side of the river •
•See Watana visitor center description above.No botanical garden.
STEPS 7,8
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
8(A/M)
E-8-81
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
Ca,c,d
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS STEPS 7,
SHELTERS
PROJECT FEATURE
1
....-1
FEATURE DESCRIPTION I
•Rustic log cabin type structures of 200 -300 square feet in size •
•Used as a warming.shelter and place to get in from the weather.
~
1
1
1~
1
1
L
L1---------..,..-----.,.----------------WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands
(Mermaid Lake)
Chulitna Mountains (Tsusena
Creek-Caribou Pass)
Susitna Upland Wet Tundra Basin
(Tyone River confluence
W!Susitna)
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
8(A!M)
9(A!L)
7(B!l)
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
Cc,d
Cc,d
Cc,d
•
L
L
L
I~
i
~--'--__---.iL
E-8-82
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
S~~IDEVELOPEDCAMPGROUND
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•Walk-In designated campground area with hardened tent pad and fire pit for each unit •
•Rest rooms (pit toilet)
STEPS 7,8
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
COMPOSITE .Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
RATING
5usftna Upland Terrace
(Fog Lakes and Stephen
Lake)
Chulitna Moist Tundra
Uplands (Mermaid Lake)
7Ca/L}
3tAlM)
E-8-83
Cb,c
Cb,c
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
PRIMITIVE CAMPING
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•General area designated bUT no developmenT.
""'"
STEPS 7,&
""'"1
•
L
I--_-.,...-...,------------_-.....I'li"il.
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Chulitna MounTains
wet Upland Tundra
Susltna Uplands
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
9<A/U
7(S/L>
7(B/U
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
c
c
C
""'"
""'"
-
...._------_....._---.....,j--------_...._-_...-....-
E-8-84
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
DEVELOPED TRAILS
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
STEPS 7,8
Cleared and hardened (compacted)trail 2 - 3 ft wide.PDrtions of established game trails may be
utilized.
•Tr ail dest inat ion and mileage markers •
•Explanatory signage-landscape-environrrent-views.
-WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Chulitna Mountains
Wet Upland Tundra
Chulitna Moist Tundra
Uplands
Devil Canyon
Susitna Upland Terrace
Susitna Uplands
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
9(A/l)
7 (B/l)
B(A/M)
9(A/L )
7(B/l)
7(B/l)
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
Cb
Cb
Cb
Cb
Cb
Cb
E-8-85
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS STEPS 7,8
PROJECT FEATURE I
PRIMITIVE TRAILS
FEATURE DESCRIPTION r
•Suggested Traf I corridors.No physl cal Trail development'.
L
L!
C
C
AESTHET1C IMPACT RAT1NG
Feature as Proposed Wf Mitigation
9(A/U
9(AlL>
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RAT1NG
Talkeetna Mount'alns
Chulitna Mountains
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
L
~
,
~
:~l....._-----_.....---_....._---------------'E-8-86
r
l
re
RELATIONSHIP BetwEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
TRAILHEADS
(Located along Access Roads,Reservoir Landings and at Lakes)
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•Road pulloffs Iyith parking for 3 -~cars.Same gravel surface as road.
•Trail destination and mileage markers.
•Reservoir trailheads will have anchored boat tie-ups.
STEPS 7,8
-
-
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Wet Upland Tundra
Chulitna Mountains
Chulitna Moist Tundra
Uplands
Devil Canyon
Susitna River
Susitna Upl ands
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
7(B/L)
9(A/L)
8(A/M)
9(AIL)
B(A/M)
7(B!L)
£-8-87
AESTHET1C IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
Cb
Cb
Cb
Cb
Cb
Cb
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
SCENIC VISTA/ROAD PULLOffS
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•Parking for 3 -5 cars adjacent to road.Same gravel surface as road •
•Explanatory signage of landscape-environment-views.
STEPS i,·~
!
:-
-
,
J
J
J.
I~
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Wet Upland Tundra
Chulitna Mountains
Chulitna Moist Tundra
Uplands
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
7(S!L )
9(A!L)
B(A!M)
E-8-88
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING f
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation ..J
Cb J
Cb
Cb j
I~
1
I
4;
-
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION -DAMS AND RESERVOIRS
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•Dam construction sites.
•Miscellaneous dam building equipment.
•Rock crushing plant.
Storage buildings.
•Cofferdams.
•Diversion tunnels
•Exterior material storage and lay-down areas.
•Borrow areas.
•Clearing and burning of timber in reservoir impoundment areas.
•Spoil sites.
STEPS 7,8
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
~Watana
'5liS'itria Ri ve r S(A/M)lb
River Canyon 9(A/l)Ib
Susitna Upland Wet Tundra 7(B/l)Ib
Basin
Wet Upland Tundra 7(B!L)Ib
Susitna Upland Terrace 7(B/l)Ib
Devil Canyon
9(A/l)Dev~l Cam/on Ib
Susitna R1ver S(A/M)Ib
Chulitna Moist Tundra 8 (A/M)Ib
Uplands
Talkeetna Uplands 7(B!L)Ib
""'''
E-8-89
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS STEPS 7,8
"""
PROJECT FEATURE
FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION -ROADS
FEATURE oeSCRIPTION
•Road constructIon site.
•MIscellaneous road buildIng eqUipment.
•Rodt crush Ing p I ant.
•Storage buildings.
•ExterIor materIal storage and lay-down areas.
•8orrow areas.
l
[
\iolO'
L\.
'6
f
......-----.....---.....---------.......,~!
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation ~
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATINGI-----------I-~------_+---------_+_------__tl-
Wet Upland Tundra
CJ1u II tna Mounta I ns
Chu I I rna /<b I sf Tundra
Uplands
7tB/l)
9{A/U
8CAlM)
Ib
Ib
lb
.....-__----....-------......----~l~
E-8-90
,..,.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
TEMPORARY 138-kV TRANSMISSION LINE (SYEARS)
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•Power source for constructIon of \IIatana Dam.
•Parallel to the north-south access road.
•Origin at Cantwell,Alaska--follows Denali HIghway.
STEPS 1,8
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Wet Upland Tundra
Chulitna MountaIns
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
7(B/L)
9(A/L>
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
Ib
lb
E-8-91
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS STEPS 7,8
Ioor!l
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA OONSTRUCTION CAM='
j
l
1
•Covers an area of approximately 150 acres.
•Over 100 structures
+dOl"\lll!tor Ias
+recreation facilities
+hosplta~
+service buildings
+administraTion buildings,etc.
•Sal I fields (3)
•Sewage treatment plant and landfill.
•Will support 3,480 people for approximately 8 years.
•Roads
•Fenced
J-F_E_A_T_U_R_E_D_E..;;,S_C_R_IP_T_l0_N -oj
.J
I~
1
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation ~
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE •..
....---------...------.,.------------.....__1
AESTHETtC IMPACT RATING I
Wet Upland Tundra 7(S!U la,b,c,d
1
E-8-92
~
I
i
I.
,~
RELAT10NSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA CONSlRUCTION VILLAGE
(Adjacent to Permanent Town)
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•COvers an area of approxImately 150 acres.
•Multi-family and single family status.
•Supports 1,120 people for approximately 8 years.
•VarIety of structures Including
+dwelling units
+school
+service
+r-ecreat I on center
+gymnasIum
+managing offices
+general store,etc.
•Roads
•Fenced
STEPS 7,8
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Wet Upland Tundra
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
7(S/U
E-8-93
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
la,b.c,d
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS STEPS 7.,J
DEVIL CANYON CONSTRUCTION CAMP
PROJECT FEATURE
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
J
J
!
~1----------------------------------,
•Covers an area of approximately 100 acres.
•Approximately 75 structures including
+dormitories
+staff housing
+hospital
+gymnasiLITI
+warehouse
+recreation hall
+staff clubhouse
+ball fields (3)
+water treatment plant and reservoir.
•Roads and covered walkways.
•Will support 1,780 workers for approximately 10 years (after the completion of Watana Dam).
•Sewage treatment plant.
•Located on an existing wet flat terrace with good surrounding forest cover.
•Fenced
~
\
j
J
!
J
J
J
.1~
l
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING f
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation .J,
Mid Susitna River Valley 5(B!M)Ia,b,c,d
E-8-94
!
!
.~
."""'.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
DEVIL CANYON CONSTRUCTION VILLAGE
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•Covers an area of approximately 100 acres.
Multi-family and single family status.
•Supports 550 people for approximately 10 years.
Structures include
+320 housing units
+school
+gymnasium
+recreation center
+store,etc.
•Roads
•Fenced
•Landfill
STEPS 7,8
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
Mid Susitna River Valley
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
5(B/M)
E-8-95
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation
Ia,b,c,d
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE RATINGS
PROJECT FEATURE
RAILROAD
STEPS 7,8
I
....-----------------------------~..
FEATURE DESCRIPTION
•ConstructIon sIte.
•Miscellaneous railroad buIldIng equIpment.
•Storage buildIngs.
•ExterIor mater!al storage and lay-down areas.
•Rock crushIng plant.
•Borrow areas.~
h
1
'
.!
r:
L
l
......--.----......-----..--------......1·
WITHIN LANDSCAPE
CHARACTER TYPE ...
MId Susltna RIver Valley
LANDSCAPE
COMPOSITE
RATING
5(S/M)
AESTHETIC IMPACT RATING
Feature as Proposed WI Mitigation ~
Cb
....._------_....._----......-------_......_----.......~E-8-96
5 -PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES (STEP 9)
Mitigation measures are the crux of the plan for preservation and
enhancement of scenic and natural values,and resources within the
Susitna Basin.Step 9 describes the proposed measures for mitigating
aesthetlc impacts in each of the fol lowlng categories for each of the
project features:
(a)Additional study required to consider alternative solutions,
sltes,or corridor alignments wlth Jess impact on scenic quality.
(b)The use of best development practices to minimize construction-
re 1ated effects on the 1andscape and to gu i de post-construct i on
cleanup and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
(c)The use of creative engineering design to assure that project
features are weJ J designed and are,in themselves,positive vis-
ual features.
(d)The use of form,line,color or textures approprlate to the land-
scape character type in facility design.
Appendix 80 shows illustration of these mitigations for the major
project facilities.
E-8-97
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
-
STEP!
PROJECT FEATURE
WATANA PROJECT AREA
WATANA DAM
MAIN SPILLWAY
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
WATANA RESERVOIR
POWERHOUSE ACCESS ROAD
MlTIGAT10N MEASURES
•The scale of Watana Dam will be impressive but its size and form are
incompatible with the highly rated character type.
•No mitigation possible.
•As with the dam,the scale is large and it will cause significant
aesthet ic impacts in relation to the character type.
•While no mitigat ion measures will render it compatib Ie as engineered,
further study may result in alternate solutions which are compatible
or have less adverse impacts on the landscape.
•Tunnel (underground spillway)versus open channel solution would be
compatible if feasible and properly designed.
•Terrace steep side slope cuts to approximate character ist ic slope
gradients and surface textures.
•The scale and form of this feature as engineered will not be compatible
in the given character types and no mitigation will make it
c ompatib Ie •
•To lessen the visual impact,study should be conducted to determine if
it is possible and feasible to deposit spoil material oveJ;'the rock
floor of the spillway and revegetate with tundra species.
•Terrace steep side slope cuts to soften form and approximate
characteristic slope gradients.
• A tunneled spillway would be compatibe if feasible and properly
designed.
•Consider a curving channel form to reduce the visual impacts at the
point at which the road crosses the spillway.
Revegetate the Fuse plug dam with tundra species.
•Impressive scale,but expected large scale erosion and extensive
drawdown make the reservoir incompatible in all character type in the
impoundment area.No mitigation is possible to reach compatibility
or lessen adverse visual impacts.
•No mitigation is possible for the construction of a road of this nature
down the steep slopes of the river valley.
•An elevator structure (alternative solution)down to the powerhouse
with connecting tunnel would eliminate need for surface access road
and its impacts.Consider accessing both powerhouse and tailrace
tunnel by same or multiple elevators.
•Consider road tunnel rather than surface road (alternat ive solution).
E-8-98
L
l
t
t
r~..
L
L
I~
MITIGATION.MEASURES-
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
PROPOSED MITIGATION
PROJECT FEATURE
MEASURES STEP9
SWITCHYARD •Because of the size,form and complexity of switch yard electrical
equipment and associated structures,there are no mitigatIon llEasures
possible to make the feature compatible in the character type.
•Creative engineering design of the facility,along with the use of
colors and/or overall forms appropr iate to the character type,will
help the features to be more aesthetically pleasing independent of
the surroundings.
•Chain-link fence,if used,should be black or brown clad chain.
•Forms should be very simple,textures should not be smooth,and colors
medium tone browns or black (nonreflective)-.--
------------il---------------------------------
~.
BORROW AREAS
TAILRACE TUNNEL
ACCESS ROAD
TEMPORARY AIRSTRIP
•An extensive area of the Susitna River (north side)below the Watana
Dam site is proposed for potential material extraction.Significant
large scale incompatible changes are probable.Careful planning,
design and construction can lessen impacts.(Filling of Devil Canyon
reservoir will also flood these areas.)
•Engineered design of borrow areas in and along the river I'i1 ich
positively respond to the form,line and texture of the existing area
Idll help lessen the adverse visual appearance.
•Further study by an interdisciplinary team may result in alternate site
selections and/or extraction techniques which will be compatible with
the character type(s).
The large proposed borrow area on the north high terrace area north of
the dam site will not be compatible because of the straicf1t edge/form
indicated in proposed plans.
•Irregular edges and abrupt rock forms would make the form compatible to
the landscape.This edge is especially important because it will
become a part of the reservoir edge when the area is inundated.
•The rock quarry located between Watana Dam and Fog Lake will have
significant visual impact.Forest·clearings should be lineal'with
irregular edges to approximate existing openings.Clearings should
not be symmetrical in form.
•See mitigation measures for Powerhouse Access Road.
If surface road (rather than elevator or tunnel)is required,consider
accessing both powerhouse and tailrace tunnel with the use of one
road.
•Proper siting and careful construction practices to contain clearing
and grading will help minimize adverse impacts to the landsc ape.
E-8-99
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
...
STEP I
PROJECT F=EATURE
PERMANENT TOWN
TWO 345-kV TRANSMISSION
LINES (WATANA TO GOLD
CREEK SWI TCHYARD)
MITiGATION MEASURES
•The proposed townsite and layout will be incompatible with the given
character type.No mitigation possible to make it compatible.
•An interdisciplinary team should be utilized to best site,arrange and
design the town layout and individual features.This approach 'Hill
help create a town which is aesthetically attractive to viewers and
residents.
•Further study by an interdisciplinary team should-result in the
select ion of a townsite which will be more compat ib Ie with the
landscape.Harmony and balance between the character type and town
is possible with proper design and siting.Positive visual interest
could result.
•Although the proposed route was selected for its high ability to cause
minimal adverse aesthetic and environmental impacts,the large scale
of the feature in relation with the highly aesthetic landscapes
through which it passes results primarily in an incompatible situa-
tion.Mitigation measures are possible in many conditions to assure
minimal aesthetic impacts,and in some cases make compatible
re let ionships.
•The selection of CORTEN-surfaced towers will reduce their visibility in
the landscape.
Right-of-ways through forested areas should be feathered to reduce
tunneled or channeled visual effect.
•Complete clearing of vegetation in right-of-way is unnecessary.Trees
should be topped to a 30-ft radius of the conductors and maximum line
sag.
•Where possible,alignments should follow the edge of major forest/open
boundaries to minimize clearing and maximize screening potential.
•Ridge tops and other high points are to be avoided bec.ause of their
high visibility.
•AlijJnment through valley centers should be avoided as these areas would
become major focal points as would ridge tops.
•utilizing helicopter construction methods in inaccessib Ie and env iron-
mentally sensitive areas ,..ill help reduce adverse aesthetic impacts.
•Winter construction in open tundra areas will eliminate the potential
visual impacts caused by ~he construction of access roads/trails
dur ing ather seasons.
•Use of existing roads near alignment sections will eliminate the need
for new construction area access.Short roads/trails to tower
construction areas should be aligned and designed to cause minimal
damage to the landscape.
•The crossing of Devil Canyon area with transmission lines is viewed as
incompatible with no mitijJation measures to make it compat ible.
However,creative engineering design and proper sitinjJ of towers will
lessen adverse impacts.The maximum allowable span across the river,
with towers at the top of the canyon,should be used to keep the
lines high above the river and eliminate clearing of canyon walls.
Educate project workers and especially equipment operators in construc-
tion methods which result in minimal environmental impacts which
directly relate to aesthetic impacts.Identify environmentally
sensitive areas.Use visual aids to stimulate interest.
•River,stream,canyon and road crossings should be made at 90-deg
angles.
E-8-100
J
J
I-
1
j..
\.,·c_.
1
1
1
I~
1
1
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES STEP9
PROJECT FEATURE
DEVIL CANYON PROJECT AREA
CONCRETE ARCH DAM
SADDLE DAM
MAIN SPILLWAY
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
DEVIL CANYON RESERVOIR
POWE~HOUSE TUNNEL
ACCESS ROAD
SWITCHYARD
TWO 34S-kV TRANSMISSION
LINES (DEVIL'S CANYON TO
GOLD CREEK SWITCHYARD)
MITIGATION MEASURES
•The scale,form,material,siting and design of this dam combine to
produce a positive aesthetic impact.No mitigation is necessary.
•Because of large scale,form and high visibility,this feature Idll be
incompatible with no mitigation to render it compatible.
•Further study may result in creative engineering design.
•Minimal disturbance of forest and the creation of irregular forest
edges will help overall visual impact.
•See mitigation measures for Watana Dam/Main Spillway.
•See mitigation measures for Watana Dam/Emergency Spillway.
•Creative design and blasting of the pilot channel to approximate
typical canyon characteristics would help reduce negative aesthetic
impacts.
•Although the drawdown level of 50 ft is considerably less than Watana,
the aesthetic impact is still significant and incompatible with no
mitigation possible.Like Watana,large-scale landslides and other
erosion features are expected.The maximum drawdown at Devil Canyon
will occur during August and September which is the highest
visitation and viewing period.
•See mitigation meausures for Watana Dam/powerhouse Access Road.
•See mitigation measures for liatana Dam/Switchyard.
•Clearing of trees should be kept to a minimum for maximum screening
potential.
•Screening or barrier type fences or walls should be painted or
naturally dark in color.Dark browns or greens would be best in
forest areas.
•See mitigation measures for Watana to Gold Creek Transmission Lines.
E-8-101
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES STEP
PROJECT FEATURE
SWITCHYARD AT GOLD
CREEK INTERTIE
MITIGATION MEASURES
•The variety of forest patterns in this character type allows this
feature to be reasonably compatible.
•See mitigation measures for Devil Canyon/Switchyard.
1
1
RAILROAD SPUR FROM GOLD
CREEK TO DEVIL CANYON
•With proper alignment,creat ive engineering and design,and appropr iate
mitigation,the railroad could be compatible in this landscape.
•Minimal clearing of forest and irregular forest edge feathering will
help redLCe visual impacts and maximize screening potential.
•Trestle construction (heavy and dark timbers)should be considered
where the alignment is along the steep sidewalls of the river and
through wetland areas rather than cut and fill.These trestle
structures will be aesthetically attractive and will result in far
less environmental impacts than cut and fill sections.
•Railhead facilities should be designed to require as little space as
possible to keep area impact to a minimum.Forest clearing should be
kept to a minimum and edges irregularly feathered.Forms and colors
of building and related facilities should be important design
criteria.Colors should blend well into the forested and tundra
landscape.
1
!
WAf ANA ACCESS ROAD •With an interdisciplinary alignment planning and design approach,it is
possible to construct a road compatible with the landscapes through
l'ttIich it passes.
• A maximum design speed of 40 mi/h will result in a road which better
fits the topography and requires less cut and fill work.These
measures will lessen visual as well as environmental impacts.
•Wooden trestle type bridges rather than concrete bridges would be more
aesthetically attractive.
•In areas where the road must traverse dam,up steep slopes.,a
concrete-cantilevered road structure set on pilings would reduce or
eliminate extensive cut and fill slopes.This would not only result
in significantly less aesthetic impacts but also reduce environmental
impacts.
•Clearing in forested areas should be kept toa minimum.Irregular
feathering of edges should be done to approximate existing natural
edges.
•Road dust control should be developed.Water application is
recommended.
1
1
L
L
L
L
I-
l
•With sensitive siting,extraction and rehabilitation methods,borrow
sites are capable of being compatible in most character types.
•Extraction of material in existing rock dominated uplands would be
appropriate as long as access to these areas does not require exten-
sive roads/trails.Consider winter extraction from these areas.
•Contour ing the borrow areas to appl'oximate surrounding slope gradients
and avoiding man-made,unnatural appearing edges and/o:L'forms during
the extraction process will assure minimal negative visual impacts.
•Organic topsoil should be distr ibuted over extract ion areas and then
scarified and fertilized.The site should then be left alone for
invasion of natural tundra species.
•Where possible,borrow areas should be filled to natural grades with
spoil material.Again,organic topsoil should be distr ibuted and the
previous procedure followed.
BORROW AREAS FOR
WATANA.ACCESS ROAD
I
)
L!
h...._----_.....--------------------~E-9-102
AESTHET1C RESOURCES
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES STEP9
designed bridge structure could
For instance,a concrete arch
setting could be a compatible and
"'""
PROJECT FEATURE
DEVIL CANYON ACCESS ROAD
BORROW AREAS FOR DEVIL
CANYON ACCESS ROAD
HIGH-LEVEL BRIDGEI
DEVIL CANYON
ANCHORAGE TO WILLOW
TRANSMISSION STUB LINE
HEALY TO FAIRBANKS
TRANSMISSION STUB LINE
MITIGATION MEASURES
•See mitigation measures for W~tana Access Road.
•See mitigation measures for Borrow Areas/Watana Access Road
•The proposed bridge design is not equal in strength 'to its natural
setting nor does it creatively respond to the strong site character.
Forms and shape are in conflict with nat ur al lines of the canyon.
Symmetr ical tower design and sloping road deck are in conflict with
each other.
•Like Devil Canyon dam,a creatively
have a positive aesthetic impact.
bridge designed to respond to its
memorable feature.
•Because of the character types,relatively low aesthetic quality and
their ,nedium/high abilities to absorb visual impacts,these
transmission lines (see Plate E8.5)can be compatible with some
mitigation.
•Underground routing of the transmission line is recommended for the
last 3 - 4 mi of the Anchorage end of the stub.The proposed route
here passes through and adjacent to a proposed city park.
The transmission line should parallel the existing line right-of-way
adjacent to the Glen Highway and through the Elmendorf "Air Force Base
to avoid the creation of new and unnecessary patterns and impacts.
•Further study of the transmission line near the town of Willow and
Willow Creek area.A state park is proposed in the area near and
adjacent to Willow Creek and its confluence with the Susitna River.
•See applicable mit igation measures for Watana and Devil Canyon
Transmission Lines.
This transmission route needs further study,with particular emphasis
placed on determining whether or not the new lines could parallel the
right-of-way of the existing line from Healy to Fairbanks.
Significant visual impacts would be eliminated if a parallel route
were possible.
•See mitigation measures for\~atana and Devil Canyon Transmission
Lines.
E-8-103
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES STEP
PROJECT FEATURE
RECREATION FACILITIES
AND FEATURES
WATANA DAM VISITOR CENTER
DEVIL CANYON DAM
VISITOR CENTER
SHELTERS
SEMIDEYELOPED CAMPGROUND
PRIMITIVE CAMPING
DEVELOPED TRAILS
PRIMITIVE TRAILS
TRAlLHEADS
MITIGATION MEASURES
•Appropriate siting,layout and design of such a facility would assure
compatibility.An interdisciplinary team should be utilized.
•Form,material and color are other important design criteria.
•See mitigation measures for Watana Dam Visitor Center.
•Appropriate siting and design of such a structure would lead to an
aesthetically attractive and compatible feature.
•State park shelters should be analyzed for pote~tial use.
•Campgrounds of this nature can easily be compatible if appropriate
siting,material,form and color are utilized as prime planning and
design criteria.
•Forms,textures and colors should blend well into the existing
landscape.
•No mit igat ion is needed if good man agement pract ices and area
regulations are developed.
•Sensitive siting and construction methods of proposed trails wilL
eliminate most or all potential aesthetic and environmental impacts.
•No mitigation is required if appropriate management practices and area
regulations are developed.
•Sensitive siting,design,and appropriate use of materials,colors,and
textures will assure aesthetic compatibility.
•Sensitive construction methods will help minimize potential aesthetic
and environmental impacts.
Clearing of vegetation should be kept to a minimum.Vegetation edges
should be kept as natural as possible.
E-8-104
1
.1,
1
1
1
L
L
L
j
..
,
I,
-
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES STEP9
r
-
-
PROJECT FEATURE
SCENIC VISTA/ROAD PULLOFFS
FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
COMMON MITIGATION
MEASURES/PROJECT AREA
CONSTRUCTION
DAMS/RESERVOIRS
ROADS
TEMPORARY 138-kV
TRANSMISSION LINE
WATANA CONSTRUCTION CAMP
WATANA CONSTRUCTION
VILLAGE
DEVIL CANYON
CONSTRUCTION CAMP
DEVIL CANYON
CONSTRUCTION VILLAGE
MITIGATION IVIEASURES
•See mitigation measures for Trailheads.
•Because the constant on-going heavy construction activity within the
project area and its temporary nature,the construction process and
related visual impacts are viewed as incompatib Ie.
•Educate project personnel in construction methods ",nich result in
minimal environmental impacts.This is directly related to aesthetic
impacts.Identify environmentally sensitive areas and features,and
explain why they are vulnerable to disturbance and therefore why
protective measures are needed.
•Interdisciplinary teams should be utilized for assessment and
recommendations for the proper siting,design and construction
procedure of any major operation with potential of adverse aesthetic
and environmental impacts.
Proper siting should minimize requirements for clearing or removal of
vegetat ion.
•Dust control measures should be developed.Water application is
recomrnendd.
•Site rehabilitation methods.should be studied and applied to abandoned
sites and depleted material areas by the end of the next growing
season following last use.
•See mitigation measures for Watana Dam/Borrow Areas.
•See Common Mitigation Measures.
•See Common Mitigation Measures/Project Area Construction.
•See mitigation measures for Denali Access Road.
•See Common Mitigation Measures/Project Area Construction.
•See mitigation measures for Watana Project Area/Transmission Lines.
•See Common Mitigation Measures/Project Area Construction.
•See mitigation measures for Permanent Town.
E-8-105
---_.•_------------
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES STEF
1
1
1
FEATURE
l'!J!l!.
PROJECT MITIGAT10N MEASURES
,RAILROAD See Common ~fitigation Measures/Project Area Construction •....See mitigation measures for Railroad Spur from Gold Creek to Devil
~anj'on.
~
1l!!l!'i
J
J
I
J
j
1
1
J
J
1
E-8-106
-
6 -AESTHETIC IMPACT EVALUATION OF THE INTERTIE
(a)Background
The Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie is intended to connect the elec-
tric utility systems serving Anchorage and Fa1rbanks.1t 1S a
distinct and separate project from the Susitna Hydroelectric Pro-
ject and has been studied in a separate visual impact assessment
report prepared by Comm.onwealth Associates,Inc.
As this new facil ity wi 11 carry 'power generated by the Susitna
Project over a system expanded to serve the project as shown in
Figure E.8.5,it is briefly discussed herein.
(b)Project Description
The Intertie will extend from Willow and Healy,where it will
ultimate ly connect with Sus itna Hydroe 1ectri c Project features
referred to as "Stubs".Figure E.8.S illustrates the inertie as
it is planned to be constructed in 1983 along with subsequent
additions for the Susitna Project 1ncludng the stubs and dam
interconnections.The intertie will be a 170-mile long facility
constructed basically of guyed steel "X"poles.Angle structures
will be three separate vertical pole structures with single-pole
hillside structures.All towers will be made of self-rusting
(Corten type)steel and conductors wi 11 be nonspecul ar .All
facilities and structures will be identical to those descr1bed 1n
the V1 sua I ana lyS1 s of the Sus itna Hydroe 1ectri c Project
transmission lines in previous sections of this report.At
1nitial construction,the line wi II be energlZed at 138 kV.
When the Watana Project comes on line in 1993,a second parallel
1 ine wi 11 be added to the Intertie,the 11stubs"wi 11 be con-
structed,the lines will be energized to 345 kV,and a switchyard
built near Gold Creek to connect with Watana power.in 2UU2,
when Dev11's Canyon comes on line,a third parallel line will be
bui lt on the Gold Creek to Wi 11 ow port ion of the 1ine,and the
Wi I low to Anchorage stub W1 I I also have a third line.
This discussion will briefly cover the Willow to Healy route as
analyzed by Commonwealth for 1983 construction,and will comment
on the 1993 and 2002 additions to the Willow to Healy route.
(c)Landscape Character Types
Commonwealth identified six landscape character types based on
the Alaska Department of Natural Resources 1981 stUdy,Scenic
Resources along the Parks Highway.They are;
-Susitna River Lowlands -Cook Inlet to the southern entrance of
Denali State Park
-Curry Ridge -Denali State Park to Curry Ridge
E-8-107
-Chulitna River -Curry Ridge to East Chulltna River
-Broad Pass -East Chulitna River to Denall Hlghway
-Alaska Range -Denali Highway to first Nenana River Crossing of
Parks Highway at southern boundary of Denali National Park
-Nenana Gorge -Nenana River Crossing to Healy.
However,inspect i on of the route shows th at the 1andsc ape un it
types which will actually be traversed are as follows:
-Susitna River Lowlands
-Talkeetna Mountains
-Chulitna River
-Broad Pass
-Alaska Range
-Yanert River Valley
-Nenana Uplands
Therefore,these were units analyzed for the purposes of this
.report.
These landscape unit types and the approximate point of inclina-
tion (P.I.)of the transmission line are as follows.
(i)Susitna River LOWlands
Wi llow SUbstation to P.I.14 at the crossing of the
Talkeetna River.
Extending south from near the town of Talkeetna to its
mouth on Cook Inlet,the broad and heavily braided Susitna
River flows through a topographically flat,sometimes
rol ling landscape.Muskeg bogs and hundreds of relatively
small lakes and ponds are scattered over the land.
Sparse black spruce bogs are found on the poorly drai ned
areas while moderate to dense spruce-hardwood forests
exist in areas with higher relief.
Paralleling the Susitna from near the towns ot Wlilow and
north to Talkeetna,the Parks Highway is the shortest and
heavi est used access route between Anchorage and Fai r-
banks.A number of small communities and recreation sites
occur along or near the road.In addition,the Alaska
Railroad alsoparal lels the Susitna River and Parks High-
way here.
Many of the larger and more scenic lake areas are popular
summer and permanent home sites for hundreds of Southcen-
tral Alaskans.Some are accessed by road whi Ie others are
only reached by float plane.
E-8-l08
"""
'""",
-
....
I"""""'"
Spacially open areas otter vlews to the Talkeetna and
Chugach Mountains~and the Alaska Range.Mount McKinley
1S to the north and the flat topped Mount Susitna is near-
by to the southwest.
(ii)Talkeetna Mountains
(P.I.14 to P.I.41 above the crosswg ot the Susitna
River.)
While the Uepartment ot Natural Resources study classifies
this area as the Talkeetna Mountains~for the purposes of
this transmission line study~that designation has been
subdivided into three sUbtypes
-Talkeetna Mounta1ns to the south and west of the trans-
mission corridor
-Talkeetna Lowlands
-Talkeetna Uplands.
The proposed ali gnment passes through these 1atter two
character types which are described below.
(iii)Lowlands Portion
After steeply rising several thousand feet from the
Susitna River Valley,the landscape in the lower
Talkeetnas becomes a rolling terraced/plateau.With a few
knobs rising above 4,000 feet the average elevation is
around 3~OOO feet.
The dominant tundra enV1ronment here is very wet and con-
tains hundreds at"small lakes and muskeg bogs.Spruce
trees are scattered throughout the area,but usually found
at lower elevations within the drainages.Gold,
Cheechako~Chu 1itna and Di sappoi ntment Creeks are among
the more scenic drainages.
The f I at and roll i ng character ot these up I ands affords
panoramic views to the Al aska Range,Chul itna.and
Ta"lkeetna Mountains.Views of the surrounding river
valleys from high points and terrace edges are also very
good.
Access into the area is predominantly by float plane~
snowmobile and use of a few existing mining and/or settle-
ment trails.
-~
(iv)Uplands Portion
Approaching its confluence with the Susitna River,the
braided Talkeetna River and western tributaries pass
through a terraced and hi Ily landscape.Th1S area is
£-8-109
mostly covered with a dense spruce-hardwood forest.
Muskeg bogs are common but not as expan si ve as in the
Susitna Lowlands.
There are a number of lakes in the area used both for rec-
reation,and home or cabln sHes.Approximately four
mi I es long,the narrow Larson Lake is the I argest of
these.
The dense forest cover restricts V1Slon,but scenic views
of the Alaska Range,the Talkeetna and Susitna Rivers,and
the immediate Talkeetna Mountains proper are posslble from
occasional elevated spots and widened river channels.
Access into the area is primarily by foot,float plane,
boat and a limited number of jeep ATV or horse trails.
(v)Chulitna River
P.I.41 to P.I.48 on the Chulitna River.
DlViding the Alaska Range and Chulitna Mountains,this
flat to rolling river valley is predominately an open
tundra-covered landscape.Sparse to moderately dense
spruce-hardwood forested areas occur along the meandering
Chulitna River and its tributaries.
The dominant Alaska Range rises gently from the valley in
comparison to the steep rise of the Chulitna Mountains.
Hurricane Creek and Gulch form a dramatic descent from the
Chulitnas.Spectacular mountain,glacier and val ley views
are offered in open areas and vantage points.
The Alaska Railroad and George Parks Highway parallel the
river along the upper slopes and terraces on the Chulitna
Mountain side.Several small road and railroad related
communities and a few designated recreational sites occur
here in the valley.Portions of the Parks Highway between
Chul itna Pass and Broad Pass have been recommended for
scenic highway designation by the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources.
(Vi)Broad Pass
P.I.48 to P.I.65 north of the Nenana River.
Over 10 mi les wide near the town of Broad Pass and narrow-
ing to 4 mi les wide near Cantwell,this area known as
I:3road Pass,separates the Al aska Range and the northwest
Chulitna Mountains.Ihis open,t-Iat to rolling landscape
is very scenlC wlth its long and linear lakes,variety of
tundra and spruce cover patterns,and mountain views.
E-8-11 0
JIlIIl'l!1lL
-
-
The Parks Hi ghway goes through the northern si de of the
pass near the Denali Natural Monument boundary.The Alaska
lJepartment of Natura I Resources recommended in thel r 1981
Scenic Resources alon the Parks Hi hway report that the
road between Broad Pass town and Windy be considered for
scenic designation.The Alaska Rai Iroad passes through the
Summit Lake area and parallels the highway.Cantwell is
the west junction of the Denal i Highway with the Parks
Highway.
(vii)Alaska Range
P.I.65 to midway between P.I.70 and P.I.71 on the
southern edge of the Yanert River Valley,and P.l./4 to
P.I.83 near Moody Creek southeast of Healy.
-
(viii)
Featuring North Amerlca 's highest mountain,the U-shaped
Alaska Range extends nearly 600 miles from an area west of
the Cook Inlet to the Alaska-Canada border.rhlS well
known mountain range with its hundreds ot glaciers is the
dividing feature of the Interior and Southcentral region of
Alaska.Elevations range from approximately 2,000 feet in
adjacent valley to over 20,000 feet at Mount McKinley.
Nenana Uplands
P.I.83 to P.I.~o Healy Suostatlon Site.
Extending north from the Nenana I<lVer Gorge to the flat
Nenana Lowlands,the river becomes progressively more
braided as it flows through a rolling and terraced valley.
Sparse spruce-hardwood stands are found near the ri ver
bottom whi Ie moderate Iy dense forests cover much of the
upper terraces.Rock outcrops are common along the edges
of the rising terraces.
Views are directed to the east where the terraces rise up
to the higher reliefed Alaska Range foothills.While the
Parks Highway and Alaska Rai lroad do not slgnificantly
degrade the visual quality ot the landscape,existing
transmission lines do present a negative aesthetic
impact.
1""-'"
(i x)Yanert River Vall ey
P.I.71 to P.I.74
A 35-mi I es swath through t he AI aska R.ange east from the
Nenana River,the Yanert River Valley ranges from 2 miles
in width at the Yanert Glacier to over 5 miles at the con-
fluence with the Nenana.The Yanert River is heavi ly
braided for most of its length before turning into a
E-8-l11
broad fixed channel river for the last 5 miles.The
valley is tundra dominated with scattered stands ot
spruce adj acent to the rlVer bottom.The Alaska Range
rises steeply from the valley near the glacier.Gently
sloping terraces up to the mountains become progressively
longer as the valley opens into the adjoining Nenana
River Valley.
(d)Description of the Preferred Route
The preferred transmission line route extends 170.1 miles from
the proposed W-j llow substation slte to the proposed Healy substa-
tion and can be generally described as follows.
Willow Substation is proposed to be located near Willow Creek
about 1-1/2 miles east of the Parks Highway.Thence the align-
ment follows the Matanuska Electric Assoclatlon rlght-of-way
approximately 19 miles north.It continues in the Susitna Low-
lands until Chunilna Creek,northeast of Talkeetna,whence it
proceeds east and up into the Talkeetna Mountains,before drop-
ping back to the Susitna River near Gold Creek.The alignment
then proceeds due north east of Chul itna Butte and joins the
Chulitna River Valley.It generally parallels the river valley,
Parks Highway,Alaska Rai Jroad corrldor,through Broad Pass,and
north up the Nenana River Valley to the Yanert Fork.The line
then jogs east of Sugar Loaf Mountai n,northwest down Moody
Creek,and continues in a northwesterly direction into Healy.
(e)Alternatives
Many minor route adjustments and subalternatives were considered
by Commonwealth.In addition,three major alternatives were con-
sidered.
-An alignment parallellng the Parks Highway from south of
Sunshine to Chulitna Pass.
-An alignment west of the highway from Broad Pass to the first
Nenana River crossing of the hlghway.
-An al ignment along the Nenana Gorge rather than east of Sugar
Loaf Mountain.
In addition,alternative pole configurations,voltage levels,
selective undergrounding,and alternative systems to the Intertie
were considered and rejected.
(f)Impacts
A cursory examination of visual impacts based on aerial and
limited ground inspection of the preferred and alternatlve allgn-
ments,study of U.S.G.S.topographic maps,and analysis of the
Commonwealth report is as follows.
E-8-112
--
-,
-
-
.....
-
(1)Susitna River Lowlands -The line will generally be dis-
.tant enough from the Parks Highway and screened by vegeta-
tion in this low landscape unit type that it will be
largely unseen by most viewers on the ground.
(li)Talkeetna Mountains -rhe Ilne W1JI be hlghly vislble as
lt crosses the Talkeetna River,an important recreational
resource.Particul arly when the Intertie is expanded to
two and then three fines,visual impacts will be signifi-
cant at this pOlnt.The route over the mountains north of
the river wi 11 not be generally visible unti 1 it again
nears the Susitna River,when it will be in full view from
Curry Ridge in Denali State Park.
(iii)Alaska Range -The line(s)will be highly visible along
the Indian Rlver,at two crosslngs of the Alaska f{ai Iroad,
and from portions ot the planned remote parcel land dis-
posal areas between Gold Creek and Hurricane.Further
north,between Cantwell and the Yanert Fork,the lines
wil I pass crose to the Parks Highway in areas rated by DNR
as having low to moderate absorption capability.
North of the Yanert Fork,the route east of Sugar Loaf
Mountain was selected to eliminate visual impacts in the
highly scenic Nenana Gorge area.
(iv)Chulitna River -From about Honolulu Creek to the east
fork of the Chu I itna,Ihe Department of Natural Resources
has rated this portion of the Parks highway one of moder-
ately high scenic resources and moderate to low absorption
capability.Whl Ie predominant Vlews are to the west,the
transmission line will be visible to the east.
(v)Broad Pass -DNR recommends that this area be officially
designated a scenic highway.Because of the landscape's
low to moderate absorpt i on capabi I ity,they recommend no
development within 1 mi Ie of the Parks Highway.Ihe
a I ignment ranges from a few hundred feet to approximately
2 mi I es from the highway as it passes through thi s unit.
Visual impacts wi II be high.The crossing of the Denali
Highway,currently under stUdy by BLM,for scenic highway
designation,wi 11 also be in full view.
(vi)Yanert River Valley -Crossing this valley,the alignment
is approximately 2 miles east of the highway and wil I not
have major impacts.
(vii)Nenana Uplands
-The location ot the Healy substation near the Alaska Rail-
road and Nenana Railroad will be highly visible and has
negative visual impacts.
E-8-113
7 -AGENCIES AND PEHSONS CONSULTED
Ihe following list documents Public Agency Native Corporation,and
University of Alaska Consultations in the course of preparing this
report on aesthetic resources.Written records of these conversations
are avai lable at offices of the Alaska Power Authorlty.
Federal
Agencies Person Date Communication
F.E.R.C.Mark Robinson 09.29.82 Phone
F .f.R.C.Frank Karwoski 09.30.82 Phone
lU .13.82
U.S.B.L.M.John Rego 10 .1b.82 Meeting
U.S.B.L.M.Mi ke Wrabetz 09.1/.82 Meet i ng
Bob Ward
U.S.F.&W.S.Dave Patterson 09.21.82 Meeting
U.S.N.P.S.Larry Wright 09.15.82 Meeting
I"'~DNR Sandy Rabinowitch 09.14.82 Phone
Div Parks 09.15.82 Meeting
10.28.82 Meeting-DNR Jack Wi Ies 09.15.82 Meet -j ng
Div Parks Pete Marks 10.20.82 Meeti ng
i!l~
DNR Dave Stephens 09.22.82 Phone
DNR Bi 1I Beatty 10.04.82 Meeting
i~
DOT Mike Tooley 09.14.82 Meeting
,-DOT Dan Kelly 09.29.82 Meet 1 ng
OOT Andy Zahare U9.24.82 Phone
MAT-SU Borough Claudio Arenas 09.21.82 Meeting
Planning Dept 10.18.82 Phone
-CIR I Roland Shanks 09.15.82 Meet i ng
10.14.82 Meet i ng
-Tyonek Carl Ehelebe 09.22.82 Phone
Village Corp 09.28.82 IVleeti ng
10.14.82 Meeting
E-8-114
Agencies Person Date Communication
f/l!'l!i.I
Tyonek Agnes Brown U9.28.82 Meeting
Vi Ilage Corp 10.14.82 Meet-j ng
~
AHINA N.Roy Goodman 09.22.82 Phone
Development 09.28.82 Meeting
Corp &KNIK 10.14.82 Meeting
Vi IIage Corp ~
Museum E.J.Dixon 09.20.82 Meeting
AG.Experiment Alan Jubenvi j Ie U9.U9.82 Phone
St ati on Jo Feyl 09.24.82 Phone
~
-
-
E-8-115
REFERENCES
1.Acres American Incorporated~Susitna Hydroelectric Project,
Transmission.Line Selection Route~prepared for the Al aska
Power Authorlty,Flnal Draft,March 1982.
2.,Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Transmission Line
Corridor Screening Closeout Report,Task 8 Transmission Final
Report,prepared for the Alaska Power Authority,March 1982.
-
3._,.....-__--..,.-,--,................._'Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Access Plan
Recommendation Report,prepared for the Alaska Power Authority,
August 1982.
-
4.,Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Feasibility
Report,Volumes 1-7,Final Draft,prepared for the Alaska Power
Authority,undated.
5.Alaska Department of Natural Resources~Division of Research and
Development,Scenic Resources along the Parks Highway,1981.
6.Alaska Department of Transportation and PUblic raclilties,Denali
Highway Environmental Assessment,Fall 1981.
7•-,...,0.....)-,....F....a...'..,...'.....1....,..9"""'81......'
Denali Highway Location Study Report,RS-0750
.-
8.Alaska Geographlc,A Photographic Geography of Alaska,Volume 7,
No.2,1980.
9.Alaska Magazine,The Alaska Almanac,·1982 Edition,September
1981.
10.Alyeska Pipeline Service Company,Vlsual Impact Engineering,
Visual Assessment Principles,Procedures,and Application,
V.I.E.Technical Notes dd.l,August 1975.
11.American Association of State Highway Officials,Geometric Design
Guide for Local Roads and Streets,Washington,D.C.,1971.
12.Carter,M.Floating Alaskan Rivers,Aladdin Publishing,1982.
13.Childers Associates,Roadside Recreational Facilities Study,
Richardson Highway~M 82.6-185.5~prepared for the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources,Division of Parks,
July 1,198L.
14.Colorado Department of Highways,1-70 in a Mountain Environment,
Vail Pass~Colorado,1978.
15.Commonwealth Associates,Inc.,Anchorage-Fairbanks-Transmission
Intertie Route Selection Report,prepared for Alaska Power
Authority,January 1982.
E-8-116
16.,Environmental Assessment Report,Anchorage-
Falrbanks Transmlssion Intertie,prepared for the Alaska Power
Authority,March 1982.
17.Jones and Jones,Upper Susitna River-An Inventory and Evalua-
t i on of the Envi ronmenta 1,Aesthet ic and Recreat i ona 1
Resources:prepared for O.d.A.,Alaska District,Corps of
Engineers,March 14,1975.
18.U.S.Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Hells Canyon--
Enterprise Powerline Construction Report,June 1968.
19.,National Forest Landscape Management,Volume 1,
1973 and Volume 2,19/5-19//.
-
-
20.,The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum:A Frame----wo-r~k--~f~o-r--P~lra~nning,Management,and Research,GTR PNW-98,
December 1979.
21.,Northern Region,Recreation Opportunity Inven-
tory and Evaluation,June 1974.
22.,Pacifi c Southwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station,Our National Landscape,September 1979.
23.U.S.Department of the Interior,F1Sh and Wildlife Service,
Gravel Removal Guidelines Manual for Arctic and Subarctic
Floodplains,FWS/OBS-80/09,June 1980.
24.U.S.Department of the Interior,Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service,A Proposal for Protection of Eleven Alaskan
Rivers,undated.
E-8-117
'"""
-
.-
-
,~
l~
-
APPENDIX B.A
Proposed Facilities
1 1 l I J I 1 }J I 1 J ]}1 1
"""'<ttl'
....IN ACCESS H06(I
COH$TA\JCTION ROAD
PERIlUNENT SITE RDAD
UTILIDOfl
..,.....~
I..EGENO
/-1.2.00
-,.p>
@
~
-"-'ZllilOIL-.
_lLu.:t_lJ..Q!;J;)_
.Jt_;uzj~_
~,'~~~
~
...!t12~~.Ql;!!
J
\\
......f~!'R,.W1!l.-
I --~l ij ,'WI ~\'/.~~.~~~l !I r '.~r'\J'''':'.1 (!,'):"-
L
.1 ~,,:~,r.\'"~}~~",!JI,,,J.!>=/.1
J-'/1'~-"L ..~,~I •I/"#:J.-r-+----------------L'---.·.,,,:!I ~)\~...,", I ,,"'.~../'
I
I I"<';;'cC''".j ,~.~-I ---~'c,'L --.,',-
~.__I :~~_~.......l...'-
,,,,,=\,;,-.,-,,,/':7 _...,..,...rr
h~~(\..I --~-'H -~\\--%-~.~~_--'"~k"~~r -~,----------d~-~-~~~~~~§~~=-,~-:-_"~'--~.J(~~u ,--'-;.<",------0'2-'./",.?,~1"L~'.......'r.';:::::,~:;";,;1 "-~=:_J\~~~~"~";·2i~/-;~O<~k~~~~~~~~~
....,_,\'",,_J)..~>,.-=-./('.•,~l.y~~y ._~C'='~J,).:,..>~\~,___-----:_~_~:w.::r--~"t"'("f',,-~~~t;j~.:::.~_~,.._,/ff '......-&>cch.·wf;.~~~4.~·~(\.~~_~~f-eE;g;"ft~_~:f·:~:'J '
____,.__,T_",_.f,j ~'~-'~~1-t"L~'f,f ,."'-..'"j/-.,';.....<@>
i,e ",r.-{J,:f~:.~;i~~~'_~~~:~
,~_..'/"...:'
"""'..-r-"""c,.if .,.,..""""
•~~':/!J'r;;::j;:5 ./.-.'''''if,'''};."~...QOO ~P/ERV~u';,
•,- I ""'_"""'.','I ......',.,,.'',._,.,/-_.,~.._,;,.~._,•"'._'"._...,,...:;._.,F;=;_
.);AI'r''r'.,..::'/:"$;>-4 ~.
I ~('(ri'',;..--r'-=--~~!it/''..').~tll\~~1 /(:;=~,f'~~.!\;l~f··
_,"_c_..-\\',''!I_' ,.,,~t;1 ,
i -----,,'.,"...
\''(".-._,.""..",/\~_:~.>.~._._'~"_~../.-dJ'_~~__~~~"(-f";!,'A ;"-j'/.:,
800"'"\\"-,.~./.:'TA"'"l.o:::t.J'"~\~':,'""r,f''I ilr /--
I rWATER INUK£&;POMP STATION
WATANA GENERAL LAYOUT SITE FACILITIES
FIGURE E.8.1
1 1 1 ]·-·,il
J I J 1 1 1 1>i 1 )1
.,../§
/1 ~
w
o ~OO "'00 I'EEl
$CAlE'--
~
\...
"',':.-+
-',
§~Q(l--""~.
-----
)
I /
/01,00'---
-~'--._,
--~-
_'l2.aO--~,_
[I.IEflGIONCY
SPILLW1l.y
--------,.
~-
//,.
1.\0
0 ~//
----;:~
\
'-'''~../HORNAL MAXIIIiIIIUN \'•/'.,,/OPERATING LE't'ELt----~l'~·;1~}
\I"
I ~,. I #/~
-,f
/~~
/~./
/'
/",\0
0
H ~.230.000 -~.-~
if
WATANA GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
FIGURE E.8.2
8
~J
i
:1
f
~<~;~,.~~1C.:~~.'-°0 ::::::~-
•'~""'o!'o'"o'"~"-<-:.~(."..~tf-·
~:'~~-
¥.j,
il.'fil.J"
,,~_.-
"'-:J ~I ----..
,~-::7 /",510,
f
I
f,
"
f ':o~,.'~)
~./
')
!
_/
:5
~-
-
....
I J 1 ]1 1 1 1 -,,)]
...lOO 400 fEET
LEGENQoPERMANENT HON-AESUlENHAL BLDG
~PERMAIolf:NT ROAO
rrrrm PERMANENT MULTifAMILY DWELLINGS
12'UNITS fUMN1SHfO B'f YEAR 1992
16UNlTS,..•2001
~J PERMAN[NT SINGLE fAMILY DWElLINGS
21 UNITS fUA"'lSHfD fn YE AR 19'iil2
,.UNITS •2001oPErtlllAHfNTHOSPITAL
rn Tl<MPORAR't HOUSING/UTILITIES
fURNISHED BY OWNER
16 EA.-4 BEDRooM$UNITS 28'1 so'
16 E...•2 • •~..·Ieo·
I6EA.~...
l'.arA.-2·'..14'..60'
2ooE..,·...-....I 60'
::'3::3 TEMPORARY LOnt UTILITIES fURNISHED
ty OWNER
240 EA.-LOT SPACES
D f1MK'ING "RUli •
<D MANAli(.Ifs.OffiCES
®GENERAtiNG $TATlOI\l
cD 'IRE STATION
@ "AS STATION
@ SCHOOl
®SWIMMING POOL
(1)liTMNASIUM
@ STORE
®ftECItUnON l;fNT£,Il.
@ SEWAGE COLLECTION PUIIlP ISTA nON
@ 'kATER PUMP STATION
@ UTll.I:DOR
@ Sf'/WAli~T~f.AT"iNT PLANT
G>WAnR T~EATMENT PLANT
@ fUEL STORAGE TANK UiO.000 'J I
NH,~OOO
N),1.~4,OOO
-lilun.ooa
SCALf
If1,2U,OOO
.-'_.3.~J',OOO
'---~---------//
,/
~~'--~~"
\",,--',\'\'-~
/"
(
-',(:):9
\-./",,/0,'
.'
\
'---._-
>
\<---"---,_/~-"~
<'>,\,'\;~\~~I
I ',,)...l<IO_.....
Er<lIl,OOO
1/
J
,/
.::.?~~
y")
f~;'--/
\
?
:
/
(
!
,-'
/~~"tJ¥
<~
,1-"
t,
./
/1\v-----::s--v"~~
-~.
@ ,"~-~
/
,~-~~./--~~,~.--;::::::=-----_--c =--------=-------~,?-~
/
,,~.2~"~
\.
)
/-
'.\
F'\
,
L'v-I (
)\
-\--,-~-,._-~'------I(
i
\~P
)(,-'\,c("~\~-\
("(J~,j'\J\~-':)'''----'A ~")
')I ~__.,00'/L _____.---;__/_~--I _/-::--I /_--/-~--'-r --0/_/
----j,..---v--//_I.d"--~;(,
__~i
(14:1,000 EN6.0(l(1 f T'1,OOO
WATANA VILLAGE AND TOWN SITE
FIGURE E.8,4
enI
I.LI§
i=
d
(.)
~
I.LI
l-e;;
0CilriIiii •
lJ
I-
::::J
iliii_'1
0
~
..J-
..J«a::
0Cidiili i
I.LJ
Z
f~
I.LJ
(!)
COd'IOII 1
Z
~
0ilii'0ii •
Z«
r-
(.)
00iI'iii •
..J->
..-
I.LJ
0
~-
,~
,....
9'f)!11I!l1
i
~
i..>-~
§
\
..~
l'
I
1 -1 1 1 )]J )1 j ~-~1 1
a.UEBALL fl(lD
:111 .on....LL "f'ELD
H1LI .....D IIffD't.IoL (1I("G1£NC''''
~I cD.MlUNn::.u.'.....tUTU
IZ IfITCHU lIMJ PlNII'I'
11 ITAn ClUllHWIE
M flf,Cflf....TlDN HALl.
~....
II .L&II'IDIlIEI
IT 100.1 U'
10).11 1000 IE"VICE..""[HOW(
1:)WNt(HDtI$f
MAINTENANCE ....u.
J}.....P ""'K
tJE."u'''G ITATIDIiI
ILlS ITATION
!4}PAItKINCl AND i.AYp(JMiI AMAS
.:t'fP£RMAWALK
II''l"..AWALk
:E>IiII'tlMlIAIUJII
IWIIIIM.NG POOl.
MOCK!:Y ",.
tuDT....LL "fIILD
~~:~~:TO.A"10•.000 Oil'
~UTtLIOOfl
WATEfI TfI[ATIIlENf Pl.fI'
®WATt]1 IIIESE""O'"
LEG[NP
i"A""0 FOODI"......,..
1 OO,UIIITO'lIn
'3 MIA"!:""9Jl[n HOllY
..WN,1lI".~It HOOlE
!i.CON'.•A.ClQlll",GUllI HOU...
•CA....1iII.....AU"..OFflCf-1
.,.IECURlH'
'i),......IIMl OIL ,,..ILL
I11~al....~,a
~~;~-,-,
(~~II
:I
-''')\,
~~io,~
~.~~---_.~-_.-
liDO --
....
~~~==-
__fin.
. .'L.J :t=~1 ..........'?=E!'/I ~.l..--""?<~__-,---".........----a1
------~-:--
/-1--;':I--~
10••
(~~
~--_.--------'---~=~"----)
~-~-
f.-He··C'-
~-~----~
------....----------~--......
-~
-_._-----"""i:iiij;DOO ----------...--~-------.----~.--.
.@
--~---------------------------.-----------1000
•_CAl.(
100 400 rlU~(IINC""'toOFt.n)
DEVIL CANYON CONSTRUCTION CAMP PLAN
FIGURE E.8.7
1 i J 1 l 1 l 1 J I 1 )1 I I
@ LEGtND
I~I
~
lEMP6#1"RY HQU5ING/UTILlfl£$fUflNI:!iIH£D
IV O'MftEA.
....IUUNQ AREAS
VILLAGE "DUSING-32D UNITS
'-uo.o~o
(
~')
__--noo~--/·n!loO
FAMILY HOUSING.Z B fl.-11;1 ....IT!!!i ..·.sa'
"....lei HOUSING -3 II.R,·I~UNl'S tz..·.~·i
'.IIIILY MOUSING.4 I.R-li UNI1I IZ8'.Odl
fAW.LV HOUSING·3 aJt.-ll UNITS !...'.,a)
fAWILY HDtJ5ING·J .....·'00 UNITS U4'1I60'I
SCHOOL-3o'.:s,'III UNIT9I
jOj\GYM -100·...100'
SWIMMlNG POOl.-100'_IOrJ
ftEC;IIUTlON C;E:NTE:R 811.1011
:110 STOftC:-IOO'.160'
II FIRE OTATION-~o·...o·
liZ GENERATlHoq STATION -110'.30'n.UNITSI
I'uTIUpOA
114 nwu:PUMPING SlA1ION_-~O'160'
r---".~-••--
@ "EIffiIffffiil[J'-I III IIIIIII
l trnIffi1HJBffi[n 111111111/---+-"00!~"--~.'ei i .,
~-.-~..@
.'@ ,..........
@ ..'f '---"---..-~a-=-€>;
L ...II IIII L1J j EIffiilljr'~.i_J
1100
P 1111111111 _"""""/=~==
110Q -e
lIDO
oog
0'
04
1'00
SUL~
200 400 fEET
:il
DEVI L CANYON T~M PORARY VI LLAGE
FIGURE E.e.8
c---..!A:::.:::la:.:::sk::..:8P~ow:::::e~r.A=:ut~ho~rit:!..JV I ANCHORAGE FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION INTERTIE
345kV Tangent or
Light Angle Structure
FIGURE E.8.9
l~~1..-14 '~
ID
.~N
l././~'},.-y ••••
-\\
\
\!~".\/\\
//\\to \o ~
\.-ID
\~~\
\\\
\\\
35'.35'~-\
_____~AI!!!ask~aP~ow~er~.A~uth!!?!orl!!!..·tvIANCHORAGE FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION INTERTIE
345kV Medium Angle
(8 0-30 0)Structure
~'~'-'-I·(~~,,",,","n"""••Uh--_._-
FIGURE E.8.IO
-----------------_.-_.__.----_._._.-------"
$\'~
----~~
•
~1 r-17 '
I 1 ~[(
.-\\
\\
~\\/.-
\//\/~
//'/'K./)\ro \u -.-LO~~\
/\\/\\
1""""\\\/35'35'\//-If/\//'''''''
345kV Heavy Anglei
(8 °-50 0)Dead End Structure
FIGURE E.8.11
••
J~.
....
•e·
iiio •
'-N~m....
iii •
.~0g:CO....
Alaska Power Authority IANCHORAGE FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION INTERTIE
345kV Single Circuit
Tangent Pole
FIGURE E.8.12
I 1 --;;'-1 ~-,-j l l~J I 1 ~.I
1700
-W-~'-----'------'~~-1600·• : •3uv_200':__..--/.2fQ)I o0:"jr-------.~~.------.-.,-.-~-~~-.---~__-.J -----~--~--l._.·_.
i i _....---------r~~.I
I I
,..",.-....._-~....~~-
."""~'--r--'-_.......~-~=_.-....:-~'':.'~~~:;...;~~.-~--.-.------....,~
sUSlfN"A"RiVEREC8~--:l------------..··--···---.-~.-----~--~---.----...------..----.--------------.-------.
--------.--'\:
I ...--------
I .,--------------.----
800
900
1400
1500
1000
1300
1100
1600
1200
HIGH LEVEL SUSITN A RIVER BRIDGE
FIGURE E.8.13
-
APPENDIX 8.B
Site Photos and Simulations
of Project Faci /ltles
EXISTING SUSITNA RIVER -SITE OF PRO-
POSED WATANA RESERVOIR (LOOKING EAST)
PROPOSED WATANA RESERVOIR AT DRAWDOWN
-
.1
".~~&...-<;:;;:'~~';,
iti ·JU••I...........
PROPOSED PERMANENT TOWNSITE/CONSTRUCTION
-VILLAGE -t~ATANA (LOOKING NORTH)
PROPOSED PERMANENT TOWNSITE -WATANA
PROPOSED MAJOR BORROW AREA fOR WATANA
DAt1 ON NORTH (RIGHT)LOWER SUS ITNA RIVER
TERRACE (NEAR CONFLUENCE OF TSUSENA CREEK)
PROPOSED MAJOR BORROW AREA (5At4E AS ABOVE)
FOR lAJATANA DAt·1 ON NORTH (LEFT)LOl'JER
SUSITNA RIVER TERRACE (NEAR CONFLUENCE OF
TSUSENA CREEK)
DEVIL CANYON AREA TO BE INUNDATED BY
PROPOSED DEVIL CANYON RESERVOIR
-
PROPOSED DEVIL CANYON CONSTRUCTION
VILLAGE/CAM~SITE (LOOKING EAST)
.~
~.,-..
PROPOSED DEVIL CANYON CONSTRUCTION
CAMP SITE (LOOKING EAST)
PROPOSED DENALI ACCESS ROAD LOC,l\TION
ON WEST (LEFT)SLOPE (DEADMAN CREEK)
';~"''''<':'.'.,,,~
-"-~'~~~.
PROPOSED DENALI ACCESS ROAD NEAR
DEADMAN CREEK
PROPOSED DENALI ACCESS ROAD (HAIRPIN
-TURN)LOCATION IN CHULITNA MOUNTAINS -
(LOOKINB NORTHWEST)
,
""'i!.l"'O:-
.."
PROPOSED DENALI ACCESS ROAD (HAIRPIN
TURN)IN CHULITNA MOUNTAINS
1~PROPOSED HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE SITE
-(FOREGROUND)OVER DEVIL CANYON
(LOOKING WEST)
1 }I
the susltna hydro studles/aprll1982
These are photo renditions of the major structures at the proposed Watana
(left)and Devil Canyon (right)dam sites.Several features are not shown,in·
cluding:the permanent townsite;the access road;transmission lines;
substations;and a runway for aircraft.
The Watana dam would be an earth·fill structure 885 feet high,4100 feet long,
with an installed capacity of 1020 MW.The Devil Canyon dam would be a con·
crete arch dam 645 feet high,about 1500 feet long at the crest,with an install·
ed capacity of 600 MW.The Watana dam would create a reservoir 48 miles
long;Devil Canyon a reservoir 26 miles long.
-
-
..-.
APPENDIX 8.C
examples of Existlng
Aesthetic Impacts
-
.-
-
DENALI HIGHWAY (LOOKING SOUTHEAST)
NEAR PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD JUNCTION
DENALI HIGHWAY
JEEP ROAD/TRAIL OFF DENALI HIGHWAY
ALL-TERRAIN-VEHICLE (ATV)TRAIL TO
BUTTE LAKE
I~
..-
-
"','.',\",i
EXISTING BRUSHKANA CAMPGROUND (BLM).,
-OFF DENALI HIGHWAY-PROPOSED EXPANSION -
EXISTING BORROW PIT ALONG DENALI
-HIGHWAY -TYPICAL ROAD PULLOFF AND
CAMPING AREA FOR HUNTERS/FISHERMAN
EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINES NORTH
-SIDE OF COOK INLET -SUSITNA RIVER
LOWLANDS
EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINES'NORTH
~SITE OF COOK INLET -SUSITNA RIVER
LOWLANDS
POTENTIAL RESERVOIR SLOPE/EDGE
-CONDITION (WILLISTON RESERVOIR -~
BRITISH COLUMBIA)
POTENTIAL RESERVOIR SLOPE/EDGE
-CONDITION (WILLISTON RESERVOIR -
BRITISH COLUMBIA)
-
-
APPENDIX 8.0
Mitigation Measures
I 11 ustrat ions
,I""''''
~~~I \'rre ~~~erJc..1
~{L,..I-WAY~fl?(:2..eoTH ~WILL
Rec.,Ul-1 \N '?t<5Nlt=\CAN'T Y\'Su~
IMr-'~CT~.
P~Po~e.D (~Il ~~)
(\'\AI t4~\LL.WA,..
_..::::.::=-=.:==.~==~
~eF C.UT ~Oe '?i-.o~e:=-~Pevol0
or:Y~TAT'c.;4 WIL..L-ee Y\C;UALLY
U~~I'iE..
'Te~~ceo ~\pe '?l.Of>e~VYoUl.b
LE:'%eH .ADVe~~e VI~UAL IN\P~T?
ANb e,e !V\O~e IMCH'A~eR wi\He.~(~T\N~~N~~e.
1v\/116A-r\ON
"Te~f2.ACeD ~lt:~.'?LO\='e.~',(V\'T+-r
~ol\....\?CCt'-E..T~~IH'¥~ioN Or:
t4Al1"E F'LANl C?fecte.e;,'YvlLL-.
L.~a4 .Ac-..JE"a..~e..'it?lJ.AL \Mf'AC'1'~.
"""'"
f~ft'Y;EO
~Al L.t<oAP ~ecTtoN
CUT"I~G?F q'\~~Ne:t~tSlDe
e:;,Loff5=:,~oULO ee ,AvotDeo
-"To ,AvolD NE:c?All'1c Y~AL
IKf'AC1~(W\a)(\~\1uW\cov1e4 \+tov\).
RAJL~AO ~~~T~uc;Teo
wi t5UCH A FIL.L ~"\OH OVef'
Wer~NO A~~'l'-Jl LL t<-eeo1'f2.'C7
NA1Ut:2-.AL WArt:,f<...fL.oW ~Ul:T1H0
IN FOTEH1\AL B\01'tc i ,AqUAi\C
tr'c'f'Acre;,.I
Ml"T\0Al\0N
~Et?TL.e-~~UCTU~?WoI..1Lb
;V\INIM1Ze ':::'Lor'e b\~iU~ce
,AHO &e ~H ,A-rr¥'v~c."Tl"E t==E,A-rUF'-c.
,,---_."--...~~_.--=-~,..--~------
.''(~-
----'~'-"".-.-..,.".........,.
.........,-~,.~_.~._..._._---,
,.~ec,.,.L-e.~i~C.,.u~e.G':J o~
WETl..J'HP ,A~~?WI L.L.AL.Lc:tY'I
NA"U~L.P~\~"e.~p ~eN
eNYIMNMeN1A L.AND AEc?1Ht:'TiC.
IMr'AC-r,,?.
-
~,..---,..-------------,..------~--------------------
9 -LAND USE
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
EXH IBIT E
VOLUME 4
LAND USE
CHAPTER 9
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
~f~'Y~
1.5
.....
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 -INTRODUCTION •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••E-9-1
-Purpose and Approach .•.•••••••.••••••••••.•••••.•••••E-9-1
-Summary of Current Land Status Issues
;n the Project Area E-9-3
-Summary of Land Use in the Project Area .•••••••••••••E-9-3
-Summary of Land Use Management Planning
in the Project Area -E-9-5
-Summary of Major Anticipated Land Use Changes •••••.••E-9-5
2 -DESCRIPTION ON EXISTING LAND USE •••••••••••••••••••••••••••E-9-8
2.1 -Description of Existing Land Status
in the Project Area E-9-8
2.2 -Description of Existing Land Use
in the Project Area ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••E-9-12
2.3 -Description of Existing Land Use Management
Pl ans for the Project Area •••••••••••••••••••.•••••••E-9-20
3 -DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE CHANGES RESULTING FROM THE PROJECT.E-9-23
3.1 -Dams and Impoundments ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••E-9-23
3.2 -Construction Camps and Villages ••••.•••••••••••••••••E-9-25
3.3 -Access •.....•.•....••...•'..••••...•.•......•••.•••.•.E-9-27
3.4 -Transmi 55i on ...........................•.............E-9-32
4 -DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES IN LAND USE MANAGEMENT
RESULTING FROM THE PROJECT E-9-36
4.1 -Land Acquisition ..•...••..•..•.•...•..••..•...••.•..•E-9-36
4.2 -Land Management ..•.•..•••...•..••.•.•..........•...•.E-9-36
REFERENCES
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
AUTHORITIES CONTACTED
LIST OF TABLES
E.9.1 -Parcels by Land Status/Ownership Category
E.9.2 -Summary of Land Status/Ownership in Project Area
E.9.3 -Use Information for Existing Structures
in the Upper Susitna River Basin
E.9.4 -Major Trails in the Upper Susitna River Basin
E.9.5 -Summary of Present and Future Land Management Activities
in the Proposed Sus;tna Hydroelectric Project Area
E.9.6 -Zone 1 -Existing Structures
._----------------~--------"--------_.__._-------
-
,Jrt~"
""'",
-
LIST OF FIGURES
E.9.1 Procedures for Alaska Lands Acquisition
E.9.2 -Land Ownership/Stewardship,Devil Canyon Portion
E.9.3 -Land Ownership/Stewardship,Watana Portion
E.9.4 -Study Areas for Land Use Analysis
E.9.5 -Land Use Aggregations:Recreation,Mining,Residential
E.9.6 -Existing Structures
E.9.?-BU..,Mineral Entry Recommendations -Denali Block
E.9.8 -Biophysical Coastal Boundary Matanuska -Susitna
Borough Coastal Management Program
9 -LAND USE
1 INTRODUCTION
The direct and indirect effects of the Sl)sitna Hydroelectric Project on
1 and use are analyzed and changes in use that would occur with and
without the project are addressed.The ana lys is cons idered project
components,including the dams,reservoirs,the access transportation
system,transmission,and construction camps and villages.The poten-
t tal effects of the project are assessed in rel ati on to three major
land use factors:land use development,dispersed use and activity,
and land ownership/stewardship.To avoid redundancy,certain land use
aspects have been addressed in other Chapters of Exhibit E.These are:
Recreation in Chapter 7,Aesthetics in Chapter 8,Wetlands in Chapter
3,Navigation in Chapter 2 and Socioeconomics in Chapter 5.
Since the 1940's,the Susitna River has been considered for hydropower
development and several preliminary plans for such development have
been prepared.Proposals prior to 1980,which included one to four
reservoirs did not proceed beyond the pre-feasibility analysis stage.
The present project focuses on a two-dam development:one at Devil
Canyon and one near Tsusena Creek (Watanadam site).These two struc-
tures would create elongated reservoirs one-half to one mile,except
for a portion of the Watana Reservoir,which would be five miles wide.
Land use activity and development withi n the project area has been
minimal.Historical land use activity has been hunting,fishing and
trapping.Land use development has been related mainly to hunting and
fishing activities.
Summaries resulting from land use analysis have been presented pre-
viously in Alaska Power Authority,Susitna Hydroelectric Project,
Environmenta 1 Studies Subtask 7.07:Land Use Ana lysi s,Phase I Report,
April 1982.
1.1 -Purpose and Approach
(a)Objectives
The land use analysis involved an evaluation of the changes in
land use likely to be caused by the project and provides the basis
for summarizing the overall land use impacts of the project.The
analysis was designed to provide baseline data and an impact
assessment to:
-Describe past,present,and future land use;
Identify potential changes in land use resulting from the
development of the project;
-Describe past,present,and potential future land status;
E-9-l
-Identify potential changes in land status resulting from the
project development;
-Evaluate the project's impacts on land use and land status;and
-Identify mitigative measures to minimize impacts.
The scope of work is temporally 1imited from 1940 to present and
geographi ca lly by study area boundari es establ i shed duri ng the
first year of the analysis (Chapter 1 of Exhibit E).
The 1and use ana lys is descr i bes and eva 1uates 1 and development,
dispersed use acti vit i es and 1 and management.It does not gene-
rate data concerning the use of the land by various animal spe-
cies,nor does it include other detailed descriptions of the
physical environment.Information on these subjects is provided
in Chapter 3 and 6 of Exhibit E.
(b)General Discussion of Land Use Evaluation Procedures
Present land use development in the Susitna Project area is subtle
and wi dely di spersed.Aeri al photographs and topographi c maps
were used to locate cultural features such as trails,structures,
and other indications of past and present land use.An oral
history technique was employed to aid in identifying present dis-
persed land use activities.Present patterns of human land use
withi n the project area and the forces that created different
types of use were evaluated.Aerial and ground truthing verified
many of the present land use patterns discernible from the oral
history interviews.
The land use analysis is divided into two parts:historic and
existing land use,and future land use.Land use during these
periods is described by summarizing acquisistion and settlement,
land management,and the use or alteration of specific resources.
Three categories were considered when analyzing land use change:
1)dispersed and isolated non-site-specific activity;2)land use
inherently associated with site-specific activity;and 3)resource
management.
Di spersed and i sol ated non-site specifi c activity i ncl udes pat-
terns of activity that are generally non-contiguous and do not
involve a commitment of resources at any particular site.These
include consumptive,recreational,or subsistence activity,such
as hunting and fishing;and dispersed activity,such as camping,
hiking.and photography.
Land use inherently associated with site specific activity
includes that involving some form of long-term development or
other commitment of resources.These include residences,commer-
cial properties (primarily recreational),mining,agriculture,and
transportat ion.
E-9-2
-
Resource management involves consideration of present and proposed
land management plans developed by agencies with existing or pend-
ing jurisdiction.Examples are fish and wildlife management,dis-
persed recreation management,and off-road vehicle management pre-
pared by federal,state,or local agencies,or Native corpora-
tions.Native claims,land values,and status of land ownership
were also considered during land use analysis.
1.2 -Summary of Current Land Status Issues in the Project Area
The land status in the project area is complex.Most of the land in
the Susitna drai nage area is owned by the BLM.There are two state
land disposal areas west of the project,and Native conveyed land in
the project area.The Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 and ANCSA of 1971
withdrew the land in the project vicinity from development and
acquisition.Most of the lands in the dam and impoundment vicinity
have been withdrawn for Native and State selection.
The Cook Inlet Regional Corporation and associated Village corporations
have selected lands along the river.Some lands along the river have
been conveyed from the BLM to these Native groups.Part of these lands
however,have been filed as valuable lands to the United States for
water-power sites.Therefore,the 1ands conveyed under ANCSA are
subject to the reservations of Section 24 of the Federal Power Act.
The land is open for entry and selection as a power site,and will not
be destroyed for use as a power site by the owner.No cl aim to compen-
sation shall accrue from the occupation of the land by the owners.
Payment of damages to land use improvements will be made to the owner
in the case the site is selected for water-power development.Contro-
versy exists about the interpretation of the rights of the landowner
and of the water-power licensee under Section 24 of the Federal Power
Act..
The State also selected lands along the Susitna River.State selection
was suspended until the Native groups completed their selection.Upon
conveyence of Native selections,the State w"ill assume the remaining
selected lands for its selection allotment.
1.3 -Summary of Land Use in the Project Area
(a)Historical Land Use
The magnitude,isolation,and location of the Susitna project area
in a subarctic environment result in extremely low-density land
use.Historical artifacts are of great significance for the
overall characterization of activities within a certain time
period and geographic location.Their existence indicates
explicit human activity and provides a clear description of the
basi c activity carri ed on by man in that area.
E-9-3
Historical artifacts which were identified to describe past acti-
vities included manmade objects used in the project area between
1940 and 1980.Information relating general location and use to
each existing artifact was reported by oral history interviewees
directly associated with the project area,current-day users of
the project area,and researchers working at specific project area
locations.All reported artifacts were located and verified in
the field and were used to identify previous land use in the pro-
ject area.Historical artifacts found within the project area
were 1)structures,which include cabins,cabin foundations,food
caches,lean-to's,storage sheds,buildings,lodges,and tent
platforms;2)roads,trails,airstrips;and 3)other objects,such
as abandoned vehicles,bridges,etc.
Structures are associated with activities such as hunting,fish-
ing,trapping,food or equipment storage,research,recreating
(such as skiing,swimming,and photography),and mining.Basic
categories covering the frequency in which the existing structures
were used consist of:1)no use;2)seasonal use -past;3)
seasonal use -past and present;4)year-round use -past;5)
year-round use -past and present;and 6)no use i nformat ion.
Most of the historical artifacts are associated with some means of
access.Unpaved roads and trails were used for access to and from
certain points in the project area.Horses,as well as vehicles
such as tracked vehicles,four-wheel drive vehicles,rolligons,
and dog sleds were used for freighting,for transportation within
the area,and for access to the project area.Airstrips on gravel
bars or fl at ground were commonly located in the proximity of
other historical artifacts such as cabins,trails,or lodges.
Trails emanate from existing structures and connect with air-
strips,lakes (on which ski or float planes landed),fishing
streams,or another structure..
A review of the historical artifacts reveals that they were
sparsely distributed throughout the project area,and used on a
seasonal basis.The majority of the artifacts were used for hunt-
ing,fishing,trapping,boating,mining,or other general recrea-
t i on purposes,such as cross-country sk i i ng or photography.The
artifacts were most densely located near the aggregations of lakes
that are accessible by air.
Details of historical land use in the project area are presented
in the Alaska Power Authority,Susitna Hydroelectric Project,
Environmental Studies,Subtask 707,Land Use Analysis,Phase I
Report,Apr il 1982.
(b)Existing Land Use
As in the past,access continues to determine the types and levels
of land use in the upper Susitna River basin.
E-9-4
~:
,4'0!
(i)Land Use Act ivi ty
(i i )
Existing use patterns have been identified for hunting,
fishing,trapping,mining,recreation,and hydroelectric
research.Access is by means of road,trails,waterways or
air.The most intensive activity is concentrated along the
Denali highway and at established lodges and cabins.
Land Use Development
Developments typica11y include sma11 clusters of cabins.
There are approximately 109 structures within 30 kilometers
(18 miles)of the Susitna River between Gold Creek and the
Tyone River.These include four lodges involving 21 struc-
tures.Concentrations of residences,cabins,or other
structures are near Otter Lakes,Portage Creek,High Lake,
Gold Creek,Chunilna Creek,Stephan Lake,Clarence Lake,
and Big Lake.Some sections of the transmission corridor,
particularly near the Alaska Railroad and Parks Highway,
include land developments;other sections have virtually no
developed land use.
The greatest concentrations of development are in the
Stephan Lake area (13 cabins,one lodge,outbuildings,and
airstrip)and the Portage Creek mining area (19 cabins and
related buildings).Chunilna Creek and Gold Creek also
have some mining development.Three commercial lodge
operations are 1Qcated at High,Tsusena,and Stephan
lakes.
1.4 ~Summary of Land Use Management Planning in the Project Area
There has been little land management,and there are no definitive com-
prehensive land use plans in effect for the project area.The State
and Mat-Su Borough have initiated preliminary resource studies that
serve as the basis for policy development.
1.5 -Summary of Major Anticipated Land Use Changes
The construction of a two-dam hydroelectric project,access transporta-
tion system,transmission facilities,construction camps and villages,
recreation facilities,and other components is a major development,
especi a 11y ina wil derness area.It wi 11 create developed areas;
increase access and activity patterns,effect transfer of land owner-
ship and redirect land management.
(a)Land Status
The proposed project will be located in areas involving signifi-
cant Native and state selected and interim conveyed lands.
Implementation of the project will require purchasing or obtaining
rights-of-way to project lands.Increased land management may be
required to respond to increased use.
E-9-5
(b)Land Use Activity
The project will result in significant increases in activity pat-
terns in the upper Susitna basin.involving hunting.fishing.
camping.boating.and dispersed recreation.Persons who currently
use the Upper Susitna Basin will adjust to the increased use or
move to other areas.
(c)Land Use Development
The project wi 11 resul tin removal of ten structures in the
impoundment areas.Construction and emplacement of facilities
will involve conversion of land to project use.
Significant impacts involve the loss of Devil Canyon,Deadman
Falls and considerable surface disturbance resulting from con-
struction activities.The remote character of many areas will
diminish with the installation of large-scale.man-made facili-
ties.The access road will pass within 2.5 kilometers (1.5 miles)
of a remote wilderness lodge on the shores of High Lake.
Some negative impacts can be reduced through careful placement of
project facilities and the rehabilitation of disturbed surface
areas.Policies to control the extent and location of use can be
instituted to minimize and confine negative impacts resulting from
increased access.
Assessment of project construction and operation impacts involves
comparison of the potential direct and induced changes in land use
with the land use patterns likely to evolve in the absence of any
project.Making a definitive forecast of future land use for the
project area is affected by many factors.including:
-subtle and dispersed land use patterns;
-little active land management;there are no comprehensive
management plans that would indicate future use.
-unresolved questions of land ownership and tenure;Federal and
state agencies and Native groups are presently involved in a
process of selection and transfer of lands;
-minimal land use activity;due to the remoteness of the area.
The results of discussions with the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM).Al aska Department of Natural Resources (DNR).Matanuska-
Susitna Borough (Mat-Su Borough)and the Cook Inlet Region.Inc.
(CIRI)are meaningful within the context of general
£-9-6
resource management in present-day Alaska.Agencies,Native
corporations,and the private sector have been heavily involved in
the selection and transfer of land ownership under the Alaska
Statehood Act and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.Land
management is tenuous because of uncertain outcomes of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)and the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project.
The project area has not been exploited in the past because of
limited economically feasiblility.Discussions with land owners/
managers and consideration of present market conditions indicate
that without the project,1 ittl e change is 1 ikely to occur in
existing land use patterns,regardless of changing land ownership.
Even if the State of Alaska or the Cook Inlet Region,Inc.and
village corporations sell remote parcels surrounding the acces-
sible lakes,it is unlikely that there will be any significant
change until access into the area is improved.
Although Native land owners have expressed their intentions to
exploit the mineral potential of lands south of the project area,
no specific plans have been identified.Access appears to be the
key to such development.
E-9-7
-I
l
2 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING LAND USE
2.1 Description of Existing Land Status in the Project Area
The procedures for land acquisition in Alaska are complex as illustra-
ted in Figure E.9.1.The following definitions of land classifications
pertain to the lands within the vicinity of the Susitna project.
Figures E.9.2 and E.9.3 illustrate the land status in the impoundment
area.
Federal:Lands under jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM),the Al aska Railroad,the National Park Service,or the U.S.
Department of ArJTtY or Air Force.
Unpatented Mining Claims:Mining claims operated by an individual(s)
on federal lands.The federal government has the claim patent.Patent
mining claims are privately owned.
State Selected:The state receives land from the federal government in
a three-step process.The state fi rst appl i es to the BLM for 1and
that is classified as State Selections Applications or Federal State
Selected.
State Selections Tentatively Approved or State LA.:State selected
lands approved by the federal government for transference to the
state.
State Selections Patented:Federal lands conveyed to the state.
Native Allotments:In 1906 Native individuals were allowed by the
Native Allotment Act to file for allotments of up to 160 acres on
unoccupied federal lands.
Regional Corporation Selections:Lands selected by the Regional
Corporations under provisions of ANCSA are selected similarly to those
by the state.The project area lies within the boundaries of Cook
Inlet Region,Inc.(CIRl)and Ahtna,Inc.
Regional Corporation Selection Tentatively Approved:Corporation
sel ected 1ands approved by the federal government for transference to
the corporation.
Region Corporation Selection Patented:·Federal lands conveyed to the
corporation.Interim conveyence is allocated to the corporation if the
selected lands have not been surveyed.
Village Selection:Federal lands selected by Alaskan Natives,under
provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.The lands have
traditionally been used for their commercial resource value,and sub-
sistence hunting and fishing.These lands are located near villages or
along rivers.The village receives the surface rights,the regional
corporation receives the subsurface rights.
E-9-8
Village Selection Patented:Village Selection conveyed to the Village
Corporation by the BLM.Interim conveyence is allocated to the
corporation if the selected lands had not been surveyed.
Village corporations in the Cook Inlet Region receive village selected
lands by reconveyence from the regional corporation,not the BLM.The
procedure for conveyence and reconveyence in the Cook Inlet Region is
except i ona 1 to ANCSA.Norma 1 procedures are that the Regi on and
Village corporations select preferred lands and the BLM conveys lands
rlirectly to the corporation.
By 1971,lands in the Cook Inlet region had been patented to such an
extent that the Native groups could not select their allocation of
usable lands within a BLM requirement of contiquity.The BLM
classifies these lands the Talkeetna Mountain Deficiency Lands.
Public law 94-456 allows the Village Corporations to select lands in a
checkerboard pattern.The BLM will convey a contiguous land selection
to CIRI and CIRI will reconvey the a110ted lands selected by the
villages.The deficiency lands,those that are not prime use lands,
such as glaciers,are kept by the regional corporation after the land
reconvejence to the vi 11 age •.
State Selection Suspended:ANCSA resulted in the suspension of State.
selected lands until Native selection had been conveyed.The Cook
Inlet Land Exchange,Public Law 94-204,has an extensive Terms and
Conditions document,which allows the State to acquire land after the
conveyence of corporation selected lands to CIRl.
Borough Approved or Patented:If state patented 1and is not reserved
for a particular use a borough can select the land until it fulfills
its enti1ement through a process similar to that used by the state in
selecting federal lands.
State classified lands are in addition to the basic land ownership
classifications.Within the project area the State has classified
various aliquot parts of townships as follows:
Residential Land:Land classified residential because its physical
features lie adjacent to development;it is near an existing road,
proposed road or navigable waterway;it is suitable for single or
multifamily dwellings at medium to high density;it provides adequate
on or off-site services and facilities that can be developed for solid
waste disposal,wastewater disposal and potable water delivery.
State Planned Disposals:Those State lands plotted for subdivision
development.Disposal categories include Remote Parcels,Agricultural
Parcels,and Private Recreation Lands.
Remote Parcels:There are two remote subdivisions located within
the project area near Indian River.Lots are sold for private
holding.
E-9-9
~,
Agricultural land:Land classified agricultural because their
location,physical features and climate may be suitable for
agricultural use.The State either owns these lands or has sold
them to private ownership.
Private Recreation Land:land classified private recreation
because its rural location,physical features or adjacent
development is suitable for private,low-density recreational
development.No land may be classified private recreation until
present and potential public recreation needs in the area have
been considered first.
Public Recreation Land:land classified pUblic recreation because of
its 1ocat ion,phys i ca 1 features or adj acent development are most
appropriately used by the public as natural or developed recreation
areas,scenic overlooks,waysides,parks,campsites,historic sites or
hunting,fishing or boating access sites.
Resource Management land:land classified resource management is an
area ident ifi ed as contai ni ng surface or subsurface resources,(i .e.,
minerals,timber),that are especially suited to multiple-use manage-
ment.
Utility Land:Land classified utility does not lend itself to classi-
fication under other categories because of small or irregular tract
size or because its proposed use is not covered under other catego-
ri es.
Wildlife Habitat Land:land classified wildlife habitat is a primary
resource value as habitat for wild mammals,birds,fish or other
animals.
Historically the Bureau of land Management (BlM)owned all the land in
the project area except for some private parcels described below.The
BlM hasi nterimly conveyed lands adjacent to the Sus i tna River to the
Cook Inlet Region,Inc.(CIR!)and associated Native villages.Other
1 ands from the Stephan Lake area eastward to the Kosi na Creek drai nage
have been selected by CIRI.The State has selected entitlements on the
north and south sides of the proposed reservoir between the remaining
federal lands and the Native selected lands.In the areas designated
for the Cook Inlet land trade,the State will select all those lands
that are not selected by the Natives.
Federally owned lands occur north and south of the Native Selected
lands adjacent to the Susitna River.The National Park Service admini~
sters Denali National Park and Preserve.Remaining federal holdings
are administered by the Bureau of land Management,the Alaska Railroad,
and the U.S.Departments of Army or Ai r Force withi n the Anchorage to
Willow transmission corridor.Railroad holdings exist along the
Railbelt corridor east of Denali State Park north end of Healy.
E-9-l0
The majority of state lands north of the impoundment are in various
stages of the state selection process,either classified as selected,
selection suspended,or as tentatively approved or patented.Lands
within the Fairbanks to Healy transmission corridor are predominantly
state-patented mixed with private,borough and a few regional holdings.
Nearly all of the Anchorage-Willow transmission line is on State land.
The Point MacKenzie Agricultural lands,in the Willow-Anchorage trans-
mission line corridor,are the only agricultural lands within the
project area.
Two state land disposal sites (Figure E.9.2)exist near the Indian
River in the western-most part of the project area,north of the
Susitna River.The Indian River Subdivision (T33N,R2W,Seward
Meridian)lies near mile 168 of the Parks Highway,northwest of
Chul itna Butte,and contai ns approximately 518 hectares (1,280 acres)
of land.The disposal area has been subdivided into roads and 139 lots
averaging two hectares (five acres)per lot.The Indian River Remote
Parcel,located northeast of the confluence of the Susitna and Indian
Rivers is south of the Indian River Subdivision.This remote parce1
(T31-32N,R2W S.M.)is located east of,and adjacent to,Denali State
Park.The Indian Riv"er Remote Parcel is 2,590 hectares (6,400 acres)
of which 607 hectares (1,500 acres)will be divided into 75 parcels.
These land disposals,along with scattered private parcels of land,
represent the on1y actual dedication of a given piece of land to a
particular use.Table E.9.1 displays various land holdings in the
vicinity of the proposed project,and Table E.9.2 summarizes those
holdings by status/ownership category.
Placer mining occurs primarily on federal and state selected and
patented lands near Ester.
The majority of State Classified lands within the project area are
either resource management or public recreation lands.The majority of
resource management lands are located on state holdings west of the
Susitna Ri ver.The remote parcel (southern portion)of the Indian
River State Lands Disposa1 is under private recreation status.
Private parcels occur along Ester Creek in a mining district at the
north end of the Hea1y-Fairbanks transmission corridor,near Healy at
the south end of the corridor.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough owns no lands in the project impoundment
area.Mat-Su Borough does own patented 1and in the Anchorage-Willow
transmission corridor east of Knik Arm.The Municipality of Anchorage
has patents to land at the south end of the Anchorage-Willow corridor.
The Willow-Anchorage transmission corridor extends across Ft.Richard-
son Military Reserves for 29 kilometers (18 miles)thence across
E-9-11
~.'
Matanuska-Susitna Borough property located approximately 16 kilometers
(10 miles)north of Anchorage.Approximately 6.5 kilometers (4 miles)
of the line will traverse across the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Sale
property that belongs to the state for sale of agricultural rights to
private individuals for agricultural use.The remainder of the trans-
mission line extends across state lands until the vicinity of Willow.
At I~illow the study area encompasses state land disposal areas and
pr i vate 1and interspersed withi n Mat-Su Borough Patented 1and.The
selection of the proposed route avoided private lands to minimize the
impact of the line to residents.
The Healy-Fairbanks transmission corridor exte'nds across state-selected
1 ands,much of whi ch has been patented or tent at i vely approved.The
line traverses the U.S.Air Force Clear Mews Military Reserve lands for
approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles)in the vicinity of Anderson.
The transmission route between Healy and Fairbanks will pass several
1 and di sposal areas on the west si de of the Parks Hi ghway.The pro-
posed lines will parallel an existing transmission line when traversing
the disposal areas.
2.2 -Description of Existing Land Use in the Project Area
(a)Description of Land Use Evaluation Procedures
Specific procedures and steps involved in the land use analysis
are discussed below.
(i)Study Areas
Based upon preliminary project descriptions,three study
areas (Zones 1,2,and 3)were defined for existing land
use analysis (Figure E.9.4).These zones were designated
according to geographic and land use relationships with the
proposed project and extend in varyi ng wi dths from the
Susitna River between Gold Creek and the mouth of the Tyone
River.
Zone 1 i ncl udes those structures and 1and uses that woul d
be affected by inundation.Zone 2,extending about 10
kilometers (six miles)from Zone 1,is based upon the loca~
tions of lakes which characterize aggregations of land use.
Zone 3~that extends approximately 19 kilometers (12 miles)
beyond Zone 2,is distinguished by fewer aggregations of
land use;existing structures and land use are sparse.In
addit i on to an assessment of the effects of the dams and
impoundments and closely related facilities,the land use
analysis also involved evaluating the impacts of the
transmission line routes.To investigate these concerns
E-9-l2
----.,-_._.__"'~--~----
A general literature search was initially conducted to
determi ne what 1and use and resource management mi ght be
expected in the project area.The search included a review
of available public and private agency planning documents;
historic accounts of the area,and any specific historical
documents.As they became available,additional private
and pub 1ic agency documents were acqui red and researched.
(iii)Aerial Photography and Map Reconnaissance
Aerial photographs and topographic maps were used to locate
certain cultural features such as trails t habitations,and
other indications of past and present land use.Old maps
from hi stor i ca 1 texts and ear ly geo 1ogi ca 1 surveys were
reviewed for foot and sled trails and for mining sites.
Maps available at the University of Alaska library and
museum and from the U.S.Geological Survey were reviewed
for indications of past land use.Agency maps and aerial
photos were examined to obtain information concerning
all-terrain vehicles (ATV)access,tractor trails,roads,
landing strips,and guide camp locations.
(iv)Interviews
Two types of.i ntervi ewi ng were used.Oral hi story i nter-
vi ewi ng was undertaken to reconstruct a 1and and resource
use history of the upper Susitna basin.This history
focuses primarily on the area surrounding the Susitna River
between Gold Creek and the Denali Highway,the area in
which the proposed project would be located.Consideration
of adjacent areas was necessary,however,to put the
history of the project area into perspective.The inter-
views were nondirected,in that,whi1e there was specific
format and data needs,the interview was conducted so as to
appear i nfor1l1al to the respondent.The i ntervi ew process
and a 1ist of interviewees are available in Subtask 7.07 of
Alaska Power Authority,Susitna Hydroelectric Project t
Environmenta1 Studies,Phase I Report,1982.
A second type of interviewing was designed to seek informa-
tion from land management agencies concerning present land
use,current management di recti on,and a lternat i ve future
management strategi es dependi ng upon whether or not the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project is built.Management
agencies contacted and the questions asked of agency
E-9-13
(v)
(vi )
personnel are avail ab1 e in Subtask 7.07 referenced above.
Additional contacts with agencies have been made during the
course of the study to provide for exchange of information
and data.
Field Reconnaissance
Field surveys permitted existing land use data to be certi-
fied and refined by locating,mapping,inspecting,and
photographing the historical artifacts reported duri ng the
interviews.Field surveys were approached from a dual
perspective:by aerial surveys and by ground verification
surveys.Field surveys in proposed development locations
were employed to locate important natural features and to
estimate potential impacts on the area's resources.
Aerial surveys accounted for the macroscopic verification
(geographic location)of the reported historical artifacts
and use information.Once located,these artifacts were
recorded,mapped,and photographed.Information from
aerial surveys was also used as a basis for establishing
priorities for ground truthing.These priorities were
based on:sites of historic interest,and sites for which
limited information was available.
Compilation of Land Use Inventory
Land use data were summarized both chronologically and
geographically.Since land use was analyzed within a
temporal as well as a geographi c context,time cut-offs and
zone boundaries were established for analysis and expres-
sion of data.The data were summarized by decade and then
analyzed according to a combined geographic time period
interaction to detect any major data gaps.
Information concerning existing land uses,dispersed use
act iv ity,1 and status and ownershi p patterns,management
activitY,and natural features was summarized.
-
(vii)Access Road and Transmission Line Analyses
Land use and aesthetics were considerations in the evalua-
tion of alternative routes for the access road and select-
ion of the recommended corridor and route for transmission
lines.Techniques specific to these project components
were employed both in the selection process and in the
impact assessment for the proposed routes.
(viii)Project Impact Assessment
Various project facilities were assessed to identify
changes in baseline land use likely to occur as a result of
E-9-14
the project.Impacts were determined by making qualitative
and quantitative estimates of the potential changes in the
baseline land use.
(xi)Mitigation
Mitigative measures that would minimize project impacts
were identified.In some cases,project impacts have been
reduced through selection of·design options having less
impact than others.Where this was not possible,mitiga-
tive proposals have been identified for consideration in
subsequent planning and design refinement.
(b)Existing Land Use Activity
Land use aggregations for recreation,mining,and residential activi-
ties are shown in Figure E.9.5.
(i)Zone 1
Little activity in the way of trapping and m1n1ng currently
takes place in Zone 1,especially compared to those pur-
suits in Zone 2 and Zone 3.Although hunting is also less
common in this zone than in either of the other two,some
hunting does occur,especially from tent camps.
River-related activities include river boating and float-
ing.Boating within the project area has been linked with
research,fishing.and recreation.Raft float trips are
taken from the Denali Hi ghwayon the Susitna or Tyone
rivers down to above either Vee or Devi 1 Canyons.Some
portage between the lakes in the Stephan Lake vicinity and
Prairie Creek to Talkeetna via the Talkeetna River.
Another Zone 1 activity involves hydroelectric research.
Following preliminary studies.the Bureau of Reclamation
proposed in 1952 that the Susitna be considered for poten-
tial hydroelectric development.Since then,there have
been many feasibility,design,and environmental studies of
the proposed i nundat i on zone and adjacent areas.These
studies combined have probably contributed more total
man-days of use in the area in the past twenty years than
a 11 other uses.
(ii)Zone 2 and Zone 3
Zone 2 is the area extending about ten kilometers (six
mil es)from Zone 1.Thus,Zone 2 encompasses the area
downstream of Devil Canyon,including the river.Some
significant activity occurs along the river in this region.
Salmon fishing represents an important activity in this
part of Zone 2 since salmon are found to migrate up the
E-9-15
Susitna as far as Portage Creek.Individual and riverboat
operations out of Talkeetna travel up the Susitna River,
offeri ng servi ces that i ncl ude day tri ps to Devil Canyon;
drops at camps for hunting,fishing,and photography;and
canoe hauls to many tributaries.Some canoeing and rafting
takes place from just below Devil Canyon to Talkeetna.
-Hunting
Lodges typi ca 11y handl e 15 to 25 guests at a time and
about 140 guests per season.The i ncreasi ng popul arity
of sport hunting in the 1960's caused an increase in the
number of small cabins on many of the lakes in the pro-
ject area.Both guided and non-guided hunting occur
wi thi n the project area,part i cul ar ly near Stephan,Fog,
Cl arence,Watana,Deadman,Tsusena,and Bi g Lakes in
addit i on to many of the area 1 s small er 1akes.Both
lodges and cabins provide the field bases for many
hunters.
-Fishing
Fishing in the project area occurs either as a separate
pursuit or in close association with other activities,
such as hunting and trapping.Fish present in the area's
lakes and streams include burbot,grayling,rainbow
trout,Dolly Varden,lake trout,and whitefish.Consi-
derable fishing for lake trout,grayling,and salmon
occurs in the Stephan Lake -Prairie Creek drainage.
Salmon fishing occ~rs in lower Portage and Chunilna
(Clear)Creeks and Indian River.Fishing in Fog,
Cl arence,Watana,Tsusena,Deadman,Bi g,and Hi gh Lakes
appears to be associated with other activities,such as
hunting,summer cabin use,and mining.There is little
stream fishing elsewhere in the project area.
-Trapping
Present trapping in the project area occurs mostly on the
south side of the Susitna Ri ver near Stephan and Fog
Lakes.Some trappi ng al so occurs near Tsusena Creek and
Cl arence and Hi gh Lakes.Tr aps are set sporad i ca 11y by
aerial trappers in the easternmost portions of the
Susitna valley.
-Mining
Mineral exploration and mlnlng have been limited in the
immediate project area.Mining in the Upper Susitna
River basin has been low in claims density and charac-
terized by intermittent activity since the 1930 1 s.
E-9-16
Placer mines working alluvial deposits for minerals are
found in sites throughout Mat-Su Borough.Active mining
has been more concentrated in Gold,Chunilna (Clear),and
Portage Creeks than in other areas of the upper Susitna
basin.Other acti ve cl aims are around Stephan and Fog
Lakes,Jay Creek,and the Watana Hills east of Jay
Creek.
Coal is the major mineral resource in Mat-Su Borough.
Extensive coal deposits occur in the Beluga area.No
coal mining activity occurs in the project area.
(c)Existing Land Use Development
Both historically and currently,the sparsely distributed develop-
ments throughout the project area have been used predominantly on
a seasonal·basis.The majority of the land use development or
artifacts have been utilized for hunting,fishing,trapping,boat-
ing,mining,and other geneneral recreation purposes,such as
cross-country skiing or photography.Existing structures in the
project area are shown in Figure E.9.6.
(i)Zone 1
Types of developments located in Zone 1,the i nundat ion
zone plus 61 meters (200 feet),include structures,trails,
and airstri ps.
Ten isolated structures are located in Zone 1 on the shores
of the river or on its steep banks.Of these structures,
only three are mai ntai ned and then only used on a seasonal
basis.Two others,though not actively maintained,appear
to be used sporadically by transient hunters,fishermen,or
boaters.The remainder are not currently usable.
(ii)Zone 2
The greatest number of existing land use development and
historical artifacts are located in Zone 2.Zone 2 is a
much smaller area than Zone 3.Types of development found
in Zone 2 include structures,trails,roads,airstrips,and
mines.General types of use associated with these arti-
facts consist of hunting,trapping,fishing,boating,min-
ing,recreation,and research.
Although the primary distribution of use throughout the
project area is low density,the aggregations of existing
development is particularly noteworthy.The nuclei of
these aggregations are the small lakes and lake systems
located throughout Zone 2 that provide access by air.The
aggregat ions of development cons i st of cabi ns and rel ated
structures~lodges,roads,trails,and airstrips.
E-9-17
-
-
1I0OI'\,
-
.....
-
(i i i )Zone 3
Fourteen of the 25 existing structures in Zone 3 are cur-
rently used during some portion of the year.Aggregations
of use occur in the areas of Chunilna and Prairie Creeks
south of the project area.
Structures,use types,and access are categorized by land
use zones and are summarized in Table E.9.3.The major
trails into the project area represent substantial environ-
mental modifications and reflect general use patterns.
They are presented in Table E.9.4.
Figure E.9.5 identifies the location of land use activities
and quantifies the intensity of use.
Land use between Montana and Willow is sparse with a
Matanuska Electric Association right-of-way located several
miles east of the Parks Highway.Some vacant and low
density residential lands are present along Fishook Willow
Road (Hatcher Pass Road).Homesteads occur along Montana
Creek.Four private landing strips and a registered public
airport are in the Montana area.
La nd use east of Ta 1keetna and Chase is domi nated by the
land disposals along the Talkeetna River.Parcels within
the Talkeetna Agricultural Disposal are available for agri-
cultural use.A few homesteads exist around Larson Lake.
The Larson Lake residents could develop the lake for resi-
dential recreation.There are five landing strips in the
Talkeetna area.The two within the village of Talkeetna
are registered public landing strips.
Residential and commercial land development is west of
Curry Ri dge and along Petersvi 11 e Road near Trapper Creek.
There is some scattered residential land use along the
Parks Highway and Chulitna River within Denali State Park.
The areas of principle concentration are where residents
desire to keep the land in a natural,pristine conditions.
Within the Curry area is Byers Lake State Campground.
Hik i ng trail s 1ead from Byers Lake State Campground to
Curry Ridge and Troublesome Creek.
Land use development east of Curry Ridge along the Alaska
Railroad includes the Indian·River Land Disposal and the
Indian River Remote Parcel.Both are recreation oriented.
The Disposal is surveyed into 5 acre lots having utility
easements.Only a limited amount of residents remain the
year round.The disposal is within the Talkeetna Mountains
Special Use District,which requires the residents to get a
permit before constructing a dwe 11 i ng.The Remote Parcel
E-9-18
will have a specific number of residents able to obtain
lots ranging between 2 and 16 hectares (5 and 40 acres).
Homesteads occur along the Alaska Railroad at Chulitna,
Gold Creek,and the Susitna and Indian Ri verso There are
two pri vate 1 andi ng stri ps at Gold Creek,one at Curry ·and
Chul itna.
Land use development between the Middle Fork and East Fork
of the Chul itna Ri ver and along the Chul itna Ri ver is
limited to a few residences on the Parks Highway.
Residential and commercial land use development has become
establ ished at Cantwell,Summit and Broad Pass.Land use
development such as the Cantwell Community Center,is
expected to continue along the Denali Highway.The Golden
North Airport is situated east of Cantwell along the Denali
Highway and is a registered public airport.There are two
other 1andi ng stri ps in the Summit area.Al so present are
the Parks Highway,the Alaska railroad and the eastern
boundary of Denali National Park and Preserve.
Residential and commercial land use developments exist
along the Nenana Ri ver and the Park s Hi ghway near the
Denali National Park and Preserve and prior to entering the
Nenana Gorge.The Alaska Railroad and the Parks Highway
wind through the gorge.There is residential and commer-
cial land use around the Healy Generating Station.Other
developed land use near the northern transmission corridor
is low density residential with travel-oriented commercial
developments located along the Parks Highway.Two private
landing strips are located in Healy.
(d)Special Lands
(i)Wetlands
Proposed land use development is contingent on wetland and
floodland locations.Wetlands are biologically important
because they tend to be more productive and generally
support a greater diversity of wildl ife species per unit
area than most other habitat types in Al aska.Ri pari an
wetlands provide winter browse for moose and can be a
critical survival factor for this species during severe
winters.Wetlands are also important because they help to
maintain water quality throughout regional watersheds.
Wetlands cover large portions of the upper Susitna river
basin including riparian zones along the mainstem Susitna,
sloughs,and tributary streams,and numerous lakes and
ponds on upland plateaus.In addition,extensive areas of
wet sedge-grass tundra are classified as wetlands by the
U.S.Arrrry Corps of Engineers for purposes of Section 404
permitti ng.
E-9-19
-
Wetl ands of the project area are descri bed in Exhi bit E,
ro~Chapter 3,Subsection 3.3.
(in Floodlands
Fl oodl ands are areas known to be frequently inundated by
high water run-off,glacial outbursts,high tide or by
water from high winds.
Floodplains are composed of sediments transported and
deposited above the riverbanks by flooding rivers or
streams.Land use development is not compatible within
fl oodpl ai ns.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration does
not have an office of Coastal Zone Management in Alaska.
The U.S.Corps of Engineers,Floodplain Management,con-
ducts hydraulic'analysis of floodlands to determine flood-
plains for the Federal Insurance Program of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).Speci a 1 area mana ge-
ment plans are prepared for FEMA in areas of potential land
use development where floodplains have not been delineated.
No such management pl ans have been prepared in the upper
Susitna basin due to the area remoteness.
-
The Chul itna,
ri vers in the
i dent ifi ed.
Susitna Ri ver
(iii)Prime Lands
Talkeetna,and Nenana Ri vers are the major
project area for which floodlands have been
Floodlands have been identified for the
downstream from Devil Canyon to Talkeetna.
The U.S.Soil Conservation Service has determined that
there are no prime farmlands,rangelands or forests within
-the Upper Susitna Basin.
2.3 -Description of Existing Land Use Management Plans for the Project
Area
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM),the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources,Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su Borough),and the Cook
Inlet Region,Inc.(CIRl)and associated village corporations have
various mangement concerns in the project area.Table E.9.5 summarizes
the existing and proposed land use management activities of these
agencies.
Federa 1 1ands to the north of the project area are managed by the
BLM.These lands are included in the DenalilTiekel Planning Blocks
(Figure E.9.7).A Decision Record;dated July 1982,authorized the
Denal i/T;ekel Amendment to the Southcentral Management Framework Pl an
E-9-20
to be a Fi ndi ng Of No Si gni fi cant Impact (FONSI).The attachment of
the Decision Record authorizes the Draft report to be final.The
planning blocks address oil and gas,mineral entry,wildlife and scenic
values,and settlement/disposal.
Management in the Denali Unit and in those areas not yet conveyed to
the Natives or the State is essentially passive.Very few management
activities are taking place.BLMls objective is to protect the natural
environment of the area,with particular attention to caribou calving
areas and river recreation routes.Fire control is al so a current
management consideration.BLM has a cooperative fire control agreement
with the State of Alaska that covers the project area.
Lands in the project area that have been identified for conveyance to
the Natives have a total of six easements across them.These include:
an access trail 15 meters (50 feet)wide from the Chulitna wayside on
the Alaska Railroad to public lands immediately east of Portage Creek;
a state site easement and easements on Stephan Lake;and an access
trai 1 runni n9 east from Gol d Creek.Easements were only reserved when
it was shown that access to public lands was not possible from any
other public land area.There are no easements immediately adjacent to
the Susitna River above Gold Creek.
Finally,BLM is also developing a wildlife habitat management plan in
cooperation with Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)for the
Alphabet Hills between the Tyone and Maclare·n Rivers (Tl1-12N,R2-9W,
Copper River Meridian).This plan will involve moose habitat manipula-
t i on.As yet,however,only study plots for thi s project have been
mapped out.
Most state lands fall under the jurisdiction of the Alaska Department
of Natural Resources (DNR).As indicated,the State is disposing of
607 hectares (1,500 acres)of remote housing parcels and 518 hectares
(1280 acres)in a subdivision.These disposal areas (located north and
south of Chulitna)are west of the project area.They are included in
Mat-Su Borough's Talkeetna Mountain Special Use District.
In the project area,the State had,until recently,done only a
resource assessment for those lands it is proposing to select.Cur-
rently,DNRls Division of Research and Development is undertaking a
comprehensive assessment of the resource base in general.The Susitna
Area Plan for state lands in this area is being developed in coopera-
t i on with Mat-Su Borough.The State has requested coordi nat i on between
the Susitna Hydroelectric Project and the regional land use plan.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough is involved in three separate management
efforts which affect the project area.These are the Mat-Su Borough
comprehensive Plan (1978),the Talkeetna Mountains Special Use Dis-
trict,and the Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program.The current
Mat-Su Borough Comprehensive Plan (1978).contains very little discuss-
ion of the Susitna area lands.The borough has already selected more
than its entitlement and is concentrating its selections in the lower
Susitna basin near existing highways.Thus,it is unlikely that the
borough will select any lands in the project area.
E-9-21
-
-
-
The borough,by ordinance,has created the Talkeetna Mountains Special
.Use District,through which the borough can exercise planning and zon-
ing authority over all lands within the district1s boundaries.The
Special Use District includes the project area.The Indian River Sub-
division and Remote parcel are within the special use district.The
Mat-Su plan will allow recreation cabins at these sites but no perma-
nent residences.
The ordinance provides for multiple resource use of the district and
takes into account unique scenic values.Thus,lands within the spe-
cial use district are subject to permit requirements for specified
developments (roads,subdivisions,etc).
The borough is updating its comprehensive plan,and additional studies
are currently being performed.The project area is considered a mixed-
use zone,which would premit hydro development.Management objectives
for the project area will probably not be refined until the current
hydro studies are complete.
Through a cooperative arrangement with the Office of Coastal Zone
Management (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,U.S.
Department of Commerce)and the Alaska Coastal Management Program
(Division of Community Planning,Alaska Department of Community and
Regional Affairs),Mat-Su Borough is preparing a Coastal Management
Program.Preliminary studies were completed in May,1981;originally
the Susitna River through Devil Canyon was designated to be within the
biophysical boundaries of the program (Figure E.9.8).At present the
dam is not included within the program.
The Cook Inlet Region,Inc.received conveyance of selected Native
1ands to hol din trust unt i 1 these 1 ands are conveyed to the appro-
priate Villages (Chickaloon-Moose Creek,Tyonek,and Knik).Currently,
no land management activities are being carried out.When the villages
obtain their lands,the different village ownerships will create a
checkerboard pattern.Immediate land problems and land reconveyance to
vi 11 ages are bei ng handl ed by the Vi 11 age Defi ci ency Management Asso-
ciation,a group made up of representatives from each of the concerned
vi 11 ages.Because of the checkerboard pattern of ownershi p descri bed
above,any management of Native lands may be undertaken by this associ-
at ion.
E-9-22
-
3 -DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE CHANGES RESULTING FROM THE PROJECT
Brief descriptions of the major facilities are presented below;details
may be found in Exhibit A of the Alaska Power Authority1s FERC license
application for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Construction and operation of the dams and related facilities will
Cquse impacts on area resources.Pr i or to determi ni ng the extent of
the land use changes,land use priorities were assessed in terms of
land use activitya'od 'development or conservation and preservation of
specific ecosystems.In few cases,these values are identified in
agency management programs that apply to the area.Section 9.2.3 of
Exhibit E described the Existing Land Use Management Plans.Section
4.0 discusses the changes in land use management plans resulting from
the project.
Project facilities,will create immediate,direct impacts on the
1 andscape.Some of these impacts wi 11 be temporary,such as the
construct i on camps and construction acti vity.Other aspects of the
project wi 11 create permanent and often subtl e changes in the type,
nature,and intensity of development and activitiy.Chief among these
aspects is the provi si on for automobil e access to an area currently
remote.Further discussion of access related land use change is
presented in Section 3.5 below.
3.1 ...Dams and Impoundment Areas
(a)Proposed Facilities
-
(i)
(i i)
Watana
The Watana Dam will be a 720 meter (885 foot)high,
gravel-filled structure,with a crest length of 1,250 meter
(4,100 feet).The dam will be located at Susitna River
kilometer 266 (mil e 165),approximately three kilometers
(two miles)upstream from the mouth of Tsusena Creek.It
will impound approximately 80 kilometers (48 miles)of
river to 666 meters (2,185 feet)elevation and inundate
about 16,000 hectares (38,000 acres).A general layout of
site facilities is shown on Plate F34.
Devi 1 Canyon
Devi 1 Canyon dam wi 11 be a 197-meter (645 foot),concrete
thin-arch dam and a rock-fi 11 ed saddl e dam constructed at
ri ver kilometer 216 (mil e 134)-j n Devil Canyon.Its crest
1ength will be 754 meters (2,475 feet).The dam will
impound 42 k n ometers (26 mil es)of'ri ver to 444 meters
(1,445 feet)elevation.Approximately 3,157 hectares
(7,800 acres)of land will be inundated.A general layout
of site facilities is shown on Plate F70.
E-9-23
(b)Induced Land Use Changes
(i)Land Use Development
The emp1 acement of the Watana Dam and impoundment wi 11
inundate seven structures.These structures are numbered
90,91, 92,111,112 and 120 on Figure E.9.6.Two
structures are actively maintained as indicated in Table.
E.9.6.Number 90 is a lean-to for hunting and fishing
purposes.Number 119 is a trailer situated by the U.S.
Corps of Engi neers for Susitna Hydroe1 ectri c feas i bil ity
study.
The emp1 acement of Devi 1 Canyon Dam and impoundment wi 11
inundate three structures,as illustrated in Figure E.9.6.
These are 2,6 and 107.As indicated on Table E.9.6,only
Number 2,a boat cabin,is currently maintained for boating
and hunting.
(ii)Land Use Activity
Hunting activity will increase,and current patterns will
change as a result of impoundments.The reservoirs and
access to them will facilitate f10atp1ant landing and boat
travel,and thus,permit easier penetration by big game
hunters into rarely visited·areas.An increase in moose
hunting will occur immediately adjacent to the proposed
impoundments.Hunting for caribou may increase to the
maximum allowed by the permit system.Game will be reduced
by the effects of increased hunti ng and by the resource
emigration caused from increased human population.Big
game hunting guides will be affected by reduced hunting
activity and therefore reduced income.Guides may need to
find a different occupation or move elsewhere.
There is potential for increased fishing for resident
species in tributaries feeding into the impoundments.A
limited reservoir fishery may also develop.Salmon fishing
in Portage Creek could increase due to the accessibility
created for the Devil Canyon faci 1 ity.Regu1 at i onscan be
requested to manage this fishery area.
Fur resources will be eliminated in Zone 1 by the impound-
ments.Access to the reservoirs will cause disruption of
present trapping patterns within Zones 2 and 3.
Access to the proposed facilities will be limited to
project personnel duri ng constructi on of the facil it i es.
Land use activities will be confined to project construct-
i on to di scour age increased hunt i ng,fi shi ng and trappi ng
in the project area.T~e 1 and management pl ans developed
with the cooperation of jurisdictional agencies will
include control of land use activities and will be
E-9-24
-
-
implemented upon operation of the facilities.The land use
plans will direct land use activities for the reduction of
the impact on the game,fish and fur bearers resulting from
increased land use activity.
3.2 -Construction Camps and Villages
,~
-I
(a)Proposed Fa·cil.ities
One construction camp (single worker housing),village (family
housing),and assoc·iated facilities wil1.be"located at each dam-
site within the immediate project area.Construction of Watana
Dam is proposed to begin in 1985,nine years before the dam at
Devil Canyon.Plans are to build a construction camp and village
at Watana for use until the dam construction phases down.The
camp wi 11 then be relocated to the Devi 1 Canyon dam site.Part of
the village at Watana will remain as a permanent town to provide
housing and community facilities for workers who will operate the
dams.No permanent village is p1 anned for the Devil Canyon site.
The proposed camp and village at Watana will be constructed nor.th-
east of the dam site between Deadman and Tsusena Creeks (P1 ate
F34).Approximately two kilometers (one mil e)wi 11 separate the
construct i on camp from the vil1 age.Work on the vil1 age will
begi n about one year after construct i on of the camp has begu n.
Structures at the camp will be of factory-built,modular design to
f acil itate thei r re 1ocat i on to Devil Canyon.Permanent buil di ngs
are planned for the village facilities at Watana,since the
vi 11 age community wi 11 remai n after the dams are buil t.
Facilities at the village will include family housing (to accommo-
date about 1000 people),a school,gymnasium,recreation center,
shopping center (food supermarket,department and specialty
stores),fire station,generating station,and structures for
other support activities.Facilities and services to be provided
at the costruction camp include housing modules (dormitories)for
about 3,000 workers,camp offices,food services,warehousing,
fire and security protection,banking and postal services,hospi-
tal care,recreation,communications,and power generation.
Camp and village utilities will include a potable water supply
system,sewage system,power supply and di stri buti on system,
communications,fuel storage,and a solid waste disposal system.
The water supply is expected to serve an estimated peak population
of 4,030 (3,070 in the camp and 960 in the village)including
workers,families,and visitors.The water source will be from
Tsusena Creek and groundwater wells.The treatment plant,also of
modular design,will fulfill Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
requirements.
E-9-25
Permanent facilities required for project operation at Watana
include a small community of approximately 130 staff members and
their families.The town is planned at the site of the
construction village.
The facil ities at the Devil Canyon construction camp and village
will be s imil ar to those at Watana,though fewer workers will be
accommodated.Up to 1900 peop1 e wi 11 be housed dur i ng the peak
construction period at Devil Canyon.The camp will be situated
south of Portage Creek and west of Devil Canyon on the south side
of the Sus i tna ~i ver.The vi 11 age wi 11 .be temporary,un1 ike the
one at Watana,and will be west of the camp (Plate F70).
Additional details on the construction camps and villages may be
found in Exhibit A and in Section 5 of Exhibit E.
(b)Induced Land Use Changes
(i)Watana
-Land Use Development
The construction camp and village will result in the
dedication of 150 hectares (370 acres)to community use
dur i ng the construct i on phase.After construct i on has
been completed and the camp and temporary village
removed,the permanent town at Watana wi 11 occupy 36
hectares (90 acres).Additional lands will be required
for connecting roads,an airstrip,and other facilities
related to dam construction.
-Land Use Activity
Among the project I s effects upon act i vi ty patterns are
those impacts related to access.The chief effect of the
Watana camp wi 11 be the acti vity associ ated with the
ten-year construction period.The extent of impact on
general patterns of activity in the Upper Susitna basin
will depend on the actual operating policies established
for the camp duri ng the construct i on peri ode Di spersed
recreational activity by construction workers could
increase significantly in the absence of such policies.
Conversely,if there are extensive policies limiting
dispersed recreation and other activities outside of
camp,the effects on the basin will be minimized.
(ii)Devil Canyon
-Land Use Development
Some 34 hectares (85 acres)of presently undeveloped land
wi11 be converted to commu nity uses for the construct ion
period.Additiona1 areas will be required for connecting
E-9-26
-
-
-
-
roads and related facilities.After construction is
complete in 2002,all camp and village facilities will be
removed.
-Land Use Activity
The chi ef effects of the Devi 1 Canyon camp wi 11 be the
associ ated construction acti vity dur i ng the constructi on
period from 1994 to 2002.Controlled activities outside
of camp will determine the extent the construction
workers wi 11 impact the activity patt~rn.Change in the
activity pattern is expected to be less than that for
Watana because of the smaller work force required for
Devi 1 Canyon.
(c)Mitigation
Impacts from human use can be reduced if trails outside the
proposed camps are established and if specific areas are designed
for leisure activity.Impacts from facilities associated with
housing,such as sewage treatment lagoons and landfills,can be
reduced if they are located away from existing or proposed
developments.
Posting and enforcing construction camp rules will help make
project personnel aware of adverse environmental impacts.Other
mitigations measures may include restricting the use of private
vehicles in the project area.
3.3 -Access
(a)Proposed Facilities
The access pl an proposed route is shown on Pl ate F32.Transport
to the Watana damsite will commence in part at the existing Alaska
Railroad at Cantwell.A road will extend 3.2 kilometers (2 miles)
from a proposed rail marshall i ng yard and storaage facil i ty,and
will follow an existing route to the junction of the George Parks
and Denal i Hi ghways.Transport will proceed east 34 kilometers
(21 miles)on the Denali Highway.A new access road will extend
south from the Denali Highway from a point south of Pyramid Peak.
The road will be constructed for 69 kilometers (43 miles)across
Brushkana Creek,paralleling a drainage west of Deadman Mountain
and Big Lake to the Watana damsite.The road will provide access
to some Native lands on the north side of the river and access to
Native lands on the south side of the river when access is
provided across the top of the dam.
Access to the Devil Canyon development will cons;st pri marily of
an extension of the existing Alaska Railroad at Gold Creek to a
marshalling yard and storage facility adjacent to the Devil Canyon
camp area.Materials and supplies will be distributed using a
system of site roads.
E-9-27
The railroad will climb gently and steadily for 22.5 kilometers
(14 miles)from Gold Creek to the marshalling yard near the Devil
Canyon camp,except for a 3.2 k i 1 ometer (2 mil e)secti on where the
route traverses steep terrain alongside the Susitna River.
Several streams are crossed requiri ng the constructi on of 1arge
culverts,however,no bridges are needed.
The railroad extension will be designed not to exceed a maximum
grade of 2.5 percent nor a maximum curvature of 10 degrees.These
parameters are cons i stent wi th those presently bei ng used by the I!!li!!'!
Alaska Railroad.
A road will connect the Devil Canyon and Watana damsite.This
road connection is also required for travel between Watana and
Devil Canyon by the post-construct ion operati on and mai ntenance
personnel who will be stationed at Watana.
From the marshall i ng yard at Devi 1 Canyon the connecti ng road "Ii 11
be built to a hi~h level suspension bridge approximately 1.6
kilometers (one mile)downstream of the dam site.The route
extends northeast,across Devil Creek and past Swimming Bear Lake
at an elevation of 1,400 meters (3,500 feet),thence southeast
through a wide pass.The road continues south crossing Tsusena
Creek and connects to the Watana Dam.The overall length of the
road is 57.5 kilometers (36 miles)between Devil Canyon and
Watana.
Assessment of projected traffic volumes and loadings during
construction resulted in the selection of the following design
parameters for the access roads.
-'I
~i
Surfacing
Width of Running Surface
Shoulder Width
Maximum Grade
Maximum Curvature
Unpaved
24 feet
5 feet
6%
50
The 33.5 kilometers (21 miles)of the Denali Highway will be
upgraded to these design standards.The connecting road between
Watana and Devil Canyon will be bui 1t to these standards.
Grades and curvatures consistent with current highway design
standards for a 90 km/h (55 mph)design speed were chosen for the
efficient and economical movement of supplies.As extensive
grades and curvatures could result at some locations,the design
speed will be reduced in certain areas to 65 km/h (40 mph)to
a 11 ow steeper grades and shorter turn radi i.F1 exi bil ity of
design speed allows the road to follow the topographical contour
more closely.
E-9-28
-
(b)
Typi cally the crown of the road will be approximately 1.2 meters
(4 feet)above natural elevations.Side slopes will be smoothed.
Several pull-outs will be constructed along the access road to
permit vi ewi ng of natural areas and some of the project
fa c il it i es •
Required right-of-way width will generally be 60 meters (200 feet)
for the gentle to moderate side slopes of the road and railroad.
The few areas of major sidehill cutting and deep excavation will
require additional width.
The road will be paved in the community of Cantwell from the 16
hectare (40 acre)marshalling yard to 6.5 kilometers (4 miles)
east of the George Park and Denali Highway intersection.This
will eliminate dust and flying stones.in the residential district.
Allowable speeds will be lowered along this segment for safety
measures.
Induced Land Use Changes
The access route will be built for construction an~operation of
the dam facilites.Many of the effects will be related to long-
term consequences after construction is complete.Increased
access into this existing remote area is the major land use impact
of the project.
As discussed in the previous subsection,the existing land use is
predominantly individual recreational use and commercial recrea-
tion development.Access will introduce an influx of people
and will instigate activity within the basin that will affect
population concentrations,isolated residences,peripheral
commercial establishments and transportation systems,resource
utilization,the level of recreation activity,and the overall
character of the area.These effects coul d i nfl uence changes in
land value and will initiate comprehensive land use management.
Access extending from the Denali Highway will cause effects in the
Cantwell area.Land use changes at Cantwell are further discussed
in Chapter 9.3.3 (b)(i).Road access will cause both the disrup-
t i on of present 1and use and the inducement of future 1and use.
Provision of access into the Susitna basin is a more significant
impact than is the physical road.The provisions of easy,inex-
pensive access into the area will cause profound alterations to
the Susitna basin's character.
Rail access to Devil Canyon originating at Gold Creek,will allow
the transportation of materials,equipment,and labor through Gold
Creek.There waul d be a si gni fi cant impact on Go 1d Creek and on
Hurricane and Talkeetna,the last railroad junctures with highway
access to the north and south of Gold Creek,respectively.The
use of the railroad to ship materials to Devil Canyon Dam will
cause 1ess of an impact to other communities along the Parks
Highway.
£-9-29
_____~• =,_---e___'--------------------
Goods or peop1 e cou1 d travel by rail to the Devil Canyon site.
This will reduce the extent of impact on community land use along
the Parks Highway.Access by road from the Denali Highway to
Watana,would increase off-road vehicle use in areas where it is
now low.This introduction could aggrevate alterations to the
terrai n.
The proposed access would likely cause less of an effect to
residents along the Parks Highway since direct access from the
Parks Hi ghway is prec1 uded.The road from the Denali Hi ghway
would permit car travel by the public into the interior of the
basin.The Fairbanks population is considerably smaller than that
of Anchorage.Therefore,potential human use of the basin via a
new road wou1 d be reduced with access extendi ng from the Dena1 i
Highway due to the increased distance from Anchorage.In
addition,virtually no development exists along the Denali route,
so disruptions to existing land use would be minimal.
The Denali access road wi 11 provide access to CIRI and vi 11 age
corporation lands for possible resource development.This is
considered as a positive step by the corporations.Recreation,
mining,and timber harvesting have been suggested as possible
activities.
(i)Land Use Development
Improved access,increased use and markets for commerci a1
services wi 11 make the 1 and in the project vi ci nity more
attractive to prospective commercial and residential
buyers.Commercial and residential development may
increase,escalating the land value.
The access road that extends from the Dena1 i Hi ghway to
Watana and Devil Canyon,and the railhead at Cantwell will
not directly create significant impacts on land use
development.Their construct i on will create jobs duri ng
constructi on and operat i on.The indirect i nf1 uence the
access road will have on the local communities will be more
significant as labor and materials pass within their
vi ci nity.
The termination of the rail system at Cantwell,the closest
community to the dam sites via road,will create a signifi-
cant change to Cantwell.Support sector employment will
develop as personnel arrive that are directly employed
toward the construction or operation of the proposed faci-
lities.As the community population increases,housing,
business activity,improved transportation and schools will
require development and construction within the community.
E-9-30
-.
~.
-
f/lII>?
-
(i i)
The popu1 at i on may increase over 100 percent at Cantwell
and up to 100 percent at Trapper Creek.Talkeetna will
experience a 10-50 percent increase in population with the
Denali-North access plan.Construction and land use
development will increase proportionally.Palmer,Wasilla
and Houston will experience less than 2.5 percent increase
in population,housing and schools,but a 2.5-10 percent
increase will be experienced in the development of service
sector employment,business activity and transportation
facil ities.
The railroad wi 11 traverse through Go1 d Creek to a rai 1 head
at Devil Canyon.This rail spur will signifiant1y impact
population,and the development of support sector employ-
ment,business activity,housing and transportation in Gold
Creek and,to a 1esser extent,Ta 1keetna.Ta 1keetna wi 11
experience a significant impact on its schools and other
public facilities services.
The extent of land use development in surrounding communi-
ties will depend on the transportation program employed
.which could include combinations of airplane,bus,personal
vehi c1e with associ ated park and ride lots,travel sche-
dules,and/or travel allowances.
Information on socioeconomic impacts is described in
Section 5,Exhibit E of Alaska Power Authority's FERC
1icen~e application for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Land Use Activity
There will be increased hu nt i ng for moose and bear along
the access corridor.The increased number of hunters will
disrupt existing hunters and force them to adjust to
reduced resources or to relocate into other remote areas.
Fishing will increase with potential effects on reduced
resources and on people who currently fish in the area.
The access road between the two dams on the north side of
the Susitna will disrupt current use patterns at High Lake
Lodge.Disruption might also occur to fly-in fishing and
hunt i ng around the 1akes near Devil Canyon.Some trappi ng
.territories recently established around the High Lake area
would also be altered.In addition to increased hunting
and fishing,this area will also receive increased recrea-
tional use for hiking,backpacking,sightseeing,and other
act i vit ie s.
E-9-31
(c)Mitigation
Access will be limited to project personnel during construction.
Land use activity will be confined to project construction until
the facilities are built.This will reduce in impact of land use
activity until the implementation of the land use management plans
are in effect.
If the use of off-road vehicles originating from the access route
becomes a disturbance,measures will need to be taken to inhibit
this activity.Such measures would include:a buffer strip
des i gnated for non-motor i zed use adj acent to the access route;
natural conditions employed as subtle but absolute deterrents to
ORV use;designated and planned ORV trails in locations that will
neither conflict with other land uses nor damage the environment;
and if necessarYt ORV restriction such as between the proposed dam
sites.Spur roads to private holdings and mining claims will be
designed t located,and constructed t similarly.
Recreat i onal use extendi ng from the access route wi 11 be directed
to sites designed to support such use.
3.4 -Transmission
(a)Proposed Facilities
Maps of the transmission route are included in Exhibit G.From
Watana to Devil Canyon,two single-circuit lines will be
constructed in a 122 meter (400 foot)wide right-of-way specified
within the proposed 0.8 Kilometers (0.5 miles)wide corridor.
Five single-circuit 345 Kv lines will extend from Devil Canyon to
the intertie near Gold Creek.A 213 meter (700 foot)wide right-
of-way will be selected from the proposed Devil Canyon-Gold Creek
Corridor.Watana to Gold Creek was considered the central study
area.
From Gold Creek,two lines will extend north and three lines will
extend south and will parallel the intertie to Healy and Willow t
respectively.From Healy to Fairbanks and from Willow to
Anchorage,the northern and southern study areas,respecti vely,
the right-of-way will be approximately 122 meters (400 feet)
wide.
Most of the towers will be X-shaped structures approximately 30
meters (lOa feet)tall.Double circuit construction may be
required in areas such as the Municipality of Anchorage,to allow
a narrower right-of-way.Double circuit structures will be
similar in design to the single circuit structures except 15
meters (50 feet)taller.
E-9-32
-
-I
-
--
-,
--
I"-
,
The corridor width studied was 5 to 10 kilometers (3 to 6 miles).
It included both sides of the river so therefore was 23 kilometers
(14 miles)wide in some central corridor segments.The trans-
mission route analysis involved mapping within the corridor the
following land use features:development and activity,land
tenure~and aesthetics.
The process of environmentally screening the original 22 corridors
involved comparison of study area options based on the folloWing 8
constraints categories:length,topography/soils~land use~
aesthetics,cultural resources,vegetation~fish,and wildlife.
Following review of the environmental and engineering ana1yses~
one transmission corridor was selected for each of the three study
areas.Constraints within that corridor were then examined and a
0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles)wide route within the corridor was
selected.
The transmi ssi on 1i ne ri ght-of-way for two 345 KV 1i nes wi 11
extend west from the substation north of Watana Dam,in the
Southwest Quarter of Section 28~Township 28 North,Range 5 West
of the Fairbanks Meridian,for 8 kilometers (5 miles).The corri-
dor is proposed to be north of the Susitna Ri ver and to cross
Tsusena Creek.The corridor extends southwest for 9.5 kilometers
(6 miles)thence west for 16 kilometers (10 miles)crossing the
Susitna Ri ver.The corridor continues west by northwest for 21
kilometers (13 miles).The proposed Gold Creek Substation is in
the Southeast Quarter of Section 36~Township 32 North~Range 11
West of the Fairbanks Meridian.
The transmission line will be built during winter to reduce the
impact of the construction vehicles on the terrain.Access to the
transmission line wi 11 be over snow andice bridges across the
Susitna River~Tsusena Creek and the other drainages traversed~to
the greatest extent practical.Access from the proposed Gold
Creek Substation to the drainage that extends south from the
proposed Devil Canyon dam will be along the alternative Access
Plan 16.A description of the Access route is presented in
Section 2.6 of Exhibit B.
Cross i ng the steep walls of the dra i nage south of the proposed
Devil Canyon dam will be diffi cult and may require foll owi ng the
contours of the drai nage south to a 1ocat i on offer i ng safe and
economical crossing of the drainage.A similar detour from the
transmission corridor may extend north at the Tsusena Creek
drainage.Vehicles may need to extend upstream along other
dra i nages and around peaks before returni ng to the transmi ss ion
1 ine corridor for construction.It is possible that the trans-
mission line extending for 8 kilometers (5 miles)west of the
Susitna River will require helicopter construction during the
summer.Upon worst case,summer helicopter construction could be
required for approximately 32 kilometers (20 miles)between
Tsusena Creek and the drainage south of the proposed Devil Canyon
dam.
E-9-33
(b)Induced Land Use Changes
Construction activities cause both short-and long-term impacts on
resources.The creation of new access will add si gnifi cant ly to
the potential for disturbance caused by the transmission line.
Efforts were made to parallel existi ng util ity corridors.and to
utilize existing access wherever appropriate.
Maintenance activities during the operational phase of the lines
can also cause adverse impacts as a result of clearing or of
chemical treatment of the right-of-way.Impacts will vary depend-
ing upon the timing and method of right-of-way maintenance and can
be minimized thro~gh careful prescription of maintenance
techni ques.
(i)Land Use Development
The Wi 11 ow-Anchorage route crosses or parall el s numerous
trails,including the Iditarod Trail.seismic survey lines,
tractor and pioneering ORV trails.and several recreational
trails near Willow.
Residential use occurs in Willow,Red Shirt Lake,and on
many of the small lakes east of the Willow-Anchorage route.
Scattered cabins in the vicinity of Willow are close to the
Alaska Railroad and Parks Highway.Red Shirt Lake has
approximate ly 25 cabi ns along its shores.Seven other
lakes have several cabins along their shores,and a few
cabins are widely scattered el sewhere.The proposed route
will not directly affect these existing structures,
although the lines and towers may be visible in areas west
of Long Lake,Red Shirt Lake,and smaller lakes where
topography is not sufficient to screen them from view.
Agricultural.use occurs north of Point MacKenzie,and
agricultural clearings exist from a region northeast of
Middle Lake east·to the Little Susitna River south of Yohn
Lake.Land within a transmission right-of-way can still be
cultivated,the towers would displace small areas of exist-
ing and potential farmland and disrupt normal patterns of
cultivation and future agricultural development.
The corridor and portions of the western boundary of the
Willow-Anchorage route include the northeast corner of the
Susitna Fl ats State Game Refuge.All 1and use development
in a Game Refuge must be determined to be compatible with
the purposes for which the refuge was created.
The proposed lines extending south from Willow will
parallel the existing Chugach Electric Association,Inc.'s
Point MacKenzie-University Substation line on the east side
of Knik Arm to a new substation proposed south of Muldoon
E-9-34
-
-
-
-
~I
...,
-
..-
-
Road.The visual impacts of this section of line will not
b~insignificant since it is located on the Fort Richardson
Mi 1i tary Reservat i on.The impacts of the proposed route
will be reduced because it is adjacent to an existing line.
Additional mitigation measures include imitating the tower
and conductor materials,tower spacing,and design of
Chugach EA's existing line.
The impact of the transmission line routes from Gold Creek
to Healy and Willow will be minimal because the routes will
be ·within the same corridor as Alaska Power Authority's
Healy-Willow intertie transmission line.The construction
of Alaska Power Authority's Healy-Willow intertie will be
complete upon commencement of the proposed transmission
construction.The impact of the proposed transmission
1i nes wi 11 be reduced because they will para 11 eland be
adjacent to the approved intertie right-of-way.
There are several moderate concentrations of land use
developments along or adjacent to the proposed route
between Healy and Fa irbanks.Si gnifi cant among these is
the development at Healy,Nenana,and Ester.In Healy and
Ester,existing land use and the proposed transmission
route will be juxtaposed.
(i i )Land Use Act i vity
The proposed route between Wi 11 ow and Knik Arm northeast of
Point MacKenzie will traverse an area that receives
dispersed but increasing use.Boating occurs along the
Susitna and Little Susitna Rivers,Willow Creek and on
numerous small 1akes.Potential confl i cts between the
proposed lines and private lands and boating use may occur
wherever the lines and towers will be visible.Floatplane
f1 i ght patterns may be affected where the 1i nes pass near
lakes used for landing and taking off.
Tr ails that recei ve substant i a1 ORV use are located near
Wi 11 ow,Red Shirt Lake,and Knik Arm.The proposed route
will not affect the physical use of trails,although visual
conflicts may occur where the lines pass the trails.
(c)Mitigation
Efforts were made to select transmission line routes that would
mi nimi ze negative impact.Proper al i gnment of the transmiss ion
line right-of-way within the route could reduce the line's
obtrusiveness.The techniques employed by the U.S.Fish and
Wildlife right-of-way management plans will be used when selecting
the transmission lines right-of-way.
E-9-35
-
,.,..
,-
4 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES IN LAND USE MANAGEMENT RESULTING FROM
THE PROJECT
4.1 -Land Acguisition
With the exception of a few scattered parcels,most lands in the pro-
ject area are presently under federal control.Much of the land
required for the dams and impoundments has been selected by the Natives
under Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.Many lands such as the
pro~osed locations for the Devil Canyon camp and village,as shown in
Figures 4 and 5,have been selected by Cook Inlet Region,Inc.(CIRI)
and could be transferred to CIRI and associated Native village groups.
Approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles)of the access route crosses
Native Selected lands.The remainder of the access route is on federal
or state selected lands.The relocation of the preferred access route
could cause the reevaluation of village selection lands by the
Natives.
The transmission line routes are primarily on State land with the
exception of the central route.Twenty-nine kilometers (18 miles)of
the selected transmission 1 ine from Watana to Gold Creek traverses
Native Selections.The remainder of the central transmission route is
on State selected lands.
Sect ions of the northern transmi ssi on corridor crosses Doyon Regional
Corporation lands that have been designated for village selection by
the Alaska Natives.Sections of the southern corridor are owned by
CIRI.
Before the initiation of construction,a means of land acquisition will
have to be established for the access road and transmission line
corridor ,either throl1gh purchase or by obtaining a right-of-way.
A decision by the State to proceed with the Susitna project would
entail transfer of ownershi p of substantial 1and areas to the State.
The process for such transfer has not yet been establ i shed but coul d
entail purchase and/or an exchange of other State selected lands with
Nat i ve groups.
The proposed locations for the Watana camp and village are on federal
lands that have been selected by the State.Ultimate transfer of title
to these lands will not be affected by the project.
For more discussions on land stewardship,see Chapters 9.1.2 and 9.2.1
of Exhi bit Eo
4.2 -Land Management
Based on avail ab 1e i nformat i on and agency i ntervi ews,it has been
determined that little comprehensive management exists at present.
Section 9.2.4 of Exhibit E describes existing land use management
plans.Table £.9.5 summarizes the existing and proposed land use
management activities in the project areas.
E-9-36
~--~"----_._.-._----------------~-,.,...-----------'
The BLM has no proposals for management planning,other than the
existing DenalijTiekel Planning Blocks.
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR)has prepared a plann-
i ng background report in cooper at i on with Matanusk a-Sus itna Borough
(Mat-Su Borough),Kenai Peninsula Borough and the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game,and Transportation and Public Facilities.The DNR is
preparing a land use report that describes and categorizes potential
land use in the southcentral region of Alaska.This document will be
completed approximately May,1983.A land use plan will be completed
by the DNR in 1986.
Future agricultural land sales are proposed in the DNR Draft Land Use
Plan for Public Lands in the Willow Sub-basin,1981,along with
programs for protecting wildlife habitat and sportmen1s access.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)has developed species-
s pecifi c objectives for the regi on,but it has no 1and management
authority.Other agenci es have prel i mi nary addressed 1and management
concerns.The generat i on of hydroel ectri c power wi 11 become the
predominant land use in the area,and the presence of the project will
be an important factor when agenci es eventually develop comprehensi ve
land management plans.
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough has prepared a planning background
report.The Mat-Su Borough wi 11 compl ete a draft comprehensi ve 1and
use plan in November,1982.
The Fairbanks Northstar Borough is preparing a Borough-wide,comprehen-
sive plan.The first section will describe the potential land use and
will give a general comprehensive plan.It will be available in July,
1983.By 1985 specific land use plans,policies,and regulations for
subdivisions and zoning will be available.
Increased access will be allow land use activity to become more intense
especially by individual users.Therefore,the provision of access
will result in a need for increased management and use controls in the
upper Susitna basin.After titles or legal rights-of-way are obtained
for construction and operation of facilities,public access could
result in increased use levels of private lands adjacent to project
lands.Furthermore,an increase in hunting,fishing,and general use
of the project area is probable.These activities may require in-
creased fish and wildlife management and may result in surface-
disturbing activities.
Specific controls may be required to protect resource value.Controls
could include establishng acquisition limits for hunting and fishing,
permitting a limited public entry,ORV management,and other land
management.
E-9-37
-
-
-
-
-
Finalizing specific management plans and mitigation measures for trans-
mission line right-of-way,access,recreational use,and residential
accommodations,will proceed during the Phase II of the Susitna Hydro-
electric Project.The Alaska Power Authority will work closely with
the aforementioned development of land use plans.
E-9-38
"1
REFERENCES
Acres American Inc.1981f.Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Environmental Studies Subtask 7.05~Socioeconomic Analysis,
Sociocultural Report.Prepared by Stephen R.Braund and
Associates and Acres American Inc.for the Alaska Power Authority
Anchorage,Alaska.
Acres American,Inc.1981g.Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Environmental Studies Subtask 7.07:Land Use Analysis.Prepared
by Acres American Inc.and Terrestrial Environmental Specialists,
Inc.for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
ADNR.1981.Draft Land Use Plan for Public Lands in the Willow
Sub-basin.Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Matanuska-Susitna Borough,Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
AONR.1982.Land Use Issues and Preliminary Resource Inventory.
Vo 1ume 1,Plann i ng Background Report.Matanuska-Sus itna-Be 1uga
Cooperative Planning Program.Prepared by the Alaska Department
of Natural Resources in cooperation with Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Alaska Department of Game and Fish,Transportation and Public
Facilities and the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
APA.1981b.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Annual
Report Subtask 7.12:Plant Ecology Studies.Submitted by
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists,Inc.and the University of
Alaska to Acres American,Inc.for the Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage,Alaska.
APA.1981c.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental·Studies
Report Subtask 7.14:Access Road Environmental Analysis -
Environmental,Socioeconomic and Land Use Analysis of Alternative
Access Plans.Submitted by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists,
Inc.;Frank Orth &Associates and the University of Alaska to
Acres American Inc.,for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,
Alaska.
APA.1982.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Phase I
Final Report Subtask 7.08:Recreation Planning.Submitted by
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists,Inc.for the Alaska Power
Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
APA.1982.Environmental Assessment Reprot,Anchorage -Fairbanks
Transmission Intertie.Prepared by Commonwealth Associates,Inc.
for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska.
Arnold,R.D.1978.Alaska Native Land Claims.Alaska Native
Foundation,Anchorage,Alaska.
BLM.1982.Draft An Amendment to the Southcentral Alaska Land Use Plan
for the Denali/Tiekel Planning Blocks.The Bureau of Land
Management.Prepared by the Staff of the BLM,Anchorage District
Off i ce,A1ask a.
E-9-39
Draft Grow~h Potential,Development
Volume 2.Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga
Prepared by Dowl Engineers for the
Matanu ska-Sus itna Borough.1981.Coasta 1 Management Program Phase II
Progress Report.Prepared by Maynard and Partch,Woodward-Clvde
Consultants for Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Office
of Coastal Zone Management,National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration,U.S.Department of Commerce,administered by the
Division of Community Planning,Department of Community and
Regional Affairs,and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough.1982.
Issues,Settlement Patterns,
Coopertive Planning Program.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Price,R.E.1982.Legal Status of the Alaska Natives.A Report to
the Alaska Statehood Commission.Prepared by Department of Law.
State of Alaska for the Alaska Statehood Commission,Fairbanks,
Alaska.
USOTA 1977.Analysis of Laws Governing Access Across Federal Lands,
Options for Access in Alaska.U.S.Office of Technology
Assessment,Washington,D.C.
E-9-40
-
-
-
-
AUTHORITIES CONTACTED
FEDERAL AGENCIES
United States Department of Agricu lture
Soil Conservation Service
-Sterling Powell:Physical Engineer,Water Resource
Specialist
United States Department of Defencse
Army Corps of Engineers~Alaska District
-Larry Boyles:Floodplain Management
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
-John Rego:Geologist
-Sandy Thomas:ANCSA
-Bob Ward:Environmental Planner
National Park Service
-Terry Carlstom:Chief of Planning and Design
STATE AGENCIES
Alaska Power Authority
-Bruce Bedard:Inspector,Native Liaison
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs
-Christy Miller:Coastal Zone Management Program
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division of Habitat Protection
-Christopher Beck:Regional Planner
-Al Carson:Deputy Director
Alaska Land Use Council
-Lisa Parker:Executive Director
L.OCAL AGENCIES
Fairbanks North Star Borough
-Paula Twelker:Planner II
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Borough Office
-Claudio Arenas:Planning Director,Palmer
E-9-41
OTHER INSTITUTIONS,ORGANIZATIONS
Ahtna,Inc.
-Lee Adler:Director
-Herb Smelcer:President
Cantwell Village Planning Council
-Charles Hubbard
Cook Inlet Region,Incorporated
-Roland Shanks:Manager of Land Administration
Holmes and Narver
-Warren Samples:Susitna Project Manager
Knik/ADC
-Roy Goodman
Land Field Services,Incorporated
-P.J.Sullivan:Representative
Tyonek Nat ive Corporation
-Agnes Brown:President
£-9-42
-
-
(a)
TABLE E.9.1:PARCELS BY LAND STATUS/OWNERSHIP CATEGORY
C-I Federal
USGS Talkeetna Land Status/
Mountains Quad Ownership Category
Areas
Hectares Acres
3,200
11,840
28,160
23.040
12,800
86,400
51,840
12
56,639
81,920
998
15
18,304
73~088
47,872
42
52,006
52,480
32,665
5
23.999
30~399
5,760
3,840
403
84
Unknown
1,295
4,792
11,396
9.324
5,180
34,966
20,980
5
22~921
33,152
404
6
7,408
29,579
19,374
17
21,047
21,239
13,220
2
9,712
12,302
2,331
1.554
163
34
T30&31N,R5-8E SM
T29&30N,R5-8E SM
T31N,R5E SM
T31N,R7E SM
Sections 25&36
Location
(b)
T29N,R12E SM
nO&31N,R11E SM
T29-31N,R10&11E SM
T29N,R10&11E SM
nO&31N,R12E SM
T29-31N,R8-10E SM
T29&30N,RB-10E SM
T30N,R9E SM
Sections 19,20,21
T30N,R3-5E SM
T29&30.N,R3-5E.SM
T29-31N,R2-5E SM
T30N,R3E SM
Sections 9,16,17,20,21
T30&31N,R1W,1&2E SM
T29&30N,R1W,1&2E SM
T29-31N,R1&2E SM
T29N,R2E SM
Section 15
T29-31N,Rl&2W SM
T29&30N,R1&2W SM
T31N,R2W SM
T30N,R2W SM
T30N,R2W SM
.Sections 23,26
T31N,R2W SM
Sections 29,30
T29N,R2W SM
Sections 2,3,10,11,15,16
Federal (SSS)
State Selection
~rivate (Clarence Lake)
Federal (SSS)
State Selection
Native Selection
Private (Watana Lake)
(c)
Federa 1 (SSS)
State Selection
Regional Selection
Federal (SSS)
State Selection
Native .Selection
Private (Stephan Lake)
Federa 1 (SSS)
State Selection
Native Selection
Private
Federa 1 (SSS)
State Selection
State Patented(TA1d)(d)
Native Group Selection
Private(north of
Chunilna Creek)
(south of
Gold Creek)
Mining Claims
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
-
a.Status and ownership are subject to change through admi ni strat i ve and court
proceedings.
b.Seward Meridian
c.SSS -state selection suspended
d.TAld -tentatively approved
e.Fairbanks Meridian
Source:Compiled from various sources,including Land Status Maps prepared by CIRI/H&N
1980 and 1981;Alaska Department of Natural Resources,State land Disposal
Brochures 1979, 1980,1981;U.S.Department of Interior,Bureau of Land
Management Records,1982.
E-9-43
TABLE E.9.1:Page 2 of 3 -
USGS Talkeetna Land Status/Areas
Mountains Quad Ownership Category Location Hectares Acres -(e)
0-6 Federa 1 (R ail road T22S,R11W FM
Withdrawa 1)Sections 22,23,26,-27,33,34 803 1,984
T33N,R2W SM
Secti ons 15-17 104 257
~
(near Chul itna)T32N,R2W SM
Sections 1,2&11 73 180
Federa 1 (SSS)T31N,R1W SM 932 2,303
T33N,R1WSM 1,554 3,840
Denali State Park T31-33N,R2W SM 10,360 25,600
State Selection T32&33N,R2W SM 4,144 10,240
T32&33N,R2W SM
Sections 6&31 194 479
T22S,R11W FM 2,072 5,120
State S~lection TA'd T31N,R2W SM 3,885 9,600
T22S,RIOW FM 1,295 3,200
Native Selection T31&32N,R1W SM 3,108 7,680
Private (Indi an T31&32N,R2W SM
River Remote)Sections 2-4,9,10,
13,24,25-27,33-36 2,590 6,400
(Indian River S.D.)T33N,R2W SM 518 1,280 -(near Chulitna)T32N,R2W SM
Sections 1,2,11,12 150 371
(near Gold Creek)T31N,R2W SM
Sections 17,19-21,
29,30 388 959
(Pass Creek)T33N,R2W SM (sec.27)1 2
(Summit Lake)T33N,R2W SM (sec.34)2 5 ~
(Ch u1it naP ass)T33N,R2W SM (sec.35)1 2
(near Alaska RR)T31N,R2W SM (sec.9)1 2 ...
0-5 Federa 1 (SSS)T31N,RIW,1&2E SM 7,228 17,860
T33N,RIW SM 4,662 11,520
State Selection T32&33N,R1W,1&2E SM 24,863 61,438 lII'!'\
State Selection TA'd T22S ,R8-10W FM 11,784 29,119
Native Selection T31-33N,R1W,1&2E SM 21,125 52,198
Private (High Lake)T32N,R2E SM (sec.20)45 III
(north of Devil Canyon)T32N,R1E SM (sec.16)5 12 -T32N,R1E SM (sec.30)3 7
T32N,R1W SM (sec.9)2 5
T32N,R1W SM (sec.lD)5 12 ""'"T32N,R1W SM (sec.23)3 7
0-4 Federal (SSS)T31N,R3E SM 4,921 12,160
State Selection T32&33N,R3-5E SM 38,461 95,039
State Selection TAld T22S ,R5-8W FM 11,914 29,440
Native Selection T31&32N,R3-5E SM 15,344 37,914
Private (Tsusena T33N,R5E SM
Butte area)Sections 16,21 20 49
-"E-9-44
E-9-A5
TABLE £.9.2:SUMMARY OF LAND STATUS/OWNERSHIP
Land Status/Ownership Category
Federa 1
Federal (State Selection Suspended)
Federal (Railroad Withdrawal)
State Selection
State Selection Patented or TA'd
Denali State Park (within study area)
Regional Selection
Native Group Selection
Native Selection
Village Selections (included in Native selection total)
Chickaloon
Tyonek
Knik
Private
a.Summarized from Table 10.
E-9-46
(a)
IN PROJECT AREA
Tota 1 Area
Hectares Acres
122,899 303,680
150,121 370,945
1,912 4,724
230,632 569,883
70,515 174,239
10,360 25,500
12,562 31,040
1,554 3,840
83,970 207,487
2,072 5,120
8,288 20,480
16,058 39,680
3,996 9,874
-
-
-
-
-,
'"""
-,
TABLE E.9.3USE INFORMATION FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THE UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASIN·
lone 1
PRESENT CONDITION OF STRUCTURE
lone 2 lone 3
,~
-
Remains of structured foundations only (no use)
Badly weathered;partial structure remains
-use no longer possible
Structure intact;not currently maintained
-seasonal use -past &present
-no current seasonal use
Structure intact;maintained,with seasonal use
-past &present
Structure intact;maintained,with year-round use
Structure intact;maintained;no current use
i nformat ion
USE TYPES
Hunting,fishing,trapping
Hunting,fishing
Hunting only
Fishing only
Bo at i ng
Sk i i ng
Mining
Research/exploration
ACCESS
Air:
Airstrip
Floats/skis
ATV
4WD
Boat
Foot,dog team
Snowmachine
Horse
Rai 1
Car
E-9-47
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
3
6
5
2
7
49
9
4
7
43
7
1
21
6
4
2
26
34
20
16
3
37
6
4
1
1
1
2
1
12
3
3
1
3
2
1
6
6
5
1
1
9
1
2
2
TABLE £.9.4:MAJOR TRAILS IN THE UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASIN ....
....
Type Beginning Middle End Years Used
Cat»ORV Gold Creek Devil Canyon 1950's-present
Cat»ORV Gold Creek Ri dge top west Confl uence of .1961-present
of VABM Clear John &Chuni 1 na
creeks
Packhorse Sherman Confl uence of 1948
John &Chuni 1 na
creeks
Cat Al aska Rai 1 road,Chuni 1 na Creek 1957 -pres ent
mile 232
Foot Curry Cabin 3 km (2 mi.)1926
east of VABM Dead
Packhorse,Talkeetna North of Stephan Lake 1948
foot Disappointment ~
Creek
Packhorse,Chunil na Portage Creek Lake west of 1920 1 s-present ~
01 d sl ed road High Lake
ATV Denal i Butte Lake Tsusena Lake 1950's-present
'"""Highway
~
~..
-
E-9-48 """
1 --1 -----)-1 -~l '---1 1 1 I ]1 1
TABLE E.9.5:SUMMARY OF PRESENT AND FUTURE LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE PROPOSED
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AREA
Land ManagementAg~~cy ~_Current l1ana9E!menl_______FIJtl.we!'1al'lagement Direction
fTl
I
<.0
I
-t:>
1..0
U.S.Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Alaska Department of
Natural Resources
Alaska Power Authority
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
(in affiliation with the
Federal Office of Coastal
Zone Management and the
Alaska Coastal Management
Program)
Cook Inlet Region.Inc.
and several villages
Protection of natural environment;
no activities other than fire
control and the issuing of some
special use permits.Land use
planning being undertaken.
Planning for the disposal of state
lands that are immediately adjacent
to the west side of the project
area (north and south of Chulitna).
Performing hydroelectric development
feasibility studies.
Borough has no lands in the project
area.Project area does fall within
the borough's boundaries and is part
of the borough's Talkeetna Mountain
Special Use District.Project area
is a "mixed use"zone.
Currently has designated the Susitna
River to and including Devil Canyon
as part of a biophysical area for
the Coastal Zone Management Program.
None;lands currently being trans-
ferred to individual villages.
Future management will be guided
by Southcentral Planning Area
Management Framework Plan and an
easement management plan.
State will select lands in project
area not selected by the Natives.
Management planning on these lands
will not begin before 1983.
Dependent upon outcome of
feasibility studies.
By Ordinance No.79-35 creating the
Talkeetna Mountains Special Use
District.the borough can exercise
planning and zoning authority over
private lands within its boundaries;
will commence further activities
when hydro studies are completed.
Continuing CZM studies will
determine any additional
management direction.
Management planning not yet
underway.
(a)
TABLE £.9.6:ZONE 1 -EXISTING STRUCTURES
fb-r-"-------------.---------lCl Currenfly
Map #Structure Location Access Maintained Use Status
2
90
Boat cab in
Hunting
lean-to
S.bank Susitna:on
tr1butary 4.8 km
(3 mil S.W.of Fog
Creek/Sus Hna
confl uence
S.E.bank of Kosina/
Susitna confluence
boat,foot
boat,foot,
floatpl ane
Yes
Yes
Built in 1960's for Stephan
.Lake lodge;currently used
seasonally by Stephan boating/
hunt ing guests '
Built in late 1970's for hunt1ng/
fishing purposes;fresh
suppl1es ind1cate current use
rn
I
1.0
I
U'1o
91
112
Cabin 3 km (2 mil N.E.
of Watan;i1Susitna
confluence
Line cabin N.E.corner of Jay/
Susitna confluence
floatplane No
foot,dog team,No
boat,floatplane
Built in 1950's;used as
seasonal hunt1ng and fishing
cabin;supplies indicate
current use
E.Simco's line (trapping)
and hunting cabin built ;n
1939;dates and game records
indicate annual use
119
107
6
Trailer;
work
shack
Cabin
Cabin
foundations
N.bank of Susitna:
1.6 km (l mil W.of
Deadman/Sus Hna
confl uence
S.bank of Susitna
at Devil Canyon
N.shore of Sus1tna:
W.bank of 1st
tributary W.of
Tsusen a/Su s 1tna
confl uence
hel1copter
4WD
foot,
dog team
Yes
No
No
BU1lt 1n 1970's by Army Corps
for Susitna study
Built and used in 1950 l s for
Bureau of Rec.study;currently
not in use
Sui 1t in 1939 by Oscar Vogel as
a trapping line cabin;used until
late 1950's,now collapsed;no
longer used
1
a.Zone 1 is the impoundment zone plus a 61-m (200 ft)perimeter.
b.,See FJ gu~e ~>I-I..IIIL..J Al,llu:>it an ::.Jite::.al e all.e;:,slbic~y hl;;,,!Optc/;..J J _I }J I
1 1 --}]1 1 1 1 1 }
TABLE [.9.6 (Continued)
(b)(c)--Currently
Map #Structure Location Access Maintained
120 Shack S.bank of Susitna:helicopter No
1.6 km (1 mil W.of
Deadman/Susitna
confl uence
92 Cabin/N.W.bank of dog team,No
lTl cache Watana/Susitna footI
0.0 confl uenceI
01
--'
111 Cabin S.bank of Susitna:dog team,No
1.6 km {l mi}E.of foot
Watana/Sus itna
confl uence
Use Status
Used and bui It in 1970 I S as a
research site;since Army
Corps study,has collapsed;
no longer used
Built in 1960's for hunting
purposes;cabin collapsed;
no longer in use
Built in 1945 as a trapping
line/hunting cabin;used for
trapping until mid 1950's,
presently covered with brush;
no longer used
Summary:Ten structures exist within this zone.Of these,five are currently used on "a seasonal basis in
connection with fishing,boating,hunting,and research.
JI
Lands
State Selection (d)2 by Unpatented *Nati ve .
by Statehood Act ANILCA Mining Claims Homestea
State S:lett1Natented
TAld Mining Claims
!State S
State Selection ,Suspende(
Patented ,J,Amen
*Agri cul tural --1 Agri cul tura 1 I·Borough
Sale Lands Selections
1
I *Sale l~Private Recreational I~Borough ~Lands Selections $1
TAld by
State tPublicRecreationa1I~J,Lands
*Borough
Selections
*Di sposa 1s [-1 Residential I·Patented
Lands
Resource Management I~Lands
Wildlife Habitat I~Lands
Uti li ty 1(,
CI RI Selection
TA'd
'CI RI Surface &I~CIRI Selection
;ubsurftlce Ri ghts Patented
t
'CIRI Subsurface I<E-*Village Selection
Rights Surface Ri ghts
.j,.
"I Bureau
Allotments
d since 1906
;election
~d by ANCSA
ldments
of Land Management I
!
CIRI Selection by
ANCSA &Amendments
Regi onal Corporati on .
Selection by ANCSA
Regional Corporation
Selection TA'd
*Regional Corporation
Selection Patented
*Private Lands
Village Corporation
Selection by ANCSA
Village Corporation
Selection TA'd
*Village Corporation
Selection Patented
Susitna HEP
--------4)Impoundment Vicinity
PROCEDURES FOR ALASKA LANDS ACQUISITION
(NOT REVIEWED BY AFFECTED AGENCIES 11/82)
FIGURE E.9.1
o 5 1-0 Miles-r .-__..------.,-'1
o 5 10 15
LEGEND
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
PRIVATE LANDS
~FEDERAL RAILROAD WITHDRAWAL
........CIRI "IN LIEU"BOUNDARYoNATIVESELECTEDLANDS
e,K,T VILLAGE SELECTIONS
(Individual village selections appear
In the cen1er of sections.)
e CHICKALOON SELECTIONS
K KNIK SELECTiONS
T TYONEK SELECTIONS
PREPARED BY TES
'.-
I''."'.'(;),'"
1
~.~:'"'
(r
(,,:,<~~'~~
LAND OWNERSHIP /STE\f\I
RDSHIP,DEVIL CANYON paR ION
FIGURE E.9.2
~~~=~~~
~"';""~~-I-~-4----
J:o
~
<I(~n.."~
"It
~......-:::;...:t
::>
~
i:i:[A'-_~a
PREPARED BY TES
LAND OWNERSHIP/8TI
•...."'"I
_-1-_.d..',_"i HOlrhll Jsoo""---.',"'1 f",("~","\.----~~:s:;=d:::==±::~-:-"'","~-=-=-;-0:-v "..["'n _
>+-1 ,"".r _.(,~"~
'"'".....,..'
t;?,0
·WARDSHIP.W TANA ORTION
1 .
'j ....;;;;>
(>,
o 5 10 Milesb'----5-~-~1~O===~1~15I Kilometers
LEGEND
••••STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
I'RlVATE LANDS
FEDERAL RAILROAD WITHDRAWAL
~...~
••.••..•CIRl 'IN LIEU"BOUNDARYoNATIVESELECTEDLANDS
C,K,T VILLAGE SELECTIONS
(I dlvldual village selections appear
in the center of sections.)
C CHICKALOON SELECTIONS
K KNIK SElECTIONS
T TYONEK SELECTIONS
FIGURE E.9.3
.,
'-
/..-
......
".u,p_
~.";~..
'!,'
,~j~-.....-...
R.-'f '\,"t .••'"_
•.I .~~.,".'-.~.,
. -.../f"..-~t '~..,.~....~~..~_2
~~:;.(I ').f.
.£,;""'"
o20
30
Miles
10
.,
.:.1 ~l ..~
-';'..?'\r"--f•i...~.,').'<:\"t1../'j".l-·'.'.,..,-,~.il (...~:....;r ~.,r~'"-'.....-"~J ..
...~!'~.'......,:'-:.1;""<".,,'•...••OJ.~~'.,\.....'\(---;'\'!"t .t-
.'.'-~•.'~,•'J",'~F~,_....:;•.~,>,',.\..i-'i-.>"1'>.;~"r".,~"\...'~r:_,.".
.....\:---':,i-•4'"'.,..'.-.'-.,r },v ..,""'.'.../....."-J ".:'i ~.•,oJ .',,,:•.)~l
"':--"X·.1:.•.,<•~,(->'~.(•,--.~4'./)fi''=~..!-I"·;"'-'-~·}~,~"",,""":.\J~'tor It<t'+...,".~./fI:torI I"~r ...[1
':.1.'..•-.'f.....,..·~i.,..;.·'\--'.~\'\~J.'.'.'")'\~
'f--\-,i..;.e[\,--/.~.i r'<-:---.1 'j'"-'.;4 \'..,~'....;~...,
.<'\I rf<.."t"JJ''".~...-I."I. -".r -~:'1'. .''\.-:1,'I "-',~I,..(,-~.
I /"~.r,:-~--{...../',r-~'"'OJ'...\l~..\}~-.t ~:,I,:-~:.'(';•"£..:~
r..."."v ..
...
,.'
o
o
rn
I
~.
I
U,
U"l
STUDY AREAS FOR LAND USE ANALYSIS
PREPARED BY TES FIGURE E.9.4
30
..".--~
Miles
o 10 20
-t~~~_"'-====::::::?I ·o 10 20
Kilometers
()r--
I
\,(.f
LAND!
RECREATIC
PREPARED BY TES
\.,.....
..
INTENSITY
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
L W
LOW
LOW
1 RECREATION
2 MINING
3 RECREATION
4 MINING/RESI
5 MINING
6 REC./RESID.
7 RECREATION
8 RECREATION
9 RECREA JON
10 RECREATION
11 RECREA ION
NO.USE
LEGEND
~f)I~'-'·.·~.'-.·.~·_iliL.~'.::.':.•'.•'~
7
,..
....
"..",'
,\'".
SE AGGREGATIONS:
N,MINING,RESIDENTIAL
FIGURE E..5
39 :',./."'J
"..'...~._.
'~....:'.
Miles
0 10 20
III -,
I
0 10 20 30
Kilometers
..
"
~"
....
'.
p}·····1'·f ".,,-/'
':_~'.,.."'(,J
•i /-,,~-
..,I ....._
,-.
,-:~~;t)-,~--
11>'1
~.-,*
.'.(.
J'///~-,
'J 'h~-
~.r(''..
~--"
PREPARED BY TES
,.
.'.
.:•..•.
,
"i-'~
...../"'-•..
EXISTII\
.c-:-River
:'"-..'.
'...
..."'-.'
..../....
~'.-..........
'.',
G STRUCTURES
77....
78
:\
"".
'.."
,.,~:....
~-.
-""""'i'~'.•"--
.~..."III to
...
o
FIGURE E.9.6
:_~J ..-~l:!"11 1 (f--i ~-l~-r'f ',---',---
/
.'II
J
I,-j ~Ip
-;--u-----LLL.4.f<
-~-.,>'I /I
-----~--I---r'---
12 ".--J
FIGURE E.9.7
BU·1 1'li nera 1 Entry Recommendati ons -
:AREAS TO BE OPENED
TO FULL LOCATION
:AREAS TO BE OPENED ONCE'
CONFLICTS ARE RESOLVED
:CORRIDORS CLOSED BY
ANILCA AND TAPS
Illustration 25
MINERAL ENTRY
RECOMMENDA TIONS
~
~
§
,J ~."I'l--
"\I.__
")
,I
o
I
o
,
]/r -~li~6 ,I-
~lles
10 20
Ii
- --BOUNDARY
PREPARED BY TES
BIOPHYSICAL COASTAL BOUNDARY
MATANUSKA .SUSITNA BOROUGH
COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
E-9-59 FIGURE E.9.8
ACCESS PLA
PROPOSED ROOT£.
LEGEND
I:::
I ............£XI I"~IlAILlIOAO
DIST''''~O
aOOSTER "10M'
S1ATION (TERI
PI
~~~~f !~'Il ·
...:1
PI Ul1JXlQ ~J
,.....
0-
W
ICAL£:t ..TMUI
tl I.CH •4 1111 LESI
·~.~]l-1I411"Klt
TIU.IiIS 1111 SSION LtlllE S
1'0 D CIIEDl
LUEND
-----.-....oICC£SS "OU)
IXlI'CST~IlOAO
PERMANENT SHE ROAD
lJTlLIOOfl
SCALE Y I?l .,.,I'ElT
(I ICtI •1000 fUT)
r
N UI6JlOQ
N 22'UXXl
TO ....T.,...--
-
............
D 4 •.-a
IICAU ,'
11IlOl·•MILES)
LIBRARY
HABITAT DIVISION
ALASKA DEPT.OF FISH &GAME
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage,Alaska 99518 "!'Aerged I
'---_------1----'ARLl
NCHORAGEB.1\St.I9'!]