HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA3020
0
0
1\.)
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
SUBTASK 7.07: LAND USE ANALYSIS
PHASE I REPORT
APRIL, 1982
Teue1tlial
E nvitonmental
Speciali1t1, Inc.
L...-...--ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY __ ____,
...,)
-
-
-
-
-
-
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES FINAL REPORT
SUBTASK 7.07 -LAND USE ANALYSIS
APRIL 1982
by
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS, Inc.
Phoenix, New York 13135
for
TK
{42')
I s<t
£~
oo .
ACRES AMERICAN, INCORPORATED
Buffalo, New York 14202 ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library & Information Services
JUJchorage,AJaska
-
; -
-
-
-
-
-
TABLE OF-CONTENTS
SUMMARY . . • . .
1 -INTRODUCTION
1.1 -Overview
1.2 -Objectives
2 -METHODS • . • .
2.1 -Study Areas ..... .
2.2 -Literature Review .
2.3 -Aerial Photograph and Map Reconnaissance .•..
2.4 -Interviews • . . . . . ..•.....••.••..
2.5 -Field Reconnaissance .....•..
2.6 -Compilation of Land Use Inventory .. ~ •.•..•...
2.7 -Access Road and Transmission Line Analyses
2.8 -Assessment of Project Impacts . . • . . ••..
2.9 -Mitigative Measures . • . . . . . •.•..••..
3 -BASELINE LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS ~
3.1 -Past Land Use . . . . • . • . • • . ....••.
(a) Review of Archival Material and Oral History
Memorabilia ....•.•..........•.
(b) Field Verification of Historical Artifacts •.•••
( i ) Zone 1 . . . . . . • .
(ii) Zone 2 . . . . . .. .
(iii) Zone 3 . . .. .
(c) Summary of Past Land Use in the Project Area
(i) Zone 1 . . . . . . . . ...
( i i ) Zone 2 and Zone 3 . • . . . •
3.2 -Present Land Use in the Project Area ...••.
(a) General Activity Patterns •
( i ) Zone 1 . • . . • . • . .
(ii) Zone 2 and Zone 3 .•.
(iii) Downstream Navigation.
(b) Land Use Developments-Present
(i) Zone 1 .•..
(ii) Zone 2 .•..
(iii) Zone 3 .•.•
(iv) Summary of Land Use in the Project Area .
3.3 -Land Stewardship
(a) Ownership Patterns
(b) Land Use Management .
1
1
1
3
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
12
14
14
14
15
15
18
26
27
28
28
31
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
3.4 -Natural Aesthetics and Related Resources . . . • • • . . 41
(a) Aesthetic Character of Lands and Water to be Affected 41
(b) Wetlands and Floodlands . . • • . . 43
3.5 -Future Land Use •............
Alaska Resources
Library & Information Services
JUichorage,AJaska
Page -
4 -ANALYSIS OF PROJECT COMPONENTS AND FACILITIES . . . 46 -4.1 -Access Route . . . . . . . 46
(a) Assessment Factors . . . . . . . . 48
( i ) Parks Highway to Gold Creek . . . . . . . . 49
( i i ) Gold Creek to Devil Canyon 49 -.
(iii ) Devil Canyon to Watana, North Side . . . 50
(iv) De vi 1 Canyon to Watana, South Side . . . . . . 50
(v) Denali Highway to Watana . . . . 51
(b) Impact Assessment . . . . . 51
(i) Access Plans 2 and 8 . . 51
( i i ) Access Plans 1 and 5 . . . . . . 52
(iii) Access Plans 4 and 6 . . . . . . 52
( i v) Access Plans 3 and 7 . . . . . 53
(c) Summary of Impact Analysis . . . . . 53
4.2 -Transmission Line Route • . . . . . 56
(a) Assessment Factors . . . . . . 56
(b) Corridor Assessment • . . . . . . . . • 57 -( i ) Southern Study Area . . 57
( i i ) Central Study Area 58
(iii) Northern Study Area . . . . . . . . 60 -4.3 -Borrow Areas . . . . . . . . . 61
(a) Borrow Areas for Dams . . . . . . . 62
(b) Borrow Areas for Access Road . . . . . . . . . . 63 ~
5 -LAND USES WITH THE PROJECT . . . . 64
5.1 -Project Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . 64
(a) Watana Dam and Impoundment . . . . . . . . 64
(b) Devil Canyon Dam and Impoundment . 64
(c) Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
(d) Transmission Facilities . . . . . . . 66
(e) Construction Camps and Villages . . . . . . . . . 67
(f) Recreation Facilities . . . . . . . 69 -5.2 -Induced Land Changes . . 70
(a) Dams and Impoundments . . . 71
(i) Land Use Developments 71 -( i i) General Activity Patterns . . . . 71
(iii ) Land Stewardship . . . . . 72
(iv) Natural Aesthetics 73 -(b) Downstream Effects of Dam Operations . . 74
(c) Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
( i ) Land Use Developments . . . 77
( i i ) General Activity Patterns 77 -. . . . .
(iii ) Land Stewardship . . . . . . 78
Civ) Natural Aesthetics . . . . . 79 -·
.:.,.,·Vfl[H)f~""·l,~ 1 *•Af{hil\
;Jtc ~::'!' ""'0?11".~,~-,-.~~ . : •" -. . ~., ~ ~ ;~~ ~~,-~ .. _:hq~~t4,~~~r ~-~ '<.,.i.'~'.!..i..,t~ -.-~f~f/\ ... ~"~ ... >:·~.N~f)(: r.;:r.
-
(d) . 83 Transmission Facilities ••••••••
(i) Effects Common to All Study Areas
(ii) Southern Study Area •
• • • • • • 84
(iii) Central Study Area •
(iv) Northern Study Area •
(e) . . . . . . . . . .
• • 85
. . . 88
. . 90
92
• • • 92
Construction Camps and Villages
(i) Watana ••••••••
(ii) Devil Canyon ••••••
Recreation Facilities •••••
. . . . . 94
(f)
(i) Land Use Development
(ii) General Activity Patterns •
(iii) Land Tenure ••••••.•••
(iv) Natural Aesthetics
6 -MITIGATION OF AESTHETIC IMPACTS ••
6.1 -Dams, Impoundments, and Associated Facilities
6.2 -Borrow Areas • • • • • • • • • • •.•
6.3 -Access Route ••••••••••
6.4-Transmission Facilities .••••
• • 96
• • 96
• 96
• • 97
97
98
• • 98
. 99
... 100
. .102
6.5 -Construction Camps and Villages . . . . . . 104
6.6 -Recreation Facilities ••.••••.•••••
TABLES
FIGURES
REFERENCES
AUTHORITIES CONTACTED
APPENDIX A -MAN-MADE AND VISUAL CONSTRAINTS TO TRANSMISSION
LINE ROUTE
APPENDIX B -DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION CAMPS AND VILLAGES
.104
-
-
....
-
LIST OF TABLES
Tab 1 e 1 .
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Tab 1 e 10.
Tab 1 e 11 .
Table 12.
Tab 1 e 13.
Table 14.
Tab 1 e 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
The interview Process -Oral History
Oral History Interview Information
List of Critical Management Agency Interviewees
The Interview Process -Management Agencies
Zone 1 -Existing Structures
Zone 2 -Existing Structures
Zone 3 -Existing Structures
Use Information for Existing Structures in the Upper Susitna
River Basin
Major Trails in the Upper Susitna River Basin
Parcels by Land Status/Ownership Category
Summary of Land Status/Ownership in Project Area
Summary of Present and Future Land Management Activities
in the Proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project Area
Exceptional Natural Features
Other Important Natural Features
Hectares of Different Wetland Types by Project Component
Potential Impacts and Magnitude of Impacts of Access Plans on Land
Use Variables
Environmental Constraints Within Transmission Corridors -
Southern Study Area
Environmental Constraints Within Transmission Corridors -
Central Study Area
Environmental Constraints Within Transmission Corridors -
Northern Study Area
Description of Proposed Recreation Sites and Facilities
Appendix Tables
Table B-1 Work Force Planning Level
Table B-2 Construction Camp -Proposed Building Erection Schedule
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
Figure 19.
Figure 20.
Figure 21.
Figure 22.
Figure 23.
Figure 24.
Figure 25.
Figure 26.
Figure 27.
Figure 28.
Study Areas for Land Use Analysis
Existing Structures
Land Use Aggregations: Recreation, Mining, Residential
Land Ownership/Stewardship, Devil Canyon Portion
Land Ownership/Stewardship, Watana Portion
Biophysical Coastal Boundary, Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Coastal Management Program
Exceptional Natural Features and Other Important Natural
Features
Access Corridor Segments
Access P 1 an 1
Access Plan 2
Access Plan 3
Access Plan 4
Access Plan 5
Access Plan 6
Access Plan 7
Access Plan 8
Transmission Corridors
Transmission Corridors
Transmission Corridors
Transmission Corridors
Southern Study Area
Evaluated
Eva 1 uated
Evaluated
Surviving
-Southern Study Area
-Central Study Area
-Northern Study Area
Preliminary Screening -
Transmission Corridors Surviving Preliminary Screening -
Central Study Area
Transmission Corridors Surviving Preliminary Screening -
Northern Study Area
Project Facilities
Induced Land Use Activities -Devil Canyon Portion
Induced Land Use Activities -Watana Portion
Proposed Access Route and Access Route Borrow Areas
Recreation Facilities -Immediate Development
Recreation Facilities -Long-Term Development
Appendix Figures
A. Transmission Line Maps -Vi sua 1 and Man-Made Constraints ( 24 maps)
B. General Layouts -Damsites, Camps, Etc. (6 figures)
-
-
-
-
~I
~-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SUMMARY
Introduction
(a) Overview
This Subtask 7.07 report describes the results of the land use
portion of the environmental analysis of the Susitna hydroelectric
project proposed by the A 1 ask a Power Authority (APA). The direct
and indirect effects of the project on land use were assessed,
considering changes in use that would occur with and without the
project. The analysis addressed project components, including the
dams, reservoirs, and related facilities; access transportation
system; transmission facility; construction camps and villages;
proposed recreational facilities; and other aspects of the
project. The potential effects of the project were assessed in
relation to four major land use factors: land developments,
dispersed use and activity patterns, land ownership and
stewardship, and natural aesthetics.
A summary of these r~sults has been presented previously in Volume
2 of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Report (APA
1982). The results of the land use analysis will be included in a
license application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) if such application is made following state agency and
public review of the Feasibility Report. This report provides
additional ·information and details of the land use factors
analyzed and presented in the Land Use and Aesthetic Re·sources
sections of the Feasibility Report.
(b) Objectives
The land use analysis involved an evaluation of the changes in
land use likely to be caused by the proposed Susitna hydroelectric
project and provided the basis for summarizing the overall impact
of the project. The analysis was designed to provide baseline
i
data and an impact assessment that will satisfy FERC license
application requirements. The objectives of the Subtask 7.07 land
use analysis were to:
Methods
(1) describe past, present and future land use trends;
(2) identify potential changes in land use that would result
with the development of the project;
(3) evaluate the changes in terms of impacts on land use; and
(4) identify possible mitigative measures to minimize impacts
on aesthetic resources.
(a) Study Areas
Study areas were defined for the analysis according to geographic
and land use relationships with the proposed project. These
include three zones in the vicinity of the dams and impoundments
and additional areas for the study of transmission facilities and
downstream effects of dam operation.
(b) Baseline Procedures
Land developments and activity patterns in the Susitna project
area are subtle and widely dispersed. To identify past and
present land uses, residents in adjacent and other areas were
interviewed. Aerial photographs and topographic maps were used to
locate indications of use. Subsequent aerial and on-the-ground
field observations were made to verify reported or suspected uses
noted in the interviews and from the maps and photos and to locate
other, unreported uses. Additional information was obtained from
published reports and data; personnel with federal, state, and
local agencies; Native groups; and other individuals.
Baseline data were compiled and an inventory was established for
land developments, activity patterns, land tenure, and natural
aesthetics. Data were described, tabula~ed, and mapped as
appropriate.
i i
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(c) Project Impact Assessment
~. Various project facilities were assessed in relation to baseline
information to identify changes in land uses likely to occur as a
result of the project. Impacts were determined by making
qualitative and quantitative estimates of the likely changes in
the land use baseline.
-
-
-
-
(d) Mitigative Measures
Proposals were developed to reduce or eliminate the effects of the
project on aesthetic resources.
Baseline Land Use Characteristics
(a) Land Developments
(b)
The Susitna project area is characterized by extremely low density
land use. Areas where developments have occurred typically
include small clusters of cabins. There are approximately 109
structures within 30 km (18 mi). of the Susitna River between Gold
Creek and the Tyone River. These include four lodges involving
some 21 structures. 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. There are several trails throughout the basin, although air
is the primary means of access. Some sections of the transmission
corridor, particularly near the Alaska Railroad and Parks Highway,
include land developments; other sections have virtually no
developed land uses.
General Activity Patterns
Existing use patterns in the project area include hunting,
fishing, trapping, mining, research, and some recreation.
i i i
Hydroelectric studies probably have contributed more total
man-days of use in the past 20 years than all other uses. More
intensive land use activity is concentrated along the Parks
Highway and in the southern part of Matanuska-Susitna Borough than
in the project area of the upper basin.
(c) Land Tenure
Most lands in the vicinity of the proposed dams and impoundments
has been selected by Native groups. The State has made some
selections on the north side of the river; other lands are
federal. There are two large state land disposal areas on the
west side of the project area; and there are numerous small,
private parcels scattered through the Susitna basin.
There has been little land management, and there are no definitive
comprehensive land use plans in effect for the project area. The
State and Mat-Su Borough have initiated preliminary resource
studies which serve as the basis for development policies.
(d) Natural Aesthetics
The upper Susitna basin contains a variety of aesthetically
distinct landscapes, resulting from a mix of vegetation, water,
and topographical features. The landscape is diverse, roadless,
and virtually uninhabited. Significant natural features include
Devil Canyon, Vee Canyon, Tsusena Falls, Deadman Falls, and Devil
Creek Falls.
Land Uses With the Project
The proposed plan for development is a two-dam scheme with a related
access transportation system, transmission facilities, construction
camps and villages, recreation facilities, and other components. The
project will result in major development of a largely wilderness area.
It will create developed areas; increase access and activity patterns;
effect transfer of land ownership and redirect land management; and
change the area 1 S aesthetic character, eliminating important natural
features.
iv
-
...,.,
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
·-
-
-
(a) Land Developments
The project will result in removal of ten structures in the
impoundment areas. Construction and emplacement of facilities
will involve conversion of some 26,000 ha (64,000 acres) of land
area to project use for all components, including the reservoirs.
(b) General Activity Patterns
The project will result in significant increases in activity
patterns in the upper basin, involving hunting, fishing, camping,
boating, and dispersed recreation. Whitewater kayaking and
rafting between Devi 1 and Vee canyons wi 11 be eliminated. Persons
who currently use the upper basin w·ill be forced to adjust to the
increased use or move to other areas.
(c) Land Tenure
The proposed project will be located in areas involving
significant Native-selected lands. Implementation of the project
will require purchasing or obtaining righ~s-of-way to project
lands. Increased land and fish and game management may be
required to respond to increased use ~nd hunting and fishing
patterns.
(d) Natural Aesthetics
The overall effect of the project will be the modification of
existing scenic values. Project facilities will contrast with the
natural landscape in material, color, and mass. Significant
aesthetic impacts involve the outright loss of Devil Canyon and
Deadman Falls and considerable surface disturbance and scarring
resulting from construction activities. The remote character of
many areas wilt be diminished with the installation of
large-scale man-made facilities. As presently proposed, the
access road and transmission route will pass within
v
one kilometer (.6 mi) of a remote wilderness lodge.
Mitigative Measures
Some aesthetic impacts can be reduced or eliminated through careful
placement and screening of project facilities; recontouring and
revegetating disturbed surface areas; and designing facilities to blend
in with natural shapes~ patterns, and colors. The report recommends
rerouting a portion of the transmission line that would affect a
remote lodge. Policies to control the extent and location of uses can
be instituted to minimize and confine aesthetic impacts resulting from
increased access.
vi
-
-~
-
-
-I
-I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~'
1 ~ INTRODUCTION
1.1 -Overview
Since the 1940•s, the Susitna River has been considered for
hydropower development, and several preliminary plans for such
development have been prepared. Most of these proposals, which have
included one to four reservoirs, have either been overlooked or have
simply lain dormant. The present proposal is focused on a two-dam
development: one at Devil Canyon and one near Jsusena Creek (Watana
dam site}. These two structures would create elongated reservoirs
typically one to one and one-half kilometers (one-half to one mile)
wide, except for a portion of the Watana Reservoir, which would be
approximately eight kilometers (five miles) wide.
The land use analysis for the proposed Susitna hydroelectric project
involved an assessment of the direct and indirect effects of the
project on land use. The analysis was designed to evaluate changes
in land use that would occur with and without the project, including
the effects of the proposed dams, reservoirs, access transportation
system, and transmission line routes.
1.2 -Objectives
The land use analysis evaluates the changes in the present use of the
land that the proposed project may cause and provides the basis for
summarizing the overall impact of the project, including the dam,
reservoir, access transportation system, and transmission corridor.
This analysis is designed to provide information (baseline data and
impact assessment) that will satisfy FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission) license application requirements. The objectives of
Subtask 7.07, Land Use Analysis, are to:
(a) describe past, present, and future land use trends and the
aesthetic character of lands and waters to be affected by
the project;
(b) identify the potential major changes in land use that would
result with the development of the project and describe
impacts on the area's aesthetic resources; and
(c) evaluate the changes in terms of impact on present land use
and aesthetic resources and identify possible mitigative
measures to minimize impacts.
The scope of work is limited temporally from 1940 to present and
geographically by study area boundaries established during the first
year of the analysis (Section 2.1).
The land use analysis describes and evaluates human use of the land.
It does not generate data concerning the use of the land by various
animal species, nor does it include other detailed descriptions of
the physical environment. Information on these subjects is provided
by other environmental studies specialists on the project team. The
analysis addresses dedicated uses of the land, dispersed use
activities, land management, and natural aesthetics.
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
. 2 -METHODS
Present developed land uses in the Susitna project area are subtle
and widely dispersed. Aerial photographs and topographic maps were
used to locate cultural features such as trails, structures, and
other indications of past and present land use. To aid in
identifying present dispersed land use activities, an oral history
technique was employed: residents in adjacent and other areas were
interviewed. Determinations were made as to present patterns of
human land use within the project area and the forces which created
different types of use. Aerial and ground truthing methods were
utilized to verify many of the present land use patterns discernible
from the oral history interviews.
The land use analysis is divided into two parts: (1) historic and
existing land use and (2) future land use. Land use during these
periods is described by summarizing acquisition and settlement,
management of land, and the use or alteration of speGific resources.
For purposes of discussing changes in land use and associated
activity patterns as they relate to major project components,
considerations were grouped into four general categories:
Dispersed and isolated non-site-specific activities:
This category includes patterns of activities that are generally
non-contiguous and do not involve a commitment of resources at
any particular site. These include consumptive recreational or
subsistence activities, such as hunting and fishing; riverine
activities, such as boating or rafting; and dispersed
activities, such as camping, hiking, and photography.
-Land uses inherently associated with site-specific aetivities:
This category includes land uses that involve some form of
long-term development or other commitment of resources (for
3
example, structures) and the activities associated with them.
These include the following: residences, commercial properties
(primarily recreational), mining, agriculture, and
transportation.
-Resource management activities and related concerns:
This category involves consideration of present or potential
future activities related to conservation or planned use of the
land and resources and includes fish and wildlife management,
dispersed recreation management, off-road vehicle management,
Native claims, land values, and status of land ownership
patterns.
-Natural aesthetics:
This category consists of the natural land cover type itself as
opposed to the uses of the land. Considered are the visual
character of both land and water resources, ground cover
(specifically vegetation), land surface integrity, and general
natural character.
Specific procedures and steps involved in the land use analysis
are discussed below.
2.1 -Study Areas
Based upon preliminary project descriptions, three study areas (Zones
1, 2, and 3) were defined for analysis (Figure 1). These zones were
designated according to geographic and land use relationships with
the proposed project and extend in varying widths from the Susitna
River between Gold Creek and the mouth of the Tyone River.
Zone 1 includes those structures and land uses which would be
affected by inundation. Zone 2, extending about 10 kilometers (six
miles) from Zone 1, is based upon the locations of lakes which
characterize aggregations of land use. Zone 3, which extends
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
approximately 19 km (12 mi) beyond Zone 2, is distinguished by fewer
aggregations of land use; existing structures and land use are
sparse.
As mentioned above, in addition 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 and the effects of dam operations on downstream
navigation. To investigate these concerns, it was necessary to
examine other study areas outside of the three zones defined. Thus,
to assess navigational uses of the Susitna, an area downstream and
west of the project area was analyzed as were the transmission
corridors between Willow and Anchorage and between Healy and
Fairbanks.
2.2 -Literature Review
A general literature search was conducted initially to determine what
land use and resource management might 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 public agency documents were acquired and researched.
A listing -of references utilized for the land use analysis is
presented later in this report.
2.3 -Aerial Photograph and Map Reconnaissance
Aerial photographs and topographic maps were used to locate certain
cultural features such as trails, habitations, and other indications
of past and present land use. Also, old maps from historical texts
and early geological surveys were reviewed for foot and sled trails
and for mining sites. Likewise older 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. Finally,
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.
5
2.4-Interviews
Two types of interviewing were used. Oral history interviewing was
undertaken to reconstruct a land 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 interviews were
nondirected in that, while there was a specific format and data
needs, the interview was conducted so as to appear informal to the
respondent. The interview process and a list of interviewees are
shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
A second type of interviewing was designed to seek information from
land management agencies concerning present land use, current
management direction, and alternative future management strategies
depending upon whether or not the Susitna hydroelectric project is
built. Management agencies contacted are shown in Table 3. The
types of questions asked of agency personnel are shown in Table 4.
Additional contacts with agencies were made during the course of the
study to provide for exchange of information and data.
2.5 -Field Reconnaissance
Field surveys permitted existing land use data to be certified and
refined by locating, mapping, inspecting, and photographing the
historical artifacts reported during the interviews. Field surveys
were approached from a dual perspective: by aerial (helicopter)
surveys and by ground verification surveys (ground truthing).
Aerial surveys accounted for the macroscopic verification (geographic
location) of the reported historical artifacts and other known use
information. Once located, these artifacts were recorded, mapped,
and photographed. Information from aerial surveys, ultimately used
to certify the nral history interviews, was also used as a basis for
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
establi.shing priorities for grou.nd truthing. These priorities were
based on; (1) sites of historic interest, and (2) sites for which
little reported information was available from the transcripts or
other data sources.
Field surveys in proposed development locations were employed to
locate important natural features and to estimate potential impacts
on the area•s aesthetic resources. · Viewshed areas were also
identified through ground truthing. Observations, coupled with
findings of other project investigators, resulted in identification
of additional aesthetic impacts as well as possible mitigative
measures.
2.6-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 geographic context, time cut-offs and zone boundaries were
established for analysis and expression of data. Thus, while the
study intended to encompass the period from 1940 into the 1980•s,
some land use informatinn was included that preceded the l940 1 s but
overlapped into that decade. 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 activities,
land status and ownership patterns, management activities, and
natural features was summarized. Some data were mapped, as
appropriate, and all data served as the basis for assessment of
project impacts.
2.7-Access Road and Transmission Line Analyses
As noted above, land use and aesthetics were considerations in the
evaluation of alternative routes for the access road and selection of
the recommended corridor and route for transmission lines. Techniques
7
specific to these project components were employed both in the
selection process and in the impact assessment for the proposed
routes. Descriptions of the approaches and techniques used are
presented in later sections of this report. A general discussion of
the overall approach appears in the introduction to Section 4. For
the access road, see the introductions to sections 4.1 and 4.1(a).
For the transmission line, refer to the introduction to section 4.2,
section 4.2(a), and the introduction to section 5.2(d).
2.8 -Assessment of Project Impacts
As information concerning various possible project plans and
components was received, ·potential impacts were identified and
assessed in relation to the the land use baseline data.
Where possible, impacts were quantified in terms of changes in usage
patterns or outright loss of man-made or natural features. Where it
was not possible to quantify impacts, qualitative assessments were
made to describe changes in use patterns. Impacts were summarized
and mapped to exhibit the alterations in land use and development
patterns and natural features that would likely result from
construction and operation of the Susitna hydroelectric project.
2.9 -Mitigative Measures
Possible mitigative measures were identified which could be utilized
to minimize or avoid potential project impacts. In some cases,
project impacts have been reduced through selection of design options
having less impact than others. Where this was not possible,
mitigative proposals have been identified for consideration in
subsequent planning and design refinement.
8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3 -BASELINE LAND USE CHARACTER1STICS
Described below are characteristics of past and present land use
patterns and developments, land stewardship, and aesthetic resources
in the three study zones defined in section 2.1 (Figure 1).
3.1 -Past Land Use
Documentation concerning land use in the upper Susitna River basin
for the decades of the 1930 1 s through the 197Q•s is both scarce and
sketchy. Because of this scarcity and the lack of current land use
literature and documents available through libraries, agencies,
archives, and museums, oral history interviews were used as a
baseline source of information.· The oral history methodology focused
on obta·ining eyewitness accounts from participants in the history.
In anticipation of future information needs, the scope of the oral
history interviews was broader than what would normally be addressed .
for immediate or specific use. In the development of data on land
use patterns within the Susitna project area, oral history
information was also used as a supplement to any existing historical
information to produce a cohesive land use history.
The lifestyle of the user of the upper Susitna River basin has
changed since the decade of World War II, and it continues to change.
With these altering lifestyles have evolved changing land uses. The
oral history method, as a research tool, enabled information to be
drawn from persons who were, and are, an important part in that
changing lifestyle and changing land use.
(a) Review of Archival Material and Oral History Memorabilia
Review of archival material provided little useful ·information
pertinent to historical land use of the current project area
within the designated time frame. The Talkeetna Collection of
the University of Alaska archives consists mainly of minutes
and correspondence of the Talkeetna Commercial Club, from the
9
years 1918-1919 and 1934-1935. The club functioned in a
manner similar to that of a present-day chamber of commerce,
with additional attention to legislation, road building,
education, and mining as these topics related to the town of
Talkeetna. Letters to the club from the Alaska Exploration
and Mining Company, the Commissioner of Territorial Education,
and the state•s governor mainly concerned the business of the
town of Talkeetna and the mining district west of Talkeetna in
the Petersville vicinity. No documents related to the project
area were found in the Talkeetna Commercial Club records.
Photographs also represent part of the Talkeetna Collection.
Some of the photographs suppl~ment the minutes of Talkeetna
Commercial Club meetings in 1934-1935 and represent historical
information on mining efforts in the vicinity of Petersville
and Gold Creek.
Loose photographs of mining in the Gold Creek area depict the
use of tracked vehicles (Cats) in the 1920's for freighting
equipment and supplies to the placer mines. One such
photograph shows a 1938 incident in which a Cat broke through
the ice on the Susitna River before reaching its destination
at ·Gold Creek, the westernmost boundary of the land use
analysis study area.
Many photographs from the archives donated by the Alaska Road
Commission are unidentified as to their location and are
undated. Subjects identified deal primarily with areas beyond
the Susitna project area periphery and are dated from 1910 to
1940. These are photographs of early roads, their
construction, and their improvement, almost all of which
emanated from the city of Anchorage or from areas in southeast
Alaska asso•.lated with mining.
A few photographs depict trapping during the 1920's and 1930's
in the areas of McGrath, Minchumina, and northwest of the
10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~·
-
-
present-day Denali Na~ional Park boundaries. Although
trapping activities also existed in the Susitna project area
during those years, archives photographs are not available to
document this fact.
Unfortunately, the available archival material, in general,
fails to provide the abundance of historical information on
land use in the project area that was hoped for. Personal
memorabilia shared by some oral history interviewees are much
more plentiful as well as more descriptive. These include
diaries, old maps, letters, flight records, hides, and
firearms historically used in the project area. The diaries
and journals reveal land uses in areas of Stephan, High, and
Clarence lakes from the 1930•s on.
Much of the descriptive material in the journals centers
around trapping activities, weather, and trapping conditions
in the project area. Other journals describe the emergence of
guided hunting in the late 1930•s, government research
expeditions, and the establishment of one of the first hunting
lodges in the Susitna basin.
Maps produced by the interviewees locate old trails used for
mining, trapping, and hunting; old landing strips; trap lines
and cabins; hunting and fishing cabins; favorite hunting and
fishing areas; and cross-country ski trails, all of which
exist in the present-day project area. A review of
correspondence shared by one interviewee reveals instances of
early federal exploration of the Susitna River basin, weather
conditions, and the status of game and hunting quality as well
as personal attitudes toward wildlife and the land itself.
Flight records of various bush pilots and air-taxi services
indicate that the project area has been serviced for purposes
of hunting, fishing, trapping, mining, and recreating from the
l930 1 s until the present.
11
Memorabilia shared by oral history interviewees fill a
substantial number of the time-geographic location information
gaps that exist in the archival material. The memorabilia
also add a personal flavor to the land use information in the
history of the project area.
(b) Field Verification of Historical Artifacts
Historical artifacts are of great significa~ce for the overall
characterization of activities within a certain time period
and geographic location. Their mere existence indicates
explicit human activity and, further, provides a clear
description of the basic activity carried on by man in that
area.
Within the context of the land use portion of the Susitna
project study, hi?torical artifacts include man-made objects
used in the project area at some specific time during the
period 1940-1980. 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 prior land use and activities in the project area.
Historical artifacts found within the project area were
categorized as: 1) structures, which include cabins, cabin
foundations, food caches, lean-to's, storage sheds, small
buildings and/or lodges, and tent platforms; 2) roads, trails,
airstrips; and 3) other objects, such as old, abandoned
vehicles, bridges, etc.
Structures are associated with activi~ies which include
hunting, fishing, trapping, food or equipment storage,
research, recreating (such as skiing, swimming, and
photography), and mining. Basic categories covering the
12
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
frequency in which the existing ~tructures were used cons1st
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 information.
Most of the historical artifacts, whether structures or
discrete objects, 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 Cats, 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 flat ground were commonly located
in proximity to ~ther historical artifacts such as cabins,
trails, or lodges. Trails emanate primarily from existing
structures and connect them with airstrips, with lakes (on
which a ski or float plane could be landed), with fishing
streams, or with another structure.
Geographical zones within the project area as designated in
Figure 1 provide an approximate siting of artifact locations
and types of use in proximity to the Susitna River. A general
review of the historical artifacts located reveals that the
artifacts, sparsely distributed throughout the project area,
were historically used on a predominantly seasonal basis. The
majority of the located artifacts have been utilized in
hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, mining, or other general
recreation purposes, such as cross-country skiing or
photography.
Upon closer examination of the historical artifacts with
regard to geographical zone, it is interesting to note the
greater occurrence of historical artifacts within Zone 2,
smaller in area and closer to the Susitna River than Zone 3.
13
(i) Zone 1
Types of historical artifacts located in Zone 1, the
Inundation Zone plus 61 m (200ft), include existing
structures, trails, and airstrips.
Ten isolated structures located in Zone 1, on the
shores of the river or on its steep banks, were line
cabins for trapping and used by transient fishermen,
boaters, hunters, and for research.
( i i ) Zone 2
The greatest number of reported historical artifacts
were located in Zone 2, a ten-kilometer (six-mile)
corridor which flanks Zone 1 on each shore of the
Susitna. Types of historical artifacts found in this
zone include existing structures, trails, roads,
airstrips, and mines. General use associated with
these artifacts consists of hunting, trapping, fishing,
boating, mining, recreation, and research.
Although the primary distribution of artifacts
throughout the project area is of a low density,
particularly noteworthy in Zone 2 is the occurrence of
aggregations of artifacts and uses. The nuclei of
these aggregations are the small lakes and lake systems
located throughout Zone 2, with emphasis on their
accessibility by air. Like the single, scattered
artifacts in Zone 3, the aggregations of artifacts
consist of cabins and related structures, lodges,
roads, trails and airstrips.
(iii) Zone 3
The existing structures within Zone 3 are located
within a nineteen-kilometer (twelve-mile) ribbon of
14
-
-
-
.~
-
-
-
-
-
-
....
-
....
land which flanks the lower and uppe~ portion of the
Zone 2 boundary. The 25 existing structures in Zone 3
were historically associated with land uses such as
hunting, fishing, trapping, mining, boating, research,
and other types of recreational use. Aggregations of
use are much less common in Zone 3 than in Zone 2 and
occur primarily in the areas of Chunilna and Prairie
Creeks, south of the project area.
(c) Summary of Past Land Use in the Project Area
Combined factors of magnitude, isolation, and location of the
Susitna project area in a subarctic environment result in
extremely low-density land ·use.
(i) Zone 1
Within the relatively narrow corridor of Zone 1
occupied by the rtver and its inundation zone, the
river itself provided the transportation for land use
activities in the 1930•s. The Susitna offered a
passageway for early trappers, who depended on the
frozen river to travel their network of trap lines,
sometimes extending 110 to 130 km (70 to 80 mi) in an
east-west direction.
During certain seasons of the year, m1n1ng endeavors
beyond the Zone 1 boundary (beginning as early as the
late 1800•s in the Portage Creek are~) relied on the
Susitna and its shores for the transportation of goods
and equipment to the mines. Horse-and dog-team travel
on the Susitna facilitated both trapping and mining
activities in the early 1930•s. At present, three gold
claims fall within Zone 1; these were active from 1971
to 1978.
15
With the increased attention paid to the Susitna River
as a source of hydroelectric power in the 1940 1 s, a
landing strip was constructed in proximity to Devil
Canyon. Ground surveys, aerial reconnaissance, and
river research expeditions marked the longstanding
history of hydropower-related studies within the area
of Zone 1.
Trapping within the area of Zone 1 continued in the
1940•s, as did Portage Creek mining endeavors, a few
miles beyond the Zone 1 boundary. During the 1950 1 s,
with the decline in fur prices, trapping activities
within the Zone 1 corridor began to wane. Increasing
interest in Alaska as source of trophy game, along with
the decreasing pelt prices, were the impetus for
transforming the early trappers into trophy and
big-game guides. The line cabins along the shores of
the river were utilized by these guides and their
hunters. Inscriptions in the logs above the doors of
the original cabins along the river shore indicate the
cabins were used by big-game hunting parties throughout
the 1950•s. Moose, caribou, and black bear were
commonly sought trophies in the Zone 1 river corridor.
Sport hunting continued to evolve as the hunting trend
of the 1960 1 s, at which time a new cabin appeared on
the south shore of the Susitna, within the boundaries
of Zone 1. It accommodated river boaters, hunters, and
fishermen as an outreach cabin of a hunting lodge in
the project area.
During the l970•s, the Susitna River corridor continued
as a means of access for fly-in and float-in hunters.
The river corridor also served as a navigational
landmark for·persons hunting in the dense brush that
characterizes much of the Zone 1 landscape.
16
-
-
-
-
-
.~
-
~
I
,....
I
-
Trapping and the use of trap line cabins along the
Susitna corridor (Zone 1) practically disappeared as a
land use activity in the 1970's. Original trapping
cabins along the corridor that were not destroyed by
weather are currently used by transient hunters and
hikers and were visited by researchers involved in the
current feasibility study.
Freshwater tributaries of the silt-laden Susitna River
provided fishing enthusiasts with excellent fishing
spots within the boundaries of Zone 1. One manager of
a popular recreational hunting and fishing lodge within
the project area describes a typical, present-day
guided fishing trip as follows:
11 We fly to a gravel bar near the confluence of the
Susitna and Tyone Rivers, putting the boats in about
forty miles up river from our riverbank cabin. It's
kind of a 'get up and float down' trip, where we stop
and fish the tributaries to the Susitna. It's really
good fishing.11
Continued exploration and research of the Susitna River
during the 1950's generated many stories, which
longtime trappers, pilots, and guides of the area
cherish and relate to families and friends. In 1955,
for example, a detachment of the U.S. Army Scouts
unloaded a fifteen-meter (fifty-foot) boat at the
Talkeetna Rail Station. The eight-man crew intended to
navigate the Susitna from Talkeetna to Devil Canyon,
105 river kilometers (65 river miles) northeast. Two
days after they commenced their upstream journey, the
veteran bush pilot Don Sheldon, while flying over the
Susitna enroute to a lake near Devil Canyon, spotted
pieces of the wreckage strewn over about 30 km (20 mi)
downriver of the Canyon. Upon closer examination,
17
Sheldon recognized the crew huddled on a narrow rock
ledge of the canyon•s north wall. His daring rescue of
the crew entailed landing his floatplane in the boiling
Devil Canyon rapids and floating backward close enough
to the ledge for the crew members to jump out onto the
float {Greiner, 1974).
{ii) Zone 2 and Zone 3
The belt of land which begins at the Zone 1 boundary
and extends in a radius approximately ten kilometers
{six miles) beyond the river/inundation corridor makes
up Zone 2 of the project area. Although it contains
the greatest number of historical artifacts, land use
in this zone has generally been of low density
throughout the 193Q•s-197Q•s. The proximity of this
zone to the Susitna River lends itself to low density
uses similar in nature to those mentioned in the Zone 1
discussion.
Although there are fewer aggregations of use in Zone 3
than in Zone 2, they share the same basic types of use.
In many instances, though the or-igin of the use may
differ by zone, the use itself may extend from one zone
to another. For these reasons, the historical
summaries of land uses throughout Zones 2 and 3 have
been combined.
-Trapping
Trapping within the confines of Zone 2 and Zone 3
typified a lifestyle characteristic of early land and
resource use in the Susitna River valley and associated
project area. Early trappers of the area, though few,
covered extensive areas in their trapping. Distances
18
-
...,,
-
-
-
-
-I i
-
of 110 to 130 km (70 to 80 mi) were not uncommon for a
trap line.
During the 1930•s, trapping provided a seasonal live-
lihood to the few hardy souls willing to contend with
the rugged country and severe weather so characteristic
of the Susitna River basin. Fox, mink, otter, beaver,
wolverine, and marten were trapped from easternmost
portions of the project area in the vicinity of
Clarence and Watana lakes, to Stephan, Fog, and High
lakes, and as far west as Chulitna.
Gentlemen•s agreements were common with the trappers in
the 1930•s. Trappers knew their areas well and knew
who was trapping in other areas. They respected other
trappers• territories as their own and were careful not
to cross understood boundaries on a trap line.
Early trappers built cabins all along the trap line and
usually spaced them according to the distance they
could travel in one day. Trapper Oscar Vogel, for
example, bu.ilt his first and main cabin on Stephan
Lake and built the second one 29 km (18 mi) from
Stephan. One portion of his extensive network of trap
lines began at St~phan Lake and continued to the Fog
Lakes, where he would stay in his small, one-room
cabin, then turn around and return to Stephan on a
different route.
As discussed above, the decline in fur prices in the
1940 1 s, with a simultaneous increased interest in the
Susitna basin for trophy game; provided the impetus for
the early Susitna fur trappers to engage in guiding
big-game hunts. With their intimate knowledge of the
land and its resources, gained from the many hours
spent on miles of trap lines, early trappers proved to
be excellent trophy-game guides.
19
Trapping activities throughout the area dropped to a
very low level in the 1950•s. Original trappers of the
1930•s increasingly concentrated on guiding. In the
easternmost portion of the project area, some aerial
trapping existed during the 50's and through the 60's
and 7Q•s. One air-taxi operator described aerial
trapping of wolverine. He would land in an area far
from the sign of cabins and set a few traps. A few
days later, when flying across the area, he would check
the traps and move them if he had caught a wolverine.
The 110-to 130-km (70-to 80-mi) trap lines of the
1930•s no longer existed in the 197Q•s. Present-day
trap lines, limited in distance and traversed by
snowmobiles, have replaced the style of snowshoe steps
of the early trappers in the' Susitna basin. Winter
season trapping currently takes place in areas_ near
Stephan Lake, with sporadic traps set by aerial
trappers in the easternmost portions of the Susitna
valley.
-Hunting
Historically, hunting activities within boundaries of
the project area began with man•s arrival in the area
hundreds of years before the time frame of this study.
The Susitna River basin provided a relatively
unobstructed route for the east-west migration of the
thousands of caribou comprising the Nelchina herd of
southcentral Alaska. In addition, the basin
historically provided the calving grounds for caribou,
wintering grounds for moose, and hibernating areas for
black bear. Sheep, too, occupied the high-ground
periphery of the Susitna basin, on mountains north of
the river and on the Talkeetna and neighboring
mountains to the south.
20
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
....
-
-
During the 1930's, hunting was part of the lifestyle,
providing food for trappers, some of whom lived in the
basin year round. Toward the end of that decade,
however, guided trophy hunting emerged as part of the
hunting spectrum of the Susitna River basin. Bush
pilots from Anchorage and Talkeetna ferried in guides
and hunters.
As related in the historical review of trapping, the
impetus for the early Susitna trappers to engage in
guiding for trophy game expeditions was a combined
decline in fur prices in the 1940's and increased
interest in the Susitna basin for trophy game. A
guided trophy hunt in the 1940's took place in steps.
Since the clientele was of national or international
origin rather than Alaskan, the hunters had to be
prepared by the guide servjce to hunt Alaska lands.
The elite hunters would travel to Anchorage and usually
be met there by the guide or his business partner, who,
in many instances, was also his wife. Mrs. Oscar
Vogel, in an oral history narration, describes the
stages:
"We had the house in Anchorage, where I stayed during
the hunting season. I wou·ld meet the people at the
airport, bring them to the house, help them get all
their gear together, their hunting licenses, and then
take them out. We didn't fly ourselves, and we never
took more than seven hunters out per season. Oscar
didn't believe in pilots for hunting. Once they
arrived at Stephan [Lake], Oscar made them walk.
This way you •.. earned your trophy.~
In a style different from the guided trophy hunts of
the 30's and 40's, in which local Alaskan towns
provided the "stepping off" bases for hunting
21
expeditions in the Susitna River basin, hunting
activities in the 1950's introduced a variation: the
establishment of local field bases. The appearance of
hunting lodges within the area of the upper Susitna
River basin in the 1950's added another aspect to the
hunting activities. As with trapping, gentlemen's
agreements on guiding areas typified early territory
establishment for lodge-owner guides.
In the 1960's hunting within the present-day Susitna
project area became increasingly popular. One hunting
lodge located within the Zone 2 boundaries, on a lake a
few miles north of the Susitna River catered during
these years to an international hunting clientele of
royalty, celebrities, and prominent political figures.
Guests at the hunting lodges would be flown or would
hike from the lodges to small outreach camps on lakes
or streams for a few days at a time. Of the three
major hunting lodges in the Susitna River basin in the
1960's, one lodge provided its guests with the option
of hunting by horseback.
Lodges typically handled 15 to 25 guests at a time and
about 40 guests per season. The increasing popularity
of sports hunting in the 1960's brought about an
increase in the number of small cabins on the lakes of
the present-day project area. Many longtime hunters of
the area believe that the increased hunting pressure
had a detrimental effect on the game populations. One
local air-taxi pilot commented that during the
mid-60's, he could look out his airplane and "see the
ground moving because of the thousands of caribou. But
gun-happy people would see the plentiful numbers and
just aim and shoot repeatedly, leaving the dead animal
and the meat behind. During the 70's, the herds became
a lot smaller."
22
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
~I
-
·~
-
In the decade of the 1970•s, guided and nonguided
sport hunting typified hunting activities within the
project area. Local, national, and international
hunting enthusiasts converged on the areas of Stephan,
Fog, High, Clarence, Watana, Tsusena, Deadman, and Big
lakes in addition to many of the area•s smaller lakes.
Both lodges and cabins provided the field bases for
many hunters in the 1970•s.
During this decade, access to the hunting lodges,
cabins, and hunting grounds was primarily realized by
means of aircraft (floats or wheels). Ski planes were
also used in the late 1960•s and 1970•s for aerial wolf
hunts. At present, the lodges are accessible by
all-terrain vehicle (ATV).
-Fishing
Fishing is an activity that, throughout its history in
the project area, has occurred in close association
with other activities, such as hunting and trapping, or
for purely recreational purposes; Local residents of
the Susitna River basin and local area users have long
known the high quality of fishing in the lakes, rivers,
and streams throughout the project area.
Spawning salmon have historically filled the lakes and
streams of the westernmost portions of the project area
below Devil Canyon. Additional species historically
popular with fishing enthusiasts are burbot, grayling,
rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, lake trout, whitefish, and
sculpin.
During the 1930•s, residents of the area peripheral to
the present-day project boundaries tapped the fishing
resources in the Susitna basin by means of air access.
Residents of settlements in the westernmost areas of
23
the basin would commonly fly to lakes in the far
eastern portions of the project area, such as Clarence·
Lake, for an all-day or a weekend fishing trip. Those
with no readily available means of air access to lakes
or streams within the basin settled for fishing the
lakes and streams closer to home, beyond the project
area boundary.
The relatively few people in the 1930 1 s who took part
in the fly-in fishing excursions to sites within the
present-day project area ~pread the reputation of the
quality fishing there. In the 1940•s, resident
Alaskans other than local fishermen made efforts to fly
into the Susitna area for fishing.
Air~taxi services transported numerous fishing parties
to various lakes and streams throughout the project
area in the 1950•s, and hunting lodge owners in the
early 60•s began to notice clientele attracted chiefly
to fishing. The 1970•s brought about a refinement of
historical fishing activities within the project area.
Pure fishing enthusiasts as well as those who fished as
a sideline to hunting or other recreation characterized
the fishing use throughout that decade.
Mining
Mining has played a significant role in the historical
and cultural development of the land in the upper
Susitna River basin, especially in the area of Valdez
Creek. With reference to the three study zones
addressed by this land use analysis and to the time
fra~e of 1930 to 1970, the mining activities on the
land consisted of relatively low-density mining claims
characterized by intermittent activity.
24
-
....
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
According to U.S.G.S. mining claim files, of the 93
mining claims located on the U.S.G.S. 1:250,000-scale
Talkeetna Mountains quadrangle, fewer than half occur
in the project zone boundaries. The three areas of
greatest mining activity, with a concentration of six
or more claims, exist on Chunilna (Clear) Creek, Gold
Creek, and Portage Creek. Gold placer claims have been
mined at Chunilna Creek since the late 19th century and
are still being worked. Claims at Gold Creek represent
gold, copper, and silver placer claims active from the
early 50 1 S until the late 70 1 s. Unlike the placer
claims of Chunilna and Gold creeks, Portage Creek
claims are all lode deposits of silver, copper,
magnesium, zinc, and molybdenum. Mining has taken
place in this area since the late 19th century, but at
present; only one claim is active. Aside from these
three major concentrations of mining activities, the
remainder of the mining claims are sparsely scattered
throughout the land use zones.
-Other Recreational Activities
Historically, recreation other than the hunting and
fishing described earlier included ·cross-country
skiing, kayaking and boating, photography, and
snowmachining.
primarily with
throughout the
These activities have been associated
the artifacts and the use aggregations
project area.
As early as the 1930 1 s, the natural beauty of the
Susitna valley was enjoyed by photography enthusiasts.
Some even took movies of the area while making
cross-country flights.
Boating within the project area has had a variety of
purposes: for early research, for fishing, for running
25
the Devil Canyon rapids, or for transportation.
Pleasure boating on many of the small lakes in the
area, such as Clarence, Watana, Fog, Stephan, Tsusena,
High, Bear, Otter and Dawn lakes, was amd remains a
common summertime activity. Often, pleasure boating
was associated with fishing in these lakes.
Another type of boating activity which has increased in
popularity within the past decade is that offered by
the riverboat services. These services, several of
which are based in Talkeetna, offer boating trips up
the Susitna and Talkeetna rivers within the project
area boundaries. Services include day trips to Devil
Canyon; drop camps for hunting, fishing, and
photography; and canoe hauls to river locations
specified by clientele. One guided river float trip,
for instance, began from a lodge on Lake Louise, beyond
the southeastern portion of the project.area boundary.
The float guide and his client proceeded northwest on
the Tyone River, entered the Susitna, and floated to an
area east of Devil Canyon, where they then portaged the
rapids and floated the remainder of the river to
Talkeetna.
Cross-country skiing emerged as a popular land use
activity with the advent of the hunting lodges. Ski
tour packages offered by wilderness outfitters became
popular within the project area during the late
1970's. At about the same time, snowshoeing, a regular
mode of transportation for early hunters and trappers
in the area, moved from the realm of the purely
pragmatic to the more recreational.
3.2 -Present Land Use in Project Area
Historically, access has been a determinant of the types and levels
of land use in the upper Susitna River basin. As discussed ab.ove,
26
-
-
....
-
-
( i
"''"' :!
I
'
early access to the area for trapping was by dog team and
snowshoe. When the price for furs dropped, some trappers turned to
the more lucrative occupation of acting as guides to sport hunters.
Commercial bush pilots provided access to the area using lakes and
tundra airstrips for landing. By the early 1970's, use of the area
by private pilots during hunting seasons had somewhat reduced the
need for hunting guides.
(a) General Activity Patterns
Present land use patterns in the project area reflect the ties
people of the area have with the land as a source of food,
shelter, income, and recreation. Although land use developments
are dispersed, present use and activity patterns were discerned
from analyzing known historical uses in the project area and by
locating actual remnants of past activity as described in Section
3.1(b).
The access trails provide indications of past land uses and their
influence on present use patterns. Trails provided access into
the project area for subsistence hunting, fishing, and trapping,
and today these same routes, undoubtedly undergoing some changes,
provide access to scattered cabins and to the region in general
for recreational purposes.
Existing use patterns in Zones 1, 2, and 3 have been identified
for hunting, fishing, trapping, mining, and recreation. Brief
descriptions of each land use activity follow. The most
intensive activity is concentrated along the major highways and
in the southern part of Mat-Su Borough well to the south of the
project area. Except for hydroelectric power studies, most
activity within the project area is related to recreation or
m1ning and, as mention~d, is,subtle and dispersed.
27
( i) Zone 1
Little activity in the way of trapping and mining
currently takes place in Zone 1, especially compared to
those pursuits 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, espec i a 11 y from tent camps.
River-related activities include river boating and
floating. Boating within the project area has been linked
with research, fishing, or recreation. Raft float trips
are taken from the Denali Highway on the Susitna or Tyone
rivers down to just above either Vee or Devil canyons,
where rafters portage to below Devil Canyon and float to
Talkeetna.
Another Zone 1 activity involves hydroelectric research,
that is, study of the feasibility of using the Susitna
itself as a source of power. Following preliminary
studies, the Bureau of Reclamation proposed in 1952 that
the Susitna be considered for potential hydroelectric
development. Since then, there have been many
feasibility, design, and environmental studies of the
proposed inundation 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
all other uses.
(ii) Zone 2 and Zone 3
As defined, Zone 2 is the area extending about ten
kilometers (six miles) from Zone 1. Thus, Zone 2
encompasses the area, including the river itself, which is
downstream of Devil Canyon. 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 Susitna as far as
28
-
-
-
-
-
T
"i'
' ''
Portage Creek. In addition to fishing, other forms of
recreation such as boating occur downstream of Devil
Canyon. Individual and riverboat operations out of
Talkeetna travel up the Susitna River, offering services
that include day trips 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. A further
discussion of boating follows later in this section.
-Hunting
Hunting within the Susitna project area became popular
in the 1960•s. Two hunting lodges located within the
Zone 2 study area, one on High Lake and the other on
Stephan Lake, have catered to an international
clientele. Guests at the lodges fly or hike from the
lodges to small outreach camps on lakes or streams for
stays of a few days at a time.
Lodges typically handle 15 to 25 guests at a time and
about 40 guests per season. The increasing popularity
of sport hunting in the 196Q•s caused an increase in
the number of small cabins on many of the lakes in the
project area. Both guided and non-guided hunting occur
within the project area, particularly near Stephan,
Fog, Clarence, Watana, Deadman, Tsusena, and Big lakes
·in addition to many of the area•s smaller lakes. 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
29
area•s lakes and streams include burbot, grayling,
rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, lake trout, and whitefish.
As mentioned above, salmon migrate up Indian River and
up the Susitna as far as Portage Creek. Considerable
fishing for lake trout, grayling, and salmon occurs in
the Stephan Lake -Prairie Creek drainage. Salmon
fishing occurs in lower Portage and Chunilna (Clear)
creeks and Indian River. Fishing in Fog, Clarence,
Watana, Tsusena, Deadman, Big, and High 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
Although trapping activity has declined over the past 30
years, recently there has been a slight increase in
trapping. Present trapping in the project area occurs
mostly on the south side of the Susitna River near
Stephan and Fog lakes. Some trapping also occurs near
Tsusena Creek and Clarence and High lakes.
-Mining
Mineral exploration and m1n1ng have been limited in the
immediate project area. Typical of the mining done in
the upper Susitna River basin since 1930 is a low
density of claims characterized by intermittent
activity. Nevertheless, mining has played a key role in
the land development of the upper river region,
particularly along Valdez Creek.
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),
30
-
-
-
-
,~,
-
-
-
~,·
r
r
r
r
r
and Portage creeks th~n in other areas of the upper
Susitna basin, with some other active claims around
Stephan and Fog lakes, Jay Creek, and the Watana Hills
east of Jay Creek. Mining at Gold Creek was active
from the early 1950's through the late 1970's; most
claims were gold, copper and silver placer mines. A
concentration of at least six mining claims has existed
on Chunilna Creek, where gold placer claims have been
worked since the late 19th century. Mining has
occurred in the Portage Creek area since the late 19th
century, but only one claim remains active.
Coal is the major mineral resource in Mat-Su Borough.
Although extensive deposits of varying quality are
located in the river valley areas, no coal mining
activity occurs in the project area. Most coal is
mined to the south and west of the project area, much
of it being used for household fuel.
-River Boating/Floating -Upper Basin
There is considerable summer boating on many of the
lakes, including Clarence, Watana, Fog, Stephan,
Tsusena, High, Otter, Bear, and Dawn. As discussed
above, both individuals and riverboat operations offer
services out of Talkeetna. They travel up the
Talkeetna River, dropping recreators at camps for
hunting, fishing, and photography. These guides also
offer canoe hauls to may tributaries of the Susitna
River. Some canoeing and rafting takes place from just
below Devil Canyon to Talkeetna. Boating below Devil
Canyon is further discussed below.
(iii) Downstream Navigation
The Susitna River, downstream of D~vil Canyon, has long
provided a major means of access into the region. The
31
Susitna is navigable from its mouth in Cook Inlet to the
area around Portage Creek. Based upon (1) its prior use
by boat for any purpose and (2) its suitability as a
highway of commerce since Alaska Statehood in 1959, the
Susitna River has been determined by BLM to be navigable
as far upstream as 12 km (7.5 mi) above Gold Creek. While
the BLM has made no determination of navigability beyond
this point, the U.S. Coast Guard considers the Susitna
River between Gold Creek and the Tyone River, because of
shifting sand and gravel bars and shifting channels, to be
non-navigable.
A variety of craft are used on the downstream portion
(below Devil Canyon) of the Susitna, including rafts,
canoes, airboats, and riverboats. In addition,
floatplanes are used throughout the Susitna drainage area.
Considerable boating is done along the Susitna,
particularly near boat launches at Willow Creek,
Talkeetna, Kashwitna Landing, and Sunshine. Boats are
used for fishing during the warmer months of the year and
as means of access to hunting areas in the fall.
Riverboat services, several of which are based in
Talkeetna, are increasingly popular and provide trips up
the Susitna and Talkeetna rivers for recreators and others
wishing to reach inland areas not easily accessible
otherwise.
Most boating activity is concentrated on the Susitna and
Talkeetna rivers. The Yentna River and its tributaries--
the Skwentna and Kahiltna rivers--the Deshka River (Kroto
Creek), and Willow and Alexander creeks all receive some
use. The Yentna is used for fishing, other recreation,
and as access to hunti 1.g areas. The Deshka River receives
The extensive use by sport fishermen during salmon runs.
Talkeetna River receives heavy use for trapping,
subsistence, recreation, and mineral development purposes.
32
-
-
-
~·
-
-
I"""
'
Riverboats~ many with jet units~ utilize portions of the
Talkeetna River in the summer. From just below Devil
Canyon to north of Talkeetna~ the Susitna is highly
regarded and utilized by rafters and kayakers. The rapids
of Devil Canyon are considered world-class whitewater, but
few kayakers have successfully negotiated the gorge.
In the winter, the Susitna River is used as an avenue of
transportation for dogsleds and snowmobiles, primarily for
~ trapping, recreation, and travel between Trapper Creek and
'I
i Talkeetna.
-'
"f"'
i
!
1'1""
I
I
I
T'
i
(b) Land Use Developments-Present
Existing land use developments are associated with hunting,
fishing, trapping, food or equipment storage, research~
recreation, and mining. Categories covering the frequency with
which structures are used are 1) no use~ 2) seasonal
use--present, 3) seasonal use--past and present, 4) year round
use--present, 5) year round use--past and present, and 6) no use
information.
Most of the developments, whether structures or discrete
objects, are associated with some means of access. Unpaved
roads and trails were or are presently used for access to
certain points in the project area. Horses and vehicles, such
as tracked vehicles (Cats), four-wheel drive vehicles,
rolligons, and dog sleds, have been used for freighting, for
transportation within the area, and for access to the project
area. Airstrips on gravel bars or flat ground are commonly
located in proximity to other historical artifacts, such as
cabins, trails, or lodges. Trails emanate primarily from
existing structures and connect them with airstrips, lakes (on
which a ski or float plane can be landed), fishing streams, or
other structures.
33
The study zones within the project area (as designated in Figure
1) provide an approximate measure of development locations and
types of use in proximity to the Susitna River. Both
historically and currently, the sparsely distributed
developments throughout the project area have been used
predominantly on a seasonal basis. The majority of the land use
developments or artifacts have been utilized for hunting,
fishing, trapping, boating, mining, and other general recreation
purposes, such as cross-country skiing or photography.
( i ) Zone 1
Types of developments located in Zone 1, the inundation
zone plus 61 m (200ft), include structures, trails, and
airstrips.
Ten isolated structures are located in Zone 1 on the
shores of the river or on its steep banks (Table 5 and
Figure 2)r Of these structures, only three are maintained
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 used or usable.
( i i) Zone 2
The greatest number of existing land use developments and
historical artifacts are located in Zone 2. Zone 2 is a
much smaller area than Zone 3 (see below), yet there is
more evidence of use within Zone 2 than within Zone 3.
Types of developments found in Zone 2 include structures,
trails, roads, a·irstrips, and mines. General types of use
associated with these artifacts consist of huntir1g,
trapping, fishing, boating, mining, recreation, and
research.
34
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,...
I
i
-
·'f'
i
""!""
:I ! I
I
-I
~
I .I
Although the primary distribution of uses thr?ughout the
project area is low in density, particularly noteworthy in
Zone 2 is the occurrence of aggregations of existing
developments. The nuclei of these aggregations are the
small lakes and lake systems located throughout Zone 2,
which provide access by air. Like the single, scattered
land uses in Zone 3, the aggregations of developments
consist of cabins and related structures, lodges~ roads,
trails, and airstrips. Table 6 and Figure 2 present
information on Zone 2.
(iii) Zone 3
Fourteen of the 25 existing structures are currently used
during some portion of the year. As described above under
Past Land Use, aggregations of use are much less common in
Zone 3 than in Zone 2 and occur in the areas of Chunilna
and Prairie creeks south of the project area. A summary
of existing structures within the area is presented in
Table 7 and Figure 2.
(iv) Summary of Present Land Use in the Project Area
The combined factors of the size of the Susitna project
area, its isolation, and its location in a subarctic
environment result in extremely low-density land use.
This use is still tied to the values of the area people,
for whom the land is still a source of income, food and
related subsistence activities, and recreation. The
development of land use has been a slow, evolutionary
process involving utilization of the resource base. Many
·historic uses are relevant in assessing present land use
patterns and, indeed, many of the remnants of past uses
shape present patterns. Structures verified through
aerial truthing are shown by land use zones in Tables 5
through 7 and are summarized in Table 8. The major traiis
35
into the project area, although not structures, represent
substantial environmental modifications and reflect
general use patterns; they are presented in Table 9.
Figure 3 gives the locations and types of uses of
developments where these are sufficiently clustered to be
identifiable on the ground. Thus, intensity of use might
refer to a series of isolated cabins along a shoreline,
as at Stephan Lake, or to several small mines clustered
together, as at Chunilna Creek.
The greatest concentrations of physical developments are
in the Stephan Lake area (13 cabins and one lodge with
outbuildings and airstrip) and the Portage Creek mining
area and summer cabins (19 cabins and related buildings).
Chunilna Creek and Gold Creek also have some mining
developments. Three commercial lodge operations are
located at High, Tsusena, and Stephan lakes.
3.3 -Land Stewardship
Prior to statehood and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the
entire Susitna drainage area was mostly federally owned. There were
no agency resource management plans for the area and, except for
minimal mining and timbering, very little resource exploitation. A
major limiting factor to development of the area has been access;
inaccessibility has rendered it economically impractical to utilize
the area•s resource base.
(a) Ownership Patterns
The Susitna River proper and the lands immediately adjacent
along with the bench country around Stephan and Fog lakes
extending eastward to the Kosina Creek drainage have been
selected by Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) and associated
. Native village corporations. The State has selected land
36
-
~-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
' 'I
-i
' '
-I
:
-
entitlements on the north side of the proposed reservoir
between the remaining federal lands and the Native lands
(figure 4). In the areas designated for the Cook Inlet land
trade, the State will select all those lands that are not
selected by the Natives. Matanuska-Susitna Borough owns no
lands in the project area.
Two state land disposal.sites (figure 4) exist near the Indian
River in the westernmost part of the project area, just north
of the Susitna River. The Indian River Subdivision (T33N,
R2W, S.M.) lies near mile 168 of the Parks Highway, northwest
of Chulitna Butte, and contains approximately 518 ha (1,280 a)
of land. The disposal area has been subdivided into roads and
also some 139 lots averaging about two hectares (five acres)
per lot. South of this subdivision is the Indian River remote
parcel, located northeast of the confluence of the Susitna and
Indian rivers. This remote parcel (T31-32N, R2W S.M.) is
located just east of and, at some places, adjacent to Denali
State Park. The Indian River remote parcel is comprised of
2,590 ha (6,400 a). Approximately 607 ha (1,500 a) in 75
parcels is being disposed of.
These land disposals, along with scattered private parcels of
land, represent the only real dedication of a given piece of
land to a particular use. Table 10 displays various land
holdings in the vicinity of the proposed project, and Table 11
summarizes those holdings by status/ownership category.
(b) Land Use Management
Personnel employed oy responsible land managing agencies were
interviewed initially and throughout the study to gain
information about present and future pr0grams. The
individuals interviewed are listed with other authorities
contacted. The results of the interviews are summarized in
Table 12.
37
One federal agency, one state agency in addition to the Alaska
Power Authority, one borough, and one regional Native
corporation have various management concerns iD the project
area. These entities are the Bureau of Land Management (U.S.
Department of Interior), the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and the Cook Inlet
Region, Inc. and associated village groups.
Federal lands to the north of the project area are managed by
the Bureau of Land Management CBLM). These lands are included
in the Denali Planning Block, for which a land use plan has
been approved.
Management in· the Denali Unit and those areas not yet conveyed
either to the Natives or the State is essentially passive.
Very few management activities are taking place.
BLM 1 s main objective is to protect the natural environment of
the area, with particular attention to caribou calving areas
and river recreation routes. Fire control is also a current
management consideration; BLM has a cooperative fire control
agreement with the State of Alaska that covers the project
area.
BLM is also developing regulations for the management of
public easements across Native lands. 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 m (50 ft) wide from the Chulitna wayside on
the Alaska Railroad to public lands immediately east of
Portage Creek; a state site easement and trail easements on
Stephan Lake; and an access trail running· east from Gold
Creek. Easements were only identified 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.
38
-
-
-
~-
"'!"'·
I
,.,..
I
I
I
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 Maclaren
rivers (T11-12 N, R2-9 W, Copper River Meridian). This plan
will involve moose habitat manipulation. As yet, however,
only study plots for this 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 ha (1,500 a) of remote housing
parcels and 518 ha (1280 a) in a subdivision. These disposal
areas (located north and south of Chulitna) are west of the
project area and in the vicinity of the proposed access
route.
In the project area, the State had, until recently, done only
a resource assessment for those lands it is proposing to
select. Currently, DNR•s Division of Research and Development
is undertaking a comprehensive assessment of the resource base
in general. Planning for state lan~s in this area will be
based in part on this assessment.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough is involved in three separate
management efforts which affect the project area. These are
the Mat-Su Borough Comprehensive Plan (1970), the Talkeetna
Mountains Special Use District, and the Mat-Su Borough Coastal
Management Program. The current Mat-Su Borough Comprehensive
Plan (1970) contains very little discussion 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.
The borough, by ordinance, has created the Talkeetna Mountains
Special Use District, through which the borough can exercise
planning and zoning authority over all lands within the
39
district•s boundaries. The Special Use District includes the
project area. The ordinance provides for multiple resource
use of the district and takes into account unique scenic
values. Thus, lands within the special 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 permit 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; the Susitna
River through Devil Canyon was designated to be within the
biophysical boundaries of the program (Figure 6). Program
results to date provide for a preliminary determination of
uses subject to the program guidelines including,
specifically, hydroelectric development in Devil Canyon. The
appropriateness of this use is to be reviewed as resource
analysis continues in subsequent phases of the program.
The Cook Inlet Region, Inc. received conveyance of selected
Native lands to hold in trust until these lands are conveyed
to the appropriate villages (Chickaloon-Moose Creek~ Tyonek,
and Knik). Currertly, no land management activities are being
carried out. When the villages obtain their lands, the
40
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..,.
I
Pi"'
!
i
I
I
fl"'
I
I
different village ownerships will create a checkerboard
pattern. Immediate land problems and land reconveyance to
villages are being handled by the Village Deficiency
Management Association, a group made up of representatives
from each of' the concerned villages. Because of the
checkerboard pattern of ownership described above, any
management of Native lands may be undertaken by this
association.
3.4 -Natural Aesthetics and Related Resources
(a) Aesthetic Character of Lands and Water to be Affected
The upper Susitna River basin comprise~ a diverse landscape,
largely roadless and relatively uninhabited. The combination
of these factors creates a natural region in which, depending
upon a viewer•s location in the basin, a variety of visual
groupings exists free from the imprints of man. In contrast
to other areas in Alaska, the aesthetic resources of the
project area are generally not seen as outstanding (with the
one exception of Devil Canyon itself). Because the area is a
wilderness region positioned between the two major population
centers of Fairbanks and Anchorage, however, the aesthetic
resources of the upper Susitna basin are an important
consideration when eva'luating the impact of the proposed
hydroelectric project.
The upper Susitna basin contains a variety of aesthetically
distinct landscapes. This diversity arises from a mix of
vegetation, water, and topographical features, and thus the
landscape displays many combinations of form, line, color, and
texture. These c'ombinations are enhanced both by sub-elements
and ephemeral qualities, including atmospheric conditions;
observer distance, angle, and position illumination; the
presence of wildlife; and natural scents and sounds.
41
The landforms of the area are defined by three major elements:
the deeply incised Susitna River valley and its tributaries,
the northern Talkeetna and Chulitna Mountains, and the
northern Talkeetna plateau. The area 1 s features, textures,
and relief are dominated by the plateau 1 s northeast trending;
rounded, low mountains; and generally rolling highlands.
These areas of rolling terrain slope to meet adjacent
landforms that are moderately rugged, higher, and more
mountainous. Other landforms in the east reflect the
influence of the adjoining Copper River basin. These are
characterized by lower mountains and hills widely spaced on
the p 1 ateau and by flat terra in interspersed with numerous
ponds •
. Vegetation is diverse and varies with elevation. Dense
spruce-hardwood forests blanket the lower drainages and
slopes, while large meadows of tundra cover higher _elevations.
A variety of shrub types occur between the forest and tundra
types, adding texture and color to the setting. This
diversity of vegetation enhances edge effect found in the more
scenic visual groupings.
Color also enhances the scenic composite, particularly in
autumn, when the leaves of deciduous trees turn gold and
orange, creating a vivid contrast to the dominant dark spruce
green. Also in the autumn, the tundra bursts into a brief
period of color, especially striking when viewed against a
high lake and mountainous backdrop.
The V-shaped valleys of the Susitna River and its tributaries
are visually prominent as they cut a distinct swath of green
through a predominantly tundra landscape. The deeply cut
canyon of the Susitna River is particularly ~triking at Devil
and Vee canyons, where turbulent rapids, rock outcroppings and
cliffs, and enclosed walls dominate the scene. There are
numerous clear, fast-flowing mountain creeks, some of which
flow over and through steep, rocky embankments to form
42
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..,..
I,
-I
I
I
,..
i I
I
waterfalls and flumes. Lakes in a variety of forms and
settings are numerous in the basin. They range from small,
irregularly shaped lakes set in woods and against a backdrop
of mountain peaks; to lakes which reflect their glacial
origin; to a complex of five, finger-shaped lakes (Fog Lakes)
set in a black spruce and shrub wetland region.
The higher mountain peaks, including Deadman, Devil, and
Watana mountains, as well as the more accessible overlooks of
of Tsusena and Chulitna buttes and the ridges above Vee Canyon
and at Big and Swimming Bear lakes provide viewpoints that
overlook the project and adjacent areas. Many of these sites
allow extensive views of the central Talkeetna Mountains and
the Alaska Range, often focusing on Mounts McKinley, Deborah,
and Hess and on the Eldridge, West Fork, and Susitna
glaciers.
Overall; the upper Susitna basin has considerable aesthetic
appeal. Furthermore, certain natural features in the area
have been identified as having exceptional aesthetic quality.
These features, their locations, and their descriptions appear
on Table 13 and on Figure 7~ Other noteworthy natural
features are listed in Table 14 and are also designated on
Figure 7.
(b) Wetlands and Floodlands
Within the approximate boundaries of Zone 1, there are
12,579 ha (31,083 a) of wetlands of various types, including
riverine. These are summarized in Table 15. In the vicinity
of the proposed Watana impoundment, there are 10,913 ha
(29,966 a), and in the vicinity of Devil Canyon, there are
1,66G ha (4,1t7 a). The table indicates the sizes and types
of wetlands i~ relation to the proposed impoundments, dams,
and spillways; camps, villages, and airstrip; and borrow
areas. A map of wetlands is part of in the 1980 Annual Report
on Plant Ecology Studies (APA 1981).
43
Floodlands have been identified for the Susitna River
downstream from Devil Canyon to Talkeetna. A rna~ of vegetation
types in this floodplain is part of the 1980 Annual Report
on Plant Ecology Studies (APA 1981).
3.5 -Future Land Use
Assessment of the effects of construction and operation of the
proposed Susitna hydroelectric project involves comparison of the
potential direct and induced changes in land use caused by the
project with the land use patterns likely to evolve during the next
20 years and beyond in the absence of any project. Making a
definitive forecast of future land use for the upper Susitna basin is
affected by many factors, some of which have been discussed
previously:
(1) Existing land use patterns are subtle and dispersed.
(2) Little active land management has taken place to date, and as
yet there are no comprehensive management plans that would
indicate future use. With the exception of the Alaska Power
Authority, concerned with the proposed Susitna hydroelectric
project itself, no state agency or Native group has expressed
definitive plans for development -or non-development -of
the area.
(3) The question of ultimate land ownership and tenure remains
unresolved. Federal and state agencies and Native groups are
involved in this process of selection and transfer of lands
at present.
(4) Very little land is privately owned by individuals, and there
is no indication that this pattern will change in the near
future.
(5) There are no quantitative data or estimates of current or
projected use of the area.
(6) Lastly, and most significant, there is no road access into
the upper Susitna basin.
44
-
-
-
~I
'!
1.
T
I
!
T
I
T
"''"
I
T
T
The results of discussions with BLM, DNR, Mat-Su Borough, and the
Cook Inlet Region, Inc. are meaningful within the context of general
resources management in present-day Alaska. Agencies, the 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. Because
of uncertain outcomes of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the proposed Susitna hydroelectric
project, little attention has been given to actual land management.
The project area has not been exploited in the past because it was
not economically feasible to do so. It is still not economically
feasible to mine and process what minerals exist within the project
area, although improved access may also improve the economics of
exploitation. Discussions with 1 and owners/managers and
consi~eration of present market conditions indicate that without the
project, little change is likely to occur soon 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 accessible 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
eventually 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, and the Natives have expressed
their preference for the Susitna project access road to be on the
south side of the river between the two dam sites.
As proposed by Acres American and the Alaska Power Authority,
however, the project access road between the dam sites would be on
the north side of the river. One could speculate that, if the road
is built as proposed, the Native land owners may eventually build
another road on the south side, assuming that it were economically
feasible to do so.
45
4-ANALYSIS OF PROJECT COMPONENTS AND FACILITIES
For the feasibility analysis of the Susitna hydroelectric project,
Acres developed a "generalized plan formulation and selection
process" to guide the various planning studies. As alternative
development plans, project components and facilities, and operating
schemes were identified, they were assessed and screened (according
to engineering, economic, and environmental criteria) until the
preferred plan was defined. During the course of the study, the land
use analysis dealt with alternative general basin development plans,
operating schemes, access plans, transmission alignments, and related
project facilities. Of the numerous planning decisions made in the
selection of a basin development plan, the land use assessment
involved considerable analysis of alternate access plans and
transmission corridors. Discussion pertaining to these latter
analyses is, therefore, presented below. Analysis of construction
borrow areas was likewise conducted, and the results are also
presented here. Descriptions of analyses pertaining to other project
aspects are contained in Section 5.
4.1 -Access Route
After initial engineering screening, three main access corridors were
identified: (1) a corridor from the west on the north side of the
Susitna to the dam sites; (2) a corridor from the west on the south
side to the dam sites; and (3) a corridor from the north to the dam
sites. Each was assessed by the Acres team according to engineering
and environmental (including land use) criteria. Several different
plans for access emerged and after further screening, eight plans
were studied in more detail. Figure 8 shows the different access
corridor segments which comprised the plans.
Each of the eight accr~s plans considered contains access routes to
both dam sites which tie into the existing transportation network at
one or two of the following points: The Parks Highway at Hurricane
(road intersection), the Alaska Railroad at Gold Creek (railroad or
road junction), and the Denali Highway west of Denali (road
intersection). The eight plans are shown in Figures 9 through 16.
46
-
-
-
-
-
T
I
"""" I
'!
i
..,..
I
,..
I
'.I
The eight plans were paired according to shared points of origin,
although they vary in mode or alignment from the point of origin to
the work sites. For purposes of the land use analysis, the point of
origin is the dominant variable, with mode and alignment being
important variables. In general, the effects of each pair will be
very similar.
Access Plans 1 and 5 -These plans are both road access options
originating at Hurricane, passing through the Devil Canyon site, and
terminating at the Watana site. In Plan 1, the road is on the south
side of the Susitna River between Devil Canyon and Watana; in Plan 5,
the road is on the north side between the two dam sites.
Access Plans 8 and 2 -Both originate at a railhead near Gold Creek,
pass by the Devil Canyon site, and terminate at Watana. In Plan 2,
the connection is accomplished via a rail line on the south side of
the river; in Plan 8, a road runs on the south side of the river from
the railhead to Devil Canyon and on the north side of the river from
Devil Canyon to Watana.
Access Plans 4 and 6 -Both plans include the initial construction of
a road from the Denali Highway to the Watana site followed by the
construction of a railroad from the railhead at Gold Creek to the
Devil Canyon site. Plan 6 includes the construction of a service
road on the north side of the river between Devil Canyon and Watana;
Plan 4 does not.
Access Plans 3 and 7 -Both plans include the initial construction of
a road from the Denali Highway to the Watana site followed by the
construction of a road from near Hurricane on the Parks Highway to
the Devil Canyon site. Plan 7 includes the construction of a service
road on the north side of the river between Devil Canyon and Watana;
Plan 3 does not.
47
(a) Assessment Factors
Each access route would be built for construction and
operation of the dam facilities. Many of the effects,
however, will be related to long-term consequences after
construction is complete. The impact on current land use and
related activities resulting from emplacement and use of an
access route will vary depending upon the location of the
route and the mode.
The land use analysis of each access plan involved assessment
of the potential impact of the route on land use developments,
activity patterns, land management and tenure, and natural
aesthetics. Each route was analyzed for its potential land
use impact, and Table 16 was constructed to present the
anticipated magnitude of these effects on the various land use
concerns for the route under consideration. A subjective
numerical scale of 1 to 5 was used, with 5 representing a
great impact and 1 a small or negligible impact. The
scoring 1 s purpose was to identify only possible impacts and to
estimate relative magnitude, thus enabling a rudimentary
comparison of the access schemes.
In the upper Susitna basin, the site of all the proposed
access plans, there is little extensive land use. Most of
what exists occurs along present rail lines and around the
major lakes in the area--High, Stephan, and the Fog Lakes. In
these locations, most of the land use resources involve
recreational concerns, both of a private, individual nature
and of a commercial sort.
With the introduction of a highway, a·railroad, or a
combination of these, land use concerns .ocusing on
transportation will also be involved. Furthermore, the
communities that exist at the origins of these routes will
feel the impact of any new transportation form introduced.
48
-
-
-
-
T
""" I
I
r
I
Access will facilitate an influx of people and will instigate
activity within the basin that will affect both small
population concentrations and isolated residences, peripheral
commercial and transportation systems, resource utilization
and level of recreational activity, visual and aesthetic
factors, and the overall character of the area. In addition,
these effects will have ramifications for management
activities in terms of their extent, adequacy, and need (for
example, fish and game, land, etc.) and will influence changes
in land values and development.
(i) Parks Highway to Gold Creek
Access Plans 1, 5, 3, and 7 all include this route
segment. The land use resources in this area to be
affected by these access plans include Pass Creek and
the Indian and Susitna rivers, all of which will
require crossings. These access plans will also have a
significant impact on Chulitna, Canyon, and Gold Creek,
all of which will acquire road access where none
previously existed. Two cabins and an unnamed lake are
also included in the land use resources here.
(ii) Gold Creek to Devil Canyon
All of the access plans include this segment, although
some pass through here via railroad while others use a
vehicular road. The towns of Gold Creek and Canyon
would both experience an impact from access plans here,
with the effects on Gold Creek substantially greater
than those on Canyon. Both would feel the impact on
their land values and on commercial and residential
land uses. Some minor stream crossings are also
plann~d for this area.
49
(iii) Devil Canyon to Watana, North Side
In terms of land use concerns, the primary resources to
be affected here are waterways and water bodies.
Access Plans 5, 8, 7, and 6 will pass within a
quarter-mile of both the Susitna River and an unnamed
lake. These plans will also come within 0.8 kilometer
(a half mil~) of High Lake and partly parallel a
several-kilometer length of Devil Creek.
Other types of resources along this route include High
Lake Lodge, which consists of nine buildings; a private
cabin; and Tsusena Creek, which will require a
significant crossing via a bridge.
(iv) Devil Canyon to Watana, South Side
Access Plans 1 and 2 incorporate this segment. The
waterways to be affected here include two unnamed
tributaries of the Susitna itself and, with Plan 1, a
significant crossing and bridge over Fog Creek. These
access plans will pass within 0.4 kilometer (one
quarter mile) of Stephan Lake and will come quite close
to the Fog Lakes. All of this area may experience
increased off-road vehicle use, especially around the
lakes and in the plateau region of the upper Prairie
Creek drainage. This use will be limited, however, if
Plan 2, using a railroad, is chosen over Plan 1, whicb
calls for a highway.
Finally, access into this area, by whatever means, will
affect approximately 12 cabins and the Stephan Lake
Lodge, which consists of ten structures. The lodge, in
particular, will experience a significant impact.
50
-
-
....
-
-
-
(v) Denali Highway to Watana
Access Plans 3, 7, 4, and 6--all of which incorporate
this segment--wiil parallel the Deadman Creek drainage
and pass close to Deadman Lake. They will also pass
within 1.6 kilometers (a mile) or so of a lake adjacent
to Tsusena Butte, so both the butte and the lake will
experience some impact. This segment could have a
possible effect upon approximately four local cabins
and will open up a considerable area to new off-road
vehicle use.
(b) Impact Assessment
(i) Access Plans 2 and 8
With access to the sites originating at Gold Creek, all
materials, equipment, and labor must move by rail to
Gold Creek. Once there, it would continue either by
ra i 1 or ro·ad to both dam sites. There wou 1 d be a
significant impact on Gold Creek itself as well as at
·Hurricane and Talkeetna, which are the last railroad
junctures with highway access to the north and south of
Gold Creek, respectively.
The effects in the upper basin associ a ted with Access
Plans 2 and 8 are probably the most limited, in that
the only access to the interior basin is via rail at
Gold Creek. To take either the road or railroad to the
dam sites requires using the Alaska Railroad to get to
Gold Creek. This approach tends to limit access, while
a road, on the other hand, permits the public to drive
to the site. Furthermore, use of the ra·i lroad to ship
materials to a point where materials would be
transported to the dam sites would cause less of an
impact on communities along the Parks Highway
corridor.
51
(ii) Access Plans 1 and 5
jhe effects associated with Access Plans 1 and 5 would
be substantial on communities along the Parks Highway.
There would be significant consequences for existing
community land uses, particularly residential and
commercial uses. Of all access plans under
consideration, this pairing would have the greatest
impact on community land uses. In addition, either the
north connecting road, for Plan 5, or the south, for
Plan 1, would affect lodges in the interior of the
basin. One could expect these uses and associated
activities to be substantially influenced by the
additional access afforded the public.
(iii) Access Plans 4 and 6
Initially, since the Watana site is to be developed
first, these access plans move the origin of access
from the Railbelt corridor west of the Susitna drainage
to the Denali Highway in the north. This move would
attenuate the effects described for Plans 2 and 8 and
Plans 3 and 5 up the Railbelt corridor to Cantwell.
Access from the Denali Highway lengthens significantly
the road.distance between most availabl~ housing
(Mat-Su Borough) and the work site. Thus, most workers
wou 1 d probably commute to the site in a more organized
and routine manner than if they all provided their own
transportation to the site or the railhead. The
addition of a service road between the Devil Canyon
and Watana sites, as included in Plan 6, will create a
negligible difference between the two access plans.· If
it is maintained and opened to the public after
completion of the two dams, however, it would increase
the usage of the Susitna drainage. This usage would
not have any significant consequences outside of the
drainage.
52
-
~1
-
-
-
-
-
-
"!""
I
I
(iv)
Development of the Devil Canyon.site during the second
half of the proposed Susitna project will be achieved
by access similar to that provided in Access Plan 2.
Access Plans 4 and 6 would create effects similar to
those of Access Plans 2 and 8. Goods or people would
travel by rail to the Devil Canyon site. This
requirement reduces the extent of impact on community
land uses along the Parks Highway. Access by road from
the Denali Highway to Watana, however, would introduce
potential for significant off-road vehicle use in areas
where it is now minimal. This effect could result in
significant alterations to an area with virtually no
existing development or surface-disturbing activities.
Access Plans 3 and 7
Access Plans 3 and 7 provide road access from two
directions--the Parks Highway and Denali Highway. The
impact on community land uses along the Parks Highway
would be somewhat less compared with, as in Plans 1 and
5, a road·off the Parks Highway alone. With Plans 3
and 7, there is likely to be greater alteration to
interior basin land uses, as access is facilitated for
both Anchorage and Fairbanks populations.
(c) Summary of Impact Analysis
With respect to land use concerns, Plans 1 and 5 and Plans 3
and 7 are expected to have a significant impact on both
community land uses outside the project area and on land use
and activities in the interior basin.
Access Plan 1's south river road from the Devil Canyon site,
looping around Stephan Lake to the Watana site, is probably
the one proposed study route that would have both strong positive
53
and negative impacts on land use, particularly at Stephan Lake
and Fog Lakes. From the Devil Canyon site to Stephan Lake, a
new land use would emerge: off-road vehicles above
timberline. At Stephan Lake and Fog Lakes, the road would
also pass close enough to the water, even without formal
access, to attract the recreational boater. This proximity
would affect the existing lifestyles of the present residents
and could have economic impacts on the lodges and guiding
businesses. Regardless of the formal/informal access,
recreational use of the lakes would occur and likely conflict
with the present residents of and fly-in visitors to Stephan
Lake and Fog Lakes. Present users would likely be displaced
by new types of users, willing to tolerate higher densities,
noise levels, etc.
This road would also open up CIRI lands for possible resource
development. This could be seen as a positive step by those
interested in tourism, mining, timber, and land ownership
changes. It could be viewed with dismay, however, by those
Native groups that have different objectives for the use of
their 1 ands.
Plans 4 and 6 would likely cause somewhat less of an effect
than those above, since direct access from the Parks Highway
is precluded. These access alternatives would reduce the
impact on community land use patterns in those areas and
could concentrate it, in-stead, on railroad use. The road from
the Denali Highway would permit car travel by the public into
the interior of the basin, but Fairbanks• population is
considerably smaller than Anchorage•s, so the human use would
undoubtedly be less with these plans, especially since access
would be more difficult for the latter, larger population. In
addit:on, virtually no development exists along the Denali
route, so disruptions to existing land uses would be minimal.
It is likely however, that additional off-road vehicle use
would be introduced along this route.
54
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
Land use and socioeconomic disciplines establish a somewhat
different problem from that offered either by the strict
biological sciences or by cultural resources considerations.
In all these areas, the route being sought is that which will
have the least impact on the area. Consequences of whatever
type are viewed as negative and, therefore, to be avoided.
With land use and socioeconomics, additional factors must be
addressed in the impact of access road alternatives: 1) the
potential impact area is larger, may not be geographically
explicit (for socioeconomics), and varies depending upon
origin and mode being considered; 2) there are a greater
number of variables, which may be mutually exclusive,
comprising the land use and socioeconomic disciplines; and 3)
interpretations of results of analysis of these factors
require consideration of a disparate public's opinion as to
whether outcomes are positive or negative; that is, .what may
be considered negative by one individual may be viewed quite
positively by another. The various access plans would have
consequences for both the resident population and for those
newcomers arriving with the construction activities as well as
for those with land or other economic interests who do not
live in the project area.
Access Plans 2 and 8 would create the least amount of impact,
all things considered, on land uses both in the interior basin
and in adjacent communities. For minimizing alterations to
land uses, either would be an acceptable plan. For enhancing
access, providing the public with more exposure to the
resource base, one of the other plans would be a better
selection.
All four of the plans incorporating the Denali segment - 3 and
7 and 4 and 6 -will cause much greater effects on the
Cantwell area and eastside communities, which have smaller
populations and less developed infrastructures than do
westside communities.
55
4.2 -Transmission Line Route
Acres 1 transmission line route selection followed a pattern similar
to that used for choosing access routes. Corridor selection resulted
in narrowing the options from 22 possible choices to three, one each
for the southern, central, and northern study areas. The 22 possible
corridors (three for the southern area, 15 for the central area, and
four for the northern area) were comprised of the various segments
depicted in Figures 17 through 19 and are defined in Tables 17
through 19.
The alternative corridors were evaluated from an environmental
standpoint, as discussed below. When one corridor in each study area
had been selected, constraints within that corridor were examined
more closely [as discussed in Section 5.2(d)J and a 0.8-kilometer
(one-half mile)-wide route within the corridor was selected. This
recommended route was the end product of the Phase I analysis.
Eventually, a 122 to 213-m (400 to 700 ft) right-of-way will need to
be located within the route.
(a) Assessment Factors
The process of environmentally screening the original 22
corridors involved comparison of study area options based on
15 resource inventory categories: length of corridor, number
of road crossings, number of stream crossings, topography,
soils,· land status (ownership), ex~sting/proposed development,
existing rights-of-way, scenic quality/recreation, cultural
resources, vegetation, fish, birds, furbearers, and big game.
The inventory categories served as a basis for gathering
information about the various corridor segments under
consideration. Following the d~velopment of the inventory
tables, constraints imposed on the corridors by each inventory
were analyzed and evaluated. Constraint tables were developed
to perform this analysis. These tables are very similar to
inventory tables but identify only the most important
56
-
-
~,
....
-
-
-
-
-
-
constraints (rather than considerations) imposed on any
potential corridor (rather than segment).
By combining inventory categories, the fifteen categories were
reduced to eight constraint categories: length,
topography/soi~s, land use, aesthetics, cultural resources,
vegetation, fish, and wildlife. This consolidation
facilitated comparison of the corridor alternatives. Tables
17 through 19 display the constraints identified, by corridor
alternative, pertinent to the land use analysis: length,
topography, land use, and aesthetics. Details concerning the
land use inventory and categories and data assembled for each
segment are discussed in the TES report on Preliminary
Screening of Alternative Transmission Corridors and reiterated
in Acres• Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report (Acres
1981).
(b) Corridor Assessment
Several corridor segments and, hence, several associated
corridors were identified as having several constraints.
These are discussed below.
( i ) Southern Study Area
In the southern study area, Corridor Segment AEF and,
hence, Corridor Three (AEFC) were determined not to
warrant further consideration. This conclusion
resulted primarily from the routing of the segment
through the relatively well-developed and heavily
utilized Nancy Lake State Recreation Area. Adjustments
to this route to make it more acceptable were
attempted, but no alterations proved successful.
Consequently, it was determined that this corridor
should be dropped from further consideration.
57
Corridor ABC 1 was identified as probably not warranting
further consideration. Its great length, its
traversing residential and other developed lands, its
crossing through lands proposed for potential develop-
ment if the state capitol is moved, and the extensive
forest clearing that would be involved pose
considerable constraints.
Corridor ADC was identified as warranting further
consideration. This is the only such designated
corridor in the southern study area. Based on existing
information, minor modifications could reduce the
influence of the various constraints identified here.
(ii) Central Study Area
In the central study area, several corridor segments
and, hence, their associated corridors were determined
not to warrant further consideration. The first of
these, Corridor Segment BEC, appears as part of
Corridors 1, 5, 7, 9, and 15. The reason for rejecting
this segment is primarily that the developed recreation
area around Stephan Lake would be harmed needlessly;
viable options exist to avoid intruding into this area.
Again, modifying this route to something more
acceptable failed. Consequently, it was recommended
that these-five corridors be dropped from further
consideration.
Corridor Segment AG was also determined not to warrant
further consideration. There are three reasons for
this conclusion: (1) this corridor segment is long,
approximately 105 km (65 mi) in total length, and fJr
approximately two-thirds of its length, a pioneer
access road would possibly be required; (2} extensive
areas of clearing would be required, opening the
corridor to view in some scenic locations; and (3) the
impacts on fish and wildlife habitats are potentially
58
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
severe. These preliminary findings, coupled with the
fact that more viable options to Segment AG exist,
suggest that consideration of this corridor segment
and, therefore, Corridors 8 and 10 should be
terminated.
Corridors 11 and 12 in this study area were identified
as probably not warranting further consideration. This
decision arises from the fact that numerous constraints
affect this routing. Information exists and field
visits have occurred, however, which suggest
modifications of these corridors that might make their
use possible.
Corridors 3, 4, and 6 were also identified as probably
not warranting further consideration. Corridors 3 and
4 were so designated because of the CJ Corridor
Segment. This segment, however, is currently under
consideration for development. Segment CJ intrudes
upon an existing recreation area at High Lake and
contravenes existing viewsheds of the Alaska Range.
Corridor segment CJ could be moved such that it avoids
land use conflict. By exiting the dam at Devil Canyon
to the northwest and then turning to the northeast to
parallel the Portage Creek drainage, the route can
avoid High Lake. Once northwest of High Lake,it can
then turn more easterly, crossing the Devil Creek
drainage and rejoining segment JA near Swimming Bear
Lake. This proposed routing avoids constraint features
identified in the vicinity of High Lake.
Corridor 6 intrudes on valuable wildlife habitat and
would cross numerous creeks, none of which are
currently crossed by existing access roads. In
addition, a high mountain pass and its associated
59
shallow soils, steep slopes, and surface bedrock
constrain this routing.
Corridor 1 (ABCO) as shown on Figure 21 was identified
as warranting further consideration. Constraints to
this routing do exist (if it were visible from Stephan
and Fog lakes), however, and would need to be further
evaluated before modifications to this corridor could
be suggested.
Corridors 13 and 14 were also determined to merit
·further consideration, primarily because they
incorporate segments from feasible corridors. With the
presence of developed residential and recreation areas
at Otter Lake, Corridor 13 would require special
attention in segment CF, or it would be eliminated.
Corridor 14 will face constraints in the vicinity of
segment CJA and, thus, is not recommended from an
environmental standpoint. With modifications to this
segment as sugyested, Corridor 14 may improve in its
environmental rating.
(iii) Northern Study Area
Corridor Segment ED, part of Corridor 3, was determined
not to warrant further consideration because of many
constraints. They include the lack of an existing
access road; problems in dealing with tower erection in
shallow bedrock zones; the need for extensive wetland
crossings and forest clearing; the 75 river or creek
crossings involved; and the fact that prime habitat for
waterfowl, caribou, sheep, golden eagle, and brown bear
would be crossed as well as would the active nest site
and habitat of a pair of peregrine falcons. No attempt
to modify this route was made since an alternative
corridor seemed more ~iable to further evaluation.
60
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Corridors 1 and 4 CABDC AND AEF, respectively) were
identified as probably not warranting further
consideration. Certain constraints noted for these two
corridors suggest that an alternative to both is
preferable. Compared with Corridor 1, Corridor 2
crosses additional wetlands and requires the
development of more access roads and the clearing of
additional forest lands. The same is true of Corridor
4. Moreover, Corridor 4 crosses high elevation
mountain passes and surface bedrock zones. Both cross
through or near prime or important habitat for a number
of sensitive big game species, raptors, and waterfowl.
Finally, corridors 1 and 4 also cross through lands
currently being used as an active Air Force bombing
range.
Corridor ABC was identified as warranting further
consideration, the only such designated corridor in the
northern study area. While many constraints were
identified under the various categories, it appears
possible to modify this route to minimize constraint
influences.
Figures 20-22 show corridors that survived the initial
TES screening process. Following review of the
environmental and engineering analyses; Acres selected
one transmission corridor for each of the three study
areas. These corridors, and the land use consideration
of the routing analysis performed for them, are
presented in Section 5.2(d).
4.3 -Borrow Areas
Figure 23 shows the location of borrow areas for construction of the
dams and access road. Borrow areas in general, create both unnatural
forms and line and color contrast and are, therefore, seen as
visually disruptive in a natural setting. Aesthetic impacts are
61
caused by denuding expansive areas of vegetation, changing the
natural topography, perhaps creating erosion, and adding spur
access roads, all of which contrast visually with the
surrounding landscape. The evidence of borrow area excavation
will remain visible for many years. To reduce some of the
long-term effects of this excavation, the borrow areas will be
recontoured to resemble natural topography, and the sites will
be revegetated.
(a) Borrow Areas for Dams
The size of each of the proposed borrow areas is: A=333 ha
(823 a); 8=50 ha (124 a); 0=287 ha (709 a); E=180 ha (445 a);
F=280 ha (692 a); H=489 ha (1208 a); !=34 ha (84 a); and K=148
ha (366 a). Total land required will involve 1,801 ha (4,451 a).
Areas G, J, and L are within the confines of the inundation
zones. Area C is no longer being considered.
Of these sites, the highest impact on the area 1 s aesthetic
resources will perhaps be caused by Borrow Area D, since it is
located in low-absorption vegetation and is highly visible
from both the reservoir and a portion of the access road. A
reserve area, Quarry A, is located in a scenic region and will
involve the excavation of a tundra knoll. Areas E and F will
alter the appearance of the area along Tsusena Creek, and
although Tsusena Falls is not within either of these borrow
sites, it is likely that the setting of this exceptional
natural feature (Table 13, Figure 7) will be disturbed.
Borrow Area K has the potential for infringing on the series
of falls on Cheechako Creek; a recreational facility has been
proposed in this vicinity. Area E in the upper Devil Canyon
reservoir will extend above the full-pool elevation, with the
result that some surface scarring ~nd modification of
topography will occur. Borrow Area I will be developed to
15 m (49 ft) above the existing river elevation, to a maximum
elevation of 471 m (1550 ft). Therefore, lower portions of
the site will be inundated by the Devil Canyon impoundment,
62
-
~'
-
-
-
but at the upper end, it will remain exposed. This area will
be particularly visible if a proposed recreational facility is
built at Tsusena Creek for boating access to the Devil Canyon
reservoir. As with all the other sites, recontouring to
resemble natural topography will help reduce the permanent
impacts. In some cases, borrow areas will be used as disposal
areas for waste material from dam construction, perhaps
restoring the original topography.
(b) Borrow Areas for Access Road
Figure 26 shows the locations of the borrow areas (1 through
8) proposed for the access route. Borrow areas for the access
road involve a total area of 167 ha (413 a). The highest
degree of impact will occur in Area 1. Located in a scenic
setting adjacent to the Indian and Susitna rivers; Area 1 will
be visible from the road and the river, from the Susitna
bridge crossing, and from other key viewpoints. Development
of this site will be of particular concern to future
residents, who are expected to settle ·in this vicinity as a
result of state land disposal.
Area 7 is on the northern edge of Mermaid Lake, a scenic area,
and is set in low-absorption shrub vegetation along the access
route. Area 2, which is also set in low-absorption shrub
vegetation along the access route and visible from key
viewpoints, may adversely affect a waterfall. Area 8 is
located in a tundra region and includes a good view of the
surrounding landscape. The general discussion of the types of
impact caused by excavation of borrow areas, as given in
Section 4.3(a), also applies to borrow sites for road
construction.
63
5 -LAND USES WITH THE PROJECT
In accordance with its development selection process, Acres has
recommended a plan for the development of hydropower in the Susitna
basin. This section describes the major project components as
proposed by Acres and discusses anticipated changes in land uses and
their associated impacts. The first subsection provides a brief
outline of the project; it is followed by the description of likely
effects on land use.
5.1 -Project Facilities
Figure 23 shows· the locations of proposed project facilities in the
upper Susitna basin. Locations of the dams, impoundments, the access
road, construction camps and villages, borrow areas, and related
facilities are indicated. Brief descriptions of the major facilities
are presented below; details may be found in Volume 1 of the
Feasibility Report (APA 1982).
(a) Watana Dam and Impoundment
The Watana dam will be a 270-meter (885 ft)-high, gravel-
filled structure, with a crest length of 1,250 m (4,100 ft).
The dam will be located at Susitna River kilometer 266 (mile
165), approximately three kilometers (two miles) upstream from
the mouth of Tsusena Creek. It will impound approximately 80
km (48 mi) of river to 666 m (2,185 ft) elevation and inundate
about 16,000 ha (38,000 a).
(b) Devil Canyon Dam and Impoundment
Devil Canyon dam will be a 197-meter (645 ft), concrete, thin-
arch dam and a rock-filled saddle dam constructed at river
kilometer 216 (mile 134) in Devil Canyon. Its crest length
will be 754 m (2,475 ft). The dam will impound 42 km (26 mi)
of river to 444 m (1,455 ft) elevation. Approximately
3,157 ha (7,800 a) of land will be inundated.
64
-
-
~I
-
-
-
-
"''""\
''
'
-
""~"-'
i
I
i
I
The underground power plant will have an installed capacity of
600 megawatts. The emergency spillway for the dam on the
south side of the river is designed to pass 222,000 cfs of
water. A tailrace tunnel will extend more than two kilometers
(1.3 mi) downstream on the north side of the river.
(c) Access
Construction of a permanent access road will be facilitated by
a pioneer road to be constructed from Gold Creek to the Watana
site. For about 70% of the distance (discontinuous) between
Gold C~eek and Devil Canyon, this pioneer road will follow an
existing bulldozer trail (used in earlier studies by the Corps
of Engineers). Spurs will be built from the pioneer road to
certain points on the permanent access route. A temporary
low-level bridge will cross the river, with a series of
switchbacks down into the canyon just above the dam site.
Between the two dam sites, the pioneer road will mostly follow
the route of the permanent access road.
Full access for construction and operation of the dams and
access to proposed project recreation facilities will be by
way of a gravel road from the Parks Highway. There will also
be a railroad yard in the vicinity of Gold Creek, with a short
road connection to the main ac:cess road. The main access road
will connect with the highway near Hurricane and will roughly
parallel the alignment of the. Alaska Railroad through Chulitna
Pass south to the confluence of the Indian and Susitna rivers
north of Gold Creek. The road will then parallel the Susitna
River on the south side to Devil Canyon. Initially, a bridge
will be constructed at this point over the canyon; after
construction, the Devil Canyon dam will serve as a bridge.
The road will extend ;.ortheasterly through the alp·ine lakes
area north of Devil Canyon and will parallel the upper Devil
Creek drainage. From this point, the road will. follow a
generally easterly direction to the Watana dam site.
65
1he total length of the access road from Hurricane to the
Watana site will be 110 km (68 mi), aligned within a 60-m
(220-ft) corridor. The roadway will be ten meters (34ft)
wide, with two-meter (five-foot) shoulders on either side.
Several pull-outs will be constructed along the access road to
permit viewing of natural areas and some of the project
facilities. In addition, access to recreation sites from the
road will be provided as indicated in the plan for
recreation.
(d) Transmission Facilities
Maps of the proposed transmission routes recommended by Acres
are included in Appendix A. From Watana to Devil Canyon
within the 0.8 km (0.5 mi)-wide route, a 122-m (400 ft)-wide
transmission right-of-way will mostly parallel the access
road. Two single-circuit 345,000-volt {345 kV) lines will be
constructed. From Devil Canyon to the intertie near Gold
Creek, a total of five single-circuit, 345 kV lines will
require a right-of-way about 213 m (700 ft) wide.
These lines (two to the north, three to the south) will
parallel the intertie to Healy and Willow. From Healy to
Fairbanks and from Willow to Anchorage, the right-of-way will
be approximately 122 m (400 ft) wide. Most of the towers are
expected to be X-shaped structures approximately 30 m (100 ft)
tall. In some places, such as near the Municipality of
Anchorage, double-circuit construction may be used, thus
requiring taller towers. Double circuit towers, while
approximately 15 m (50ft) taller than single circuit towers,
allow a·narrower right-of-way.
66
....
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(e) Construction Camps and Villages
Construction camps (single worker housing), villages (family
housing), and associated facilities will be located within the
immediate project area: there will be one camp and vi 11 age at
each dam site. Construction of Watana dam is scheduled to
begin in 1985, nine years before the dam at Devil Canyon.
Plans call for the building of a construction camp and village
first at Watana. When construction phases down at the Watana
site, the camp will be relocated to the Devil Canyon dam site.
Part of the village at Watana will remain as a permanent town
to provide housing and other community facilities for workers
who will operate the dams. No such permanent village is
currently planned for the Devil Canyon site.
The proposed camp and village at the Watana site will be
constructed northeast of the dam site between Deadman and
Tsusena creeks on what is now BLM land. Approximately one to
two kilometers (one mile) will separate the construction camp
from the village. Work on the village will begin about one
year after construction of the camp has begun. Structures at
the camp will be of factory-built, modular design to facili-
tate their relocation to Devil Canyon. Permanent buildings
are planned for the village facilities at Watana, since the
village community will remain after the dams are built.
Facilities at the village will include family housing (to
accommodate 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 construction
camp include modules for housing (dormitories) for about 3,000
workers, camp offices, food services, warehousing, fire and
security protectfon, banking and postal services, hospital
67
care, recreation, communications, and power generation.
Camp and village utilities will include a potable water supply
system, sewage system, power supply and distribution 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 (where a small impoundment
will be created) and groundwater wells. The treatment plant,
also of modular design, will fulfill primary and secondary
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements. Treated
water will be stored in three-tanks, two at the camp and one
at the village. Sludge, a by-product of the treatment plant,
and solid waste from the two sites will be properly treated
and disposed of in a landfill.
Permanent facilities required for project operation at Watana
include a permanent town or small community of approximately
130 staff members and their families. The town is planned at
the site of the construction village.
The· facilities at the construction camp and village to be
built at Devil Canyon will differ only slightly from those at
Watana, though fewer workers will need to be accommodated. Up
to 1900 people will be housed during the peak construction
period at Devil Canyon. The camp will be situated south of
Portage Creek and just west of Devil Canyon on the south side
of the Susitna River. The village will be temporary, unlike
the one at Watana, and will be just west of the camp.
Additiona 1 details .on the construction camps and villages may
be found in Appendix B of this report and in Volume 5 of the
Feasibility Report (APA 1982).
68
-
-'
-·
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(f) Recreation Facilities
Presently, there are no publicly developed recreation
facilities within the vicinity of the project. Three
privately-owned lodges exist at Stephan, High and Tsusena
lakes. Recreational facilities to be provided in the project
area as part of the overall hydroelectric development plan
will reflect both the recreation potential which exists in the
area and public input from the recreation surveys conducted as
part of the recreation study. The primary emphasis will be on
day-use with overnight facilities provided near the two dam
sites and road-oriented recreation at the alpine lakes in the
area.
Figure 27 and Table 20 indicate recreational facilities
proposed for development within three years of commencement of
project operation. The greatest concentration of use will be
near the Devil Canyon and Watana dam sites where there will be
access to the reservoirs. Recreation facilities to be
provided in the first three years include developed auto
campgrounds, designed to accommodate various types of vehicle
users and allowing for future expansion; boat-in campgrounds;
picnic grounds; boat launches, and parking areas. Emphasis
will be on rustic facilities with a minimum level of services
and a maximum of natural aesthetic features.
After the first three years of project operation, long-term
development will focus on the .expansion of the campgrounds at
Cheechako Canyon and Tsusena Creek and on the additions of two
boat-in campgrounds along the Watana reservoir and a boat-in
picnic area at Devil Canyon reservoir (Figure 28). Boaters
coming down the Susitna River from the Denali Highway and down
the Tyone River from Lake Louise and Lake Susitna will be
accommodated at a proposed camping area near the confluence of
the two rivers. Delay in the development of these boat-in
facilities is necessary until the shoreline effects are
69
evaluated. A detailed discussion of both short-and long-term
proposed recreation facilities is found in Volume II of the
Feasibility Report (Acres 1982) and in the TES report on the
Recreation Plan (Subtask 7.08, APA 1982).
5.2 -Induced Land Use Changes
Constru~tion and operation of the dams and related facilities will
cause impacts on area resources. Prior to determining the extent of
alteration or disruption which 1 and use patterns will experience,
land uses were assessed in terms either of man's use of the landscape
for particular purposes {many of which tend to be site-specific) or
of man's dedication of a given geographical area to preserve some
specified values. In some cases, these values and their protection
are identified in agency management programs that apply to the area.
Based on available information and agency interviews, however, it has
been determined that no comprehensive management plans exist at
present. The AJaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has
developed species-specific objectives for the region, but it has no
land management authority. Other agencies have only preliminarily
addressed land management concerns (see Section 3.3). The generation
of hydroelectric powe-r will become the predominant land use in the
area, and the presence of the project will be an important factor
when agencies eventually develop comprehensive land management plans
for the surrounding areas.
With increased access, certain land use activities are expected to
become more intense than at present. In terms of displacement of
existing land uses, by both the project itself and the induced land
uses, the primary effects will be changes in the manner in which
individuals (rather than land management agencies) are presently
using the area.
70
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Figures 24 and 25 show points and areas in the vicinity of the
project which will experience changes in land use and activity
patterns. Project facilities will create immediate, direct impacts
on the landscape, as shown on Figure 23; some of these impacts will
be temporary, such as those of the construction camps and
construction activity itself. Other aspects of the project will
create or facilitate permanent and often subtle changes in the type,
nature, and intensity of use and activity patterns. Chief among
these aspects is the provision for automobile access to an area
currently lacking such access [Section (c) below].
(a) Dams and Impoundments
(i) Land Use Developments
The emplacement of the dams and impoundments will cause
the direct loss of ten structures (six by Watana, four
by Devil Canyon). These structures and their uses are
described in Table 5 .. Only three of the ten are
actively maintained, being used on a seasonal basis;
two others are used sporadically. The remaining five
are currently unused or unusable. The primary uses of
the structures to be affected are hunting, fishing,
boating, and trapping as well as hydroelectric
feasibility studies.
(ii) General Activity Patterns
The impoundments will displace relatively low levels of
riverine boating and rafting patterns of use between
the upstream end of Watana reservoir and Devil Canyon.
Kayaking (in which one must employ considerable
technical expertise to negotiate the turbulence in Vee
Canyon and world-class whitewater of Devil Canyon) will
be eliminated. In place of these activities, there
will be reservoir boating. As discussed in the
following section, some rafting and kayaking downstream
of Devil Canyon may continue.
71
Hunting activity will increase, and current patterns
will change as a result of the impoundments. The
reservoirs and access to them [see also Section 5.2(c)J
will facilitate floatplane landing and boat travel and,
thus, permit easier penetration by big game hunters
into areas now rarely visited. As shown in Figures 24
and 25, an increase in moose hunting will likely occur
immediately adjacent to the proposed impoundments.
Increased hunting for caribou (to the extent that the
permit system allows) will likely occur a relatively
short distance back from the impoundments.
There is likely to be increased fishing for resident
species, primarily grayling, in tributaries in the
vicinity of the impoundments, as shown in Figures 24
and 25. A limited reservoir fishery may also develop.
Because of the prox·imity of the Devi 1 Canyon facility,
salmon fishing in Portage Creek could increase. If
necessary, further regulations can be implemented to
prevent overfishing in this area.
At present, some trapping takes place in the upper
basin. The reservoirs will cause disruption of present
trapping patterns.
(iii) Land Stewardship
With the exception of a few scattered parcels, most
lands in the vicinity of the dams and impoundments are
presently under federal control. Most lands are likely
to be transferred to CIRI and associated Native village
groups, however, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. Much of
the land required for the project has been se.ected
under ANCSA. A decision by the State to proceed with
the Susitna project would entail transfer of ownership
of substantial land areas to the State. The process
72
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4"'
I
for such transfer has not yet been established but
could entail outright purchase and/or an exchange of
other State selections with Native groups.
(iv) Natural Aesthetics
The overall effect of the project will be the
modification of existing scenic values. The two
proposed dams and their associated facilities will
contrast vividly with the natural landscape in
material, color, and mass; as a result, the structures
will tend to be visually isolated from the surrounding
environment. Although the proposed dams will introduce
a significant non-natural feature into the landscape,
they will also attract visitors interested in viewing
them. Because of their size (Watana will be one of the
highest dams in North America) and the engineering
accomplishment that they will represent, the dams will
be impressive structures.
The primary effects on aesthetic resources resulting
from inundation by the reservoirs will be the loss of
the variety and natural character of the V-shaped
valley floor, rock cliffs and outcroppings, river and
rapi~s, and confluences with tributaries. These
natural features will be replaced by large lakes with
drawdown zones. The created shorelines, in most areas,
will lack the characteristic qualities of natural
shorelines. Because of their sizes, the reservoirs
will be prominent features of the landscape. While
these new lakes may visually enhance the landscape by
juxtaposing lan~ and water, this advantage may be
limi~ed by bank slumping, the appearance of the exposed
drawdown zone, and the possible turbidity of the
water.
73
(b) Downstream Effects of Dam Operations .
A number of impact issues have been raised concerning the
potential effects of project flows on downstrea~ navigation.
These concerns include the following: (1) whether present
access for fishing, hunting, and other purposes via the
Susitna and its tributaries may be affected by reduced summer
flows in certain channels; (2) whether a reduction in flow
could alter the stream bed morphology of the various
tributaries; and (3) whether access to land disposal areas
now accomplished by boat and floatplane will be
affected by reduced summer flows. In addition, concern has
been expressed about the loss of kayaking and rafting
opportunities and also about potential impacts on winter use
of the river.
Future navigational use is likely to increase along the
Susitna River and other water courses in the Railbelt as the
population in the region increases. Development and
settlement of state land disposal areas below Devil Canyon
will also change present navigational use. Therefore, the
change in summer flow in the Talkeetna to Devil Canyon reach
is a particular concern, although railroad access will
continue and road access will be created by the project access
road.
Review of limited aerial photographs, river cross-section
data, and simulated water surface profiles in the reach
between Devil Canyon and Talkeetna indicates that proposed
project stream flows are likely to cause periodic navigation
problems during the months of August and September. If
project flows were increased in August and September, few
areas would experience navigation problems.
One area of concern.is the reach one to five kilometers (one
to three miles) below Sherman, where the main channel crosses
74
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
.....
-
"''"" I
I
the floodplain. The water depth at 6500 cfs is approx1mately
0.75 m (2.5 ft) at the cross section here, indicating the
channel is navigable. Examination of nearby areas (for which
cross-sectional data are unavailable) indicates, however, that
they may not be navigable. With the proposed flows,
navigation problems may be encountered in this reach in August
in about one year out of three and in September in about one
year out of two. If water is stored in the spring to augment
flows in August and September, navigation problems may be
encountered in this reach during June in about one year out of
ten.
Cross-sectional data were gathered for the main channel below
Ta-lkeetna in sloughs and side channels· used for river access
near Kashwitna Landing and Willow Creek and at the upper
access channel to Alexander Slough. While stage-discharge
data at these sites are very limited, initial analysis
indicates that operation of the dam will have no significant
negative impacts on navigation on the main channel below
Talkeetna or on access at Kashwitna Landing. Access channels
near Willow Creek should be navigable at the proposed flows.
Minor navigation problems could occur in this area during May
if water is stored to augment flows in August and September •
Data are insufficient 'to define completely the flow required
at Susitna Station in order to maintain upstream access to the
Alexander Slough area, but the decrease in stage will be less
than .3m (1 ft) for the proposed flows.
Even if rafting and kayaking downstream of Devil Canyon are
still possible with project flows, the river will not be as
appealing as it is at present because the flows will be
controlled. The limited daily peaking operations proposed for
the Devil Canyon facility may present some boating hazards
immediately below this facility. Because these hazards will
be unlike the natural hazards posed by a wild river, this
vicinity may be unsuitable for river floating.
75
Ice studies have predicted that during project operation the
Susitna River below Devil Canyon dam will have open water in
winter at least as far downstream as Talkeetna. This open
water will preclude the present use of snowmobiles and
dogsleds for transportation on this portion of the river.
Additional information and analysis is present in the TES
report on Navigational Use (Acres 1982).
(c) Access
As indicated previously, increased access is a critical factor
with respect to land uses. Road access will cause both the
disruption of present land use and the inducement of future
land uses. The most significant aspect of the access road
relates not so much to various impacts associated with the
road~~ but rather to the concept of access itself, in any
form, to the interior of the Susitna basin. The provision of
a means by which the general public can easily and frequently
venture inland to an area which is essentially wilderness will
likely cause profound alterations in the character of the
Susitna area.
Access, because it will facilitate the influx 6f people and
activity into the basin, will affect the following: small
population concentrations and isolated residences; peripheral
commercial and transportation systems; resource utilization
and level of recreational activity; visual and aesthetic
factors; and the overall character of the area. These effects
will have ramifications for management: the need for it and
its extent and adequacy (for example, fish and game
management, land management, etc.). Access will influence
changes in land values and development and may expedite
exploitation of the area's mineral resources.
76
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
(i) Land Use Developments
( ii)
Road access to the dam sites from the Parks Highway
will likely create increased traffic and related
activity along the Parks Highway and in adjacent
communities. Residential and commercial use and the
values of land made more accessible by the new road
will probably be affected; there is likely to be
increased demand for these parcels (because of an
increased population and markets for commercial
services), and improved access will make them more
attractive to prospective buyers. The proposed route
through Chulitna Pass and along Indian River will
provide road access to state land disposal· sites on
Indian River.
General Activity Patterns
There will likely be increased hunting for moose and
bear along the access corridor. The zone around the
access road subject to increased hunting will be much
larger if off-road vehicles are permitted. In addition
to the impacts of increased hunting activity in a
larger area as a result of both the road and the
impoundments, there will be disruption or displacement
of the persons who currently hunt in the upper basin.
Those who presently hunt in the area will either have
to adjust to larger numbers of hunters or will have to
hunt in other areas. Fishing will also increase (for
example, for salmon in Indian River) with potential
effects on both the resource and those 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
77
fishing and hunting around the lakes nearer to Devil
Canyon. Some recently established trapping territories
around the High Lake area would also be altered. In
addition to increased hunting and fishing, this area
will also receive increased recreational use for
hiking, backpacking, sightseeing, and other activities.
Figures 24 and 25 indicates locations of future
activity patterns likely to be caused.by the provision
of access.
(iii) Land Stewardship
The provision of access will likely result in a need
for increased management and use controls in the upper
Susitna basin. Even after titles or legal rights-of-
way are obtained for construction and operation of
facilities, public access could result in unacceptable
levels of use of private lands outside, but immediately
adjacent to, project lands.
Furthermore, as the discussion above indicates, an
increase in hunting, fishing, and general use of the
area is likely. These activities will pressure current
levels of fish and game and result in more potentially
surface--disturbing activities.
These factors will affect decisions regarding resource
management of fish and game and public use of the area.
It is likely that specific controls will need to be
instituted to protect resource values. These could
include establishing levels for hunting and fishing
activities, ORV management, and other general land
managemer ;..
78
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
. -
-
-
-
-
( i v) Natural Aesthetics
Access into the present roadless project area
represents a major influence on the area's aesthetic
resources. The construction of a road is a long-term
linear alteration of the landscape, sharply contrasting
with the natural background and interrupting the
unified sweep of the surroundings. A road will also
allow public access into a remote region - a change
which has potential consequences for the existing
resources but also affords many people the opportunity
to view these aesthetic resources.
The strong horizontal line created by right-of-way
clearing and by the road itself will appear incongruous
with the natural setting of the Susitna basin •
Long-lasting visual effects will result, even with
revegetation of the right-of-way and road construction
borrow areas not within the right-of-way. While views
from the road will be, for the most part, attractive,
with expansive views from the road segment between the
two dam sites, in most areas, the transmission line on
one side of the road will detract from the scene.
The road could be perceived as a positive impact on
aesthetic resources because it will allow more persons
to experience the aesthetic resources of the area. The
exceptional and important natural features that will
become more accessible because of the proposed access
route are: Tsusena Falls and Devil Creek Falls,
Swimming Bear Lake, Tsusena Butte and Lake, Chulitna
Butte, Cheechako Falls and Devils Club Falls (Tables 13
and 14, Figure 7).
79
Imposing increased activity on a nearly pristine
landscape will drastically reduce the peace and
solitude of the area; the reduction of both scenic
quality and the potential for wilderness experience
will cause some previous users to seek these amenities
e 1 sewhere. In addition, the roads and borrow areas
seen from the river and reservoir will alter users•
visual experience.
Where the topography is suitable for their use,
off-road vehicles (ORV), if permitted, would disturb
the terrain. Because of its topographical make-up and
fragile vegetative cover, the area traversed by the
access route between the two dam sites is extremely
suseptible both to ORV use and to consequent damage.
ORV use on lands·of tundra and shrub cover types would
lead to long-term vegetative and visual damage,
degrading the original character of the land.
Documented ORV use off the Denali Highway has led to
severe soil disturbances, left areas denuded of
vegetation, and formed gullies 6 to 8 m (20 to 26 ft)
wide and up to three meters (ten feet) deep (Sparrow et
al. 1978). If ORV use is restricted, especially in
the area between the dam sites, such degradation of the
landscape can be avoided.
Additional impacts on the aesthetic resources of the
project area break down into three main categories and
are discussed using the six access route segments, as
shown in Figure 26. The main aesthetic impact
categories are: viewing opportunities and features
made accessible, disruption to current residents, and
disruption to land users of the arei.
80
-
-
~-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Viewing opportunities include those views along the
proposed access route that will become more accessible
to the road-oriented traveler. Segment A will allow
road travelers restricted views of Indian River, a
heavy forest cover, numerous wetland regions, and views
of the lower portion of the upper Susitna River and its
valley. Segment A will pass near Chulitna Butte, an
important natural feature. Segment B, following a
ridgeline, will open up occasional views to the south
of tundra regions and the Central Talkeetna Mountains;
views to the north will focus on the Susitna River
valley and background views of the Chulitna Mountains.
The viewing opportunities along Segment B will be
restricted at times by a heavy forest cover, especially
those views to the north. Foot access will reveal an
important natural feature, Devils Club Falls (Figure
7).
Views along access route Segment C include a heavy
forest cover, the Susitna River below the Devil Canyon
dam, and the proposed Devil Canyon dam, reservoir,
associated facilities and recreational developments. A
proposed trail up Cheechako Creek [see Phase I Final
Report -Subtask 7.08, Recreational Planning (APA 1982)]
wi 11 a 11 ow vis ito.rs the opportunity to view the 'series
of waterfalls on Cheechako Creek; the falls are
considered imRortant natural features of the project
area. Segment D traverses an area where high lakes are
numerous and the vegetation is varied, ranging from
forest to tundra. A proposed trail [see Phase I Final
Report -Subtask 7.08, Recreation Planning (APA 1982)]
to an exceptional natural feature is routed down Devil
Creek to the Devil Creek Falls. Viewing opportunities
along D are diverse, numerous, and accessible both on
and off the road.
81
Access route Segment E will be constructed through
predominantly tundra and shrub vegetation. Segment E
lends itself to extensive viewing opportunities of the
project area and distant mountains. The proposed
access route will pass by Swimming Bear Lake, an alpine
lake surrounded by tundra, and an important natural
feature. A unique natural feature, Tsusena Falls, will
be accessible by foot for viewing; Tsusena Falls is the
dominant feature in a very scenic setting (Table 13),
Figure 7). Segment F of the access route will allow
views of the proposed Watana dam, reservoir, and
associated facilities set in a shrubland and woodland
spruce region.
Impacts on aesthetic values and views, including
amenity values such as solitude, will be felt by the
area's current residents who are in proximity to the
proposed access route. The proposed access route will
have a relatively big impact on Segments A and D.
Current residents along Segment A are grouped in the
vicinity of the Alaska Railroad and in the Indian River
remote parcel disposal area. Current residents along
Segment 0 are found at High Lake Lodge and cabins
located on nearby lakes. Seasonal cabin users will
likely notice changes in the aesthetic character of the
area resulting from increased access.
Topographical conditions occurring along Segments 0 and
E may induce ORV use, degrading the previous roadless
experience of current users. The primary users
affected along Segment A will include fishermen,
trappers, miners, and travelers using the Alaska
Railroad and existing project area sled road. Users
disrupted along Segment D will include lodge and cabin
visitors and fishermen. All of the access route
segments will affect, to some degree, the very
82
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(d)
dispersed recreation currently enjoyed by hunters,
fishermen, winter enthusiasts, and back country
hikers.
Transmission Facilities
Analysis of proposed transmission facilities for the Susitna
project involved assessment of three study areas: 1) the
southern study area, covering Willow to Anchorage; 2) the
central study area, containing transmission lines from the
power plants at the dams to the intertie; and 3) the northern
study area, containing that portion of the line between Healy
and Fairbanks. Following review of the environmental
screening and assessment of optional transmission corridors
(described in Section 4.2) and Acres• engineering analysis,
Acres selected a final corridor for each of the three study
areas. The corridors recommended by Acres are shown on the
maps in Appendix A. The corridors for the areas are
essentially: (1) for the southern area, segments ADC; (2) for
the central area, segments DCA (after further consideration of
a corridor that encompassed both sides of the river); and (3)
for the northern area, segments ABC. The original segments
are as described in Section 4.2 and shown on Figures 17
through 19.
Following corridor selection, route analysis was performed for
each corridor for various land use features. The route
analysis involved mapping of the selected land use features
within the established five-to ten-kilometer wide (three-to
six-mile) corridor. In the central study area, the corridor
covered both sides of the river and, thus, was as wide as 23
km (14 mi) in some places. Land use features involved
developments and activities, land tenure, and natural
aesthetics. These features are shown on the maps in Appendix
A as man-made constraints. A discussion of the analysis of
corridors for the study areas is presented below.
83
(i) Effects Common to All Study Areas
The major impact of the transmission line will be the
creation of incongruous lines across the landscape,
where existing utility corridors are not present,
decreasing landscape unity and interfering with scenic
views by deflecting attention from natural scenes. The
noticeable contrast.between man-made structures and the
landscape•s natural elements is caused by irregular
patterns: the visibility of towers as a result of
their height above existing vegetation and their color
contrast with the surroundings; the reflection of the
conductors; sizeable clearings of vegetation;
unconcealed substations; and conspicuous access roads
and staging areas needed for construction and
maintenance purposes.
Negative impacts on aesthetic resources will occur
where the transmission line is viewed against the
horizon, is routed along a ridge, appears on level
terrain with unobstructed views, or crosses rivers and
gorges. An effort was made, however, to avoid such
areas, both in the initial corridor (five to ten
kilometers wide) selection phase and, again, at the
route (0.8 km wide) selection phase of tne study.
Construction activities cause both short-and long-term
impacts on aesthetic resources. The creation of new
access where none previously existed will add
significantly to the potential for visual disturbance
caused by the transmission line. Efforts were made to
parallel existing utility corridors and to utilize
existing access whenever appropriate.
84
-
-
-
-
-
~:
-
-
-
....
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
·-
-
( i i )
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 depending upon the timing and method
of right-of-way maintenance but can be minimized
through careful prescription of maintenance
techniques.
Southern Study Area
-Land Use Developments
The route crosses or parallels numerous trails,
including the Iditarod Trail, seismic survey clearings,
tractor and pioneering ORV trails, and several
recreational trails farther north near Willow.
Residential use occurs in Willow, Red Shirt Lake, and
on many of the small lakes mostly to the east of the
route. Scattered cabins in the vicinity of Willow are
close to the Alaska Railroad and Parks Highway. Red
Shirt Lake has approximately 25 cabins along its
shores; seven other lakes have several cabins along
thetr shores, and a few cabins are widely scattered
elsewhere. The proposed route will not_directly affect
these existing structures, although the lines and
towers may be visi~le 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 the Point MacKenzie
area, and agricultural clearings occur from a region
just northeast of Middle Lake to the Little Susitna
River south of Yohn Lake. While land within a
transmission right-of-way can still be cultivated, the
towers could displace small areas of existing and
85
potential future agricultural use or disrupt normal
patterns of agricultural development or cultivation.
Land use in the area of the existing Chugach Electric
Association, Inc. Point McKenzie-University Substation
line (which will be paralleled by project lines east of
Knik Arm to a new substation to be located south of
Muldoon Road) is predominantly military: most of the
route here lies within the Fort Richardson Military
Reservation. Impacts on these lands will be limited
primarily to those associated with the area's visual
quality.
-General Activity Patterns
The proposed route between Willow 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 and Willow
Creek as well as on many of the numerous small lakes.
Potential conflicts between the proposed lines and
private lands and boating us~ occur wherever the lines
and towers will be visible. Floatplane flight patterns
may be affected where the lines pass near lakes used
for landing and taking off.
Trails that receive substantial ORV use are located
near Willow, Red Shirt Lake, and Knik Arm. The
proposed route will likely not affect physical use of
trails, although visual conflicts may occur where the
lines and towers pass near various trails.
-Land Tenure
The study area encompasses land disposal areas and
private lands, most of which the proposed route
86
-
-
-
-
,..,.
"'"'
-
-
-
-
-
avoids. Access to these land holdings is via
floatplanes, ORVs, and snowmachines.
The corridor and portions of the western boundary of
the route include the northeast corner of the Susitna
Flats Game Refuge.
Future agricultural land sales are proposed in the
Department of Natural Resource 1 S draft land use plan
for the Willow sub-basin, along with programs for
protecting wildlife habitat and sportsmen 1 s access.
-Natural Aesthetics
The Willow-to-Knik Arm route will cause major visual
impacts near Willow. Here, the line will cross the
Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad and will be most
evident to travelers on these routes. The transmission
line route passing west and north of the community of
Willow could affect the visual setting of this
community because the line may also be apparent to
residents as well as to recreators on Willow Creek.
The route will likewise disturb the wilderness quality
of the region and will interfere with natural views,
most severely near the Iditarod Trail and the Susitna
Flats Game Refuge. Between a point southwest of Willow
and Knik Arm, the line will intrude upon the la~dscape,
although by following existing trails, new roads will
not be required along much of the transmission line
right-of-way. In addition, existing recreation areas
will be avoided. Because the route is removed from
travel corridors, the visibility of the line in this
area is low, except for the Little Susitna River
crossing, which will be relatively noticeable~ The
retention of vegetative screens along the river banks
could significantly reduce the degree of visual
87
intrusion at this location. Information on visual
quality for this study area is presented graphically on
the maps of Appendix A.
For that area east of Knik Arm to the proposed sub-
bstation south of Muldoon Roadt visual impacts will be
significant. Because of the presence of and
anticipated proximity to existing transmission
structures in this areat howevert impacts will be
incremental ra~her· than totally new. To help mitigate
these impactst tower and conductor materialst spacing,
and design could approximate closely that which is
already present.
(iii) Central Study Area
~ Land Use Developments
Between the Watana and Devil Canyon dam sites, there
will be significant conflicts between the proposed
route, like the access route which it parallels, and
the development at High Lake Lodge; the proposed route
will pass just northwest of High Lake and the
wilderness lodge and cabins located there. Several
other alpine lakes are also located in this area, and
the transmission line could potentially interfere with
floatplane landings. A right-of-way 122 m (400 ft)
wide will be required to accommodate transmission
facilities between the dams.
Although slightly more land area would be required,
locating the line well to the west of the proposed
route within the alternative route alignments
(identified on Figure 31 in Appendix A) would reduce
the conflict with existing uses at High Lake Lodge.
The alternative route would roughly parallel the
Portage Creek .drainage just below the ridge to the east
of the creek and pass well to the west and north of
High Lake. 88
-
-
-
-
-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
The segment of the proposed route from the Devil Canyon
facility to the intertie near Gold Creek will conflict
little with existing uses. The lines and towers,
however, will probably be visible from areas north of
the Susitna River in the Indian River remote parcel
disposal, Otter Lakes, and from some places on the
river.
-General Activity Patterns
The transmission route will affect some scattered
recreational activities in this area. Chief effects
will. be of an aesthetic nature (discussed below). In
addition, as mentioned, flying and floatplane landings
could be affected if the transmission line is located
within existing flight pattetns.
-Land Tenure
At present, most lands are under federal control.
Eventual transfer of title of Native-selected lands,
however, will require obtaining a right-of-way-or
purchasing property outright-to install the
transmission lines.
-Natural Aesthetics
The major impact of the upper basin transmission lines
will be degradation of the basin 1 s wilderness quality;
the line will disrupt otherwise unobstructed views and
will decrease the unity of the natural landscape. This
impact will be experienced most severely by users of
High Lake Lodge and its surrounding lands and waters.
The lines will be located within 1.6 km (1 mi) of High
Lake and, although in the background, will be
incongruous with the otherwise natural setting of the
89
lodge area. For this reason, an alternative route
been p~oposed, which would locate the lines beyond
viewshed of the lodge and its environs. Figure 31
Appendix A graphically presents both route locations.
has
the
in
Another impact will result from clearing vegetation
within a strip ~22 m (400 ft) wide between the two dams
(although tall-growing vegetation exists only on a
small portion of this segment) and within a second
strip 213m (700ft) wide_fro~ Devil Canyon dam to the
point of intersection with the Intertie near Gold
Creek. These impacts are depicted graphically on
Figures 25 through 36 in Appendix A. The line, where
visible near the access road and reservoirs, will
impair the viewer•s scenic experience. Background
views of the lines will exist from Otter Lake and from
the access road. Foreground and middle-ground views
will be evident particularly from High Lake (unless the
alternative route is selected) and again from points
along the atcess road.
(iv) Northern Study Area
-Land Use Developments
There are several moderate concentrations of land use
developments along or adjacent to the proposed route
between Healy and Fairbanks. Significant among these
are developments at Healy, Nenana, and Ester. In Healy
and Ester, existing land uses and the proposed
transmission route will be directly juxtaposed.
Impacts in this study area will include the acquisitiJn
of a 122-m (400-ft)-wide right-of-way and the
elimination of future land development within this
90
~i
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
strip. In addition, one dwelling located off the Parks
Highway approximately 6 km (4 mi) south of Browne may
have to be acquired. Many potential impacts, however,
were avoided during the select1on of the corridor and
route.
-General Activity Patterns
Much of the route in this area traverses undeveloped,
inaccessible lands. Effects will be primarily of an
aesthetic nature.
-Land Tenure
There are several large land disposal areas (on the
west side of the Parks Highway) through which the route
will pass. In traversing these disposal areas, the
lines will, for the most part, closely parallel an
existing transmission line.
-Natural Aesthetics
The Healy-to-Fairbanks route will cause aesthetic
impact at the three crossings of the Parks Highway, the
three river crossings, the two railroad crossings, and
two areas where the line is visible from and parallels
the highway or railroad. Careful placement of towers,
and whenever possible, retention of vegetative screens,
however, will greatly reduce the degree of impact.
Furthermore, by closely paralleling the existing
transmission facilities where appropriate, incremental
rather than totally new impacts will result.
Information on aesthetics appears on the maps in
Appendix A.
91
(e) Construction Camps and Villages
( i) Watana
-Land Use Developments
The construction camp and village will not have a direct
effect on existing land developments. Their installation
will result, however, in dedication of some 150 ha {370 a)
to community use during the construction phase.
Additional lands will be required for connecting roads, an
airstrip, and other facilities related to dam
construction. After construction has been completed and
the camp and temporary village have been removed, the
permanent town for housing operation and maintenance
personnel at Watana will occupy some 36 ha (90 a) in
addition to that required for roads and other facilities.
-General Activity Patterns
Among the project's effects upon activity patterns are
those impacts related to access; many of these have been
addressed earlier. The chief effects of the Watana camp
will be the associated construction activity during 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 during the construction period. Dispersed
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 r.n the basin wi 11 be minimized.
92
~I
-
-
~.
-
-
-
-
-i
-Land Tenure
Location for the camp and village (and permanent town
site) as presently proposed 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
camp or village.
-Natural Aesthetics
The construction camp and village sites will be
incongruous with the existing natural landscape, and the
concentrated, constant human use therein will disturb
the scene. Permanent and temporary human use will
introduce waste disposal sites, litter, and leisure
activities potentially damaging to the environment in an
area now relatively free of human imprint.
Large numbers of people (as shown in Appendix Table B)
will be using the construction camps and villages for
considerable amounts of time; as a result of this
pressure, the sites and their immediate vicinities will
undergo significant changes in character. Site
preparation will include clearing of vegetation, which
will create long-term alterations to the sites. Human
activity will create paths throughout the vicinity and,
as a result of anticipated heavy use, will affect nearby
streams and lakes. The aesthetic resources in the area
of the housing facilities will evidence visual
alteration long after the facilities are removed and the
property restored. The types of impacts associated with
the town site at Watana are similar to those of the
camps and villages but of lesser degree because of the
fewer people involved; on the other hand, these impacts
will be of longer term because of the town•s permanence.
93
--------------------
The camp and village sites at Watana will be quite
visible beGause of the relatively low absorption
capability of the shrub community and because the sites
are within the viewsheds of portions of the access road
and reservoir. On the other hand, the proximity of the
housing facilities to the dam construction site serves to
concentrate the impact into a limited area.
(ii) Devil Canyon
-Land Use Developments
The construction camp and village for Devil Canyon will
not have a direct effect on existing land use
developments. Some 34 ha (85 a) of presently undeveloped
land will be converted to community uses for the
construction period. Additional areas will be required
for connecting roads and related facilities. After
construction is complete in 2002, all camp and village
facilities are to be removed from the site.
-General Activity Patterns
As with the Watana camp, the chief effects of the Devil
Canyon camp will be the associated construction activity
during the eight-year construction period from 1994 to
2002. Extent of the impact of construction workers on
general activity patterns will depend on policies
established to control activities outside of camp.
Generally, however, any change in such patterns could be
expected to be lower than that for Watana because of the
smaller work force required for Devil Canyon.
-Land Tenure
The proposed locations for the Devil Canyon camp and
village are on lands that have been selected by CIRI.
94
-
'~
-
-
-
-
Prior to initiation of construction, a means of
acquisition of necessary land areas will have to be
established, either through outright purchase or by
obtaining a temporary right-of-way.
-Natural Aesthetics
Until their removal upon completion of construction, the
camp and village sites will create temporary conflicts
with the existing natural landscape. Human use will
temporarily disturb the scene, with the ·introduction of
waste, litter, and possible increased activity.
Because a forested area will be cleared, a long-term
aesthetic impact will result, even with site
restoration.
Creation of the Devil Canyon camp and village will
require the clearing of trees, giving rise to contrasts
of texture, color, and line between the facility and its
natural environment. Because of the higher absorption
capability of the surrounding spruce-hardwood forests,
however, and owing to other micro-relief factors, the
Devil Canyon facilities will likely be shielded from most
viewsheds. Also, no permanent town site is currently
planned for Devil Canyon. Thus, the impact on aesthetic
resources, while significant, will be lessened at the
Devil Canyon site.
The sites of any temporary camps for road and
transmission line construction crews are presently
unknown, so specific impacts cannot be discussed. If
such camps are located, built, and maintained in an
environmentally sensitive manner and if the sites are
later restored with the same concern, then the camps•
impact will be relatively short-term.
95
(f) Recreation Facilities
Recreational facilities will be developed in two stages, the
first, within three years of commencement of project
operation and the second, beginning three years after the
operation•s start. Additional information on the staging of
recreational development is included in the TES Subtask Report
on the Recreation Plan (APA 1982}. Figures 27 and 28 and
Table 20 indicate recreational facilities proposed for
development. Potential effects of these developments on land
use are discussed below.
(i) Land Use Development
The proposed recreational facilities will result in the
conversion of small amounts of what is now open space
to developed campgrounds, picnic areas, boat ramps,
trails, parking areas, trails, and related facilities.
Land area involved totals slightly more than 24 ha
( 60 a).
(ii) General Activity Patterns
The effect of development and use of recreational
facilities on land use activity patterns is largely
related to access [discussed in Section 5.2(c}].
The newly available access into the upper Susitna
basin that the project creates will result in new
patterns of recreational activity. These include
camping, hiking, boating, and driving for pleasure. In
addition, the combination of ready access, recreation
facilities (including boat launches), and the
reservoirs themselves, will facilitate hunting and
fishing in areas now accessible primarily by air.
Areas likely to experience increased hunting and
fishing activity are indicated on Figures 24 and 25.
96
~·
-
-
-
....
-
-
-
-
-
The level of future activity will depend upon the
extent to which the public avails itself of
recreational facilities and resources to be provided.
Such use will also depend on public policies which may
be established concerning fish and wildlife
management •
(iii) Land Tenure
( i v)
Recreation facilities proposed at Cheechako Creek (near
Devil Canyon) and at an unnamed tributary southwest of
Fog Creek are in areas that have been selected by CIRI
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
Facilities near Deadman Creek and on an unnamed
tributary west of Watana Creek are on lands that have
been selected by the State. The boat-in campground
proposed at the unnamed tributary between Watana and
Jay creeks is on federal land (where a state selection
has been suspended) that is in reserve for possible
future Native selections. As with other lands required
for the project, outright acquisition or an easement
will be necessary on non-state lands.
Natural Aesthetics
Recreational facilities are proposed to be of rustic,
natural design to blend with the natural environment.
Their development will, however, require some clearing
of ground cover. Effects of construction will result
in conversion from a natural state to a man-made
condition, which includes structures and facilities.
97
6 -MITIGATION OF AESTHETIC IMPACTS
In the event that a license application is filed for the Susitna
hydroelectric project, FERC requires that mitigation measures be
developed to reduce or eliminate impacts on aesthetic resources.
Neither the scope of work for the land use analysis (Subtask 7.07)
nor FERC regulations for Exhibit E require similar proposals for
other aspects of the land use analysis.. This section describes
proposed approaches to mitigate aesthetic impacts. Proposed methods
are discussed in relation to major project components and
facilities.
6.1 -Dams, Impoundments, and Associated Facilities
The effects created by the dams may be viewed as generally not
mitigable, although various techniques may be used to reduce and
de-emphasize impacts on aesthetics. The policy for these techniques
includes innovative, simple, and/or suitable architectural design;
proper color and texture; and minimized site disturbances to attempt
to blend the dam structures with the characteristic landscape.
Associated facilities can be made to blend with the characteristic
surroundings by way of innovative and suitable architectural design;
natural screening techniques such as plantings, grading, and terrain
alterations; placement in sites where vegetation could help to
conceal vi?ual impacts; and natural blending of color and texture.
Screening techniques need to be used whenever the only viable option
is to locate project facilities in the viewshed areas of the access
road and reservoirs. All non-util~zed or unnecessary developments
should be removed and the vacant sites returned to their original
conditions.
Overlooks at the dams need to be located where the conflict between
the structures and the adjacent landscape is at a minimum. Proper
viewing angles at the dam sites could enhance the sites' good points
and negate their bad points. A view of the spillways could be
included in ·the viewing opportunity. The Recreation Plan, Subtask
7.08, addresses potential locations for overlooks.
98
-
-
~·
-
-
-
-
-
-
.....
6.2 -Borrow Areas
One way to mitigate the impact of borrow areas on the aesthetic
character of the area is to use buffer strips or vegetative screening
of some type. If Borrow Area A is utilized, for example, the front
and adjacent side sections of the knoll could be left intact in order
to reduce the possibility of a view incorporating any scarred terrain
that remains after excavation. A reduction in visua.l impact from
Borrow Areas E and F is possible if a forest buffer strip is retained
on both sides and ends of the excavations. Such a design would
preclude disruption of the natural setting of Tsusena Falls. For
borrow areas located or extending above the high water line of the
reservoirs, such as Borrow Areas D and E, grading and revegetation
will be necessary to insure aesthetic quality.
Vegetative buffer screens could reduce the view from the reservoir of
Borrow Area H. Moreover, in creating Borrow Area H, if alterations
to the Fog Creek gorge are avoided, then the aesthetic character of
the gorge area can be maintained. In the case of Borrow Area I, if
it becomes necessary to excavate above high water line, then the
contrast created between the forested shoreline and bare slopes can
be reduced by revegetating the area, preferably to include native
shrubs. Subtask 7.12 provides additional details concerning
revegetation recommendations. Finally, a forest buffer screen could
be used between Borrow Area K and Cheechako Creek to limit the
extent to which it would be visible from Cheechako Creek and Falls.
In a manner similar to that used for construction borrow areas, the
view of the access route borrow areas from the river, remote parcels,
reservoirs, and access route itself would be limited if existing
vegetation is used to screen the areas. Such a design would be
effective in Areas 1 through 5, where the forest cover has a high
absorption capability. The views of Areas 7 and 8 could be scr2ened
by using local changes in relief, landscaping, and vegetation
screening techniques.
99
The aesthetic impact of borrow areas could also be either masked or
eliminated by planning a post-construction use for them. Areas D, F,
and K, for example, could be designed to coordinate with future use
and needs. Scenic and recreational pull-outs could be designed for
Borrow Areas F and K. Areas 0 and E could serve future recreational
needs by providing boat access, overlooks, or parking lots.
Proper utilization of Borrow Area 2, one of the access route borrow
areas, could preserve the view of the nearby waterfall. In addition,
the area could be used in the future as a scenic pull-out. Borrow
Area 7, with proper design consideration, could double as a lake-side
recreational site. It would need to be so excavated, however, as to
preserve the existing aesthetic quality perceived by current
visitors. Borrow Area 8 could also be utilized as a future day-use
and/or back country recreational pull-off.
6.3 -Access Route
Measures can be taken to eliminate or reduce a majority of the
impacts to the areas• aesthetic resources resulting from the access
route. The proposed access route needs to be designed and
constructed so as to be compatible with and to enhance the
surrounding environment. Techniques to achieve this objective
include: taking advantage of natural changes in topography and
vegetation, repeating the basic elements displayed in the
characteristic landsc?pe, planning scenic viewpoints, coordinating
future needs with construction needs, and utilizing sound land
management practices.
Impacts can be lessened if areas of unstable soil and wetlands are
avoided in the construction of the access road and if those areas
which are disturbed are restored and revegetated (Subtask 7.12-Plant
Ecology). Wher:ver possible, screening of roadside structures and
construction activities would help to reduce their visual impact. As
for the road itself, the use of colors and texture of construction
100
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
materials that blend naturally with the surroundings (chips, cinder,
pea gravel, etc.) would help to reduce the contrast between the road
and the surrounding landscape.
If the use of off-road vehicles originating from the access route
becomes a prob 1 em, measures wi 11 need to be taken to inhibit this
activity. Such measures would include: a buffer strip adjacent to
the access route designated for non-motorized use; natural conditions
employed as subtle but absolute deterrents to ORV use; and, if
necessary, designated and planned ORV trails in locations that will
neither conflict with other land uses nor damage the environment.
Similarly, spur roads to private holdings and mining claims will need
to be properly designed, located, and constructed.
Recreational use created by the access route will need to be directed
to those sites designed to support such use; these will receive
regular servicing and patrolling. Discouraging both overnight use
and heavy day use of some segments of the access route (particularly
segments D and E) would minimize damage to the tundra and high lake
region. Properly located and developed viewpoints, while revealing
the upper Susitna basin's most vivid and interesting features,
could avoid views of the access route, areas scarred by construction
activities, and housing sites. Rustic design of recreational
developments will help blend such areas in with the sites' natural
conditions. A natural buffer strip could also be provided between
the development and the viewshed of the road, reservoirs, and river.
For further recreational considerations refer to Subtask 7.08 -
Recreation Plan.
A fire protection and prevention plan must be formulated to decrease
the fire hazard associated with increased access. Impacts on
wildlife, leading to their dispersal from the area, can be minimized
by following the pertinent mitigation recommendations o~·Subtask 7.11
-Wildlife Ecology, and by conferring with Alaska Fish and Game
personnel.
101
To reduce aesthetic impacts from the proposed access route several
design and management techniques can be followed. The access route
should not cross slope contours but, rather, wherever possible,
should follow topographic and vegetative cover edges. Variety along
the roadside can be created by cutting irregular tree-edge lines;
retaining rock outcrops or large boulders (if not a safety hazard);
forming an undulating edge at the right-of-way clearing; and
retaining safe, special-interest trees and clumps of vegetation.
Additional scars along the roadside could be eliminated if staging
areas and parking lots used during road construction are planned,
whenever practical, so as to be useful in the future as scenic and
recreational pull-outs for the public. As yet however, the locations
of the staging areas and parking lots have not been determined.
Disturbed sites will need to be left in a natural and stable
condition. The process of restoring disturbed areas includes
replacing stockpiled topsoil; fertilizing; seeding or planting;
mulching; using slope stabilizers, removing all construction items
(oil drums, equipment, litter, etc.); and, if possible, having the
final site approved by a landscape specialist. Revegetation is
covered in Subtask 7.12 -Plant Ecology.
Areas of existing vegetation will need to be protected from
unnecessary blaz·ing, equipment, and blasting damage. Cutting timber
must be done in an environmentally acceptable manner by cutting close
to the ground and removing all debris.
6.4-Transmission Facilities
Efforts were made to select transmission line routes that would
minimize aesthetic impacts.· In some areas, however, impacts were
unavoidable; in other areas (such as betwren the dam sites},
minimizing visual impact was in conflict with other project
objectives.
102
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Proper alignment of the transmission line right-of-way within the
route could reduce line•s obtrusiveness in some areas. At a minimum,
partial concealment of the line can be accomplished by incorporating
local changes in topography and vegetation. The towers, wire, and
substations can be designed and constructed to blend with the
surrounding environment. Using simple towers, designed to rust
naturally, would help to reduce the visual contrast between the
towers and the surrounding landscape. Non-specular materials can
also be used for the conductors to reduce their reflectivity.
Additional impacts could be avoided if the number of clearings
necessary for the right-of-way are limited and if these clearings
blended with existing natural openings in the landscape. Vegetation
can be used to soften the line•s visual impact. Tapering vegetative
growth along the right-of-way and topping trees instead of clearing
them will reduce the contrast the cleared right-of-way will have with
existing vegetated areas.
To reduce the visual impact of the transmission line where it
traverses rivers, roads, railroads, and trails, the right-of-way
crossings should be at right angles to the features involved, with
the towers set as far back from and the line as high above the
thoroughfare as possible. Vegetation screens should be left at such
crossings. A buffer strip of vegetation or topography may also be
necessary to limit visual impact in areas where the transmission line
is adjacent to the Parks Highway, Alaska Railroad, the proposed
project access road, residential areas, and cabins and lodges in the
project area. In the upper basin near High Lake Lodge, rerouting the
presently proposed corridor to the west and north of High Lake, that
is, beyond the viewshed of the lodge area, would negate the
transmission line•s impact here. The proposed and alternative routes
are shown on Map 31 in Appendix A.
103
6.5 -Construction Camps and Villages
The camp and village sites could be at least partially screened from
the viewshed of the proposed access route and reservoirs and from the
Susitna River below Devil Canyon dam if appropriate screening
techniques are used and if tree clearing is inconspicuous. Efforts
to make clearing for the Devil Canyon camp and village look natural
could include cutting trees in a feathered and irregular manner so
tha these areas blend with the surrounding landscape. Additional
impacts from human use can be reduced if, for example, trails outside
the proposed camps are established rather than left random and if
specific areas are designated for leisure activity.
Impacts from facilities associated with housing, such as sewage
treatment lagoons and landfills~ can be reduced if they are located
as far away as possible from existing or proposed developments.
Consideration of proper water supply techniques for Tsusena Creek
could decrease the chances of interfering with the current flow over
Tsusena Falls as well as the viewing opportunities at the falls.
Monitoring the effluent discharged into Deadman Creek will also
mitigate both water quality and aesthetic impacts.
Finally, posting and enforcing construction camp rules will help make
project personnel aware of the potential for adverse environmental
impacts. Other measures may include the utilization of designated
pathways and restricting the use of private_vehicles in the project
area.
6.6 -Recreation Facilities
It is proposed that recreation facilities be designed to blend with
their natural setting. Measures include rustic construction, using
natural materials whenever possible. Additional details concerning
recreational facilities are described in the TES report on the
Recreation Plan (Subtask 7.08, APA 1982).
104
-
-
....
i
·-
-
-I
-
-
-
-
-
TABLE 1: THE INTERVIEW PROCESS -ORAL HISTORY
I. Introduction
A. Introduction of interviewer
B. Explanation of the project
C. What information is needed by interviewer
D. What interviewer will do with the information
E. Does the person think he can help
F. Ask for permission to record conversation -avoid use
of the word 11 i ntervi ew 11
II. Background of the informant
A. Relationships to and interests in project area
1. Length of time involved with project (area)
2. Seasons of year
3. Means of access
III. Knowledge of land uses in the area (use map)
A. How was project area used?
B. What resources were utilized; where?
C. Major changes that have taken place in the project area;
when? why?
IV. Whom el$e might we contact?
A. Name, address, and occupation
B. Relationship to the area
TABLE 2: ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW INFORMATION
Interviewee
Mike Fisher
Cliff Hudson
Minnie Swanda
Ed Wick
Dorothy Jones
Verna & Carrol Close
Roberta Sheldon
John Ire 1 and
Mrs. Ken Oldham
Mrs. Frenchy Lamoureux
Tom Mercer
Address
General Delivery
Talkeetna, AK 99676
( 907) 733-2356
Main Street
Talkeetna, AK 99676
( 90 7) 7 33-2321
General Delivery
Talkeetna, AK 99676
(907) 733-2461
Box 1550
Ta.fkeetna, AK 99676
Box 109
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Reason for Being Interviewed
Air-taxi pilot who has spent
many flight hours in the
upper Susitna River basin;
local Talkeetna resident.
Long-time Talkeetna resident;
40-year owner/pilot of Hudson's
Air Taxi operation.
Widow of master guide Frank
Swanda; 46-year Talkeetna
resident.
Local Talkeetna resident;
assists Mahay•s River Boat
Service
President Talkeetna Historical
Society; Representative-
elect of Mat-Su Borough
Assembly.
P .0. Box 1954/Palmer 27-year Ta-lkeetna Roadhouse
Apts. owners
Palmer, AK 99645
( 907) 7 45-2260
Main Street
Talkeetna, AK 99676
(907) 733-2414
Talkeetna, AK 99676
327 W. 6th Avenue
Anchorage, AK
(907) 276-7697
2808 W. 32nd Avenue
Anchorage, AK
(907) 277-7417
Mi. 233.5 Alaska
Railroad
Talkeetna, AK 99676
c/o Denali Wilderness
Treks
(907) 733-2384
Partner in Sheldon Air Service;
Talkeetna resident
Alaskan sourdough; year-round
resident of Murder Lake,
southwest of Stephan Lake.
Past co-builder, co-owner of
High Lake Lodge; guide; bush
pilot; author.
Hunt·er;· trapper; wife & mother
of big-game guides.
Bush pilot; dog musher;
president of Denali
Wilderness Treks
(recreation outfitters)
-
-
-
Interviewee
James Moran
Mrs. Oscar Voge 1
-Jake Tansy
Cleo McMahon -
Jim &"Vonnie Grimes
Bob Toby/
Warren Ballard
Chuck McMahon
Andy Runyon
Butch Potterville
Paul Ho 11 and
Pete Haggl and
Dennis Brown
TABLE 2: Page 2 of 3
Address
1220 Kennicott Ave.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
(907) 452-5679.
1002 30th Avenue
Anchorage, AK.
(907) 2720-5714
Cantwell St./Denali
Hwy.
General Delivery
Cantwell, AK 99729
P.O. Box 7
Gakona, AK 99586
( 907) 822-3802
P.O. Box 89
Cantwell, AK 99729
A.O.F.& G.
Glennallen, AK 99588
( 907) 822-3461
P.O. Box 133
Gakona, AK 99645
Star Route C/Box 8860
Palmer, AK 99645
A.D.F.& G.
Glennallen, AK 99588
(907) 822-3309
Star Route C/Box 8867
Palmer, Ak 99645
P.O. Box 60249
Fairbanks, AK 99701
(907) 456-4411/
45204797
Akland Air Service
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Reason for Being Interviewed
Pilot; partner in Tsusena
Lake Lodge.
Hunter; trapper; 20-year
Stephan Lake resident; widow
of 40-year trapper, master
guide in upper Susitna River.
Native hunter and long-time
trapper in Susitna River.
40-year air-taxi owner, pilot/
hunter & aerial trapper in
upper Susitna River basin.
Pilots; owners of Adventures
Unlimited Lodge, Denali Hwy.
Hunters; research & management
game biologists in upper
Susitna River basin.
Upper Susitna River basin
pilot; hunter, trapper &
fisherman.
Long-time air-taxi pilot;
hunter; Clarence Lake trapper.
Upper Susitna River basin
sportfish biologist.
Owner-manager Evergreen Lodge,
Lake Louise; boated from Lake
Louise to Talkeetna by way of
Susitna River.
Pilot & president Alaska
Central Air; partner in Tsusena
Lake Lodge
President Akland Air Service;
helicopter pilot.
Interviewee
Don Lee
Les & Helen Tolefson
Kathy Sullivan
Dave Johnson
Jeff Weltzin
Judy Simco
TABLE 2: Page 3 of 3
Address
P .0. Box 307
Talkeetna, Ak 99676
(907) 733-2307
General Delivery
Talkeetna, Ak 99676
General Delivery
Talkeetna, Ak 99676
Denali State Park
Mi. 193 Alaska Rail-
road
Fairbanks Environmental
Center
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Jewel Lake Road
Anchorage, AK 99501
Reason for Being Interviewed
Manager Stephan Lake Lodge;
air-taxi pilot; hunting
outfitter.
Father was an original settler
in Talkeetna area; subsistence
trappers & hunters; long-time
Talkeetna residents.
Owner of Genet Expeditions
(mountaineering & recreational
outfitter, Talkeetna).
Denali State Park Manager;
familiar with recreational use
in upper Susitna River basin.
Backpacked into the Devil
Canyon area on numerous
occasions.
Hunter; trapper; widow of
trapper Elmer Simco.
-
-
-
-
-
-
)
TABLE 3: LIST OF CRITICAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY INTERVIEWEES
Name and Tit 1 e
Stanley H. Bronczyk, Chief
Agency
FEDERAL
BLM
Type of Interview
Meeting
Branch of Easement Identification.
Lee Barkow, Planner,
Anchorage District Office
Debbie Robertson
Land Management Officer
Bill Beaty
Planning Supervisor
Ron Swanson
Land Management Officer
Lee Wyatt
Planning Director
Marge Sagerser
Land Manager
BLM
STATE
DNR
Division of Forest Land
& Water Management,
Southcentral District
Division of Research &
Development,
Land Resources Planning
Telephone
Telephone
Meeting
Division of Research & Meeting
Development,
Policy Research Land Entitlement
MUNICIPALITY
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Meeting
NATIVE
Cook Inlet Native Corporation Personal
Telephone
.. }
Date
5 May 1980
25 June 1980
5 May 1980
18 June 1980
18 June 1980
4 May 1980
23 April 1980
10 July 1980
}
TABLE 4: THE INTERVIEW PROCESS -MANAGEMENT AGENCIES
I. Introduction (see Part 1, Table 1)
II. How agency relates to current land use in the area
A. Status of the resources for which the agency has
responsibility
B. Current monitoring activities
C. Special use permits, if any
D. Problem areas
I I I. Future plans for area
A. Planning documents
B. Other indications of present or future planning
IV. Agency long-term goals for the area
V. Agency's perception of the impacts that the proposed Susitna
hydroelectric project would have on its own future programs
VI. Background of informant
A. Position with agency
B. Time with agency
VII. Agency suggestions on ways in which the Susitna hydroelectric
project could be most compatible with agency goals and interests
-
(b)
Map # Structure
2 Boat cabin
90 Hunting
lean-to
91 Cabin
112
119
107
6
Line cabin
Trailer;
work
shack
Cabin
Cabin
foundations
(a)
TABLE 5: ZONE 1 -EXISTING STRUCTURES
(c)
Location Access
S. bank Susitna: on boat, foot
tributary 4.8 km
(3 mi) S.W. of Fog
Creek/Sus itna
confluence
S.E. bank of Kosina/ boat, foot,
Susitna confluence floatplane
3 km (2 mi) N.E. floatplane
of Watant/Susitna
confluence
Currently
Maintained
Yes
Yes
No
N.E. corner of Jay/
Susitna confluence
foot, dog team, No
boat, floatpl ane
N. bank of Susitna:
1.6 km (1 mi) W. of
Deadman/Susitna
confluence
S. bank of Susitna
at Devil Canyon
N. shore of Susitna:
W. bank of 1st
tributary W. of
Tsusena/Sus itna
confluence
helicopter Yes
4WD No
foot, No
dog team
a. Zone 1 is the impoundment zone plus a 61-m (200 ft) perimeter.
b. See Figure 2.
c. Almost all sites are accessible by helicopter.
l
Use Status
Built in 1960's for Stephan
Lake Lodge; currently used
seasonally by Stephan boating/
hunting guests ,
Built in late 1970's for hunting/
fishing purposes; fresh
supplies indicate current use
Built in 1950's; used as
seasonal hunting and fishing
cabin; supplies indicate
current use
E. Simco's line (trapping)
and hunting cabin built in
1939; dates and game records
indicate annual use
Built in 1970's by Army Corps
for Susitna study
Built and used in 1950's for
Bureau of Rec. study; currently
not in use
Built in 1939 by Oscar Vogel as
a trapping line cabin; used until
late 1950's, now collapsed; no
longer used
J
TABLE 5 {Continued)
(b) (c) Currently
Map # Structure Location Access Maintained Use Status
120 Shack S. bank of Susitna: helicopter No Used and built in 1970's as a
1.6 km {1 mi) W. of research site; since Army
Deadman/Susitna Corps study, has collapsed;
conf.l uence no longer used
92 Cabin/ N.W. bank of dog team, No Built in 1960's for hunting
cache Watana/Sus itna foot purposes; cabin collapsed;
confluence no longer in use
111 Cabin S. bank of Susitna: dog team, No Built in 1945 as a trapping
1.6 km {1 mi) E. of foot line/hunting cabin; used for
Watana/Susitna trapping until mid 1950's,
confluence presently covered with brush;
no 1 anger 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.
J J ) l
Map #
1
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
Structure
Cabin;
meat house
Cabin; shed
Cabin
Cabin
foundations
Cabin; shed
Cabin;
Stephan
Lodge (10
structures}
Cabin;
shed
{a)
TABLE 6: ZONE 2 -EXISTING STRUCTURES
Location
Lake E. of Stephan
Lake, 564 m {1850
ft} elevation
N.W. shore of
Stephan Lake
Tsusena Creek:
6 km (3.5 mi}
from Tsusena/
Susitna
confluence
S. shore of Fog
Lake #2
On knob of Fog
Lake #1
W. central shore
of Stephan Lake
0. 8 km ( . 5 mi }
S. W. of Stephan
Lodge on Stephan
Lake shore
Access
floatpl ane,
skis
airplane
foot, dog
team
floatpl ane
airplane
airplane,
foot
airplane,
foot
Currently
Maintained
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Use Status
Built in 1960's and in current use
for seasonal hunting, fishing, and
boating
Built 1960's and in current use
for seasonal hu·nting, fishing, and
boating
Built in 1940's as a trap line
cabin and used until 1 ate 1950's;
no longer in use
Built in 1960's and currently
being used as a seasonal fishing
and hunting cabin
Built in 1960's and currently
being used as a seasonal hunting
and fishing cabin
Built in 1960's and in current use
as hunting, fishing, and recreation
lodge; can accommodate up to 35
·guests; operates year-round
Built in 1960's and in current use
seasonally as a hunting and fishing
cabin
a. Zone 2 is the ten-kilometer (six mi} perimeter around Zone 1 (impoundment zone plus 61 m [200ft.]}.
Map #
1
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
Structure
Cabin;
meat house
Cabin; shed
Cabin
Cabin
foundations
Cabin; shed
Cabin;
Stephan
Lodge (10
structures)
Cabin;
shed
(a)
TABLE 6: ZONE 2 -EXISTING STRUCTURES
Location
Lake E. of Stephan
Lake, 564 m (1850
ft} elevation
N.W. shore of
Stephan Lake
Tsusena Creek:
6 km (3.5 mi)
from Tsusena/
Sus itna
confluence
S. shore of Fog
Lake #2
On knob of Fog
Lake #1
W. central shore
of Stephan Lake
0.8 km (.5 mi)
S. W. of Stephan
Lodge on Stephan
Lake shore
Access
floatpl ane,
skis
airplane
foot, dog
team
floatpl ane
airplane
airplane,
foot
airplane,
foot
Currently
Maintained
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Use Status
Built in 1960's and in current use
for seasonal hunting, fishing, and
boating
Built 1960's and in current use
for seasonal hunting, fishing, and
boating
Built in 1940's as a trap line
cabin and used until late 1950's;
no longer in use
Built in 1960's and currently
being used as a seasonal fishing
and hunting cabin
Built in 1960's and currently
being used as a seasonal hunting
and fishing cabin
Built in 1960's and in current use
as hunting, fishing, and recreation
lodge; can accommodate up to 35
·guests; operates year-round
Built in 1960's and in current use
seasonally as a hunting and fishing
cabin
a. Zone 2 is the ten-kilometer (six mi) perimeter around Zone 1 (impoundment zone plus 61 m [200ft.]).
Map #
11
12
13
14
15
40
16
17
18
19
25
Structure
Cabin;
shed
Cabin;
Cabin;
Cabin;
Cabin;
Cabin;
Cabin;
Cabin
Cabin
shed
shed
shed
shed
shed
shed
Cabin;
meathouse
Mining
buildings
(5)
TABLE 6: Page 2 of 7
Current y
Location Access Maintained
E. shore of Stephan ai rp 1 ane, Yes
Lake foot
E. shore of Stephan airplane, Yes
Lake foot
Mouth of Prairie airplane, No
Creek at Stephan foot, horse
Lake
W. shore of Prairie airplane, foot Yes
Creek
E. shore of Murder airplane, foot Yes
Lake (S. of Stephan
Lake)
Portage Creek: 4 km.
( 2. 5 mi) N. of
Portage/Susitna
confluence
)
airplane, ATV, No
foot, dog team,
horse
Use Status
Hunting, fishing, boating, seasonal
use; built in 1960•s
Built in 1960 1 s and in current
seasonal use as hunting, fishing,
and boating cabins
Built in 1940 1 s and used until
late 1950 1 s as a hunting, fishing,
and trapping base and residence; no
longer used
Built in 1960 and 1970 respectively
and currently used as a year-round
residence from which hunting, fish-
ing, and trapping occur
Built in 1960 1 s and used as a year-
round residence; hunting and
fishing
Mining records exist as far back c;~.s
l890•s; mined 1920's and
sporadically 1930•s, then
1950-?0•s; currently inactive
mining operations; buildings not in
use
_} )
TABLE 6: Page 3 of 7
Map # Structure Location Access
Currently
Maintained
26
27
28
30
39
42
45
46
47
48
49
Cabins (2) 1.6 km (1 mi) N.
of Portage Creek
mining
Cabins (2) N.W. shore of Dawn
Lake
lodge, High S. shore of High
Lake {9 Lake
buildings)
Cabin
foundations
Cabin
Cabin
S. shore of High
Lake
14 km (9 mi) of
Stephan Lake: 11 km
(7 mi.) S. of Fog
Lake
Portage Creek 3 km
( 2 mi ) N. W • of
Dawn Lake
airplane, ATV Yes
foot, dog team
airplane, ATV Yes
horse, dog team
airplane, ATV Yes
horse, dog team
airplane, ATV Xes
horse, dog team
foot, airplane Yes
foot, sled Yes
road, airplane,
ATV
Cabin 1.8 km (1 mi) W. of foot, airplane, Yes
Portage Creek mining ATV/4WD
Cabin
Cabin
Cabin
Cabin
1.8 km (1 mi) W. of foot, airplane, Yes
Portage Creek mining, ATV, 4WD
on sled road
Unnamed 1 ake N. of
Otter Lake
foot, airplane, Yes
ATV, 4WD
Use Status
Mining; built in 195o•s; used Creek
seasonally
Built in 1960 1 s by owners of High
Lake; used currently as a hunting
cabin on a seasonal basis
Built in 1960 1 s for use as an
international hunting/fishing
lodge; currently in use by Acres
American Susitna project on a
seasonal basis
Building under construction as of
June 1980
Built in 197o•s; current use not
known at this time
Built in 1960 1 s and currently used
on a seasonal basis for hunting and
fishing
Currently used on a seasonal basis
for recreational purposes
.Currently used on a seasonal basis
for recreational purposes
Currently used on a seasonal basis
for recreational purposes
TABLE 6: Page 4 of 7
Map # Structure Location Access
Currently
Maintained
50
51
52
53
55
56
57
59
58
64
65
69
Trailer
Cabin
Cabin
Cabin
W. end of S. shore
of unnamed lake N.
of Otter Lake
W. end of S. shore
of unnamed 1 ake
N. of Otter Lake
foot, airplane, No
ATV, 4WD
foot, airplane, No
ATV, 4WD
S. shore of unnamed foot, airplane, Yes
lake N. of Otter Lake ATV, 4WD
Cabins (3) W. end of Bear Lake foot, airplane, Yes
ATV, 4WD
Cabin
Lodge
N. shore of Bear Lake foot, airplane, Yes
ATV, 4WD
N. shore of Bear Lake foot, airplane, Yes
ATV, 4WD
Cabin E. end of Bear Lake foot, airplane, No
foundations ATV, 4WD
Cabin
Cabin
Cabin
Miami Lake
S. shore of
Bear Lake
rail, foot, Yes
car, airplane
airplane, foot, Yes
4WD
J
Use Status
Currently not in use; abandoned
Built in late 1960's and currently
used for hunting and fishing on a
seasonal basis
Built in late 1960's and seasonally
used since then for hunting and
fishing
Built in 1970's and currently used
on a seasonal basis for hunting and
fishing
Built in 1970's and currently used
on a seasonal basis for hunting and
fishing
Built in 1970's; lodge and cabin
used for fishing, hunting, and
skiing on a year-round basis;
seasonal boating
Built in 1950's for trapping
purposes; no longer in use
Perhaps being used as recreational
cabins
Built in 1960's and currently used
for hunting, fishing, and swimming
. .. --'11.· --J /_· 1
TABLE 6: Page 5 of 7
Currently
Map # Structure Location Access Maintained
75 Cabin 6 km (4 mi) from
Watana/Sus itna
confluence
airplane, ATV Yes
76 Cabin 11 km ( 7 mi ) E.
of Big Lake
airplane, ATV Yes
77
78
79
80
81
82
84
85
Cabin
Cabin
W. end of Watana Lake airplane, dog Yes
team, snow-
machine
Cabin
Cabin
E. end of Watana
Lake
airplane, dog Yes
team, snow-
machine
Gab i ri E. end of Gilbert/
Kosina confluence
foot, dog team No
Tent frame S.W. end of Clarence foot, dog team No
structure Lake
Cabins (2) S.E. end of Clarence airplane
Lake
Cabin E. end of Clarence airplane
Lake
Yes
Yes
--i .. -}
Use Status
Built in the 1970•s; currently used
on a seasonal basis for hunting
Constructed in 1970 1 s and currently
used on a seasonal basis for
hunting and mining
Built in 195o•s and 1960 1 s
respectively and currently used
seasonally for hunting and fishing
Built in 195o•s and 196o•s
respectively and currently used
seasonally for hunting and fishing
Built in 1936 as a trapping line
cabin; used until 1955; currently
abandoned with everything intact
Built in 1950•s and used until
1960 1 s for seasonal hunting
Built in 1950 1 s and currently used
seasonally as a hunting and fishing
cabin
Built in 1970•s and currently used
on a seasonal basis for hunting,
fishing, and trapping
Map # Structure
86 Cabin
87
88
93
94
95
96
99
100
103
)
Cabin
Cabins (2)
Cabin
Cabin
Cabin
Cabin
Cabin
Tent
platform
Cabin
Location
N. end of Clarence
Lake
TABLE 6: Page 6 of 7
Access
airplane
Currently
Maintained
Yes
On tributary 1.6 km foot, dog team No
(l mi) E. of
Clarence Lake
Gaging station: S.
bank of Susitna
W. of Jay/Susitna
confluence
Laha Lake: 2.4 km
( l • 5 mi ) W. of
Jay Creek
Unnamed lake: 4 km
(2.5 mi) S.E. of
Vee Canyon gaging
station
Tyone River/Susitna
confluence
Susitna sandbar: S.
of Tyone River/
Susitna confluence
Jay Creek: 5 km
(3 mi) N. of VABM
Brown
airplane
airplane
floatpl ane,
airplane
airplane
boat
boat,
helicopter
ATV
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Use Status
Built in 1960's and currently used
on a seasonal basis for hunting,
fishing, and trapping
Built in 1930 and used until 1950
for trapping, hunting, and fishing
(Simco's line cabin #4); currently
used seasonally as a hunting
shelter
Built in 1950's for research
purposes; currently not used or
maintained
Built in 1960's and used currently
on a seasonal basis for hunting and
fishing
Built in 1960's and used currently
on a seasonal basis for fishing
Built in 1950's and used currently
on a seasonal basis for fishing
Built in 1960's by Stephan Lodge
owner as a river cabin for Stephan
Lodge boating guests
Built in 1970's and used currently
for transient boaters
Built in 1970's for hunting and
currently used on a seasonal basis
) }
---=y -~-l -----1
TABLE 6: Page 7 of 7
Map # Structure Location Access
110 Cabin N. end of Madman airplane
Lake
116 Cabin 1.6 km (1 mi) W. airplane
of VABM Oshetna ,
112 Cabin W. bank of Portage dog team,
foundations Creek: 6 km (4 mi) foot
from Portage/Susitna
confluence
Currently
Maintained
Yes
Yes
No
117 Cabin Tyone River/Tyone boat, dog team Yes
118 Cabin
Creek confluence
11 km ( 7 mi) due E. boat, dog team No
of Tyone River/
Susitna confluence
Summary: Sixty-seven locations with structures exist within Zone 2.
Use Status
Built in 1960's and currently
used on a seasonal basis for
hunting and fishing
Built in 1970's for hunting
purposes and is currently used on a
seasonal basis
Built in 1940's as a mining/
prospecting cabin; no longer in
use
Built in 1960's for hunting and
fishing purposes and currently used
on a seasonal basis
Built in 1960's for hunting and
fishing purposes; no longer in use
J
(a)
TABLE 7: ZONE 3 -EXISTING STRUCTURES
Map # Structure Location
20
21
22
23
34
36
3.7
38
Cabin; shed S.E. shore of Danek a
Lake
Cabin; shed
Cabin; shed Prairie/Talkeetna
confluence
Cabin; shed Game Lake
Chunilna Chunilna Creek
Creek Placer
(7 buildings)
Mining
buildings
Cabin
Cabin
Chunilna Creek: 13
km (8 mi) S.W. of
VABM Clear
5 km ( 3 mi ) N. E.
of VABM curry
Grizzly Camp: 8 km
(5 mi) E. of
Daneka Lake
Access
Currently
Maintained
airplane,
foot, dog
team, boat
airplane,
foot
foot
airplane, ATV,
4WD, snow-
machine
airplane, ATV,
4WD, snow-
machine, dog
team, foot
foot, dog
team
foot, dog
team, airplane
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Use Status
Built in 1960's and currently used
on a seasonal basis for hunting,
fishing, and recreation by guests
of Stephan Lodge
Built in 1960's and currently
used seasonally by Stephan Lodge
for purposes of fishing and
hunting
Built in 1940's and used since
then for trophy game hunting; now
a part of Stephan Lodge's series
of outreach cabins used on a
seasonal basis
Large placer mining operation in
existence since 1950 and currently
actively mined on a seasonal basis
Four buildings built in the
1920's, 1940's and 1960's and
used seasonally for the purpose
of mining
Bui 1t in 1940's and used
seasonally for trapping until
early 1960's; no longer in use
Built by Vogel in the 1940's as a
hunting cabin; currently used on
a seasonal basis as a Stephan
outreach cabin for purposes of
hunting
a. Zone 3 is that zone between 10 km (6 mi) and 19 km (12 mi) from the impoundments.
cC:C~"--'l ---') _:_ __ J
Map # Structure
59 Cabin
60 Cabin
61 Cabin
62 Cabin
63 Cabin
70 Lodge
72 Cabin
73 Cabin
74 Cabin
89 Cabin
98 Cabin
101 Cabin
105 Cabin
l -----1 --' /~::---''''
Location
Chulitna Pass: near
rai 1 road
N. shore of Tsusena
Lake
Deadman Lake: W. of
Big Lake
Big Lake
Unnamed lake 5 km
(3 mi) S.W. of
Clarence Lake
(island in middle)
Oshetna River: 16
km (10 mi) S. of
Oshetna/Sus itna
confluence
0.4 km (0.2 mi) S.
of Maclaren/
Susitna confluence
Coal Creek
) } ) -,
TABLE 7: Page 2 of 3
Current y
Access Maintained
rail, foot, Yes
car, airplane
airplane, ATV Yes
airplane, Yes
ATV
ATV Yes
floatplane, Yes
boat
dog team, No
foot, boat
boat Yes
ATV, airplane Yes
~--
~~ -~ l l ----}
Use Status
Exact construction dates not known;
currently used as year-round
residences
Built in 1958; used for commercially
guided hunts until 1976; presently
used on a seasonal basis for
private,hunting, fishing, and
skiing trips
Built in 1960's for fishing and
hunting purposes and currently
used on a seasonal basis
Built in 1960's; currently used on
a seasonal basis for hunting and
fishing
Exact construction date not known;
currently used on a seasonal basis
for fishing
Built by Simco in 1930 as a trap
line cabin and used on a seasonal
basis for hunting and fishing
Built in 1960 1 s and currently used
for boating on a seasonal basis
Built in 1970 1 s for hunting and
currently used on a seasonal basis
TABLE 7: Page 3 of 3
Currently
Mae # Structure Location Access Maintained Use Status
106 Cabin s. end of Coal Lake ATV, airplane Yes Built in 1960's and currently used
on a seasonal basis for mining and
fishing
113 Cabin Unnamed 1 ake: 10 km airplane No Built in 1960's for hunting
(6 mi) W. of purposes; no longer in use
Murder Lake
114 Cabin 11 km (7 mi) N.E. airplane Yes Built in 1970's for hunting use
of VABM and currently used for seasonal
Disappointment hunting purposes
115 Cabin 3 km (2 mi) N. of airplane Yes Built in 1970's and currently
Tsusena Lake used as a year-round residence by
a guiding outfit
Summary: There are 25 locations in Zone 3 with existing structures.
J ) -J .J
-
-
-
·-
-
TABLE 8: USE INFORMATION FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THE UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASIN
Zone 1
PRESENT CONDITION OF STRUCTURE
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
information
Hunting, fishing, trapping
Hunting, fishing
Hunting only
Fishing only
Boating
Skiing
Mining
Research/exploration
" Air:
Airstrip
Floats/skis
ATV
4WD
Boat
Foot, dog team
Snowmachine
Horse
Rail
Car
USE TYPES
ACCESS
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
3
6
Zone 2
5
2
7
49
9
4
7
43
7
1
2I
6
4
2
26
34
20
16
3
37
6
4
1
1
Zone 3
1
2
1
12
3
3
1
3
2
1
6
6
5
1
1
9
1
2
2
TABLE 9: MAJOR TRAILS IN THE UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASIN -
T.Y:ee Beginning Middle End Years Used
Cat, ORV Gold Creek Devil Canyon 1950's-present
Cat, ORV Gold Creek Riqge top west Confluence of 1961-present -of VABM Clear John & Chunilna
creeks -Packhorse Sherman Confluence of 1948
John & Chunilna
creeks
"""" Cat Alaska Railroad, Chunil na Creek 1957-present
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's-present
old sled road High Lake
ATV Dena 1 i Butte Lake Tsusena Lake 1950's-present -
Highway
-
-
-
-
-
:r
!
-I
'!
(a)
TABLE 10: PARCELS BY LAND STATUS/OWNERSHIP CATEGORY
USGS Talkeetna Land Status/
Mountains Quad Ownership Category Location
Areas
Hectares Acres
C-1 Federal
C-2
. C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
(c)
Feder a 1 ( SSS)
State Selection
Regional Selection
Federal (SSS)
State Selection
Private (Clarence Lake)
Federal (SSS)
State Selection
Native Selection
Private (Watana Lake)
Federal (SSS)
State Selection
Native Selection
Private (Stephan Lake)
Federal (SSS)
State Selection
Native Selection
Private
Federal (SSS)
State Selection
State Patented(TA'd)(d)
Native Group Selection
Private(north of
Chun i 1 na Creek)
(south of
Gold Creek)
Mining Claims
(b)
T29N,R12E SM
T30&31N,R11E SM
T29-31N,R10&11E SM
T29N,R10&11E SM
T30&31N,R12E SM
T29-31N,R8-10E SM
T29&30N,R8-10E SM
T30N,R9E SM
Sections 1~,20~21
T30&31N,R5-8E SM
T29&30N,R5-8E SM
T31N,R5E SM
T31N,R7E SM
Sections 25&36
T30N,R3-5E SM
T29&30N,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,R1&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 SlY!
Sections 2,3,10,11,15,16
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
a. Status and ownership are subject to change through administrative and court
proceedings.
b. Seward Meridian
c. SSS -state selection suspended
d. TA'd -tentatively approved
e. Fairbanks Meridian
3,200
11,840
28,160
23,040
12,800
8.6,400
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
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.
TABLE 10: Page 2 of 3
USGS Talkeetna Land Status/ Areas
Mountains Quad Ownershie Category Location Hectares Acres
(e) -0-6 Federal (Railroad T22S,R11W FM
Withdrawal) Sections 22,23,26,
27,33,34 803 1,984 """~'! T33N,R2W SM
Sections 15-17 104 257
(near Chulitna) T32N,R2W SM -Sections 1,2&11 73 180
Federal (SSS) T31N,R1W SM 932 2,303
T33N,R1W SM 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 Selection TA 1 d T31N,R2W SM 3,885 9,600
T22S,R10W FM 1,295 3,200 ~
Native Selection T31&32N,R1W SM 3,108 7,680
Private (Indian T31&32N,R2W SM ~I 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
(Chulitna Pass) T33N,R2W SM (sec. 35) 1 2 ~
(near Alaska RR) T31N,R2W SM (sec. 9) 1 2
0-5 Feder a 1 ( SSS) T31N,R1W,1&2E SM 7,228 17,860 -T33N,R1W SM 4,662 11,520
State Selection T32&33N,R1W,1&2E SM 24,863 61,438
State Selection TA 1 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) 45 111
(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.10) 5 12
T32N,R1W SM (sec. 23) 3 7
D-4 Federal (SSS) T31N,R3E SM 4,921 12,160
State Selection T32&33N,R3-5E SM 38,461 95,039
State Selection TA 1 d 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 ~"""\
-
-
-
."!""
I
TABLE 10: Page 3 of 3
USGS Talkeetna Land Status/
Mountains Quad Ownership Category
D-3
D-2
D-1
USGS Healy Quad
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
Federal
Federal (SSS)
State Selection
State Selection TA'd
Native Selection
Prfvate (Fog Lakes Area)
Federal
Federal (SSS}
State Selection TA'd
Federal
Federal (SSS}
Regional Selection
Fish & Wildlife Service
Federal
Regional Selection
Feder a 1
Private
Federal
State Selection TA'd
State Selection TA'd
State Selection TA'd
Federal (Railroad
Withdrawal)
State Selection
State Selection TA'd
Private
Location
T32&33N,R8E SM
T31&32N,R5-7E SM
T32&33N,R5-7E SM
T32N,R8E SM
T22S,R2:-4W FM
T22S,R5W FM .
T31&32N,R5-7E SM
T31N,R5E SM .
Sections 13&24
T31-33N,R8-10E SM
T22S,R1&2W,1E FM
T31N,R8-10E SM
T32N,R8E SM
T22S,R2W FM
T31-33N,R10-12E SM
T22S,R1-3E FM
T31N,R10E SM
T31&32N,Rl2E SM
T33N, R11E SM (sec.20)
T22S,R1&2E FM
T22S,R1&2E FM
T22S,R1E,1&2W FM
T22S,R2W FM (sec.3}
T22S,R2-5W FM
T22S,R5W FM
T22S,R5-7W FM
T22S,R8-10W FM
T22S,R11W FM
T22S,R11W FM
T22S,R10W FM
T22S,R11W FM (sec. 1)
Areas
Hectares Acres
1,036
10,878
33,411
842
8,806
2,331
11,396
21
44,549
10,619
12,432
1,813
1,424
2,560
26,880
82,560
2,081
21,760
5,760
28,160
52
110,080
26,240
30,720
4,480
3,519
31,599 78,080
5,180 12,800
62 154
6,993 17,280
• Unknown
1,554
389
12,432
2
9,842
2,331
11,914
8,547
932
906
1,295
13
3,840
960
30,720
5
24,320
5,760
29,440
21,120
2,303
2,240
3,200
32
(a)
TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF LAND STATUS/OWNERSHIP IN PROJECT AREA
Land Status/Ownership Category
Federal
Federal (State Selection Suspended)
Federal (Railroad Withdrawal)
State Selection
State Selection Patented or TA 1 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.
Total 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 12: SUMMARY ,OF PRESENT AND FUTURE LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE PROPOSED
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AREA
Land Management Agency
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
Current Management
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 proj~ct
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 Direction
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.
Feature
Devi 1
Canyon
Vee
Canyon
Clear
·Valley
Deadman
Falls
Tsusena
Falls
Location
Susitna River,
west end of
project area
T.32N, R.1W., 1E.,
and T.31N., R.1E.,
S.M.
Susitna River,
east end of
project area
T. 30N·. , R .10E. ,
Sec. 11 & 12, S.M.
Approx. 6 km (4 mi.)
south of Fog Lake
2230 T. 30N.,
R.5E., Sec. 5, 8,
17, 20, 29, 34.,
S.M.
Near mouth of
Deadman Creek
T.32N., R.5E.,
Sec. 26., S.M.
Above mouth of
Tsusena Creek
T.32N., R.5E.,
Sec. 20, S.M.
TABLE 13: EXCEPTIONAL NATURAL FEATURES
Description
A steep-sided, nearly enclosed gorge, its sides alternating spruce-covered
terraces and rock-bound walls, constricts the channel of the Susitna River,
producing an 18 km (11 mi.) stretch of turbulent whitewater. Two narrow falls,
flowing through deeply incised crevasses, plummet a distance to the river below.
Devil Canyon combines unusual geology, hydrology, and aesthetics with uncommon
recreational opportunities, such as kayaking, to render it a unique
natural feature in both the project area and the state of Alaska.
Vee Canyon occupies a double hairpin bend in the deeply cut channel of the Susitna
River, creating a stretch of whitewater. The canyon walls are composed of very
steep rock ridges and are unusually colorful, the rock often interlaid with
marble and green schist. Vee Canyon, more visible than Devil Canyon and with its
walls more open, is exceptional in its scenic beauty.
Clear Valley contains unusual flat surfaces raised off the valley floor and
surrounded by meandering streams; the valley•s dominant feature is its visually
apparent geological history. Geologically, the valley is fairly young and contains
good examples of lateral moraines. Clear Valley contrasts significantly with the
surrounding viewscape; the valley is unusual for its geologic features.
Deadman Falls with an elevation of 521 m {1710 ft) is one of the largest and most
scenic waterfalls in the project area. Deadman Creek surges over loose rocks in
its incised channel, plummeting straight down over rocky slopes and outcroppings
into a clear boulder-dominated pool, a pool often veiled in vapor.
Clear and turbulent, Tsusena Creek drops nearly 60 m (200 ft.) as it rushes over
a steep, rocky cliff, creating a waterfall of considerable volume, which cascades
into a large, deep, rock-enclosed pool. The view of the waterfall; creek; rock
outcroppings; and dense, green vegetative cover is impressive.
J _) J .. 1
Feature
Devil
Creek
Falls
Big
Lake
Mt. Watana
Cirque
Lake
Tyone
River
Location
Above mouth of
Devil Creek
T. 32N., R. 2E.,
Sec. 20., S.M.
N.E. of proposed
Watana dam site
T.22S., R.3W.,
Sec. 18, 19, 30,
T.22S., R.4W,
Sec. 25., F.M.
East of VABM Mt.
Watana T. 30N.,
R. 7E. , Sec. 2.,
S.M.
East end of
project area,
confluence with
Susitna River
T.30W, R.12E.,
Sec . 9 . , S . M.
.. 1 .. ~ .• ··~ -J
TABLE 13 (Continued)
Description
Devil Creek, constricted by a narrow opening between jagged rock walls, plunges
over the steep embankment in a narrow, contained flow before fanning out and
cascading to the pool below. The irregular pattern of the waterfall, against bare
rock and surrounded by the densely vegetated, incised creek valley walls, creates a
scene of high aesthetic appeal. Elevation 579 m (1900 ft).
Big Lake, 1 argest 1 ake in the project area, is a prime example of a 1 ake held in
by a terminal moraine. Big Lake's proximity to Deadman Lake and, from Big Lake,
the panoramic view of the Alaska Range and nearby Deadman Mountain combine with
the lake's observable glacial origin to create an area that is noteworthy for both
scenic and geologic features.
A cirque lake high on Mount Watana provides a scenic interpretation of the area's
glacial history. The cirque contains a pristine lake, simple in outline and
distinguished by the natural amphitheater formed on three sides by towering scree
slopes, with a scenic view of the valley from the remaining side.
The slow-flowi~g, dark, and clear Tyone River, near its confluence with the
Susitna River, is flanked on its south shore by starkly contrasting chalk-colored
cliffs. These are composed of lacustrine deposits left behind by an expansive
proglacial lake, one of three such lakes ot significant size recorded in Alaska.
This particular region of the Tyone River is exceptional for its prominent glacial
remains, scenic white bluffs, and dark/clear river.
Feature
Fog
Lakes
Stephan
, Lake
Watana
Lake
Swimming
Bear
Lake
(unnamed
1 ake)
Deadman
Mountain
Tsusena
Butte and
Tsusena
Butte Lake
. -J
Locat10n
Sections 3, 7-11, 13, 18,
T31N.,R.5E., and Sections
5, 7, 8, 18, T.31N., R.6E.,
S.M.
Sections 2, 3t 9-11, 16,
17, 20, 21, .30N., .
R.3E., S.M. Between
Watana and Devil Canyon
dam sites on south side
' Section 6, T.30N., R.8E.,
S.M. Section 1, T.30N.,
R.7E., S.M. Section 36,
T.31N., R.7E., S.M.
Section 31, T.31N.,
R.8E., S.M. East of Mt.
Watana
Section 4, T.32N., R.3E.,
S.M. Sections 32, 33,
T.33N., R.3E., S.M. 8-10
km (5-6 mi.) north of
VABM Devil near proposed
access route
Sections 6 7, 17-20,
29-32, T.2iS., R.3W.,
F.M. Sections 1, 2, 11-
14, 23-26, 34-36, T.21S.,
R.4w., F.M.
Sections 16, 20-22, 27-
29, T.33N., R.5E., S.M.
North of Watana dam site
_]
TABLE 14: OTHER IMPORTANT NATURAL FEATURES
Descn ptl on
Five lakes in proximity to one another; average surface area is 109 ha (270a),
with no lake smaller than 58 ha (147a).
The longest lake imm~diately adjacent to the project area, it measures 7 km
(4.2 mi) in length, and is the nearest lake to the project area with a run
of salmon and one of the few with relatively high recreational use.
Mount Watana, risin~ directly to the west of Watana Lake, provides an
aesthetically pleas1ng setting for the high (914 m [3,000 ft] lake).
One of the highest lakes in the project area, Swimming Bear Lake (Ms. K.
Oldham, pers. comm.) is a: large alpine lake set in mat and
cushion/sedge-grass tundra.
Isolated Deadman Mountain, reaching a height of 1684 m (5,525 ft), over-
shadows Deadman Lake and Big Lake.
A prominent butte 1,314 m (4,312 ft) high, Tsusena Butte rises above Tsusena
Butte Lake, one of the deepest lakes in the project area (34m [110ft]).
The lake is comprised of two irregularly shaped segments.
_] -) )
---=, --i
Feature
Chulitna
Butte
Cheechako
Falls
---J
Mount Watana
Falls
Spearpoint
Falls
(unnamed
falls)
Devil' s Club
Falls
(unnamed
falls)
Locat10n
Sections 22, 27, T.33N.,
R.2W., S.M.· South of
Hurricane
Sections 4, 8, 9, T.31N.,
R.1E., S.M. First
creek southeast of
Devil Canyon dam'site.
Elevation: 510 m (1,672 ft)
Section 33, T.31N., R.7E.,
S.M. On north side of
Mount Watana. Elevation
1,372+ m (4,500 ft)
Section 1, T.31N.,
R.7E., S.M. In an
easterly direction,
first creek past
Watana Creek and
Susitna River
confluence on the
north side.
Elevation 625+ m,(2,050 ft)
Section 11, T.31N.,
R.2W., S.M. In an
easterly direction,
first creek past
Go 1 d Creek and
Susitna River
confluence on the
south side. Near
Borrow Area 2 for
access road.
Elevation: 297+ m (975 ft)
·--.. 1! ---J
TABLE 14: (Continued}
Descr1pt1on
-) --J . -1 . ---1 l
Chulitna Butte overlooks the Alaska Railroad's past and present communities
and provides an accessible viewpoint of part of the project area from the
Parks Highway.
A series of five waterfalls alon9 Cheechako Creek, set in a steep gorge.
The two largest falls are approx1mately 8 m (25ft) apart, with pools and
rocky cliffs, and surrounded by thick mats of moss and other vegetation.
A waterfall flows over a deeply incised rock gorge interlaid with black
and white marble; barren tundra surrounds the falls, and a mist hangs above
it.
Four waterfalls occur along a relatively small creek. The largest one is
below the others in a large, hollowed-out area. (Named for a spearpoint
that was discovered in one of two nearby archeological sites.)
Devil's Club Falls is a scenic waterfall, easily accessible from the
Susitna River below the Devil Canyon rapids. (Temporarily named for the
abundance of devil's club that is present all the way up to the falls).
(a) (b)
TABLE 15: HECTARES (ACRES) OF DIFFERENT WETLAND TYPES BY PROJECT COMPONENT
Wet 1 and Type
Palustrine
forested
Palustrine
scrub-shrub ·
Palustrine
emergent
Lacustrine
emergent
Lacustrine
Riverine
TOTAL
Wetland Type
Palustrine
forested
Palustrine
shrub-scrub
Palustrine
emergent
Lacustrine
emergent
Lacustrine
Riverine
TOTAL
Impoundment,
Dam and Spillways
7,408 (18,306)
1,126 (2,782)
139 (343)
4 (10)
54 ( 133)
2,182 (5,392)
10,913 (26,967)
Impoundment,
Dam and Spillways
800 (1 ,977)
43 ( 106)
12 (30)
1 (2)
810 (2,002)
1,666 (4,117)
a. Wetland types according to Cowardin
b. Acreaqes appear in parentheses.
J .~ I I J J '
WATANA FACILITY
Camp, Vi 11 age Borrow Areas
and Airstrip
A D E F H
252 (623) 16 ( 40) 133 ( 329) 80 (198) 345 (853)
142 ( 351) 62 (153) 212 (524) 199 ( 492) 38 (94)
8 (20) 8 (20)
8 (20)
150 (371) 322 (796) 236 (583) 133 (329) 279 (689) 383 (946)
DEVIL CANYON FACILITY
Camp and Vi 11 age Borrow Area K
11 (27)
29 (72)
-0-40 (99)
et a1. --(1979).
J ) J a ) .! J
I
15 ( 37)
15 (37)
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
,...
' '!
{a)
TABLE 16: POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MAGNITUDE OF IMPACTS
OF ACCESS PLANS ON LAND USE VARIABLES
LAND USE ANALYSIS CATEGORIES
1. Land uses and associated
site-specific activities
-Residential: remote, i~olated
-Residential: communitytb)
-Residential lodges (concentrated
tourism & recreatioQ))
-Commercial: community~o
-Agriculture
-Transportation: Highway
Rail
-Mining
2. Dispersed and isolated
activities
-Extractive: hunting & fishing
-Riverine: boating
-Camping, hiking, photography, etc.
3. Land management activities &
related concerns
-Game management; hunting, fishing,
trapping
-General land management
-Off-road vehicle management
-Native claims
-Land values
4. Natural aesthetics
-Visual characteristics: land
-Visual characteristics: water
-Ground cover: flora
-Land surface integrity
-General natural character,
extensive
Plans
1 & 5
4
3
5
3
1
4
1
3
5
3
3
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
5
4
4
ACCESS PLANS
Plans Plans
2&8 4&6
3
3
5
3
1
1
5
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
4
2
3
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
3
1
2
4
3
4
3
2
4
4
4
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
Plans
3 & 7
4
4
2
4
1
3
4
3
4
3
3
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
a. A subjective numerical scale in which 5 represents a major impact and l a
negligible impact.
b. The Socioeconomic Analysis deals with more discrete factors relating to
communities located near the project area.
Corridor
1
(ABC)
2
(ADFC)
3
(AEFC)
TABLE 17: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS WITHIN TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS-
SOUTHERN STUDY AREA (Willow to Anchorage/Point MacKenzie)
Length
117 km
(73 mi)
61 km
(38 mi)
63 km
(39 mi)
Topography/Soils
Some soils with
severe limitations
to off-road travel;
some good agricul-
tural soils
Most of route po-
tentially wet, with
severe limitations
to off-road travel;
some good agricul-
tural soils
Same as Corridor 2
Land Use
No existing ROW in
AB; residential use
uses near Palmer;
proposed capital
site; much U.S.
Military Wdl.,
private, and
Village Selection
1 and
Trail in only
existing ROW; resi-
dential and recrea-
tional areas;
Susitna Flats Game
Refuge; agricultural
1 and sale
No known existing
ROW; residential and
recreational use
areas, including
Nancy Lakes; lakes
used by float
planes; agricultural
1 and sale
Aesthetics
Iditarod
Trai 1; trai 1
paralleling
Deception Ck.:
Gooding L.
bird-watching
area; 5
crossings of
Glenn Hwy, 1
crossing of
Parks Hwy.
Sus itna Flats
Game Refuge;
Iditarod
.Trail; 1
crossing of
Parks Hwy.
Lake area south
of Willow;
Iditarod Trai 1;
1 crossing of
Parks Hwy.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Corridor
1
,"f" (ABCD)
2
(ABE CD)
-3
(AJCF)
·"!"'
4
(ABCJHI)
"""" 'I 5
· (ABECJHI)
.1"1"0
TABLE 18: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS WITHIN TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS-
CENTRAL STUDY AREA (Dam Sites to Intertie)
Length Topography/Soils Land Use Aesthetics
64 km Crosses several Little existing ROW Fog Lakes;
(40 mi) deep ravines; about except Corps rd.; Stephan Lake;
305 m (1000 ft) mostly Village · proposed access
change in elevation; Selection and road
some wet soi 1 s private lands
72 km Crosses several Little existing ROW Fog Lakes;
(45 mi) deep ravines; about except Corps rd. and Stephan Lake;
610 m (2000 ft) at D; rec. and proposed access
change in el ev.; resid. areas; float road; high
some steep slopes; plane areas; mostly country (Prairie
some wet soi 1 s Village Selection & Chulitna Ck.
and private lands drainages) and
viewshed of
Alaska Range
66 km Crosses several deep No existing ROW Vi ewshed of
( 41 mi) ravines; about 610 m except at F; rec. Alaska Range &
(2000 ft) change in areas; float plane High Lake;
elevation; some steep areas; mostly proposed access
s 1 opes; some wet Village Selection rd.
soils. and private land;
resid. & rec. de-
velopment in area
of Otter L. and
o 1 d sled rd.
124 km Crosses several deep No existing ROW; Fog Lakes;
( 77 mi) ravines; >610 m rec. areas and Stephan Lake;
(2000 ft) change in isolated cabins; proposed access
elevation; routing lakes used by float rd; viewshed of
above 1220 m (4000 ft); planes; much Village Alaska Range
steep .slopes; some wet Selection land
soils; shallow bedrock
in mts.
132 km Crosses several deep Same as Corridor 4 Fog Lakes;
(82 mi) ravines; changes in Stephan Lake;
elevation >610 m High Lake;
(2000 ft); routing above proposed access
1220 m (4000 ft); steep rd; vi ewshed at
slopes; some wet soils; Alaska Range
shallow bedrock in mts.
TABLE 18: Page 2 of 3
Corridor Length Topography/Soils Land Use Aesthetics -
6 109 km Crosses several deep No known existing Fog Lakes and
{ CBAHI) (68 mi) ravines; changes in ROW; rec. areas and Stephan Lake;
elevation of about isolated cabins; proposed access ~
488 m (1600 ft); float plane area; rd.; Tsusena
routing above 1220 m Sus it na area and Butte; viewshed
(4000 ft); steep near I are Village of Alaska Range !"!'!\ slopes; some wet soils; Selection land
shallow bedrock in mts.
7 117 km Crosses several deep Same as Corridor 6 Fog Lakes and -{ CEBAHI) ( 73 mi) ravines; change in Stephan Lake;
elevation of about proposed access
488 m (1600 ft); rd.; high
routing above 914 m country
(3000 ft); steep {Prairie-
slopes; some wet soils; Chunilna Cks.);
shallow bedrock in mts. Tsusena Butte; -vi ewshed of
Alaska Range -8 145 km Crosses several deep No existing ROW; Fog Lakes;
(CBAG) (90 mi) ravines; change in rec. areas and Stephan Lake;
elevation of about isolated cabins; access rd;
488 m (1600 ft); float plane areas; scenic area of -routing above 914 m air strip and Deadman Ck. ;
( 3000 ft) ; steep airport; much viewshed of
slopes; some wet Village Selection Alaska Range _,
soils; shallow and federal 1 and
bedrock in mts.
9 153 km Crosses several deep Same as Corridor 8 Fo.g Lakes; ~),
(CEBAG) (95 mi) ravines; changes in Stephan Lake;
elevation of about proposed access
488 m ( 1600 ft) ; rd; high country -routing above 914 m (Prairie and
(3000 ft); steep Chunilna Cks.);
slopes; some wet soils; Deadman Ck.; -shallow bedrock in mts. viewshed of
Alaska Range
10 146 km Same as Corridor 8 No existing ROW; High Lakes area; -{CJAG) {91 mi ) rec. areas and proposed access
isolated cabins; rd.; Deadman Ck.
float plane areas; drainage; view-""" air strip and shed at Alaska
airport; mostly Range
Village Selection
and fed era 1 1 and -
-
-
-
Corridor
11
( CJAHI)
12
(JA-CJHI)
13
(ABCF)
14
(AJCD)
15
(ABECF)
Length
111 km
( 69 mf)
113 km
(70 mi)
66 km
( 41 mi )
66 km
( 41 mi )
72 km
(45 mi)
TABLE 18: Page 3 of 3
Topography/Soils
Crosses several deep
ravines; changes in
elevation of 305m
(1000 ft); routing
above 914 m (3000 ft);
steep slopes; some
wet soils; shallow
bedrock in mt s.
Same as Corridor 11
Crosses several deep
ravines; about 305 m
(1000 ft) change in
elevation; some wet
soils
Crosses deep ravine
at Devil Ck.; about
610 m (2000 ft) change
in elevation; routing
above 914 m (3000 ft)
some steep slopes;
some wet soils
Crosses several deep
ravines; about 610 m
(2000 ft) change in
elevation; some wet
soils
Land Use
No existing ROW;
rec. areas and
isolated cabins;
float plane areas;
mostly Vi 11 age
Selection and
private 1 and
No existing ROW;
rec. areas and
isolated cabins;
float plane area;
mostly Vi 11 age
Selection and
private 1 and
No known existing
ROW except at F;
rec. areas; float
p 1 ane areas; res i d.
and rec. use near
Otter L. and old
sled rd.; isolated
cabins; mostly
Village Selection
land; some private
1 and
Little existing ROW
except old Corps rd.
and at 0; rec.
areas; isolated
cabins; much Village
Selection land; some
private 1 and
No known existing
ROW except at F;
rec. areas~ float
plane areas; resid.
and rec. use near
Otter L. and old
sled rd.; isolated
cabins; mostly
Village Selection
1 and with some
private 1 and
Aesthetics
High Lakes area;
proposed access
rd.; viewshed of
Alaska Range ·
High Lakes area;
proposed access
rd.; Tsusena
Butte; view-
shed of A 1 ask a
Range
Fog Lakes,
Stephan L.;
proposed access
rd.
Viewshed of
Alaska Range and
High Lake;
proposed access
road
Fog Lakes;
Stephan Lake;
proposed acc.ess 0
road; high
country (Prairie
and Chuni 1 na
Cks. drainages);
viewshed of
Alaska Range
Corridor
1
(ABC)
2
(ABDC)
3
{AEDC)
4
(AEF)
TABLE 19: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS WITHIN TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS-
NORTHERN STUDY AREA (Healy to Fairbanks)
Length Topography/Soils Land Use Aesthetics
3 crossings of
145 km Some wet soils with Air strip; residen-Parks Hwy;
( 90 mi) severe limitations ti al areas and Nenana R.-scenic
to off-road traffic isolated cabins; area
some U.S. Military
Withdrawal and Native
1 and
138 km Severe limitations No existing ROW n. 3 crossings of
(86 mi) to off-road traffic of Browne; scattered Parks Hwy; high
in wet soils of the residential and visibility in
flats isolated cabins; open flats
airstrip; Fort
Wainwright Military
Reservation
185 km Change in elevation No existing ROW 1 crossing of
( 115 mi) of about 762 m beyond Healy/Cody Parks Hwy; high
(2500 ft); steep Ck. confluence; visibility in
slopes; shall ow isolated cabins; open flats
bedrock in mts.; airstrips; Fort
severe limitations Wainwright Military
to off-road traffic Reservati on
in the flats
169 km Same as Corridor 3 Airstrips; isolated High visibility
( 105 mi) cabins; Fort Wain-in open fl ats
wright Military
Reservati on
......
-
-·
-
~
-
-
-
-"""\
-
-
-
T
TABLE 20: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED RECREATION SITES AND FACILITIES
Opportunity
Setting
A
B
Site
Number
(Keyed to Figures 27 and 28)
Site
Description
Pull-out with area information sign
Pull-out and parking area with access to Indian River;
parking for five vehicles
3(a) Scenic pull-out and viewing point above the Susitna
River
Scenic pull-out, with small parking area, for
waterfalls near the road; parking for five vehicles
s(a) Scenic pull-out and viewing point; large, rustic
1{ a)
project entrance sign before reaching site 4
Scenic pull-out and small parking area below the
Devil Canyon dam near the bridge over the canyon;
parking for five vehicles
Scenic pull-out with panoramic view of reservoir;
trailhead and parking area with developed trail to
observation point; parking for five vehicles
2(a) Scenic pull-out with trailhead and developed portage
3(a}
s(a}
to Dawn Lake; primitive portage to other lakes {brushed
trails only); parking area limited to seven vehicles
Scenic pull-out with trailhead and developed portage
to Mermaid Lake; parking area limited to five vehicles
Scenic pull-out with parking area and trailhead to
Devil Creek Falls; parking area limited to five
vehicles
Scenic pull-out overlooking Swimming Bear Lake;
parking for two vehicles
6(a) Scenic pull-out
7(a} Scenic pull-out and access to Tsusena Creek; parking
s( a}
area limited to two vehicles
Scenic pull-out and tran head for short trail to
overlook of Tsusena Creek Canyon and Tsusena Creek
Falls; parking for seven vehicles
a. Handicapped accessible ..
Opportunity
Setting
c
D
E
F
Site
Number
1(a)
TABLE 20 (Continued)
Site
Description
Boat launch and parking area with picnic grounds and
parking nearby; access to Devil Canyon reservoir;
trailhead for Cheechako Canyon Trail with short loop
for physically handicapped
Primitive, auto-oriented campground (100 units, 60
units to be developed for first three years) and a
secondary trailhead to Cheechako Canyon
3 Primitive, boat-in picnic ground (ten units, long-term
development)
4( a) Simple boat 1 aunch, and picnic and parking area at
2
Tsusena Creek and gravel access road; access to Devil
Canyon reservoir
Boat launch, and parking area, with primitive auto
campground (60 units, 30 units to be developed the
first three years) with a gravel road; primary access
point for Watana reservoir
Primitive boat-in campground at Watana Cove (ten units
long-term development)
3 Primitive boat-in campground at Jay Creek (ten units
long-term development)
4 Camping area for Susitna and Tyone River floaters (to
be developed in agreement with BLM)
1
2
Trail to observation point north of Devil Canyon (see
B-1)
Develop portage to alpine lakes and primitive
portages to more distant lakes (see B-2)
3 Develop portage to alpine lakes {see B-3)
4 Develop trail to Devil Creek Falls (see B-4)
Develop trail to Tsusena Creek Falls (see B-7)
Develop trail to Cheechako Creek Falls (see C-1,
C-2)
No developed facilities
-
-
-
-
-
0
0 10
Miles
10
PREPARED BY TES
20
20 30
STUDY AREAS FOR LAND USE ANALYSIS
LEGEND
-ZONE 1
~ZONE 2
-ZONE 3
/
-~-
·.,:-,_-
~--
.-
FIGURE 1
l
1
1
l
l
1
l
I
J
J
Miles
0 10 20
..-.---~-=====::?,1
0 10 20 30
Kilometers
·. ,· . ·.~ ::· «k
PREPARED BY TES
'.'!,.. •.
r{
. ·\.. · ... ' ·:: ~
.......
~ 1 •
. I
EXISTING STRUCTURES
FIGURE 2
Miles ...... -·.: ~-·· .
0 10 20 LEGEND -J
I NO . USE
0 10 20 30 1 RECREATION
2 MINING
3 RECREATION
4 MINING/RESID.
5 MINING
6 REC./RESID.
7 RECREATION
8 RECREATION
9 RECREATION
10 RECREATION
11 RECREATION
J
J LAND USE AGGREGATIONS:
RECREATION, MINING, RESIDENTIAL
PREPARED BY TES
··-·"'-"· '( :· :: ' ' ., . ., --~-(...
'-~. . . ~
~
~
INTENSITY
LOW .....
";.. •.•
LOW d
\
LOW ,,•.c..
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
~ ·o-:
.... . _.._: .
: ·:;·
. •:;:··
...
0 c
....(
FIGURE 3
J
J
0
0 10 15
LEGEND
• • • • STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
PRIVATE LANDS
~ ~ FEDERAL RAILROAD WITHDRAWAL
· · · • · •· • CIRI "IN LIEU" BOUNDARY
~NATIVE SELECTED LANDS
C,K,T VILLAGE SELECTIONS
(Individual village selections appear
in the center of sections.)
C CHICKALOON SELECTIONS
K KNIK SELECTIONS
T TYONEK SELECTIONS
PREPARED BY TES
LAND OWNERSHIP I STEWARDSHIP, DEVIL CANYON PORTION
w z
~~~.~
:u
.1-< c:::~~·:E
~~,~~L~~·~-Pi<O~ ~
FIGURE 4
l
J
J
l
j
w z
PREPARED BY TES
LAND OWNERSHIP I STEWARDSHIP. WATANA PORTION
0 5 10 Miles bL----5-~-1-=0====11~51
Kilometers
LEGEND
AREA BOUNDARY
·• · · • ·· • CIRI "IN LIEU" BOUNDARY
~.....-----..~1 NATIVE SELECTED LANDS
C,K,T VILLAGE SELECTIONS
(Individual village selections appear
in the center of sections.)
C CHICKALOON SELECTIONS
K KNIK SELECTIONS
T TYONEK SELECTIONS
FIGURE 5
-0
Miles
10 20
0 10 20 30
---BOUNDARY
PREPARED BY TES
BIOPHYSICAL COASTAL BOUNDARY
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FIGURE 6
LEGEND
• WATERFALL
*CANYON
• LAKE
A RIVER
*VALLEY
]
0 PARTIAUTOTALINUNDATION
(:::::::::::::J Elevation over 4000 ft.
o--~~:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'10 Miles
0
PREPARED BY TES I UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
15 Kilometers
EXCEPTIONAL NATURAL FEATURES (SYMBOLS)
AND OTHER IMPORTANT NATURAL FEATURES
J
FIGURE 7
-]
GENERAL ALIGNMENTS
ACCESS CORRIDOR SEGMENTS
PREPARED BY TES
10
Miles
10
20
Kilometers
20
30
FIGURE 8
} l
0
0
CONSTRUCTION ROAD--~-~-
PREPARED BY TES
10
Miles
10 20
30
FIGURE 9
} --, ) .. -i l
0
0
ACCESS PLAN 2
·10
Miles
10
1
20
30
FIGURE 10
-J ----., -l 1
0
ACCESS PLAN 3
PREPARED BY TES
l
0 10
Miles
10 20
30
FIGURE 11
l l
0
Miles
~0~!!~~-1~0--~====~20
10 30
ACCESS PLAN--~--~ -
PREPARED BY TES FIGURE 12
l l l
CONSTRUCTION ROAD
ACCESS PLAN 5
PREPARED BY TES
10
Miles
10
20
20
30
FIGURE 13
i .
1 J
CC'!STRUCTION ROAD
'111111111111 RAILROAD
SERVICE ROAD
: __ _
i
PREPARED BY TES
I. \:
)
ACCESS PLAN 6
l 1
0
0 10
Miles
10
20
20
30
FIGURE 14
-1 l } -} l 1 l
Miles
0 10 20
0 10 20 30
----r~ONsmiJcTIC)N ROAD
- --SERVICE ROAD
I
I ACCESS PLAN 7
PREPARED BY TES FIGURE 15
-~
I PREPARED BY TES
CONSTRUCTION ROAD
~ .. f~~~"
\ \:\
.... ······ l
0
ACCESS PLAN 8
.) ,}
0 10
Miles
10
20
20
30
FIGURE 16
-.,
J(IIIJ{ ----.. --<~-----::.:~ ... ~~'Gl'>-.... ,-:"""'·!:·.,--"_,..
PREPARED BY TES
} -) } } 1 ]
Miles
0 5 10 15 ----0 5
• • • • • INTERTIE (HYPOTHETICAL)
TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS EVALUATED
SOUTHERN STUDY AREA
10 15 20 25
Kilometers
FIGURE 17
} . l
PREPARED BY TES
l
. -·~------· ······----· ---
TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS EVALUATED
CENTRAL STUDY AREA
. l
Miles
0 5 10 15 ---0 5 10 15 20 25
Kilometers
--, STUDY CORRIDOR
• • • •• INTERTIE (HYPOTHETICAL)
FIGURE 18
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Miles
0 5 . 10 15 ----0 5 10 15 20 25
--STUDY CORRIDOR
• • • • • INTERTIE (HYPOTHETICAL)
~·-----·--··-------------.---------------~--·-·-~----------------~-----~-------
PREPARED BY TES
TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS EVALUATED
NORTHERN STUDY AREA
FIGURE 19
~' ...
'I . :"I
I I
t~\
PREPARED BY TES
J 1 l l l
Miles
0 5 10 15 ---0 5
• • • • • INTERTIE (HYPOTHETICAL)
TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS
SURVIVING PRELIMINARY SCREENING
SOUTHERN STUDY AREA
10 15 20 25
Kilometers
0:
FIGURE 20
l l
PREPARED BY TES
) l
TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS
SURVIVING PRELIMINARY SCREENING
CENTRAL STUDY AREA
1 J 1
Miles
0 5 10 15 ---0 5 10 15 20 25
Kilometers
STUDY CORRIDOR
• • • •• INTERTIE (HYPOTHETICAL)
FIGURE 21
-
-
-
Miles
0 5 10 15 ----0 5 10 15 20 25
PREPARED BY TES
0
--STUDY CORRIDOR
I • • ••• i INTERTIE (HYPOTHETICAL)
TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS
SURVIVING PRELIMINARY SCREENING
NORTHERN STUDY AREA
FIGURE 22
l
1
}
LEGEND
ACCESS ROAD
-ACCESS ROAD BORROW AREAS
£::1 CONSTRUCTION ZONE
~\·'<:i:''i·~ BORROW AREAS
• VILLAGE
D CAMP
-DAM
~ I M POUNDMENT
---TRANSMISSION LINE-PROPOSED
• ••••• • • TRANSMISSION LINE-ALTERNATE
PREPARED BY TES
PROJECT FACILITIES
FIGURE 23
J
J
0 o 5 10 M iles
. N ·0~~ ....... 51111----~----~,~'
10 15 Kilometers
LEGEND
e EXISTING STRUCTURES INUNDATED/ DISPLACED
DISPLACEMENT OF RIVERINE BOATING/RAFTING:
REPLACEMENT BY RESERVOIR BOATING
---STREAMS LIKELY TO HAVE INCREASED FISHING ACTIVITY
ZONE OF POTENTIAL INCREASED MOOSE HUNTING
••••• ZONE OF POTENTIAL INCREASED CARIBOU/ BEAR HUNTING
ACCESS ROAD
[;::·i:\.">:J ZONES OF INCREASED USE DUE TO PARTIAL OR COMPLETE ACCESS
INDUCED LAND USE ACTIVITIES , DEVIL CANYON PORTION
PREPARED BY TES FIGURE 24
1
1
1
]
J
]
PREPARED BY TES
LEGEND
e EXISTING STRUCTURES INUNDATED/ DISPLACED
DISPLACEMENT OF RIVERINE BOATING/RAFTING:
REPLACEMENT BY RESERVOIR BOATING
---STREAMS LIKELY TO HAVE INCREASED FISHING ACTIVITY
ZONE OF POTENTIAL INCREASED MOOSE HUNTING
••••• ZONE OF POTENTIAL INCREASED CARIBOU/ BEAR HUNTING.
ACCESS ROAD
fi·~;.:-.;::·}:j ZONES OF INCREASED USE DUE TO PARTIAL OR COMPLETE ACCESS
INDUCED LAND USE ACTIVITIES , WATANA PORTION
FIGURE 25
1
Elevation over 4000 ft.
o••r~=--~10 Miles
15 Kilometers 0
/ ACCESS SEGMENTS A-F
• BORROW AREAS 1·8
(Approximate locations) .
PREPARED BY TES
PROPOSED ACCESS ROUTE
AND ACCESS ROUTE BORROW AREAS
I
.i FIGURE 26
]
..•. } 1
e RECREATION FACILITIES KEYED TO TABLE 20
E:::::::::::::) Elevation over 4000 ft.
0 10 Miles •o••~::::::iiiiiiiii~15 Kilometers
RECREATION FACILITIES --IMMEDIATE· DEVELOPMENT
PREPARED BY TES I UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FIGURE 27
)
e RECREATION FACILITIES KEYED TO TABLE 20
Elevation over 4000 ft.
0--~~=--~10 Miles
0 15 Kilometers
RECREATION FACILITIES--LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT
PREPARED BYTES/ UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FIGURE 28
....
-
r-
-
-
.....
REFERENCES
Acres American, Inc. 198la. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Final
Draft Closeout Report Task 8: Transmission -Transmission Line
Corridor Screening. Prepared by Acres American, Inc. and
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. for the Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
Acres American, Inc. 198lb. Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Preliminary Report Subtask 6.20: Access and Camp Facilities -
Watana Construction Camp. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska.
Acres American, Inc. 198lc. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Report
-Subtask 2.10: Access Roads -Access Route Selection Report.
Prepared by Acres American, Inc. for the Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage, Alaska.
ADF&G. 1976-1979. Harvest Tickets. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Anchorage, Alaska.
ADF&G. 1978-1979. Sealing Records. Alaska· Department of Fish and
Game, Anchorage, Alaska.
ADF&G. 1978. Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Hydroelectric
Development on the Susitna River. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Anchorage, Alaska.
ADF&G. 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies
Annual Report Subtask 7.11: Wildlife Ecology Studies -Big Game.
Submitted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to the Alaska
Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
ADNR. 1981. Scenic Resources along the Parks Highway, Inventory and
Management Recommendations, Susitna Basin Background Report.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Research and
Development, Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Rural Development Council. 1977. A Revegetative Guide for
Alaska. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Alaska and
the United States Department of Agriculture, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Anchorage Daily News.
(June 1 , 1981 ) .
Anchorage Daily Times.
(March 29, 1973).
1981. Uncle Sam Fulfills River Rat•s Fantasy
Anchorage, Alaska.
1973. Blackadar Beats Devil•s Canyon Rapids
Anchorage, Alaska.
APA. 198la. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Annual
Report Subtask 7.07: Land Use Analysis. Submitted by Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists, Inc. and the University of Alaska to
Acres American, Inc. for the Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
A 1 as ka .
APA. 198lb. 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. 198lc. 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 Report
Subtask 7.09: Transmission Corridor Assessment -Environmental
Assessment of Proposed Transmission Facilities East of Knik Arm.
Submitted by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. 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.
Bacon, G. 1975. Heritage Resources Along the Upper Susitna River.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska.
Baum, W. K. 1967. Oral Hi story for the Loca 1 Historical Society.
Conference of California Historical Societies, Stockton,
California.
Binger, W. V. et al. 1978. Papers presented In Environmental Effects
of Large Dams. American Society of Civil-rngineers, New York,
New York.
Bradshaw, A. D. and M. J. Chadwick. 1980. The Restoration of Land, the
Ecology and Restoration of Derelict and Degraded Land. ·university
of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Clawson, M. and C. Stewart. 1965. Land Use Information: A Critical
Survey of U.S. Statistics Including Possibilities for Greater
Uniformity. Resources for the Future, Incorporated, Johns Hopkins
Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Cole, T. 1979. The History and Use of the Upper Susitna River, Indian
River to the Headwaters. Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Research and Development, Anchorage, Alaska.
Cook, S. 1981. An Investigation of the Recr·_ational Potential of
Water-filled Gravel Pits in Interior Al~ska: Preliminary Findings
(unpublished). University of Alaska, School of Agriculture and
Land Resources, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States. FWS/BS-79/31. United States Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
....
-
-
....
.....
. """
-
....
-
Daniel, T. C. and R. S. Boster. 1976. Measuring Landscape Esthetics:
The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. USDA Forest Service Research
Paper RM-167. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort
Collins, Colorado.
·Davis, C. 1974. From Tape to Tape: An Oral History Manual and
Workbook. Prager Publishers, New York, New York.
Dean, K. G. 1980. Surficial Geology of the Susitna-Chilitna River
Area, Alaska, Part 1: Susitna Basin Planning Background Report.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Land and Resource Planning
Section, Anchorage, Alaska.
Dietz, E. E. 1950. Speedletter by Dietz concerning the Susitna Float
Trip, November 20, 1950. Records of the United States Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Seattle, Washington.
Dohrenwend, B. S., D. Klein and S. A. Richardson. 1965. Interviewing -
Its Forms and Functions. Basic Books, Incorporated, New York, New
York.
Dwight, L. and E. W. Trihey. 1981. A Survey of Questions and Concerns
Pertaining to Instream Flow Aspects of the Proposed Susitna
Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for Acres American, .Inc.,
Buffalo, New York.
Elmiger, F. J. and B. Howlett.
the Hudson River Valley.
Tarrytown, New York.
1969. Power Lines and Scenic Values in
Hudson River Valley Commission,
Emleton, C. (ed). 1968. Land Use and Resources: Studies in Applied
Geography. Institute of British Geographers, London, England.
·Evans, M. N. (ed). 1976. Proceedfngs of the Surface Protection
Seminar, Theme: Travel and Transportation Practices to Prevent
Surface Destruction in the Northern Environment. United States
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,. Anchorage,
A 1 as ka.
Fortier, E. (ed). 1960. Alaska Hunting and Fishing Guide. Rhodes and
Fortier Publishers, Anchorage, Alaska .
Greiner, J. 1974. Wager with the. Wind: The Don Sheldon Story. Rand
McNally and Company, Chicago, Illinois.
Goldman, C. R., .J. McEvoy III and P. J. Richerson. 1973. Environmental
Quality and Water Development. W. H. Freeman & Company, San
Francisco, California.
GordJn, R. J. 1978. Alaska National Landscapes, Commission Study 33.
Federal -State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska, Anchorage,
Alaska.
Heinzenknecht, G. B. and J. R. Paterson. 1978. Effects of Large Dams
and Reservoirs on Wildlife Habitat In Environmental Effects of
Large Dams. American Society of CiVTl Engineers, New York, New
York.
Henning, R. A. 1976. Selected Alaska Hunting and Fishing Tales,
Volume 4. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company, Anchorage, Alaska.
Irving, W. N. 1957. An Archaeological Survey of the Susitna Valley.
University of Alaska, College, Alaska.
IUCN. 1971. Landscape Planning Papers presented at the International
Symposium on the Relationship Between Engineering and Biology.
IUCN Publication Paper No. 30.
Jones, G. R. 1975. Upper Susitna River, Alaska. United States Army
Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska.
Jones and Jones. 1975. An Inventory and Evaluation of the
Environmental, Aesthetic and Recreational Resources of the Upper
Susitna River, Alaska. United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Kari, J. M. 1975. Linguistic Diffusion Between Tanaina and Ahtna.
International Journal of American Linguists, New York, New York.
Litton, R. B., Jr. 1973. Landscape Control Points: A Procedure for
Predicting and Monitoring Visual Impacts. United States Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.
Litton, R. B. and R. J. Tetlow. 1974. Water and Landscape: An
Aesthetic Overview of the Role of Water in the Landscape. Water
Information Center, Inc., Port Washington, New York.
Lotspeich, F. B. 1971. Environmental
in Alaska. EPA Report No. 1610.
Protection Agency and the Alaska
Alaska.
Guidelines for Road Construction
United States Environmental
Water Laboratory, College,
Lotspeich, F. B. and A. E. Helmers. 1974. Environmental Guidelines for
Development of Roads in the Sub-Arctic. United States Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Institute of Northern Forestry,
Fairbanks, Alaska.
Matanuska-Sus itna Borough. 1978. Phase II Comprehensive Deve 1 opment
Plan: Goals, Statements. IVIat-Su Borough Planning Department,
Palmer, Alaska.
McHarg, I. L. 1971 Design with Nature. Doubleday/Natural History
Press, Garden City, New York.
Orth, D. J. 1967. Dictionary of Alaska Places and Names. Professional
Paper 567. United States Department of the Interior, Geological
Survey, Washington, D.C.
-
....
-
-
-
-
.....
-
-
-
-
Pragnell, R. C. 1969, Scenic Road: A Basis for its Planning, Design
and Management. Cooperative Research Agreement PSW-62 with USDI
(BLM) and USDA (FS). United States Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Berkeley, California.
R&M Consultants, Inc. 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Projectc Project
Preliminary Report Subtask 2.10: Access Roads -Access Plan.
Submitted to Acres American, Inc. for the Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage, Alaska.
la Societe ~e developpement de la Baie James and la Societe d•energie de
Baie James. 1975. James Bay Hydro-electric. Project: A Statement
of Environmental Concerns and Recommendations for Protection and
Enhancement Measures. Environment Canada, Montreal, Quebec.
Spadley, J. P. The Ethnographic Interview. Holt Rinehart and Winston,
New York, New York.
Sparrow, S. D., F. J. Wooding and E. H. Whiting. 1978. Effects of
Off-Road Vehicle Traffic on Soils and Vegetation in the Denali
Highway Region of Alaska Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
Volume 33, No. 1.
Taylor, K. V. 1978.
of Large Dams.
New York.
Erosion Downstream of Dams In Environmental Effects
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York,
Trihey, E. W. 1981. Instream Flow Study Plan for the Proposed Susitna
Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for Acres American, Inc.
Buffalo, New York.
USACOE. 1975. South Central Railbelt Area, Alaska, Upper Susitna River
Basin Interim Feasibility Report. Appendix l, Parts l and 2.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska.
USACOE. 1976. Draft Susitna Hydropower Feasibility Analysis
Environmental Assessment. United States Army Corps of Engineers,·
Anchorage, Alaska.
USACOE. 1977. Upper Susitna River Basin, South Central Railbelt Area,
Alaska -Final Environmental Impact Statement, Hydroelectric Power
Development. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Anchorage,
Alaska.
USACOE. 1978. Draft Susitna Hydropower Feasibility Analysis
Environmental Assessment. United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Anchorage, Alaska.
USDA (FS). 1960. Fishery Resource Study, Agency Report. United States
Department of Agriculture) Forest Service, Anchorage, Alaska.
USDA (FS). 1974. Outdoor Recreation Research: Applying the Results.
Papers presented at a workshop at Marquette, Michigan June 19-21,
1973. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.
USDA (FS). l979a. Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied
Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource.
General Technical Report PSW-35. United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest Experiment
Station, Berkeley, California.
USDA (FS). 1979b. Visual Character Types. Series No. Rl0-63. United
States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Division of
Recreation, Soils and Watersheds, Juneau, Alaska.
USDI (BLM). 1940-1979. Case Card File. United States Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska.
US DI ( BLM). 1952. Sus itna River Basin: A Report on Potentia 1
Development of Water Resources in the Susitna River Basin of
Alaska. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Anchorage, Alaska.
USDI (BLM). 1973. Influence of Man-Caused Surface Disturbance in
Permafrost Areas of Alaska. United States Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska.
USDI (BLM). 1979. Final Environmental Assessment Record: Susitna
Hydropower Feasibility Study. United States Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska.
USDI (BLM). 1980. Navigability Reviews -State Selections for the
Anchorage, Tyonek, Talkeetna, and Talkeetna Mountains Quadrangles.
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Anchorage, Alaska.
USDI (BLM). 1981. Report of Historical Data in the Susitna Region.
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Anchorage, Alaska.
USDI (NPS). 1976. Final EIS: Proposed Electric Distribution Line
Extension to McKinley Park. United States Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Region,
Portland, Oregon.
USFWS. 1960. Fishery Resource Study, Agency Report. United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.
USGS. 1900-1979. Mining Claim Card File, Active and Inactive Claims,
Talkeetna Quadrangle. United States Geological Survey, Fairbanks,
Alaska.
USGS. 1930. Mineral Industry of Alaska in 1929. Bulletn No. 824-A.
United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Viereck, L. A. and C. T. Dyrness. 1980. A Preliminary Classification
System for Vegetation of Alaska. General Technical Report PNW-106.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wahrhaftig, C. 1965. Physiographic Divisions of Alaska.
Professional Paper 482. United States Geological Survey,
Washington, D.C.
Williamson, 0; N. and S. W. Calder. 1979. Visual Resource Management
of Victoria•s Forests: A New Concept for Australia. Landscape
Planntng 6: 313~341.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1980. Gravel Removal Studies in Arctic and
Sub-Arctic Floodplains in Alaska. United States Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Anchorage, Alaska.
Zube, E. H. 1979. Assessing Amenity Resource Values. General Technical
Report RM-68. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort
Collins, Colorado.
AUTHORITIES CONTACTED
FEDERAL AGENCIES
United States Department of Agriculture
Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative Services
-Paul Fuglestad: Agricultural Economist, Natural Resource
Economics Division
Forest Service
-Steve Hennig: Landscape Architect, Chugach National Forest
District
-Ron Wood: Recreation Analyst
Soil Conservation Service
-Sterling Powell: Physical Engineer, Water Resource
Specialist
United States Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries Service
-Ronald Morris: Supervisor
-Bradley Smith: Fishery Biologist
United States Department of Defense
Air Force _
-Major Fred Haas: Blair Lakes Range Officer, Deputy Director of
Operations and Training
Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District
-Loran Baxter: Civil Engineer
-Jeanne Bradley: Construction Inspector
-Col. Lee Nunn: District Engineer
-Lt. Col. J. Perkins: Deputy District Engineer
United States Department of Energy
Alaska Power Administration
-Fredrick Chiei: Deputy Regional Representative
-Robert Cross: Administrator
-Donald Shira: Chief of Planning
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Division of Licensed Projects
-Ronald Corso: Director
-Paul Carrier: Engineer
-Donald Clarke: Staff Counsel
-Thomas Dewit: Landscape Architect
-Quentin Edson: Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch
-Julian Flint: Supervisor, Engineering Project Analysis Branch
-Peter Foote: Fishery Biologist
-Donald Giampaoli: Department Director
-Mark Robinson: Environmental Biologist
-Dean Shumway: Chief, Conservation Section
-Gsrald Wilson: Chief, Project Analysis
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
-Debra Pevlear: Neighbor Volunteer and Consumer Protection
Official
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
....
-
'~
-
-
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
-Lee Barkow: Planner, Easement Identification Branch
-Patrick Beckley: Chief, Branch of Lands and Minerals
-Stanley Bronczyk:· Chief, Easement Identification Branch
-Mike Brown: Historian
-Louis Carufel: Fisheries Biologist
-William Gabriell: Leader, Special Studies Group
Art Hosterman: Chief, Branch of Biological Resources
-Peter Jerome: Landscape Architect
-Paula Krebs: Remote Sensing Specialist
-Steve Leskosky: Environme.ntal Planner
-John Rego: Geologist
Gary Seitz: Environmental Coordinator-
-Tom Taylor: Cartographer, National Mapping Division
-Dick Tindall: Anchorage District Manage-r
-Richard Tobin: Recreational Planner·
Bureau of Mines
-Michael Brown: Chemist
-Bob Ward: Chief, Environmental Planning Staff
Fish and Wildlife Service
-Bruce Ap~le: Fisheries Biologist
-Dale Arhart: Staff Biologist
-Keith Baya: Assistant Director for the Environment
Donald McKay: Wildlife Biologist
-Gary Stackhouse: Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Federal
Projects/Technical Assistance Coordinator
Geological Survey
-Raymond George: Acting District Chief, Water Resources
Division
-Robert Lamke: Chief, Hydrology Section
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
-Larry Wright: Review Section Chief, Federal Projects
National Park Service
-Brailey Breedlove: Landscape Architect
-Terry Carlstrom: Chief of Planning and Design
-Ross Cavenaugh: Fisheries Biologist
-Carl Stoddard: Park Ranger
-Howard Wagner: Associate Director of Professional Services
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Impact Statement Review Section
-Elizabeth Corbyn: Chief, Environmental Evaluation Branch
STATE AGENCIES
Alaska Department of Administration
Division of General Services and Supplies
-Bill Ower: Contracting Officer
Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development
-Charles Webber: Commissioner
Alaska Power Authority
-Bruce Bedard: Inspector, Native Liaison
Division of Energy and Power Development
-Heinz Noonan: Economist
Alaska Department of
-Lee McAnerney:
-Edward Busch:
-Lemar Cotton:
Community and Regional
Commissioner
Senior Planner
Planner III
Affairs
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
-Ernst Mueller: Commissioner
Robert Flint: Region II Program Coordinator
Rikki Fowler: Ecologist
Robert Martin: Regional Supervisor
David Sturdevant: Management and Technical Assistant Ecologist
Dan Wilkerson: Special Projects Planner
Steve Zrake: Environmental Field Officer
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division of Game
-Karl Schneider: Research Coordinator
Division of Habitat Protection
-Thomas Arminski: Regional Land Specialist
-Phil Brna: Habitat Biologist II
-Joe Sautner: Biologist
-Carl Yanagawa: Rigional Supervisor
Division of Sport Fisheries
-Thomas Trent: Regional Supervisor, Susitna Aquatic Studies
Coordinator~ Vice-Chairman of Susitna Steering
Committee
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
-John Katz: Commissioner
-Robert LeResche: Commissioner
Division of Forest, Land and Water Management
-Ted Smith: Director
-Frank Mielke: Chief of Land Management
-Dean Brown: Southcentral District Lands Officer
-Romaine Clark: Land Disposal Officer
-Jim Fichione: Land Mangement Officer
Michael Franger: Special Projects Officer
-Mary Lou Harle: Water Management Officer
-Paul Janke: Civil Engineer, Water Management Section
-Joe Joiner: Land Management Officer
-Raymond Mann: Land Management Officer II
-Debbie Robertson: Land Management Officer II
Division of Geological & Geophysical Survey
-Roy Merritt: Geologist
Division of Minerals and Energy
-Glen Harrison: Director
Division of Parks
-Jack Wiles: Chief
-Ronald Crenshaw: State Park Planner
-Liza Holzapple: Park Planne·
-Pete Marten: Park P 1 anner ·.I
-Al Miner: Student Intern
-Doug Reger: State Archeologist
-Robert Shaw: State Historic Preservation Officer
-
-
-
-
.-
-
Division of Research and Development
-Linda Arndt: Land Management Officer
-William Beatty: Planning Supervisor, Land Resources
-Christopher Beck: Planner III
Al Carson: Deputy Director
-Randy Cowart: Planner V
Gary Stein: Historian
-Dale Sterling: Historian
-Ronald Swanson: Land Management Officer, Policy Research Land
Entitlement Unit
Division of Transportation and Public Facilities
-John Miller
Alaska Department of Public Safety
Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection
-Col. Robert Stickles: Director
-Wayne Fleek: Region III Commander
-Lt. Rod Mills: Administrative Officer
-Lt. Col. Tetzlaff: Deputy Director
Alaska Department of Tran~portation
-Jay Bergstrand: Transportation Planner IV
-Cathy Derickson: Transportation Planner
-Reed Gibby: Transportation Planner
Office of the Governor
Division of Policy Development and Planning
-Frances Ulmer: Director
-David Allison: Policy and Planning Specialist
University of Alaska
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center
-Chuck Evans: Research Associate, Wildlife Biologist
-William Wilson: Fisheries Biologist
Geophysical Institute
-Ken Dean: Remote Sensing Geologist
Geology Department
-Steve Hardy: Geologist
Museum
-Robert Thorson: Geologist
LOCAL AGENCIES
City of Houston, Alaska
-Elsie O'Brien: City Clerk
City of Palmer
-David Soulak: City Manager
City of Was i 11 a
-Earling Nelson: City Clerk
Fairbanks North Star Borough
-Paula Twelker: Planner II
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Borough Office
-Rick Feller: Planner
-Claud Oxford: Engineer
-Rodney Schulling: Planning Director
-Lee Wyatt: Acting Borough Manager, Planning Director
School District
-Mr. Hotchkiss: Business Manager
-Kenneth Kramer: Superintendent
OTHER INSTITUTIONS, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS
Institutions and Organizations
Ahtna, Inc.
-Lee Adler: Director
-Robert Goldberg: Attorney
-Douglas MacArthur: Special Projects Director
Chickaloon Village
-Jess Landsman: President
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
-Floyd Heimback: Director
Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated
-Agnes Brown: Executive
-Lynda Hays:· Shareholder and Community Relations Coordinator
-Robert Rude: Senior Vice-President
-Marge Sargerser: Land Manager
-Roland Shanks: Manager of Land Administration
-John Youngblood: Executive Director
Fairbanks Environmental Center
-Jeff Weltzin: Energy Coordinator
· Ho 1 mes and Narver
-James Pedersen: Susitna Project Manager
Keual Village
-James Shoalwolfer: President
Knikatnu Incorporated
-Paul Theadore: Chief
Land Field Services, Incorporated
-P. J. Sullivan: Representative
Mahay•s Riverboat Service
-William Carrera: Guide
-Steve Mahay: Owner and Guide
Ninilchik Native Association, Incorporated
-Arnold Orhdhoff: Chief
Ninilchik Village
-Arnold Orhdhoff: President
Norsk Hydro, Sweden
-Iver Hagen: Public Relations
Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company
-Susan Fisson: Director, Socioeconomic Analysis
Overall Economic Development Program, Inc.
-Donald Lyon: Executive Director
Palmer Valley Hospital
-Valerie Blakeman: Administrative Secretary
-Rae-Ann Hickling: Consultant
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.....
-
-
Salamatoff Native Association, Inc.
-Andy Johnson: President
Seldovia Native Association, Inc.
-James Segura: Chief
Susitna Power Now
-E. Dischner: Executive Director
Tyonek Native Corporation
-Agnes Brown: President
Individuals
-Warren Ballard: Game Biologist, Hunter
-Ray Bloomfield: Operator of Kashwitna Landing Boat Launch
Dennis Brown: President of Akland Air Service
-Verna and Carrol Close: Owners of Talkeetna Roadhouse
-Mike Fisher: Pilot, Talkeetna Resident .
-Jim and Vonnie Grimes: Pilots, Owners of Adventures Unlimited
-Pete Haggland:
P au 1 Ho 11 and :
Cliff Hudson:
Lodge
President of Alaska Central Air,
Owner-Manager of Evergreen Lodge,
Owner/Pilot of Hudson•s Air Taxi,
Resident
Pi lot
Boater
Talkeetna
-John Ireland:
-Dave Johnson:
Alaskan Sourdough, Murder Lake Resident
Manager, Denali State Park
-Dorothy Jones: President of Talkeetna Historical Society,
Representative-elect of Mat-S(J Borough Assembly
-Frenchy Lamoureux: Hunter, Trapper, Wife and Mother of Big Game
Guides
-Don Lee: Manager Stephan Lake Lodge, Pilot
-Chuck McMahon: Pilot, Hunter in Upper Susitna Basin
-Tom Mercer: President of Denali Wilderness Treks, Bush Pilot,
Dog Musher
-James Moran: Pilot, Partner in Tsusena Lake Lodge
-Mrs. Ken Oldham: Co-owner of High Lake Lodge, Guide, Bush Pilot,
Author
-Butch Potterville: Sportfish Biologist in Upper Susitna Basin
-Andy Runyon: Pilot, Hunter
-Hank Rust: President of Rust•s Flying Service
-Roberta Sheldon: Partner in Sheldon Air Service, Talkeetna
Resident
-Judy Simco: Hunter, Trapper
-Kathy Sullivan: Owner of Genet Expeditions
-Minnie Swanda: Widow of Master Guide, Talkeetna Resident
-Jake Tansy: Native Hunter and Trapper
Bob Toby: Game Biologist, Hunter
-Lee and Helen Tolefson: Subsistence Trappers/Hunters, Talkeetna
Residents
-Mrs. Oscar Vogel: Hunter, Trapper, Stephan Lake Resident, Widow
of Master Guide
-Jeff Weltzin: Devil Canyon Backpacker
-Ed Wick: Talkeetna Resident
....
-
-
APPENDIX A
TRANSMISSION LINE MAPS
l
1
T
4
0
-c:::::,
9
~.:
F 0 R T '
I 6
ILITARY
I
12
w w
z 1->-a: ::::; a: a:
Qz ~ o~ ~o z wz ~u; 0 ~5 "~ w wco z~ (/) ~
-(f) o ~w
CJ)_I-~ a. 0 1-...... 0 U:::l
><a: a: w 0 w 1-a. a: a:
a::>-oa:: 9~ a::z
C:::::l
00 uco
c
z w
(!)
w
...J = =·· <( w
0:
<(
>-<(
~
I
CJ
I
0
z w
0 <(
U) w
0 0: w <(
CfJ8>-f-a.<C z~~ <(O.CJ
0 I g:~o
({)U>d]
zfi1g
O~o
0~~
_j> 0 a.
0
0: a. <(~ :JE CfJU>::x: _ZCJ)
>~a.
VISUAL
CONSTRAINTS
MAP M1
PREPARED BYTES FIGURE 1 of 48
J
J
~
4 3
F 0 R T · W A I N W R I G H.,,T
6 i 5 1 4 .·;-···;--./i \,3 ', 2 ,'
J
I .
ILITARY RESE RVATIO N
~ I -f i -
O[()ootl!(···l · ··,1
2:
I /
10 t ··
f 1 Tow~~;·0
I
...
·;:>
11 12
c z w
(.!:)
w
_J
Cf)
1--z
<( a:
1--
C/) z
0
0
w
0
<(
~ z
<(
~
>-a:
0~
w w z i=
a: ::::i a: 0 w
"JZ 1-
<l:O Z
::!:u;
wz
O::J ,.... zo ...... Wto w::::!: 0~
z::!:
-(f)
1-z ~<I:
><a:
WI-
~ ::!:W c.. 01-
0 U::J
a: wo c.. a: a:
= : I •
(/)
w
a:
<!
0 z
:::J
0
Cl)
MANMADE
CONSTRAINTS
MAP M1
PREPARED BYTES FIGURE 3 of 48
_J
~
i= z w
1-
0 c..
...J < ~ w
;.... z
:::::
:::l
0 ;-z
0 u
w
_J
<l: u
(f)
0 z
0::
<l:
::::!:
'Z
0
~ u
0
_J
~ 3: O< ~)>O(j) ~"'CZc 0 (f) "1> ~ 3: -1 r ~1\):D :!J "1> G') -c z :::0 m -1 01 Q. (f) ""' 00 I~ I ...) NORTH STUDY AREA CENTRAL STUDY AREA '( SUSITNA RIVER WILLOW SOUTH STUDY .AREA ANCHORAGE '·I ! ''· f' ,, I 'I i L ... --.--vc~ /-.. ·"' \_~~-•• ":o.. / ( ~..:-~ ___j ~~) J s .,,;:_, ' ~ 0 ~~·-\ I \ l -~ '';;.·"''' · .... /· '' ·-') .' , 11 r / ,....-,];...._, v ,'-.._j "\ .. ·. ~ ,,.i ( {:·4-c :~ w HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA ALASKA VISUAL CONSTRAINTS SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS AND PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA PSH PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS HW HIGHWAY . R R RAILROAD PL PRIVATE LANDS WC WATfiR COURSE RA RECREATION AREA LEGEND EXISTING MAJOR IIIII TRANSMISSION LINE ••• PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY ~ 0 1KM 0 m 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
L-... L_____ ~ 3: 0~ ~ )>0)> :0 ""C z z m 0 (/) ~ 3:-1~ ~ 1\) :u )> 11 )> 0 " -m c z :0 m _, ....... 2. ""' (/) 0) ~ ..____, *FAIRBANKS NORTH STUDY AREA WILLOW SOUTH STUDY .AREA CENTRAL STUDY AREA ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE I' ( . 35 ----' \ I \.__) --' (_--\ ./'. / ~~ ', ·"' L .) __ ) ('--;---,-/' _J ( ·, F-::_, 0 R .' T VI ( l, . ~ ,-; . ·-C>o~"v ·'' /-w HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA ALASKA MANMADE CONSTRAINTS RECREATION BOUNDARIES 0 CAMPSITE --RT--RECREATION TRAIL NAME GAME REFUGE AREA LAND USE AND LAND OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES -··-EXISTING PRIVATE LAND -----DEVELOPMENT AREA -···-DISPOSAL AREA ----AGRICULTURAL LAND 6 KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE .......... AREA OF HIGH ARCHEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL DIA DAM IMPOUNDMENT AREA Q CABINS, STRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION BOUNDARIES c:::_-_-_-_, AIRPORT AND LANDING STRIP FPL FLOAT PLANE LANDING SITE LEGEND EXISTING MAJOR IIIII TRANSMISSION LINE • •• PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 1KM 0 CD 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL100FT
-=..-:. ·, '1 .4 29 32 '-------' ~3:0< ~ )>0U) ~'"tJZC 0 (f)'> ~ 3:--tr ~U)JJ :!! '> (;') -c z ::0 m --t <D 2. (f) ... 00 I& I r Y;---rj • I ' * FAIRBANKS NORTH STUDY AREA SOUTH STUDY AREA ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE 32 I 32 33 .· s I 4 33 34 032 0 ·-= 33 8 I_ . d 17 •• 0 .• 27 ""' 9 \ 10 [) 16 I ---1 . ---· ~ I 21 22 I HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUSITNA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY VISUAL CONSTRAINTS SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS AND PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA PSH PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS HW HIGHWAY RR RAILROAD PL PRIVATE LANDS WC WATfiR COURSE RA RECREATION AREA LEGEND f II II EXISTING MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINE ••• PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 1KM 0 m 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
.:-! -, 29 32 "'tl ::0 m "'tl )> ::0 m 0 OJ -< -1 m CJ) :!! G) c ::0 m ...... ...... 2. ""' co s: 0~ )> 0)> '"'0 z z s: ~~ CN :IJ )> )>0 -m z ~ (f) ~ NORTH STUDY AREA CENTRAL STUDY AREA {( SUSITNA RIVER WILLOW SOUTH LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE --------' 27 "" 0 032 33 34 10 D d 17 •• 16 -0 j-.• ~ 21 n HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUSITNA ALASKA POWER MANMADE CONSTRAINTS RECREATION BOUNDARIES 0 CAMPSITE --RT--RECREATION TRAIL NAME GAME REFUGE AREA LAND USE AND LAND OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES -··-EXISTING PRIVATE LAND -----DEVELOPMENT AREA -···-DISPOSAL AREA ----AGRICULTURAL LAND 6 KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE ••·• • •· • •• AREA OF HIGH ARCHEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL DIA DAM IMPOUNDMENT AREA Q CABINS, STRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION BOUNDARIES c::::_-.;-_1 AIRPORT AND LANDING STRIP FPL FLOAT PLANE LANDING SITE AUTHORITY LEGEND 11111 EXISTING MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINE ••• PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 1KM 0 m 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
/' -if.----++------c -----:-----1 I I I I 18 I 25 30 36 31 ~ 3: 0< ~ l> om ~ -c zc 0 en)> ~ 3: -1r ~ ~ ::0 !! (;) c:: lJ m ..... w 0 -~ (I) m )> z -1 en 'I I I I I ~G'-"CCf'lt I 17 I I I I cfLEAR 27 3 10 23 26 2 11 ., . ··~' "-s . ,. "'~ '2 ... ' " .,__ \ (·~, I . . -5-t .\. ~"" 21 /rt~ <I \ ~ & ___} ____ '-;------31 \ \ \ ~/0 < "' "' u ?<J ' . ........,. .. ---....--.___,. J2 (''· ,~ r.:: \ \ \ \ rl \ ~fj-;.P \ ,.; l "' " )'~ '--( ,., . '? ,., 11 1•1 ;•t, '· 2'J ' .16 2? II. .r-......_, (_ ! ;-'· , I • . r ', "· / ~'0 ~~" "".' ~ · ..... _,.....: .. ~ 1~ ·~.' _.....! '' -~ "' " ~ / I."• '' ~. --c ·, ) \___, \ ~ \~ ·-; : ... _.......----.... :._-----4: I :~ , . r-· ,\l\ \..._ r-Jl '"' :''• -------~-\ r-~ 32 /.-__ ---' 'I .'t> r--~-'•' Ill' 11 ~ / / .' ·a ~L 6 ~-----· l. HGWY...---r:-1 r--~ * FAIRBANKS NORTH STUDY AREA WILLOW SOUTH STUDY AREA ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE 6 ~~ ~--"'~ SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY VISUAL CONSTRAINTS SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS AND PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA PSH PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS HW HIGHWAY RR RAILROAD PL PRIVATE LANDS WC WATEiR COURSE RA RECREATION AREA LEGEND IIIII ••• EXISTING MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINE PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY ~ 0 1KM 0 ([) 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
l-?' ..____ I 1a I 17 'I I I I 27 10 I ______ _j ____ ~------------~G'-'At--------25 36 ""C ::0 m ""C )> ::0 m 0 to -< -1 m en :!! G> c ::0 m .... U1 2. J:>, co 30 31 3: os: )> 0)> ""C z z 3: ~s: ~:D)> )>0 -m z ~ (j) lffi I I I I I I I I HGWY;----r;-•r--1 *FAIRBANKS NORTH STUDY AREA WILLOW SOUTH STUDY AREA ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE ... J, 2':1 .-'-23 26 ~~ \\ 0 (1_ \ '· .\._ t \ '\~, ~· \\11 ~c !.;": 2 ~~\ (~t·\ '~ \\_ 11 ) 1'--_ ' (; .\ \"-.. \ ~., r\,., IJ IK ]1) •\\ 15 \ / \ \, \ ~\ \, .><: \·,\ . . \ "-~ ' \r I ' '\ ,• \~ 2<1 1,. ... ~ ' ;'6 :o:·, 30 2!J \ --~---\ ~\\~ -. ~ ..'\, "V ! 1•1 -~ ~:· 1J) ,-~' ~,.,"--. ,--.---<,__, ~~,, 32 :, ,-......._ 'J 1'--. .-___,_ \.../ -', /).._,;::; < ,;,-'--.._\ -----\ ---' ' ,, . I '.• \ -r \ 'i'-' ( ~ ,& ~-6;:;> .·1 '"' -· .-!7 -"'~ HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUSITNA ALASKA POWER MANMADE CONSTRAINTS RECREATION BOUNDARIES 0 CAMPSITE --RT--RECREATION TRAIL NAME GAME REFUGE AREA LAND USE AND LAND OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES -··-EXISTING PRIVATE LAND -----DEVELOPMENT AREA -···-DISPOSAL AREA ----AGRICULTURAL LAND 6 KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE ... · ••• ••• AREA OF HIGH ARCHEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL DIA DAM IMPOUNDMENT AREA Q CABINS, STRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION BOUNDARIES c:::_-_-:_1 AIRPORT AND LANDING STRIP FPL FLOAT PLANE LANDING SITE AUTHORITY LEGEND IIIII EXISTING MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINE ••• PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY ~ 0 1KM 0 (I) 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
-~ ..----J I '19 1-..r-20 _,...-:~~G -~· ., 12 ; 23 /' /./ -. ) ..-\ I I ~ ' -~ I · · ~ u/ \-; -;. . ·., ? ~" rc· \\.!\!{\. ·\ : \ . I • · • 1 ---+· -1 , _ ' ( • -,\. ' ' "'"'_, ~= • 8 '\ :~\-\\ " : ' : ' l) '• • c;:J' ~;;·· I.Jj l";t-w·· -\..... ~> •• ··v->r . t. ?. -~·"' \?\~~~ .. -. o ~~i-~ \~\)· ···~ , . ----~,~C_i:·.~~·--·t -~---k-d:w"'~o~--........ ....... . I,\ I 1 ~ ~I \?,(\ D ..-~'\'\ '-..~ 1 I) ~ '7 ~ ·. 26 0 2 . I 2 7 ~ ":. 2 \ : 1\ 'l(\ -' ._" ": : \ I ·..,5 , ''" '<s.. (' ' "> f\ \\, / ,..-; . on oo; '.~)'-.6'.C'l/tl. 2~ ! ~ . ~c • .• /, I 35 3.6 -I I 3""'1'" ,-t1?(' /{ h~ ... -::1:..1' ) ,\1\ ( "lC.. •• ~-......-'\ .... \! \ '\._..,\....'\\ i 1 i\ I N \'-I ~ 36 j ~ } ,,,oo ·a ')_ ......... , I 14 \\ . : :. ' "~ \ 17 ..... _·.rl / 23 ,,oo. 24 20 I ' l .... 6 I I I I I I , I I I i I r• . ~·~--.-.... ~ ·~ . ~-~-_!.-~-~ ~--~I ' i IS t' ' \.? r ' ~~~""'-: 13(.'"' i 18 ' , l) "., ,,_.,.,_,!I ' \ . ". ' ~ i .0 . ' _, • I I • .. C • I --"-: ) t' ., ' '-"b . . ( \ ..., I' ~ .;o~'Q : 19 ( · <4 I : 23 l ,'-.....1 ' )-···-___ j_ ~J-~_: ________ .--[--'\_ ' 2~ \' J ,.JJ"\.fV \,r ' -.-J ~:-/' ~" • ?'> "u ~':1 . -::--.-., "'\, .~B J; .,. 30 26 \ 27 I "-25 ,1 26 \ ' .. , ' ~........../',.... ~ ..-' .... I ~ \ ·. :-:. ' ::---..; 36 ~----~ _. __ ~, ___ ·._ ~-/ ,) .~-. '·~% . ·"~· · .. ~-"'' . \ I''(' ..... ~ c....-. s \ . l, . v ~-'.:~ ~ ··~;v .. ;''<... ' ' ~1 -~--..... "'\ ~ . ~-···. ~-\ ... -,_ ,-v. · / ~c-.--:; . ~ ! , -)~r _r---~ ·~· , ""-. . 'v \r [ ~~~ --~ (_~ ~ · ) < r-.. c . :L-,,..,.._"'1 ~ .../ ' -v !. 3J,;.O ,...-\. r.., \ -....-; ""s'b __ )-, L.... 31 . 32·~'\ \ .I. -..J ...... _~ .·: __ · .• 35 . 34-"L. .. .J"'b . '"-.., ·c__, . !1 ' ' I I J:r~ _j xl~ 35 ~ ! 36 Ql;l" 31 (_,_, .. !. ',,c 35 36 ;:~ 1: ----------------------~r----.~;; 11 ,, "'tJ :::c m "'tJ l> :::c m c [XJ -< S: O< l> O(j) -c zc , (f) "J> :::.. -I r (11::0 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUSITNA ALASKA -i m (/) , 0 c :::c m ..... ...., 2. ""' co lml "J> -z -I (f) NORTH STUDY AREA WILLOW SOUTH STUDY AREA ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE POWER AUTHORITY VISUAL CONSTRAINTS SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS AND PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA PSH PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS HW HIGHWAY RR RAILROAD PL PRIVATE LANDS WC WATEiR COURSE RA RECREATION AREA LEGEND IIIII EXISTING MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINE ••• PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 1KM 0 m 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
"'0 :D m "'0 l> :D m c OJ -< -i m C/) ::!! G) c: :D m ...... CD 0 -"'" (X) 26 s: 0~ l> 0)> -c zz s: ~~ 01 :IJ )> )>0 m z --1 (/) m HGWY,....-,;-•r--1 * FAIRBANKS NORTH STUDY AREA CENTRAL STUDY AREA rr SUSITNA RIVER WILLOW SOUTH STUDY AREA ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE 22 '!, !\1 II 2 II ' ,~~ I ' ) t\ ., ( ' I I I I I I I I ... ~61~ .. 3l 6 __________ l ___ _ I SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AUTHORITY ALASKA POWER MANMADE CONSTRAINTS RECREATION BOUNDARIES 0 . CAMPSITE --RT--RECREATION TRAIL NAME GAME REFUGE AREA LAND USE AND LAND OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES ----EXISTING PRIVATE LAND -----DEVELOPMENT AREA -·-·-DISPOSAL AREA ----AGRICULTURAL LAND £::,. KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE •••··••••• AREA OF HIGH ARCHEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL DIA DAM IMPOUNDMENT AREA Q CABINS, STRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION BOUNDARIES c::::_-_-_, AIRPORT AND LANDING STRIP FPL FLOAT PLANE LANDING SITE LEGEND IIIII ••• EXISTING MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINE PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 1KM 0 CD 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
l_____., l L-;;ightmilt 12 ,akt /~>---, J:,. ""0 :::0 m ""0 l> :::0 m 0 OJ -< -i m Ul ::!:! c;) c :::0 m "-' g, ""' co 3: O< )> o en "tJ z c :::::-(f) )> ::::::.. --i r m:o )> -z --i (f) ~ NORTH STUDY AREA CENTRAL STUDY AREA : SUSITNA RIVER WILLOW SOUTH STUDY AREA ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AUTHORITY ALASKA POWER VISUAL CONSTRAINTS SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS AND PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA PSH PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS HW HIGHWAY RR RAILROAD PL PRIVATE LANDS WC WATER COURSE RA RECREATION AREA LEGEND 11111 EXISTING MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINE ••• PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 1KM 0 CD 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
"'0 ::0 m "'0 :t> ::0 m 0 OJ -< -i m en ::!! G) c ::0 m 1\) w g_ """ CD 3: ()~ )> 0)> "'C z z s: ~~ en :n :t> )>0 -m z --i en ~ NORTH STUDY AREA WILLOW SOUTH STUDY AREA CENTRAL STUDY AREA ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AUTHORITY ALASKA POWER MANMADE CONSTRAINTS RECREATION BOUNDARIES 0 CAMPSITE --RT--RECREATION TRAIL NAME GAME REFUGE AREA LAND USE AND LAND OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES -··-EXISTING PRIVATE LAND -----DEVELOPMENT AREA -···-DISPOSAL AREA ----AGRICULTURAL LAND 6, KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE .......... AREA OF HIGH ARCHEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL DIA DAM IMPOUNDMENT AREA Q CABINS, STRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION BOUNDARIES c::::_-:_, AIRPORT AND LANDING STRIP FPL FLOAT PLANE LANDING SITE LEGEND EXISTING MAJOR IIIII TRANSMISSION LINE • •• PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOH BOUNDARY 1KM 0 CD 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
"'C :c m "'C )> :c m 0 CJ -< -I m (J) ::!! " c :::0 m 1\:1 U1 2. +=-CXl [ __ L S: O< )> 0 (j) -c zc ::::::--(f) "1> :::::.. -I r '-1:0 "1> -z -I (f) &] '--;---c-; • I I * FAIRBANKS NORTH STUDY AREA WILLOW SOUTH STUDY AREA ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE ~-~ ~.J _ _) .•'' HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUSITNA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY VISUAL CONSTRAINTS SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS AND PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA PSH PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS HW HIGHWAY RR RAILROAD PL PRIVATE LANDS WC WATER COURSE RA RECREATION AREA LEGEND IIIII EXISTING MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINE ••• PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 1KM 0 (D 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
"'0 :D m "'0 )> :D m 0 OJ -< -1 m (/) :::!} C) c :D m ~ -..j g, ~ CXl '-~ 3:0S: )>0)> -czz 3:~~ ~ ::D)> )>0 -m z -1 (/) ~ ~ HGWY:---r;-•r--1 * FAIRBANKS NORTH STUDY AREA CENTRAL STUDY AREA {f SUSITNA RIVER WILLOW SOUTH STUDY AREA ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE ... -: SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AUTHORITY ALASKA POWER MANMADE CONSTRAINTS RECREATION BOUNDARIES 0 CAMPSITE --RT--RECREATION TRAIL NA~E GAME REFUGE AREA LAND USE AND LAND OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES -··-EXISTING PRIVATE LAND -----DEVELOPMENT AREA -···-DISPOSAL AREA ----AGRICULTURAL LAND 6_ KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE •··· ··· ·•• AREA OF HIGH ARCHEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL DIA DAM IMPOUNDMENT AREA Q CABINS, STRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION BOUNDARIES .::::.:_-_-_, AIRPORT AND LANDING STRIP FPL FLOAT PLANE LANDING SITE LEGEND IIIII ••• EXISTING MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINE PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 1KM 0 en 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
L_ ' 1"/)'J -~,' ,,., ~ S: O< ~ l> ou; ~ -czc 0 (f))> ~ S:-1r ~00:::0 ., G) c :c m 1\.) <0 ~ +:-CXl ~ )> z __, (f) HGWY;-----r;-q---1 * FAIRBANKS NORTH STUDY AREA WILLOW SOUTH STUDY AREA 12 ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE ·I "OO :'\:) : .'l>.j "'->q,_ J~so ·U JjOo •.\ ..,d} .. <q, ~-,~J. J~ -"' \ ( ~ HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA ALASKA VISUAL CONSTRAINTS SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS AND PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA PSH PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS HW HIGHWAY RR RAILROAD PL PRIVATE LANDS WC WATER COURSE RA RECREATION AREA LEGEND EXISTING MAJOR IIIII TRANSMISSION LINE ••• PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 1KM m 0 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
__ _, ""0 :::c m ""0 )> :::c m 0 OJ -< -I m en "T1 G) c :::c m w Q. .,. co I '----' L-~ 1~oo 3':. ,,oo 3: () s: )> 0)> -c zz 3: ~s: (X) :0 )> ')>0 -m z --f en ~ ..__ _ """ HGWY~;-• 1 --1 * FAIRBANKS NORTH STUDY AREA SOUTH STUDY AREA ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE ,, "OO ,_.) __) _j / .uoo21 .... \ 1: ,. -'l.r.,' ~ (f'~-, ~ -,~ /'·,~~~~of·"~,,\ .: .'H -• ' J~OO ~ JJOo " •.\ '},oo .1.~~ Jdo<>o, "<"" Jsso HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA ALASKA MANMADE CONSTRAINTS RECREATION BOUNDARIES 0 CAMPSITE --RT--RECREATION TRAIL NAME GAME REFUGE AREA LAND USE AND LAND OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES -··-EXISTING PRIVATE LAND -----DEVELOPMENT AREA -... _ DISPOSAL AREA ----AGRICULTURAL LAND f::. KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE .......... AREA OF HIGH ARCHEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL DIA DAM IMPOUNDMENT AREA Q CABINS, STRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION BOUNDARIES c::::_-:_, AIRPORT AND LANDING STRIP FPL FLOAT PLANE LANDING SITE LEGEND EXISTING MAJOR 11111 TRANSMISSION LINE • •• PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 1KM 0 m 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
"'0 :0 m "'0 )> :0 m 0 OJ -< -1 m (/) :::!:! G> c :0 m w w 8. .j::o. CD L~ ,··, ~ O< )> 0(/) -c zc :::::=-(f) }> :::::. -i r <.0:0 }> -z -i (f) ,:r; ~ L _) • QQt;,--~ .. • '! I' -· j'. • . ,J • • • • • l. • .--• '\.. . . -·Oc '~\ ' J \ ~\,\~_; .~~~\\\ (' J~ / ~ \ \ \ ,,,, <'.._ "" . • • . \ .. -~ /.; _/ .>·' . 'I-~,-,. __ . ; ' ,• . '--' ~ ;·;? \,~ 1 ,c.~ c··.·. NORTH STUDY AREA WILLOW SOUTH STUDY AREA ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE I c9 ~ FOG L .-\ K £ S •28 '21 J /''"''-J'·f'-~'" SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AUTHORITY ALASKA POWER VISUAL CONSTRAINTS SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS AND PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA PSH PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA SENSITIVE VI EWSH EDS HW HIGHWAY RR RAILROAD PL PRIVATE LANDS WC WATfiR COURSE R'A RECREATION AREA LEGEND EXISTING MAJOR IIIII TRANSMISSION LINE ••• PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 1KM m 0 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
'"0 ::0 m '"0 l> ::0 m 0 OJ -< -i m (J) ., G) c ::0 m w (Jl Q. J::. co 1...-~'I; -~9 3: 0~ )> 0)> -c zz 3: ~~ <0 JJ )> )>0 -m z __, (/) ~ .:-r: 1•1 A II I• <:) opr-·--J~ .. '' ' ' 'l. . ' ' . . :' '-,rr<! p L .... ~,--._ FPL • ~:_-. . . ~ ~(. ·, c. '---/ \ c·'·. NORTH STUDY AREA I, WILLOW SOUTH STUDY AREA ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE -'" I "" ' . I ' " D . -• I -' • 0 / ~--: ..... · )~, .. :.----·:-_ -=T-:_ -.c::::rJ-. -~ _.I: • • I) • • • • I • • • I e . .--· • ' \ .. /.-~ ... . • • f(_ ~) ,=pL ( ·. ~ -· FOG LA K £5 ;-·,; .'9 '28 -/v----rtrl J --'-..J ,. -1 .'I SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AUTHORITY ALASKA POWER MANMADE CONSTRAINTS RECREATION BOUNDARIES 0 CAMPSITE --RT--RECREATION TRAIL NAME GAME REFUGE AREA LAND USE AND LAND OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES -··-EXISTING PRIVATE LAND -----DEVELOPMENT AREA -···-DISPOSAL AREA ----AGRICULTURAL LAND 6_ KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE •······••• AREA OF HIGH ARCHEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL DIA DAM IMPOUNDMENT AREA Q CABINS, STRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION BOUNDARIES c::::_-_-_, AIRPORT AND LANDING STRIP FPL FLOAT PLANE LANDING SITE LEGEND EXISTING MAJOR IIIII TRANSMISSION LINE ••• PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 1KM 0 CD 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
'---fl! 33 ~ ~. ~ r--'~~1~~ . · I -.' ' I )' ,~~-~=--1-' ~ + l':P-_:::·....___ .. 1'/ , 1)'1 .' I, ,p{ I I I IC I :··,,,. ~26 l 25 \.? I ______ j~----------35 I I li 36 ~'""'~"'--· I -c._____.., I I ~ ~--~--1---. ----.:I~. -1 ---,. t77--· --lfJ~-r~-J{~=/ ,, . () 1-\J-.,.=-r-----I I .'3 I I ----r 2~ 35 l I I I 2 • . i ---~ ---~: : ·; ;~t" • '-·' ·, -:·. l!_ ·, I. -, ~ ~ o< ~ )> O(i) ~ -c zc ~ ~ (/))> rri ~ r (J) ..... :D :!!0)> C> -c: z ::0 m c.J --f "'-1 8. (f) .l>o co ~ 18 -17 19 .II "" r-_~ ! ,. , i ''""~c : ~\-. 1.'"' , r -. ~-',;c'~/--!-c---,. -. ·---s-rc; ___ _ ' : " --) '~ i 19 ?I -21 ' ' 2 . ' CJ . -~: '-'.,~ ! <::::::::::> <0 ~ -~-~----------; --<::> -------0-~, "\ : _;!'.. f r. . ,::+ ... ,.. .:::=.·,,. '}:-::, ,..,~ ' t/ ~·? ·. t}~~t, __ /~<\' I~ I. '1 ··-.j:'--. ~'I I i ~ ~ o 6 ~ :·5 1 3o---~ ; 28 f '")j 27 ifr ?-? : I ' ·. ,,. ' '--"> ·.::' ~--~E:,.~~-;.; 35 36 30 -.-,g t. ~ fd9" \I---· 26 ', \ "(. \_,/ '?-:--l.J; I·· 29___ I 28 f' ' I , 'r, • ' /"" \ 0 ' ' . ' _· _r__ 1_ -=---", s· o I nj~ ; \11 "" . / . -· i'\..... 1o; . ,....-' ! ' ' 9 -, ' •·c,o . I I -Jl 3. --._r-.f' / . ---------------'0::..~-------~-r_ --1 -I f · -;-----:-------------=---._....--F' ' I 11 '> J I :1'\ ,l ' I I I NORTH STUDY AREA CENTRAL STUDY AREA rr SUSITNA RIVER '------WILLOW SOUTH STUDY AREA ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE 10 t· -· ·-G-Jf-T-~ '--"'I i--1-H -..--1---tJ_ · 19 3 2 7 J/ ~--.-; :;--r;-:--i---+ ----.{~ ; ( / / / ;,h-............... ( ....... _ ... · . '1/1 ' ,. ! 0 ll --~{' '--i2 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUSITNA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY VISUAL CONSTRAINTS SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS AND PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA PSH PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS HW HIGHWAY RR RAILROAD PL PRIVATE LANDS WC WATEiR COURSE RA RECREATION AREA LEGEND IIIII ••• EXISTING MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINE PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 1KM 0 m 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL100FT
L -... 26-, ', '' '. c~~· .. _3S lJ"-. :..:..:....::::--~ ,~3 2y .. 35 ..:;,J '2 ~ I 'i ·; ;~-~ "'IJ ::c m "'IJ )> ::c m c OJ -< -1 m en :!! G) c ::c m w <D 2. """ c:o I !1 ~ ()~ )> 0)> -c Zz ~~~ ..... :D)> 0 )>0 -m z __, (j) ~ .. tt·''~," 23 24 !..-...::.:=-~='::.-...:.:.....!.,:;;...."":!..:--=i:..·=-~.:..-:::.::...~.=::...-_--=.::.·.:::~..:.-.:..":.:.".:.:..-..::..-::-:::.. .•! ...... .....,.._,.._-e.+ 34 35 r--=---~~-,-='---~-1---~------------t-------------~----~-',i---I J l .•,. ···i·······'l..', c. '~~.:~~------::' 21 ·21 N-· a . !~ 2 .< , c:--<:~--\3 ) ·~ ~--; --~-<;)~ I~ ' 'P:::> ~ --t-r-' I/ C)'-..) . ' -28 ! '/""'-.. ' -./ . ,. "-.d-----'r----"' 27 I (' j('·· ,. l I 128 (f 'j 0 ,~']'' .. -· ------,___/ c ?._.;<6 ,l ·--~ ' I T--1 I F' , ' ' r I ' ;, I I ' c A f ' • ~... I I : ' I I I ~----. . .~ : / ' -~-----.-----\ I l' ....r--.. j' I . -~--="'--------~: -{~:')-,--:,---35 36 31 32 NORTH STUDY AREA CENTRAL STUDY AREA (,t= SUSITNA RIVER WILLOW SOUTH STUDY AREA ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE /!' . --11 2 (./ ' : -;"/·· / :/ -v~: .{?. '~, [ ;:;fL-+ ;J ------, ,,,( ~-' '''' , -I ''. .~...--· ! 0 11_, .:;{ '-·'i2 --(f·: J". --.\-· II 19 : 10 7 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AUTHORITY ALASKA POWER MANMADE CONSTRAINTS RECREATION BOUNDARIES 0 CAMPSITE --RT--RECREATION TRAIL NAME GAME REFUGE AREA LAND USE AND LAND OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES _,_ EXISTING PRIVATE LAND -----DEVELOPMENT AREA -···-DISPOSAL AREA ----AGRICULTURAL LAND 6 KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE •·••·•·••• AREA OF HIGH ARCHEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL DIA DAM IMPOUNDMENT AREA Q CABINS, STRUCTURE rRANSPORTATION BOUNDARIES c:::::::_, AIRPORT AND LANDING STRIP FPL FLOAT PLANE LANDING SITE LEGEND EXISTING MAJOR 11111_ TRANSMISSION LINE • •• PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 1KM 0 m 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
14 IJJ• 2' 26 ) 15 .... "0 ::xJ m "0 )> ::xJ m c to -< -f m (/) ::!! G> c ::xJ m ~ ..... g, ~ CXI s: o< l> OC/5 -c zc , (f) "J> ::::.. -I r ...... ...... :0 "J> z -I (j) lfg I --..: "'" i 30 ) ~-15 ..... v' 22 27 ,,. '· 14 ·,I :':! \ i J 26 \-sustf'~'~-13 18 17 I 16 ~ ' -,------I I ----:------------~---------. : I 2' /I I I I I I I I I ' -----~----1 I Pa ~oose Tutin• I 19 . I I /, -I I ,.,o ,: 20 : r 1 I I .._ ... I I -----;--,---------!--------1 I J '•so : 21 ~5 I I 29 I I I I I l-30 28 Flat i 16 15 /[CJ--4;:--~-~-~ ~-, I LJ I ,I I · ·'I I 0 :, . . ~~;-~·, . -:22...'' -~" . /' -v, I I '-..) , ~! : -~~ • I ,,., ---------~--:~------o-J.-l-~···--'--~~-1 I I I --+---___ j_~' : = : : --<::) /------:---------! , I --·~ ]I HGWYo--r;-•T ---1 * FAIRBANKS NORTH STUDY AREA CENTRAL STUDY AREA {( SUSITNA RIVER WILLOW SOUTH STUDY AREA ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE --34 35 36 :-f" I I : 'SO I I I 31 I :~. Fi~gtr I I1*' 32 : ~"~ : 0 :·r;· ~~ ----·---~---=.--:--~--r-----,.,o . I ; ' Diomo11d I Lokt .]-. -7. ")9 ---~\ '!e _ __,...---..~: 2r "" ·-~ ~ -J " ---~,----.0 --~\ \1 11 l ~ 1) l '-{_~ V1 1 ' /t' . '-' / ~ 1 •• ofl~--. I ..-· 25 _. (.-; ... 27 ~-_j I ..... J-')?o-i="~/ ~:-~ Q ; , :..,, -ISO·--~__.../ • /) ~ .,o -~ • I c::::r /~-------__ ; ____ ~-----,.-~/ ,...) r -,oo D ... ·~ ..... ~~ ISO-1. ___./ ._::' -. ---~o 34.:s · / 35 .-.... --: 36 ,. • ~~~~~~:·~o~};'. ~ 3 -' :-,_ /,2 ' I/-' a .:: . ., ~ ,p /\ • ""'. J: +, t•~~~r.----·~C;L.-:~:.:.~~~~":~_} ____ ~! \:· HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUSITNA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY VISUAL CONSTRAINTS SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS AND PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHV'/AY AREA PSH PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY AREA HW RR PL we RA SENSITIVE VIEWSHEDS HIGHWAY RAILROAD PRIVATE LANDS WATEiR COURSE RECREATION AREA LEGEND IIIII EXISTING MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINE ••• PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 1KM 0 CD 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
14 IJJ• 2' 26 ~ 15 .. ., :D m ., )> :D m 0 to -< -i m (/) :!! G> c: :D m .::. w g_ .::. CXl 3:: 0 s: )> 0)> ""tJ z z s: ~s: ..... :ol> ..... )>0 -m z _, (/) ~ HGWY;---f;'"'lr--1 * FAIRBANKS NORTH STUDY AREA CENTRAL STUDY AREA (( SUSITNA RIVER WILLOW SOUTH STUDY AREA ANCHORAGE LOCATION MAP/NO SCALE 2:J 'to -------I 'I -r-,,o 27 I 26 l ·-34 35 \-tl~ -sus t11l 18 17 16 I -----~-----~-----------~--------,, /I I I I I I : I I I 0 19 · ~ _ I : ,'i / 1 20 I 'I· : I I I,' I I -----l------~~-)--~---------l---------~--i---------~~-~---~:--d~~~-"--~;15--;;=;J \,_/ 1 Pa ~oost T1{j.\na I ! 30 I 1 I I "-I I ''50 I I I : 29 l 28 I Flat ' I • :~~ ~c:::>. I ------t----· __ :_ ___ ·1-----------~j· I 0 I 36 I I I I I 1 •so I'' '/ I I I ' 0 I 31 Filigtr L.t*t 32 C~uns -7. --'<;5; i . ~~~-1 . -I '"'\-.-Is .... .,. -~4 ·,e : :0 -i ·-· -. -; '----~~~"·::;;[/--~\:~ -.-. ( ..r-_____ j_ ___ . --/""/' I I' . '/' ' '% 50 --~--;-.-o\1'0' " ~ " : \ •• 7 ,~..J.+".:::---~ -,_)..1'-" ' ' :-(,-;---~~----j~-~-~-<4-,l---c, I (J , • "-.! ·--__..-.p". 27 :-l I ,rP -----: I'd>'~//-I -' r 1 --:_. 1 1 ' 22 ~r,.....· 23~ •• ,, Q-' -0 f'! I ~J-~s--;;,-_1--,c/ / : ' I 0 I/ _,,..----~~I .• 25 ~ ::-I 3iJ' -· --::::;..;-,,' -~...--:':--I" --1,_,... -~·-~-~v· _--~ : ~~~-,~: ""~ ...... ~I D Tl __.~----~ ' -_:..~so. I J I '/ ~-,---•--------; : ?c:~Y ~-::~ ,/,-,0• -1 _,,o --·· ( • 34 ::: I r -: · / · · ~ •;.: :/r:: 35 / --.::_ ·, I lf2 .I Q ' '+.----' -· ,_;;r (/ I .•oo J ' ,> : · •. -;;.. .. 36 -/~~n~-/ .. /--~-7:;;-~-+ -~~7) -e...-1 .. , +i '· .. HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 8USITNA ALASKA POWER MANMADE CONSTRAINTS RECREATION BOUNDARIES 0 CAMPSITE --RT --RECREATION TRAIL NAME GAME REFUGE AREA LAND USE AND LAND OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES -··-EXISTING PRIVATE LAND -----DEVELOPMENT AREA -···-DISPOSAL AREA ----AGRICULTURAL LAND 6 KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE •····••••• AREA OF HIGH ARCHEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL DIA DAM IMPOUNDMENT AREA Q CABINS, STRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION BOUNDARIES c:::_-_-_-_, AIRPORT AND LANDING STRIP FPL FLOAT PLANE LANDING SITE AUTHORITY LEGEND IIIII EXISTING MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINE ••• PROPOSED INTERTIE RECOMMENDED .. ROUTE BOUNDARY • CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 1KM 0 ® 1MI NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 100FT
K
-----------
~_;·"'
/. ....... ::-
Mud
A R
--
M --
' 29 '~
Mud •
-
ROUlE EXTE
PARALLELING
TRANSMISSION
w w
z 1->-0::: 0::: ::::i 0::: 0 w •z 1-c:x:o z oe5
~u;
(.!)~
z~
-(f)
1-z ~<X: ><O::
WI-
wz
Cl::J
Cl zo w wco ~
(f) ~w f:r 01-
0 (.)::I
0::: wo c.. 0::: 0:::
o::>-oO:: ee5 o::z
0:::::::1
00
()CO
c z w
(!)
w
...J : I •
<( w a:
<(
>-<(
~
I
C)
I
0
<( w a:
<(
0 w
(J)
0 a.
0 a: a.
X
(/)
c..
VISUAL
CONSTR A INTS
MAP M12
PREPARED BYTES FIGURE 45 of 48
0
w
-I
<X:
(.)
(/)
0 z
0:
<X:
~
z
0
~
0
-I
------------------
'
'
Mud
;
! ...... -:·:
A R
---
Mud
.. ./·
M ----
' 29
-~
:>:
10 7
n
-
,,
13
1-
(.)
w
w w m~ z i= >-a::::::i a: a:
0 w oc5 ,...
I-u. 'Z ~
J
0>
C:l-
a.~
(.)0
-:I:
C:l-
1-::l
U<t w
--IC: ww
0~ a:o
Ca. >
::I:<t
~
<tCJ)
z<t
I--I -<t C/)
::>
C/)
en :.:: z < Cll a: < u..
iC
c z w
" w
...J
(f)
1-z
<{ a:
1-
(f) z
0
0
w
0
<{
~ z
<{
~
<:o ::;!-(/)
(.!:)~
Z::;!
-(f) 1--z ~<(
><a: WI----=
z
0 w
(/)
0 c. 0 a: c.
• • •
wz
O:J zo wco
::;!
::;!W 01--
():J wo a:: a:
I
(/) w
a:
<(
0 z
:::J
0
(()
MANMADE
a::Ei; 0<( eo a::z a:::> 00
()CO •
~ :.::
J:
_J <(
i= z w 1--
0 c.
I I ·
I <l : I •
I I .
CO N STRA IN T S
MAP M12
PREPARED BYTES FIGURE 47 of 4 8
~
0
....1
< > a:
UJ ,...
~
a:
::l
0 ,...
z
0
(.)
w
UJ ;i ~ ()
0 (/)
:X: 0 ~ z < Q: <(
::;!
z
0
5 g
[ii]
-
-
-·
-APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION CAMPS AND VILLAGES -
-
-
-I
-
-
The following design criteria and description of the proposed
construction camps and villages is adapted from Volume 5 (Design
Development Studies) of the Feasibility Report (APA 1982), which was
prepared by Acres American.
The concept adopted by Acres for project planning and feasibility and
for cost assessment purposes is based on completely self-contained and
comprehensive community facilities. Variations in this concept are
possible, whereby families would be located elsewhere and appropriate
transportation and other facilities provided.
The largest item among the proposed site facilities is the camp and
village that will be constructed at each project site. The proposed
location of the Watana camp and village is on the north bank of the
Susitna River between Deadman and Tsusena Creek, approximately 2.5
miles northeast of Watana. The proposed location of the Devil Canyon
camp and village is on the south bank of the Susitna River downstream
from Cheechako Creek, approximately 2.5 miles southwest of Devil
Canyon. The locations of camps and vi 11 ages are presented on Figure
23.
The camp and village will constitute an entire community, complete
within itself and designed to house and maintain a work force and
supporting population of up to 4,000 people during peak construction at
Watana and up to 1,900 people during the peak construction period at
Devil Canyon. Appendix B-1 indicates the projected work force for
construction of Watana and Devil Canyon.
The camp and village will include buildings, roads, utilities, and
recreation facilities. On completion of construction at each site, the
construction camps and villages will be dismantled, and the area in
which they were located will be reclaimed. It is also planned to reuse
at Devil Canyon, to the extent possible, dismantled building nnd other
items from the Watana camp and village.
-""""""'"" w:::::;::a ~~-----__, _ _. ____ ,_, ---------
In addition to the temporary camps and villages p 1 an ned for the
construction periods, permanent facilities will be required for project
operation. These include a permanent town or small community (at
Watana) for approximately 130 staff.members and their families. The
permanent town has been conceptualized; however, Acres has recommended
that preliminary design and final design be delayed until the late
1980's, when more information as to the physical parameters of design
are better known and the human requirements and preferences are better
defined.
( i) Schedu 1 e
The overall schedule for the power developments is for the
Watana development to be constructed during 1985 to 1994 and
Devil Canyon during 1994 to 2002.
The construction camps and villages will be constructed in
stages during the initial three years of the construction
schedule for each site. Each camp and village consists of
two principal areas. The camp is designed for single
workers, who will make up about 90 percent of the force.
Structure~ will include prefabricated wood frame dorms with
modular mess halls, recreational buildings, a bank, a post
office, a fire station, warehouses, a hospital, offices,
etc.
The village is planned for that 10 percent of the work force
accompanied by their families. The village is grouped around
a service core, containing a school, gymnasium, stores, and a
recreation area. It is assumed that community religious
activities will take place in appropriate recreational
buildings.
-
-
,...,,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The construction concept for the two power facilities calls
for completing and commissioning the Watana project before
beginning work at Devil Canyon. Thus, facilities used at
Watana will be dismantled, moved to Devil Canyon,
refurbished, and erected in time for the beginning of
construction there. Where possible, complete buildings will
be moved to Devil Canyon andre-erected in their original
size and shape. When this is not possible, buildings will be
dismantled at Watana, scaled down, then rebuilt at Devil
Canyon.
Based on the work force planning levels (Appendix Table B-1),
a building schedule has been prepared for the construction
camp and village at both the Watana and Devil Canyon sites.
Site preparation and utilities installation will be
accomplished in 1984 at Watana and in 1994 at Devil Canyon.
The proposed erection schedule for single-status dormitory
units, family housing units, and the service buildings
associated with each group is shown in Appendix S-Table 2.
Upon near completion of construction activities at the Watana
site, a permanent town will be constructed for the plant•s
operation and maintenance (O&M) force. Present plans call
for construction of the town core (school, shopping and
recreation center, medical clinic) and of housing for an
estimated 105 O&M personnel and their families for occupancy
in 1993. One year prior to completion of the Devil Canyon
plant, since no permanent town will be built there, housing
units for an additional 25 O&M personnel will be added at the
Watana site.
(ii) Alternative Camp Concepts
In planning the design of the camps, two alternatives emerged
and were evaluated: single-status, army-type barracks and
family-status village. Historically, major Alaskan
construction camps have been the single-status type, so this
was an obvious choice to investigate~ It was determined that
this style is the most economical to build and maintain;
thus, it became the first camp construction plan.
In addition, however, investigation of previous large hydro-
electic projects in North America showed that, where
construction camps were a necessary part of the project, a
percentage of the workers• families lived in a portion of the
camp or in what evolved into a family status village. Family
facilities are usually required on large hydroelectric
projects because of the length of the construction schedule.
Furthermore, because construction on a hydro project, unlike
that of a pipeline, for example, is primarily limited to a
single area, such development lends itself more readily to a
family village.
The family facilities are planned to serve management and
supervisory staff of the owner, its agents, and the
contractors. The length of time some of these employees
would be working at the project site (five years or more)
indicated that to attract and retain such personnel, family
facilities would be necessary. On the other hand, family
facilities for the entire work force would be impractical and
prohibitively expensive. An assessment of previous projects
of a similar nature showed that to plan family facilities for
approximately 10 percent of the work force is appropriate.
(iii) Camp Policies
Before beginning construction at the Watana and Devil Canyon
sites, policies will have to be set regarding operating rules
and regulations at the camp. The focus of these policies
includes transportation, alcohol, firearms, and work
-
-
-
-
ichedules. To arrive at a conceptual design and to estimate
costs associated with the camps, planners have made some
assumptions, described below, regarding policy.
-Transportation
The project owner will provide round-trip bus
transportation from Anchorage or Fairbanks for 90 percent
of the work force. The other 10 percent will drive their
personal vehicles or secure their own transportation to the
job site. Once at the general project area, all workers
will be bussed from the construction camps to work areas.
Private vehicles will not be allowed at Watana until
construction is completed, at which time the access road
will be given continuous access status. This designation
is presently scheduled for mid-1986. Devil Canyon will be
accessible by privately owned vehicles from the start of
its development; however, private vehicles will not be
allowed inside the construction camp. To accommodate these
vehicles, a parking area will be provided outside the camp.
The residents of the family village, however, wi 11 be
allowed private vehicles within the village area.
-Alcohol
The construction camp layout is based on a semi-dry camp
concept. Alcohol will be allowed in private rooms; it will
not be allowed in public areas (that is, dining halls,
recreation buildings, offices, etc.). Furthermore, the
camp and village layout makes no provision for taverns or
beer halls. The assumption is that beer will be available,
in accordance with state law, at the retail stores in camp
and village. Drunken behavior will constitute grounds for
termination.
-Firearms
No firearms will be permitted inside the construction camp.
Workers who bring personal firearms with them will be able
to check them in a secured storage facility. Hunting and
fishing will be regulated by state personnel stationed at
the camp.
-Work Schedules
It was also necessary, in designing the construction camps,
to assume a likely work schedule; construction will be
accomplished with two shifts working six nine-hour days
each. Workers will be permitted two weeks' leave every 12
weeks.
(iv) Construction Camp and Village -Watana
-Site Preparation
o Clearing
The construction camp area will be cleared to 50ft
beyond the perimeter fence line shown on Plate 37. The
construction village area will be similarly cleared,
except that selected areas within the site will be left
with natural vegetation intact. In addition, large
brush, trees, and other unsuitable material shall be
transported to a suitable disposal area.
o Granular Pad
Upon completior: of the clearing operation, a layer of
filter fabric will be placed on the ground. A four-foot-
thick layer of non-frost susceptible (NFS) granular
material will be placed over the filter cloth and graded
---------~--------------
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
to provide a uniform surface for construction of buldings,
utilities, and roads. In the village area, too, the filter
cloth and four-foot granular pad will be installed, except
in those green areas left uncleared.
o Roads and Parking Areas
All roads in camps and villages will have a gravel surface
for two-way traffic. Main roads will provide a 34-and
secondary roads a 24-foot travel surface. Parking areas
within the camp and village will also be gravel. The
parking area provided outside the camp for private
automobiles, however, will consist of layer of NFS subbase
material the thinnest that can still support the vehicles.
o Drainage
In general, drainage at the camp and village sites will be
accomplished by a network of ditches. Peripheral ditches
will intercept overland flows from adjacent uncleared land
and route around the sites, while ditches flanking roadways
within the camp and village will collect on-site runoff and
convey it to existing water courses. Corrugated metal pipe
culverts will be installed, as required, where drainage
must cross roadways and driveways.
o Rehabilitation
As described above, upon completion of construction
activities at Watana, the camp and village buildings will
be dismantled and removed from the site. Using topsoil
stripped from the adjacent Borrow Area D, a 12-inch layer
of soil will be spread over the pad, which will then be
graded and seeded.
-Buildings
As discuss~d, construction camp and village buildings will be
of two types. All housing units and all other buildings
where practical will be prefabricated, wood frame,
factory-built, modular units. These will be transported to
the site, then assembled to provide the size and shape
necessary. The modules will be complete with heating,
lighting, and plumbing; interior finishes; furnishing; and
equipment. Additional details concerning buildings are
included in the Feasibility Report.
(v) Construction Camp and Village
-Site Preparation
o Clearing and Grubbing
The sites chosen for the construction camp and village are
in a non-permafrost area where the bedrock lies an average
of three to four feet below the surface. The site has a
low-density tree cover, with well-drained land sloping
between three and five percent to the south. Both the camp
and village sites will be cleared and grubbed to a distance
of 15 ft beyond the perimeter fence line. Brush, trees,
roots, and other unsuitable materials will be transported
to an appropriate disposal area.
o Stripping
The cleared organic material shall be stripped and
stockpiled outside the camp and village for use in
rehabilitation activities. In areas which ''lill underlay
concrete slab foundations, additional excavation either to
bedrock, to a material not susceptible to frost, or to a
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
depth of eight feet (whichever comes first) will be done.
These areas will be backfilled to original grade using
material not frost susceptible. After stripping, the sites
shall be rough graded preparatory to installing the pad.
o Granular Pad
Both the camp and village sites will be covered using a
one-foot layer of non-frost susceptible material from the
saddle dam excavation followed by a one-foot layer of
gravel from Borrow Area G.
o Road and Parking Areas
Roads in the camp and village will carry two-way traffic on
gravel surfaces 34 ft wide for primary streets and 24 ft
wide for secondary streets. Parking areas ins i-de the camp
and village will be gravel. The four-acre area for private
vehicles outside the camp will be cleared and provided a
one-foot layer of NFS material.
o Drainage
A system of ditches will intercept surface runoff and
channel it to existing watercourses off the sites. Roadway
and driveway crossings will be accomplished through
installation of CMP (corrugated metal pipe) culverts.
Drainage water from adjacent land will be intercepted by
peripheral ditches and routed around the site.
-Buildings
The c~nstruction camp and village at Devil Canyon will be
built using components from the Watana construction camp.
Prefabricated wood frame buildings will be broken down into
their original elements, transported to Devil Canyon,
reassembled, then rehabilitated as necessary.
Pre-engineered, steel-frame buildings will be dismantled,
moved to Devil Canyon, and reconstructed on new concrete slab
foundations. The reconstructed buildings will be refurbished
before occupancy.
Most of the buildings will be re-erected to their original
shape and dimension; however, a few will be smaller than they
were at Watana. The goal of rehabilitating structures will
be to resolve them to "new" condition. The only design
changes necessary will be the modification of furnaces and
building wiring to provide for electrical heating. Details
concerning buildings are included in the Feasibility Report.
-
-
-
-
-
-
'"""'
"""'
-
-
-·
~
"""'
-
-
APPENDIX TABLE B-1: WORK FORCE PLANNING LEVEL
WATANA
YEAR SITE TOTAL
1983 100 200
1984 200 400
1985 800 1100
1986 1500 1700
1987 2100 2300
1988 2600 2600
1989 2800 3000
1990 3100 3400
1991 3000 3300
1992 2300 2600
1993 800 900
1994 200 200
DEVIL CANYON
YEAR SITE TOTAL
1994 100 100
1995 420 420
1996 940 940
1997 1330 1330
1998 1550 1550
1999 1550 1600
2000 1350 1450
2001 920 1ll0
2002 50 50
Note: Site facilities to accommodate up to 4,000 people at
Watana and 1,900 people at Devil Canyon are
conservative allowances. Cost differences for demand
adjustment of these numbers are not significant.
Source: Acres American, Incorporated. Susitna Hydroelectric
Project Feasibility Repo t, Appendix B. 1982.
APPENDIX TABLE B-2: CONSTRUCTION CAMP -PROPOSED
BUILDING ERECTION SCHEDULE
{a) T~~~ Watana
Buildings Size in Feet 198!: 1986
CAMP
108-man dormitory 26 X 224, 2 story p 7 10
Dormitory, Type A, 20 man 28 X 120 p 3 5
Dormitory, Type B, 20 man 24 X 120 p 2 5
Guest house 28 X 120 p -3
Camp manager's offices 30 X 40 p 3 -
Staff clubhouse 50 X 80/50 X 50 s -1
Dining/kitchen 120 X 125 p 1 -
Dining/kitchen 120 X 125 p -1
Recreation building 120 X 120 p 1 -
Recreation building 120 X 120 p -1
Gymnasium 200 X 140/120 X 120 s - -
Security office 60 X 60 p 1 -Soils & materials lab. 50 X 100 s 1 -
Maintenance building 80 X 100/80 X 50 s -1
Warehouse, manager's 100 X 120 s 1 -
Warehouse, food service 100 X 120/100 X 60 s -1
Communication building 20 X 30 p 1 -
Hospital 90 X 170/90 X 90 p -1
Ice rink 140 X 300 s --
Bank 50 X 60/50 X 40 p -1
Store 30 X 60 p -1
Laundry 20 X 80/20 X 40 p -1
Solid waste garage 20 X 30 s 1 -
Generating station 20 X 30 s 1 -
Water treatment building 60 X 80/60 X 50 s 1 -
Sewage treatment building 80 X 170/80 X 100 s 1 -
Fire station 40 X 80 s 1 -POL garage 40 X 50 s 1 -
Relocate 160-man camp N/A p -1
VILLAGE
Family unit, 2 bedroom 14 X 60 p -36
Family unit, 3 bedroom 14 X 60 p -90
F am i 1 y un i t , 2 bedroom 24 X 50 p -8
Family unit, 3 bedroom 24 X 50 p -8
Family unit, 4 bedroom 28 X 50 p -8
School 24,000 sq ft/14,000 sq ft p -1
Gymnasi urn 100 X 100 s -1
Swimming pool 120 X 120 s -1
Recreation center 100 X 160/80 X 100 ·s -1
Shopping center 100 X 160/100 X 80 s -1
Gas station 30 X 40 s -1
Generating station 20 X 30 s 1 -Sewage pump station 20 X 20 -1 -Owner/manager's office 120 X 160 p -1
Devi 1
1987 1995
7 4 -2
2 2
-1
-2
----
-1
---1
1 --1
-1
-----1
-1 --
1 -- --1 -1 -1 -1
-1 -1
-1 -1
- -
38 16
98 42
8 4
8 4
8 4
- -- ------ ----1
-1
--
a. Where two sizes are shown, the first is for Watana, the second for Devil Canyon.
b. ?=prefabricated, wood frame, factory-built modular units.
S=pre-engineered steel frame structures supported by concrete slab foundations.
Source: Acres American, Incorporated. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Feasilibity
Report, Appendix B. 1982.
Canyon
1996
9
2
3
1 -
1
----
1
--
1
1 ---
1
1 -1 --------
--
20
50
5
5
5 -1
1
1
1 -1
1 --
1
N 3226,000
N3 28000
N 3,230,000
N 3 32 000
N 3 34000
N 3236 000
N 3 238 000
~
I
CONSTRUCTION
CAMP
§
N
"' .....
"'
~I
""' w '
I
I
I
0
0
Q
"' " "" "'
81 Q ~I
r--1 wi
I
I
I
§' "-I
"' "" "'
~0 WATER INTAKE El
/
/
PUMP STATION
s
0
" "" "'
..pO \
r '!. '
LOCATION MAP SCALE. 0~~~4--;;jB MILES
LEGEND
MAIN ACCESS ROAD
CONSTRUCTION ROAD
PERMANENT SITE ROAD
UTILIDOR
I A PD(P Ir--A L--::A:-:=S=K A~PO=-=-W=-=-E-=-:R:=A_U_T H_O_R_I T_Y-1 Hun o susiTNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
WATANA
GENERAL LAYOUT
SITE FACILITIES
ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED
PLATE
36
I I
c:::=
c:::=
@ t==J
TYP. t==J
t==J
c:::=
J c:::= rr=x-· ,...__x-~ c:::=
c::::::::J
t==J
1
rl @ I ~l c:::=
' J ~
~--J,--~
! 1
L
E753,000
1. __ _
---
~~
E 754,000 E755,000
FENCE
I n · "'•ooJ :
@
[756,000 E757,000
N~239,000
LEGEND
0 BASEBALL
® SOFTBALL
G) SECURITY
G) HOSPITAL
® FIRE a OIL SPILL
® CAMP MANAGER's OFFICE
0 SOILS LAB
® PARKING AREAS
® ADMINISTRATION OFFICES
@ STORE
@ BUS SHELTERS
@ DORMITORIES
@ LAUNDRY
@ COMMUNICATIONS CTR.
@BANK
® RECREATION HALL
@ KITCHEN a DINING
® FOOD SERVICE WAREHOUSE
@ WAREHOUSE
@ GYMNASIUM
@ SWIMMING POOL
@ MAINTENANCE GARAGE
@ PUMP HOUSE (WATER)
@ HOCKEY RINK
@ BACHELOR DORMS MGMT. TYPE A
@ BACHELOR DORMS MGMT. TYPE B
@ 10' PERMAWALK
@ IE>' PERMAWALK
------__[_N3,238,000 @ MANAGER'S GUEST HOUSE
@ OWNER'S GUEST HOUSE ~~
r :
@ CONTRACTOR'S GUEST HOUSE
@ STAFF CLUBHOUSE
@ GENERATING STATION
~ RELOCATED CAMP HOUSING (160 SPACES)
@ FOOTBALL FIELD
~ FUEL STORAGE TANK
@ WATER RESERVOIR
® UTILIDOR
@ HELIPAD
SCALE 0-~~~200~iiiiiiiiiii4iii00 FEET
A POW t----A_L-=A---s_K_A_P_o_w_E_R_A_u_T_H_o_R_IT_Y----1 Hunw susrTNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
WATANA
MAIN CONSTRUCTION CAMP SITE
PLATE
ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED
MARCH 1982 37
E748,000 E749,000
E744,000 E74~.ooo E746,000 E747,000
LEGEND
c:::J PERMANENT NON-RESIDENTIAL BLDG.
t:::::q PERMANENT ROAD .
[]]Ill PERMANENT MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS
72 UNITS FURNISHED BY YEAR 1992
16 UN ITS 2001
[£] PERMANENT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
21 UNITS FURNISHED BY YEAR 1992
6 UNITS • 2001
0
EEl
PERMANENT HOS~TAL
TEMPORARY HOUSING/UTILITIES
FURN ISHED BY OWNER
16 EA .- 4 BEDROOMS UNITS 28' x 50'
16EA.-2 24'x50'
16 EA .-3
72 EA.- 2
200EA.-3
14' X 60 1
14 1
X 60 1
t=:J:-:3 TEMPORARY LOTS/ UTILITIES FURNISHED
BY OWNER
240 EA.-LOT SPACES
CJ PARKING AREAS .
CD MANAGER's OFFICES
® GENERATING STATION
® FIRE STATION 0 GAS STATION
® SCHOOL
® SWIMMING POOL
G) GYMNASIUM
@ STORE
® RECREATION CENTER
@ SEWAGE COLLECTION PUMP STATION
@ WATER PUMP STATION
SCALE
@ UTILIDOR
@ SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
@ WATER TREATMENT PLANT
@ FUEL STORAGE TANK (50, 000 9)
0~~~2~0~0i;;;;;;iiiiiiii4;i;ij00 FEET
I APD(P 1~----A L_A_s_K_A _Po_w_E_R_A_u_TH_o_R_IT_Y---1 nun o susJTNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
WATANA
VILLAGE AND TOWN SITE
PLATE
MARCH 1982
ACRES AMERI CAN IHCORPO"ATEO
38
N 3,212,000
N 3,214,000
N 3,216.000
N 3,218,000
N 3,220,000
N 3,222,000
N 3,224,000
N 3,226,000
N 3,228,000
N 3,230,000
N 3,232,000
§
2
"' "'
C--~---~-)
~\
0
ACCESS ROAD (PERMANENT)
ACCESS ROAD (TEMPORARY)
CONSTRUCTION ROAD
PERMANENT SITE ROAD
UTILIDOR
1000 2000 FEET
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DEVIL CANYON
GENERAL LAYOUT
SITE FACILITIES
I -.
MARCH 1982
PLATE
ACRES AMER IC AN \NCORPOfiiATEO 72
---------1ao0 -----
T. 32 N
T. 31 N
1800
3 , 220,000
~----
---------------1----@ I
1700
1600
-------------------------------------------------------------1500
MAIN ROAD
0~~~20§0;.iiiiii4iii0~0 FEET SCALE r::
~I ~I
~I ,z 0< a:-... e 't;a:
"'"' <I);:E
LEGEND
0 STAFF AND FOREMAN HOUSING
CD DORM I TORIES 0 MANAGER'S GUEST HOUSE
G) OWNER'S GUEST HOUSE
0 CONTRACTOR'S GUEST HOUSE 0 CAMP MANAGER'S OFFICES
0 SECURITY
® FIRE AND OIL SPILL
0 HOSPITAL
@ HELIPAD (MEDICAL EMERGENCY)
@ COMMUNICATIONS C':NTER
@ KITCHEN AND DINING
~ STAFF CLUBHOUSE
@ RECREATION HALL
0 BANK
@ LAUNDRIES
@ SOILS LAB
@ FOOD SERVICE WAREHOUSE
@ WAREHOUSE
@ MAINTENANCE GARAGE
@ PUMP HOUSE
~ GENERATING STATION
@ BUS STATION
~ PAR KI NG AND LAYDOWN AREAS
@ 10 ' PERMAWALK
~ 16' PERMAWALK
@ GYMNASIUM
@ SWIMMING POOL
@ HOCKEY RINK
@ BASEBALL FIELD
@ SOFTBALL FIELD
@ FOOTBALL FIELD
@ FUEL STORAGE (50,000 GAL .)
@ STORE
@ UTILIDOR
@ WATER TREATMENT PLANT
® WATER RESERVOIR
I APO[Q 1~-------A L_A_s_KA_P_o_w_ER_Au_T_Ho_R_IT_Y-t Hunw susiTNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DEVIL CANYON
CONSTRUCTION CAMP
PLAN
MARCH 1982
AC RE S AMERICAN INCORPO RAT ED
PLATE
73
)
(
----
3, 2 20,0_0_? __________ ----:==--======--===---'T_OO_l_) _______ _
~
------
113
~ f--------~ ~-::t==~-:-:: __ j_j-l
i ------1750 ----
------------------1600 ---
----------
-1500 ------------------------------------
SCALE
0 200 400 FEET ~~iiiiiiiil
LEGEND
1~1 TEI.4PORARY HOUSING I UTILITIES FURNISHED
BY OWNER.
~ PARK I NG AREAS
VILLAGE HOUSING-320 UNITS
FAMILY HOUSING -2 B.R.-16 UNITS (24'•5d)
FAMILY HOUSING -3 B.R.-16 UNITS (24' •50')
FAMILY HOUSING -4 B.R.-16 UNITS (28'• 5d)
FAMILY HOUSING-3 B.R .-72 UNITS ( 14'• 6d)
FAMILY HOUSING-3 B.R.-200 UNITS ( 14 '' 60')
106 SCHOOL-30' •35' ( 12 UNITS)
07 GYM-100'' 100'
(1 SWIMMING POOL -100'' 100'
{109 RECREATION CENTER ad' IOd
(110 STORE-100'' 160'
(ill FIRE STATION-30'•40'
(112 GENERATING STATION -20'•30' (2 UNITS)
113 UTILIDOR
114 SEWER PUMPING STATION-50'•60'
I A PO£P Ir--A L_A_s_K A_Po_w-'--=-E-::-:Rc::-::A-:-::-U--=-=T H-::-:O-=-=-R=--1 T_Y -i Hunw susiTNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DEVIL CANYON
TEMPORARY VILLAGE
MARCH 1982 '~ 1--------------ACRES A ME RICA N INCORPORATED
PLATE
74