HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA304TK
1425
.S8
E58
no.304
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ENVIR'ONMENT AL STUDIES
SUBT ASK 7.08: RECREATION PLANNING
PHASE 1 REPORT
MAY, 1982
Tetre1ttial
E nvitonmental
Speciali1t1, Inc.
~~-ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY __ _.. .. '
.RLIS
. ,;Jska P-esources
..... :.bury & ! n1orrnatwn Servtces
Anr;horagc, Alaska
JUL 2 9 1982
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES FINAL REPORT
SUBTASK 7.08
RECREATION PLANNING
May 1982
Prepared by
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS. Inc.
Phoenix, New York 13135
and
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
Fairbanks. Alaska 99701
for
ACRES AMERICAN, INCORPORATED
Buffalo. New York 14202
II<
/L(;;l s
,.5 q
~59
M"t 307'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
1-INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 1
1.1 -Overview • . . . . . . 1
1.2 Objectives . . . . . . 2
1.3 -Pertinent Definitions . . 2
(a) Recreation Opportunity . . . . . . . . 2
(b) Recreation Development . . . . . . . . 2
(c) Recreation Opportunity Setting. 2
2 -OVERVIEW OF THE PLANNING PROCESS •.
2.1 -Resource Suitability Studies ..
2.2 -Development of Concept Plans .
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
2.3 -Public Input .•.•...••..•
2.4 -Selection of Preferred Concept Plan
2.5 -Participation Survey ..•.
2.6 -Final Recreation Plan
3 -UPPER SUSITNA RIVER PROJECT AREA
3.1 -Susitna River
3.2 -Climate .••••.•.•.
3.3 -Vegetation •....••••.
3.4 -Soils •......•••.•
3.5 -Wildlife and Fisheries ...
3.6 -Significant Landform Features
(a) Devil Canyon • . . . . . . .•.•
(b) Vee Canyon ......•..•••.•
(c) Tyone River Bluffs ..•••
(d) Clear Valley and Mt. Watana
3.7-Significant Water Forms
(a) Waterfalls ...•••••.
(b) Lakes • • • . . . . .••••.
7
7
8
8
8
9
• 10
. . . . . . 10
• 10
. • 10
. . . . . . 11
.. 11
. . . . . . . 11
. . . . . . 11
4 -EXISTING RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES 13
4.1 -Project Area • • . • . . • . . • . . ..• 13
(a) Stephan Lake Lodge . • • • . . . . • • • . . •. 13
(b) High Lake Lodge • • • • • . • . . . . . • . 14
(c) Tsusena Lake Lodge . • . . • . • • .•• 14
4.2 -Adjacent Areas • . . . • . • • • . . . . • . • . • . . • 14
(a) Denali National Park and Preserve . • . . . 14
(b) Denali Planning Block • . • . . . . . • 15
(c) Dena 1 i State Park . . . . . • . • . • . 15
(d) Nancy Lakes State Recreation Area . • • .•... 16
(e) Independence Mine State Historic Park . . 16
(f) Lake Louise • • . . • . • • • • . 16
{g) Chugach State Park • . • • . . . • . . • • . • • 16
(h) Privately Owned Facilities ..•...•.• 17
5 -SUITABILITY STUDIES
6 -CONCEPT PLAN SURVEY .
6.1 -Purpose .•..
6.2 -Survey Questionnaire .
6.3 -Selection of the Recommended Concept
6.4 -Public Workshop Questionnaire
7 -RECREATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Plan
7.1 -Proposed Recreation Opportunity Settings and Activity
Emphasis ...........••.
Page
18
0 20
0 0 20
0 0 0 20
0 0 0 21
0 23
. . . . 25
0 0 25
7.2 -Initial Recreation Site and Facility Developments . . . . . 26
(a) Access Road ...........•...•. 0 0 26
(b) Devil Canyon and Watana Reservoirs 27
0 0 0 29
7.3-
(c) Other Areas ........•..•.
Long Range Recreational Development
Shoreline Buffer Zone Boundary, and Land
. . . . 29
7.4 -
7.5 -
7.6 -
7.7 -
Acquisition Program ..•......
Estimate of Existing and Future Recreation Use
(a) Existing Data ..•......•....•
(b) Recreation Participation Survey . . . .
Schedule and Cost of Recreation Facility Development
Management Issues •.•........
31
. . . . 31
0 0 31
0 0 34
34
35
(a) Semi-modern Opportunity Setting (A) .•..• 0 0 35
TABLES
FIGURES
(b) Semi-modern Opportunity Setting (B) ••••
(c) Semi-primitive Opportunity Settings (C,D)
(d) Semi-primitive and Primitive Opportunity
Settings (E,F) ....•••..
(e) Opportunity Settings (A-F) •...••••••
(f) Conflicts with Cliff-nesting Birds
REFERENCES
AUTHORITIES CONTACTED
APPENDICES
36
0 0 0 37
0 37
. • . • • 37
0 • 0 39
A -Extent and Limitations of Principal Soil Associations Present
in the Upper Susitna Basin
B -Field Data Forms
C -Recreation Concept Plan Survey Questionnaire
D-Public Forum Questionnaire
E -Recreation Participation Survey Questionnaire
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Regional Recreational Facilities
Response to the Concept Plan Survey Questionnaire
Comparison of Concept Plan Choice by Region and Preference
Description of Opportunity Settings
Description of Proposed Recreation Sites and Facilities
Daily Traffic Count for the Denali and Parks Highways
Visitor Counts for State Recreation Areas Adjacent to Parks
Highway
Capital Improvement Costs for Proposed Facilities, Short-Term
Capital Improvement Costs for Proposed Facilities, Long-Term
Estimated Annual Operating Cost
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Regional Setting
Figure 2 The Recreation Planning Process
Figure 3 Exceptional Natural Features and Other Important Natural Features
Figure 4 Regional Recreation Areas and Facilities
Figure 5 Recreation Sites Considered
Figure 6 Sites Selected for Recreation Developments
Figure 7 Preferred Concept Plan
Figure 8 Recreational Opportunity Settings
Figure 9 Recreation Facilities -Immediate Development
Figure 10 Recreation Facilities -Long-term Development
SUt'IMARY
Introduction
The Report on Recreation Resources for the proposed Susitna
hydroelectric project concentrated on the upper Susitna River basin in
the southcentral region of Alaska. The Susitna River, the sixth
largest river in Alaska, drains an area of more than 49,000 square
kilometers (19,000 square miles). Centrally located between the two
largest population centers in Alaska, Anchorage and Fairbanks, the
upper Susitna River basin has been studied for many years as a
potential source of hydroelectric power, initially, by the Bureau of
Reclamation in the 1940's, later, by the Corps of Engineers and,
recently, by the state of Alaska.
The current Susitna hydroelectric study has proposed the construction
of two large dams at the Watana and Devil Canyon sites. If built,
these dams would create major reservoirs in the project area. Watana,
the larger reservoir, would extend 77 kilometers (48 miles) upstream of
the dam site, with an average width of 1 to 2 kilometers (1 mile), a
maximum width of 8 kilometers (5 miles), a surface area of about 15,400
hectares (38,000 acres), and a maximum depth of about 207 meters (680
feet) at normal operating level. Devil Canyon reservoir would be about
42 kilometers (26 miles) long and less than 1 kilometer (0.5 mile)
wide, with a surface area of about 3,200 hectares (7,800 acres) and a
maximum depth of about 168 meters (550 feet) at normal operating
1 eve l.
Planning for the Report on Recreation Resources for the project area
began in the late spring of 1980 and encompassed the immediate
reservoir areas, the proposed access corridors to the dams, and
additional lands recommended for acquisition for recreational purposes.
The basis for the planning effort was the concept that recreational
planning, while controlling the general nature of development and
minimizing undesirable impacts, has an equally important function in
controlling the type and quality of recreational opportunities to be
offered to the public. The initial steps in the planning process
involved, first, resource suitability studies to inventory the
;
potential recreation sites and opportunity settings in the project area
and, next, the use of a concept plan survey to assess public opinion
regarding the level and types of recreational facilities the public
would prefer developed for the project area. Throughout this planning
process, it was assumed that the Alaska Division of Parks of the
Department of Natural Resources would be the eventual managing agency.
The Upper Susitna River Basin Description
The upper Susitna River basin is characterized by a diverse landscape
composed of deeply incised canyons, turbulent whitewater, and thick
stands of spruce-hardwood forest that graduate into gently rolling,
upland terrain of tundra vegetation with numerous clear lakes and
streams. Significant natural features of the project area include
Devil Canyon; Vee Canyon; the Tyone River Bluffs; and numerous scenic
waterfalls on Deadman, Tsusena, Devil and Cheechako creeks. Wildlife
is abundant in the basin and includes moose, caribou, Dall sheep,
grizzly and black bear, wolf, and many other smaller animals.
Existing Recreational Activities and Facilities
The upper basin currently offers a variety of roadless recreational
opportunities for hunting, fishing, boating, trapping, and hiking.
Recreational opportunities and facilities adjacent to the project area
boundaries include: Denali National Park and Preserve, Denali State
Park, Nancy Lake State Recreation Area, Independence Mine State
Historical Park, and Lake Louise.
Suitability Studies
Resource suitability studies involved developing an inventory of
possible recreation sites, which were reviewed and evaluated during the
summer field seasons. Based on the results of these studies. a series
of five concept plans were formulated, representing different scenarios
of recreation opportunities. These plans ranged, on the one hand, from
purposefully avoiding providing facilities and maintaining restricted
access to. on the other hand, developing the majority of the potential
recreation sites.
i i
Concept Plan Survey
Results from the resource suitab·llity studies were then used to devise
a survey, which was a primary means of obtaining public participation
in the planning process. This questionnaire was designed to identify
that portion of the recreation opportunity spectrum that the majority
of the potential users would prefer the recreation plan to focus upon.
The plan finally selected was, thus, a reflection of the results of
this questionnaire and served as the framework for the management
plan.
The Management Plan
Pending design and construction activities associated with the
hydroelectric project have serious ramifications for both the
recreational opportunities of the area and the scope and focus of the
proposed recreation plan. Some features of the project determine the
location and development of the resource for recreation purposes. In
those areas in which recreational development will be possible, the
management plan integrates the planning process with certain management
procedures for the purpose of providing specific types of recreation
opportunities that can then be stabilized for an extended period of
time. Since much of the cost of development is road-related, some
preparation could take place at the time of road construction for
little additional cost. Moreover, once the type and location of
opportunities to be offered to the public have been established, it is
important to stabilize these opportunities at that level; failing to do
so early will risk that the original opportunities be changed or lost.
The majority of proposed site developments are scheduled for completion
during the first three years of project operation. These developments
reflect the chosen recreational concept, the design and location of the
access road, the probable attractions that determine the types of
activities people seek in each opportunity setting, and the level of
development necessary to provide for each opportunity. Emphasis during
this first phase is on day-use along the road system, with overnight
camping facilities located near the dam sites.
iii
Proposed long-term site developments scheduled for completion after the
first three years include boat-in facilities at both reservoirs and the
expansion of the two campgrounds. Development of these facilities must
necessarily be delayed, however, until the shoreline effects of the
reservoirs can be evaluated.
iv
1 -INTRODUCTION
1.1 -Overview
The upper Susitna River basin is a 15,000 square kilometer (39,000
square mile) area bordered by the Alaska Range to the north, the
Chulitna and Talkeetna Mountains to the west and south, and
relatively flat lowlands to the east. As a result of the feasibility
study for the Susitna hydroelectric project, two dams are proposed
for this stretch of the river, one at Devil Canyon and the other
upstream of the confluence of Tsusena Creek. If built, these dams
and associated developments will alter much of the present wilderness
character of the Susitna River basin and create two elongated
reservoirs. Devil Canyon Reservoir would be approximately 42 kilo-
meters (26 miles) long and Watana Reservoir, 77 kilometers (48 miles)
long. Devil Canyon reservoir would average less than 1 kilometer
(0.5 mile) in width. Watana reservoir would average 1 to 2
kilometers (1 mile) in width, except near the confluence of Watana
Creek, where the reservoir would be about 8 kilometers (five miles)
wide. Watana would have a surface area of about 15,400 hectares
(38,000 acres) and Devil Canyon would cover an area of about 3,200
hectares (7,800 acres). The maximum depth of the reservoirs at
normal operating level would be 207 meters (680 feet) for Watana and
168 meters (550 feet) for Devil Canyon. Figure 1 shows the regional
setting for the project area.
As part of the environmental study for a license application, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requires that a report on
recreational resources be prepared. The report is to include a
proposed recreation plan which describes the proposed utilization,
design, and development of project recreational facilities and public
access to the project•s recreational lands and waters. The Susitna
recreation planning subtask involved inventorying the environmental
setting associated with the hydroelectric project, assessing public
opinion, and developing a recreation plan that considers both the
setting and opinions as well as applicable federal and state
regulations and project facilities and components.
1.2 -Objectives
The objectives of the recreation planning subtask were to develop:
(1) a master plan that outlines the proposed recreation
opportunities, the associated opportunity settings, and the
proposed recreation developments for the project area;
(2) a schedule and cost estimates in 1981 dollars for implementing
the plan;
(3) operational needs and cost estimates in 1981 dollars;
(4) suggestions for boundaries, land acquisition programs, and
cooperative management agreements;
( 5) coordination with agencies and landowners;
(6) estimates of recreational use, including methods for updating
estimates; and
(7) an assessment of management concerns relative to the type of
opportunities being offered and the opportunity settings that are
available.
1.3 -Pertinent Definitions
Various terms are used throughout the recreation report that relate
to different components of the planning process. Definitions for
terminology with which the reader may not be familiar are provided
below.
(a) Recreation opportunity-involves the availability of
conditions appealing to a recreator and conducive to
participation in one or more recreational activities desired
by the participant.
(b) Recreation development -involves the man-made facilities and
landscape alterations provided in the natural situation to
facilitate participation in recreational activities.
(c) Recreation opportunity setting -involves the combination of
the physical, biological, social, and managerial conditions in
an area in which various recreational activities can take
place; varying combinations of conditions will result in
different experiences for the recreator:
2
-Primitive: Natural environment is dominant, and site
modifications are minimal. Rustic improvements are designed
for protection of the site rather than for user comfort; the
recreational experience of the user is centered around a
sense of adventure and the challenge of the wilderness, with
11 foreign 11 elements viewed as distracting or intrusive.
Designated trails (cleared and gravel) and portages to
accessible areas are provided; motorized access is neither
provided nor permitted.
-Semi-primitive: The natural environment is dominant, with
little site modification; rustic improvements are designed
for protection of the site rather than for user comfort.
User experience centers around a feeling of accomplishment
in the face of the elements, but physical stamina is not
essential. Outside influences are tolerated. Facility
development may accommodate day and overnight use, with
picnic areas, campgrounds, boat launches and trails;
motorized access may or may not be provided for or
permitted.
-Semi-modern: The environment is pleasing and still natural,
despite substantial modification. Some facilities are
designed strictly for the comfort and convenience of users
and incorporate synthetic materials, for example, the
artificial surfaces of roads and trails. User experience is
centered around a change of routine and surroundings and an
opportunity for socializing with others; development focuses
on road-oriented, day-use activities, providing areas for
scenic pull-outs, parking areas, and trails. Vehicular
traffic control may be present, with primary access usually
over paved roads.
3
2 -OVERVIEW OF THE PLANNING PROCESS
The recreation planning effort has focused on the immediate reservoir
areas, the potential access road corridors, and those additional lands
recommended for acquisition for recreational purposes (Figure 1). The
planning process consists of three principal components: (1) an
inventory of the recreation opportunity settings in the proj~ct area,
including an assessment of resource suitability, and the potential
recreation opportunities associated with the project setting; (2) an
assessment of public opinion regarding the types and levels of
recreational development the public would prefer relative to the
potential recreation opportunities that could be offered; and (3) the
development of a master plan that incorporates the findings of the
first two components with management procedures for providing and
maintaining the specific recreation opportunities chosen.
The major steps of the planning process are shown in Figure 2.
Components of the process are described below.
2.1 -Resource Suitability Studies
Resource suitability studies involved developing a list of potential
recreation sites, using aerial photographs, topographic maps, and
field reconnaissance. Topography and proximity to the reservoirs
were the initial criteria for preliminary selection of sites. A list
of possible factors influencing site choice was developed. A more
detailed field evaluation of site suitability for recreation
development was then performed. Additional details on the methods
employed in the suitability studies are presented in Section 5.
2.2 -Development of Concept Plans
Based on the results of the resource suitability studies, five
concept plans were developed representing different scenarios of
4
recreational opportunities, from the purposeful avoidance of
recreational facilities (in combination with restricted access) to
the development of the majority of the identified potential sites.
The purpose of the plans was to offer a wide range of recreational
opportunities based on access and increasing levels of development.
2.3 -Public Input
To obtain public input, the various plans were incorporated into a
public survey questionnaire that was mailed to randomly selected
residents in Fairbanks, Anchorage, and other parts of the Railbelt
(the area from Seward to Fairbanks, adjacent to the Alaska Railroad
and the George Parks Highway). Questionnaires were also used in a
series of public workshops sponsored by the Alaska Power Authority.
Responses from both sources were used to determine the public•s
preferred level of recreational development if a decision is made to
proceed with the Susitna hydroelectric project. Additional details
on the questionnaire survey are presented in Section 6.
Throughout the planning process, information has been exchanged with
relevant federal, state, and local agencies concerned with
recreational development.
2.4 -Selection of Preferred Concept Plan
Based upon the suitability studies and public preference, a draft
recreation plan was selected. The draft plan incorporates the access
route as presently recommended by Acres.
2.5 -Participation Survey
To allow for further refinement of the plan and for adjustments to
accommodate anticipated levels and types of use, a participation
survey was mailed to another random sample of Anchorage, Fairbanks,
5
and other Railbelt residents. The survey was designed to provide
information concerning the numbers of possible visitors and the
frequency of use likely to occur if the proposed recreational
facilities are developed.
2.6 -Final Recreation Plan
The final recreation plan will need to be refined on the basis of the
results of the participation survey. Additional input from public
and state agency review of the Feasibility Report and this report
should also be considered in developing the final_plan.
6
3 -UPPER SUSITNA RIVER PROJECT AREA
The upper Susitna River basin is characterized by a diverse landscape
comprised of deep canyons with steep rock walls, colorful rock
outcroppings, and dense stands of spruce-hardwood forest that give way
to rolling upland tundra with numerous clear lakes and streams. The
opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, hiking, and
backpacking that the basin presently offers as well as its strategic
location between Anchorage and Fairbanks were important considerations
in planning recreational use and development for the project area•s
lands and waters.
3.1 -Susitna River
The Susitna River is cold, swift, and silty and flows from glacial
headwaters in the Alaska Range. Below the glaciers, the river•s
braided channel traverses south through nearly flat lowlands that
were once covered by an immense proglacial lake. Where the Susitna
takes a sharp turn to the west, it becomes progressively entrenched
between broad, rounded uplands until exiting below Devil Canyon.
Although the Susitna itself is silt-laden, its tributaries except the
turbid Maclaren and Oshetna rivers, are clear. Many of the tributary
streams that drain the uplands below Vee Canyon fall from steep
embankments, creating impressive waterfalls. Above the gorges and
canyons, where the uplands have been smoothed and shaped by glaciers
of the Pleistocene era, the streams are quite flat and even
meandering.
The Susitna River surges through the narrow, rocky gorge at Devil
Canyon, creating a major Alaskan whitewater area in an 18-kilometer
(11 mile) stretch of river. Once past the canyon, the rfver
gradually turns south, becomes braided and eventually empties into
Cook Inlet.
7
3.2 -Climate
During summer months, mild weather predominates. This weather
results from warm, moist air that travels north from the Gulf of
Alaska and encounters the southern foothills of the Alaska·Range,
where it is then lifted and cooled. This process can produce
significant amounts of precipitation in the area.
3.3 -Vegetation
The diversity of landforms, elevation, and climatic conditions in the
project area are reflected by the varied vegetation. The areas of
the proposed impoundment that are dominated by steep slopes support
stands of spruce (Picea glauca, f. mariana), birch (Betula
papyrifera),and alder (Alnus sinuata),with a well-developed ground
layer consisting primarily of herbaceous species and some shrubby
plants. The terraces above the river are covered with low shrub and
shrub-bog communities, dominated by shrub species such as dwarf birch
(Betula glandulosa) and blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum). The
transition from shrublands to higher elevations is characterized by
sedge-grass tundra and mat and cushion tundra vegetation. Here,
well-drained areas usually contain low-growing herbaceous plants or
matted shrubs.
3. 4 -Soils
Rough, mountainous land generally predominates above 1,200 meters
(4,000 feet) elevation in the project area. Soils here are stony and
shallow over bedrock or boulder deposits and are restricted to
sparsely vegetated locations on lower slopes and in valleys. Aside
from extensive areas of rough, mountainous terrain, the soils of the
upper Susitna basin are dominated by two principal soil orders,
Inceptisols and Spodosols. The majority of the soils are
Inceptisols, poorly developed soils most common on extreme landscape
8
positions, such as depressions and steep upland locations of young
geomorphic age. Many Inceptisols here are Histic Pergelic
Cyraquepts, wet soils with a thick accumulation of organic matter.
These generally occur in lowland depressions but may also develop in
basins at higher elevations where permafrost is usually present.
Another subgroup, Pergelic Cryumbrepts, are well-drained soils of
higher elevations that typically occur above treeline on low ridges
and steep slopes. Spodosols, the second principal soil order, are
well-drained soils dominant on uplands in areas of high
precipitation. The most common Spodosols found in this area are
Humic and Pergelic Cryorthods (USDA 1979).
Most of the soils of this area present severe limitations for all
kinds of land use, including roads and recreation facility
construction, because of excessive soil moisture, the presence of
permafrost, the occurrence of slumping along slopes, and other
terrain features (USDA 1979). Land use limitations established by
the Soil Conservation Service for various soil subgroups found in the
project area are given in Appendix A.
3.5 -Wildlife and Fisheries
Wildlife within the basin includes moose; caribou; Dall sheep;
grizzly and black bear; wolf; wolverine; lynx; red fox; migratory and
nonmigratory bird species, including raptors such as golden and bald
eagles; and many other smaller animals. The basin provides important
moose and caribou range; in fact, the Nelchina caribou herd extends
its range over much of the upper basin, particularly the central and
eastern portions. On the other hand, Dall sheep occur only at higher
elevations. The basin also supports a relatively high black bear
population, primarily in the forested regions along the Susitna
River. Grizzlies, on the other hand, are more prevalent above
treeline during the summer months, but are known to migrate to·rivers
and lakes that have salmon runs.
9
A variety of resident fish are present in the tributary streams and
lakes of the basin; grayling, rainbow trout, burbot, Dolly Varden,
lake trout, and whitefish. Migrating salmon spawn in sloughs, Indian
River, and Portage Creek but are not found above Devil Canyon, where
the rapids prevent them from going farther upstream.
3.6 -Significant Landform Features
The upper Susitna River occupies a deep, entirely stream-cut valley,
an unusual geological feature in an area that is dominated by
glacially carved, broad, U-shaped valleys. Some of the significant
landform features include Devil Canyon, Vee Canyon, the Tyone River
bluffs, Clear Valley, and Mt. Watana (Figure 3). [A detailed
description of significant natural features of the project area is
included in the TES Subtask Report on Land Use (APA 1982)].
(a) Dev i l Canyon
Devil Canyon is significant for both its narrow, rocky gorge, with
180-meter-high (600 foot-) walls that have been entirely stream
carved and its whitewater, the result of the river's great volume,
the constriction of its channel, and the rocky obstructions in its
bed.
(b) Vee Canyon
Vee Canyon, with its prominent, multi-colored, sheer rock walls
and double hairpin bends, also has turbulent whitewater. In
addition, the canyon is the western terminus of the Copper River
lowland landscape.
(c) Tyone River Bluffs
The Tyone River bluffs are composed of chalky, lacustrine deposits
that contrast sharply with the dark water of the Tyone River. The
10
Tyone drains Susitna Lake and Lake Louise and is distinguishable
from other Susitna tributaries because of its slow, meandering
character and dark color.
(d) Clear Valley and Mt. Watana
Clear Valley is an interesting geological feature for its
prominent lateral moraines and terraces. Mt. Watana is highly
visible in much of the central and eastern portions of the basin.
Along its eastern flank is Watana Lake and above this lake is a
glacially carved, hanging valley with a small cirque lake
surrounded by steep scree slopes.
3.7 -Significant Water Forms
The majority of the significant water forms in the basin include
waterfalls and lakes. [A description of individual features is
provided in the Subtask Report on Land Use (APA 1982)].
(a) Waterfalls
Many of the tributary streams of the Susitna that flow down from
the uplands pass through narrow, rocky gorges and drop over steep
embankments, creating a variety of waterfalls. The most
significant of these waterfalls, because of their size and beauty,
are located in Deadman, Tsusena, Devil, Cheechako, and other,
unnamed creeks. These constitute some of the most scenic featu~es
in the upper Susitna basin.
(b) Lakes
Most of the lakes in the project area are ~oncentrated in the
uplands above the river valley. Big Lake is the largest with a
surface of 437 hectares (1080 acres). Stephan Lake is the
second largest, covering over 340 hectares (840 acres). Stephan
11
is also one of the few lakes in the area with a run of salmon and
with relatively high recreational use. Many of the larger lakes,
such as Big, Stephan, Deadman, Watana, and Clarence, provide good
fishing opportunities in addition to their scenic qualities. They
are most striking during the brief autumn when the colors of the
tundra vegetation contrast sharply with both the blue water and
the rugged, snow-covered mountains in the distance.
12
4 -EXISTING RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES
4.1 -Project Area
Currently, there are no areas within the project boundaries that are
included or designated for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System, the National Trails System, or as a wilderness area
under the Wilderness Act. The present level of recreational use in
the project area is limited by the difficulty of access into the
area, with most use concentrated at larger lakes that are accessible
by float plane. A number of manmade trails (ORV, dogsled) do
traverse the basin, their primary use devoted to subsistence,
recreation, or mining exploration activities.
No publicly developed recreation facilities exist within the project
area. Although there are no public facilities or means of road
access, various recreational activities do take place in the upper
basin. These are normally characterized by low~volume use associated
with hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, and boating. Some rafting
and kayaking also occurs on the Susitna, Maclaren, Talkeetna, and
Tyone rivers and on Prairie Creek.
There are also three privately owned lodges --on Stephan, High, and
Tsusena lakes --and other structures that are used mostly on a
seasonal basis for hunting, fishing, and trapping. Some of the other
recreational activities mentioned also occur in connection with these
private facilities. The principal mode of travel to the lodges, in
particular, is by plane (Figure 4).
(a) Stephan Lake Lodge
The lodge, located south of the Susitna River at Stephan
Lake, is the largest of the three lodges (ten main structures
with seven additional outlying cabins) and receives the
greatest number of visitors annually. Serving a
predominantly European clientele, it offers a variety of
13
outdoor recreation activities in a wilderness setting. These
focus chiefly on hunting and fishing and on occasional float
trips down the Ta"lkeetna and upper Susitna rivers and Prairie
Creek.
(b) High Lake Lodge
High Lake Lodge, with 11 structures, is the second largest
lodge and is located northeast of the proposed Devil Canyon
dam site at High Lake. Historically, this lo~ge has provided
guests with services similar to those offered at Stephan·Lake
Lodge in connection with hunting and fishing-activities in a
wilderness area. The lo~ge is currently being leased to
Susitna project personnel during the summer field seasons.
(c) Tsusena Lake Lodge
Tsusena Lake Lodge is north of the proposed Watana dam site
and Tsusena Butte, adjacent to Tsusena Lake. This lodge,
with three structures, is used primarily by the lodge owners
and members of their families and friends. Most use occurs
in summer and fall, with little or no use during the winter.
4.2 -Adjacent Areas
(a) Denali National Park and Preserve
As shown in Figure 4 and Table 1, the lands adjacent to the
project area offer numerous recreational opportunities and
facilities. The major attraction is Denali National Park and
Preserve, with a total area of about 2 million hectares (5.7
million acres). The single most outstanding feature of the
park is Mount McKinley Cor Denali) which soars to an altitude
of 6,194 meters (20,320 feet). Administered by the National
Park Service, the park facilities include a hotel complex,
depot, hostel, shuttle bus service, visitors• centers, six
14
campgrounds, and various trailheads. Although the park is
open year round to visitors, many of the facilities are only
available from late May or early June until September.
(b) Denali Planning Block
To the north of the project area, the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management maintains the 1 million hectare (4.5 million acre)
Denali Planning Block, which incorporates most of the land
adjacent to the Denali Highway, including the Tangle Lakes
Archeological District. This 186,000 hectare (460,000 acre)
district, with more archeological sites than any other known
area of comparable size in the American Subarctic, has major
archeological significance, with prehistoric sites dating
back 12,000 to 15,000 years. The Bureau also maintains
sever a 1 sma 11 campgrounds and picnic areas along the Denali
Highway, including boat launches, canoe trails, two
campgrounds at Tangle Lakes, and one campground each at
Brushkana River and Clearwater.
(c) Denali State Park
Denali State Park is located south of Denali National Park
and Preserve and west of the project area. The park contains
about 170,425 hectares (421,120 acres) and a central
recreational development at Byers Lake. Winter use of Denali
State Park is limited by the lack of year-round facilities
and its distance from maj~r population centers. Various
studies have been done to evaluate the feasibility of
developing a recreational facility on the southside of Mount
McKinley in the Tokositna area, but no decisions have been
made to build such a facility.
15
td) Nancy Lake State Recreation Area
Nancy Lake State Recreation Area is about 110 kilometers (70
miles) north of Anchorage and, with 9,181 hectares (22,685
acres), it provides many opportunities for camping,
picnicking, and hiking. Other activities are fishing,
boating, and canoeing on more than 130 lakes and ponds in the
recreation area and ice fishing, cross-country skiing,
snowshoeing, and snowmachining in the winter.
(e) Independence Mine State Historical Park
Independence Mine State Historical Park is Alaska•s newest
state park with 110 hectares (271 acres) that is located at
Hatcher Pass in the Talkeetna Mountains. Once an old mining
area, it includes weathered buildings and remnants of former
mining days. Visitors are attracted to the park in the
summer months to view the mining relics and the mountain
scenery and to hike and camp.
(f) Lake Louise
Lake Louise, with adjoining Susitna Lake, is a popular
fishing, boating, and hunting area, primarily in private
ownership. There are limited camping and picnicking
facilities available at th~ Lake Louise State Recreation
Area. Lake Louise is the main source of the Tyone River, a
tributary of the Susitna River. The Tyone is occasionally
used by boaters, who float from Lake Louise to the confluence
with the Susitna River.
(g) Chugach State Park
Chugach State Park is located in the mountains east of the
city of Anchorage. There are about 200,406 hectares
(495,204 acres) that offer a year-round variety of outdoor
opportunities for hiking, picnicking, camping, wildlife
16
viewing, fishing, canoeing, berry picking, skiing, and
snowmachining.
(h) Privately Owned Facilities
Privately owned and operated facilities in adjacent areas
provide additional services to the public. Lodges, cabins,
restaurants, airstrips and flying services, guiding services,
whitewater rafting trips, and campgrounds are the types of
services and facilities provided by private enterprise.
17
5 -SUITAB1LITY STUDIES
Suitability studies involved assessing the recreation resource
potential of the project area. These studies were pursued in two
phases: a general resource suitability study, which involved
determining the types of recreational opportunities available,
compiling a list of potential sites, and conducting preliminary field
investigation of these locations; and a more detailed study of the
suitability of the potential sites to accommodate recreational
development and use. Similar criteria were used in both studies,
including site stability, recreation desirability, and scenic quality.
The first step in this assessment was to determine what types of
recreational opportunities are possible in the project area (see
Section 1.3). To accomplish this task, an inventory of potential
recreation sites was developed with the use of topographic maps,
available aerial photographs, and a literature review of material
relating to the project area. Topography and proximity to preliminary
reservoir location options were the primary criteria for selection.
Subsequently, other project investigators identified possible access
corridors, and these were also used in identifying potential recreation
sites. A total of 90 sites were identified (Figure 5), and each site
was evaluated in the field. The final selection of sites judged
suitable on the basis of the field evaluation is shown in Figure 6;
the field data form used to compile information about the sites and
make the selection of sites is shown in Appendix B.
Selection criteria that were used in the field to evaluate each site
included scenic quality; site stability factors, including an analysis
of vegetation, soils, and topography; and recreation desirability,
a combination of factors including size of area, lay of land, relative
accessibility, and visitor safety.
Although the project area offers a variety of recreation opportunities,
it also presents some unusual and difficult conditions that must be
considered when planning and developing recreation facilities. The
18
sides of the proposed reservoirs will be very steep and highly
erodible, limiting access points to both reservoirs. Severe reservoir
conditions, including drawdowns of as much as 43 meters (140 feet), for
Watana and 17 meters (55 feet) for Devil Canyon, and hazardous ice
conditions will limit access in terms of time, to only a few months
each year. Boat launching, docking, and mooring facilities in both
reservoirs will need to be designed to accommodate the changes in water
level. On a daily basis, these changes will be insignificant. From
June to September, however, the average water level of Devil Canyon
reservoir will rise 15 meters (50 feet) and that of Watana will rise
9 meters (30 feet). When the reservoirs are not full, the aesthetics
of the exposed drawdown zone could reduce the attractiveness of
water-based recreation. The reservoirs will be cold and silty, with
slumping shorelines and possible mud flats occurring in various areas.
Reservoir conditions may restrict the sizes of fish populations, so
fishing may generally be concentrated at the mouths of clearwater
streams where they enter the reservoirs.
Another problem to be addressed by planners is that the upland tundra
vegetation, while presenting an attractive environmental setting for
many viewers, will also be quite sensitive to man-made disturbances and
overuse. In addition, streams and natural lakes accessible by the road
and trails may be even greater attractions as recreation sites than the
reservoirs themselves. Finally, there are no other similar projects in
the area that can be used for comparison in order to anticipate
specific planning considerations.
Based on the results of the suitability studies, a series of five
concept plans was developed, representing different scenarios of
recreation opportunities. These ranged from purposely refraining from
creating public recreation facilities, combined with restricting
access, to developing most of the potential recreation sites
that passed the suitability evaluation.
19
6 -CONCEPT PLAN SURVEY
6.1 -Purpose
A concept plan survey was the chief means of soliciting public
participation in the recreation planning process. This procedure was
consistent with the objective of determining the interests and
desires of the public regarding recreational development. The actual
survey method was a questionnaire pertaining to the recreational
potential of the project area and the preferences of the public.
Concept plans that were developed as a result of suitability studies
were incorporated into the questionnaire that was mailed to a random
sample of Alaska residents in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and other areas
of the Railbelt, the locations of the majority of potential users.
An abbreviated questionnaire was also used at a series of public
workshops on the proposed Susitna hydroelectric project sponsored by
the Alaska Power Authority.
6.2 -Survey Questionnaire
A copy of the recreation survey questionnaire is shown in Appendix C.
The objectives of this questionnaire were to identify the portion of
the recreation opportunity spectrum on which the majority of
potential users would prefer that recreation planning be focused.
This segment of the spectrum would then serve as the framework for
the recreation plan. The questionnaire was also a means of
maximizing the public contribution in selecting recreation sites and
opportunities.
A total of 2,145 questionnaires were mailed to a random sample of
Alaska residents in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and other parts of the
Railbelt region. The number of questionnaires completed and returned
totaled 549, or 26% of the total mailed. This percentage and the
rate of response to certain key questions (see Section 6.3) were
considered adequate for analysis (Table 2).
20
6.3 -Selection of the Recommended Concept Plan
The questionnaire recipients• responses to Question 1 of Part III were
used as the principal selection criteria for choosing the recommended
concept plan. In Question 1, respondents were asked to rank the five
approaches in order of each one•s value to the individual, with number
1 being of greatest value and number 5 of least value. A total of 473
respondents of the 549 total answered Question 1 by ranking both a
first and a fifth choice. The number of responses for each approach
was totaled, with the selection of the recommended concept plan based
on that approach receiving the greatest number of most desirable
responses.
Results of responses were analyzed considering the region in which the
respondent lived (Anchorage, Fairbanks, and other Railbelt) and their
perceived residency classifications (urban, rural, remote rural, and
other). No significant statistical differences in concept plan choice
were found based on either region (P<0.5) or residency (P<0.1)
classification; therefore, the data were aggregated for analysis of the
concept plan choice indicated as most desirable by the majority of
questionnaire respondents. Results of the questionnaire analysis are
shown in Table 3.
Approach A was ranked as the first choice by 18% of all respondents.
This approach purposely curtailed public access and planned no
development associated with the two reservoirs; it was also ranked by
44% of the respondents as being of least value to them and, therefore,
was eliminated from further consideration.
Approaches C and D represented a combination of various levels of
development for each reservoir, with one reservoir having greater
development than the other. Respondents that ranked these two
approaches as their first choice gave Approach C a 13% response rate
and Approach D, 15%. Although there was no strong preference shown for
either approach, there was also a very small percentage of respondents
21
that ranked these approaches as least valuable to them --Approach C
with 1% and Approach D with 2%. These percentages seemed to indicate
that while both approaches did not have the most value to
respondents, they were more acceptable to a greater proportion of
respondents than all other approaches.
Approaches that received the highest ranking as being of most
value to respondents were B and E. While neither approach was
indicated by large proportions of the questionnaire respondents,
Approach E received the highest percentage of responses, 30%, and
represented the development end of the spectrum. Approach B,
providing reasonable access but limited facility development
associated with the reservoirs, was indicated as being of most value
by 25% of the respondents. Reviewing the percentages of respondents
that ranked both approaches B and E as their last choice, with the
least value, Approach 8 received 4% and Approach E, 49%. Approach E,
therefore, received the highest percentage of responses for all five
approaches as having both the least value and most value to
respondents. When comparing the total number of responses that
ranked Approach E as being of most value, 142 (30%), with the total
that ranked it fifth or of least value, 231 (49%), it became apparent
that a greater proportion of questionnaire respondents ranked
Approach E of least value to them than respondents that ranked it of
most value.
These results left Approach B as the primary choice to serve as
the framework for the recreation plan. Approach 8 received the
second highest ranking for being of most value to respondents with
116 responses (25%) from the total of 473 responses and 18 responses
(4%) for the least preferred choice. It was clearly indicated by a
greater proportion of respondents as their first choice than it was
by ones that ranked it as their last choice, that is, of least value.
Further analysis of the unsolicited comments from the questionnaires
indicated that facilities should be developed and managed on an
as-needed basis, starting with minimal facility services and
expanding only when demand warrants it. Concept Plan Approach B
22
will provide for facilities at a minimal level now and allow for
expansion if and when there is demand for such addition.
6.4-Public Workshop Questionnaire
While the concept plan survey questionnaire was the principal
method used for choosing the recommended concept plan, some
suggestions were included from the results of a questionnaire
distributed to participants at a series of public workshops sponsored
by the Alaska Power Authority on the Susitna hydroelectric project,
held March 16,17 and 19, 1981, in Fairbanks, Talkeetna, and
Anchorage, respectively. At each workshop a questionnaire was
distributed to participants to be completed and either handed in at
the end of the workshop or mailed back to the Alaska Power Authority.
A copy of the questionnaire is shown in Appendix D. A total of 90
questionnaires was completed and returned by individual workshop
participants.
Based on the results from the mail survey questionnaire and the
site suitability studies, and some suggestions from the public
workshop questionnaire, a variation of Approach B was selected as the
recommended concept plan. This concept plan (Figure 7) meets the
following criteria:
-Recreation developments proposed for the first three years
would be essentially those shown in Approach B. Emphasis would
be on rustic facilities and limited services. Primitive picnic
areas and campgrounds would be located near the dam sites and
designed to accommodate various types of users and to permit
future expansion. Developed trails and portages would lead to
alpine lakes and waterfalls in the project area, and boat
launches would provide access to the reservoirs.
23
-After the first three years, long-term development would focus
on the potential expansion of the campgrounds at the dam site
areas as well as on the development of boat-in facilities at
other locations on the reservoirs. A delay in the development
of the boat-in facilities would be necessary until the
reservoirs are filled and the effects of shoreline stability
and erosion evaluated.
The semi-primitive opportunity setting would be maintained with
an emphasis on rustic development and limited services.
Initially the plan would be similar to Approach B but could
be expanded later through the development of additional
facilities. This arrangement would also preserve the option of
providing additional commercial services, such as a service
station, campstore, or lodging, if such development could be
shown to be both economically feasible and suitable for the
opportunity setting.
24
7 -RECREATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
The integration of the planning process with management procedures is
important for providing specific recreation opportunities that can be
stabilized for an extended period of time. Recreation opportunities
are a function of user preference and a product of management actions.
During the development of this plan~ a broad range of recreation
opportunities were considered as well as the natural resource
capability of the project area to accommodate recreational uses. Also
examined were the costs and benefits of the proposed facilities.
7.1 -Proposed Recreation Opportunity Settings and Activity Emphasis
The proposed opportunity settings are shown in Figure 8, with a
description of the management program and activities to be emphasized
appearing in Table 4. The recreation opportunity settings offered
are semi-modern, semi-primitive~ and primitive. These settings meet
the planning criteria for the recommended concept plan (Figure 7) and
are consistent with the types of facilities and access necessary for
maintaining and operating the dams. The existence of the dams and
reservoirs, their associated facilities, and the gravel access road
that connects them with the Parks Highway would render adjacent
recreation sites as semi-modern on the recreation opportunity
spectrum. The two reservoirs will offer a semi-primitive opportunity
setting, with motorized boating activities available but with other
recreational facilities limited. Areas that are accessible from the
road and reservoirs but where ORV use is restricted are classified as
primitive and will receive low-volume, dispersed types of
recreational activities.
The emphasis of recreation in the region will be on day-use~ with
camping facilities located near the Devil Canyon and Watana dam
sites. Scenic alpine lakes within the project area will be major
attractions and~ together with the scenic drive itself will be the
focus of the majority of the road-oriented recreation. Developed
25
portages and trails to these lakes and various waterfalls in the
project area will offer additional opportunities that will not be
available at the two reservoirs.
7.2 -Initial Recreation Site and Facility Development
The proposed recreation sites and developments are a reflection of
the recommended concept plan, the design and location of the proposed
road system, the dams and reservoirs, and the attractions likely to
determine the types of activities people will seek within the various
opportunity settings. The proposal also denotes the amount of
development necessary to offer and maintain these opportunities.
Figure 9 shows the locations and types of site and facility
developments, and Table 5 describes them in greater detail.
(a) Access Road
Access from the Parks Highway to the reservoirs and recreation
facilities will be provided by a gravel road, which falls
within the semi-modern portion of the recreation opportunity
spectrum. Most recreation along the access road will be
day-use. An orientation and information sign, placed at the
entrance of the project road from the Parks Highway, will .
inform visitors of the opportunities and restrictions of the
project area. All information signs will be of simple and
rustic design, in keeping with the opportunity settings in
which they are placed. Scenic viewpoints; pull-outs and
parking areas at trailheads and portages; and access at Indian
River, where spawning salmon can be viewed during the summer
months, are the only additional facilities planned along the
road system. Waste containers will be placed at the Indian
River access point and at trailhead pull-outs, with scheduled
disposal and maintenance for these containers. All other
scenic viewpoints, for short-term viewing and photography,
will not have waste containers.
26
ORV use will not be allowed from the access road, and this
policy will be strictly enforced. Particularly in the alpine
zone, use of ORV•s would destroy the very opportunities the
recreation plan is designed to enhance and protect.
(b) Devil Canyon and Watana Reservoirs
The greatest concentration of recreational use will be focused
near the Devil Canyon and Watana dam sites, where reservoirs
and existing facilities will be accessible. Recreation
development for the first three years includes: developed
campgrounds, designed to accommodate all types of vehicle users
and to allow for future expansion; picnic/rest areas; boat
launches; and parking areas. Emphasis will be placed on rustic
facilities that are both aesthetically pleasing and functional
but with minimal services.
Recreational development at both reservoirs will be severely
limited by the cold, silt~laden water; steep, highly erosive
canyon walls; slump·ing shorel-ines; hazardous ice conditions
throughout much of the year; and large seasonal water level
fluctuations (see Section 5). When the reservoirs are not
full, the aesthetics of the exposed drawdown zone may limit
recreational use. Fish populations in both reservoirs will
probably be low and fishing restricted primarily to the mouths
of clearwater streams where they enter the reservoirs.
At Devil Canyon reservoir, development will be limited by the
reservoir•s narrow, gorge-like character. Several side canyons
may offer some protection from the wind and, therefore, could
serve as sheltered moorages, but their steep banks may make
them ill-suited for any type of development. Upstream,
however, where the canyon broadens, there may be suitable
reservoir banks for some types of future recreational
faci 1 iti es.
27
The Devil Canyon dam site area would serve as the focal point
for recreational activities in the lower portion of that
reservoir area. A combination of day-use and overnight
facilities would be available to visitors interested in both
water-and land-oriented activities, such as boating,
picnicking, hiking, and camping. Day-use facilities proposed
for the dam site area include picnic and rest areas with
orientation and interpretive information, a boat launch and
parking area for the reservoir, and several scenic overlooks
with short trails.
Boat launches and parking areas are proposed at Cheechako
Canyon, located east of the Devil Canyon dam, and at Tsusena
Creek, just west of Watana dam. Upper Cheechako Canyon, south
of the boat launch, would be designated a no-wake boating zone
to encourage non-motorized, day-use of the canyon. Boating
access at Tsusena Creek would disperse some of the recreational
use throughout the reservoir, while giving greater access to
the upper regions of the reservoir.
Overnight camping would be available near Cheechako Canyon with
a developed, 60-unit campground designed for eventual expansion
in the future. Locating the campground at Cheechako Canyon
would make it both accessible to and convenient for all types
of users, while removing visitors from the operation and
maintenance activities, associated with the dam. The terrain
and forest vegetation along the canyon should create a pleasant
and secluded atmosphere, simultaneously buffering noise. A
proposed trail would follow the canyon from the campground area
to a series of waterfalls along Cheechako Creek, with a short
loop of the trail designed specifically for the handicapped. A
picnic and rest area would be located near the boat launch and
parking area at Tsusena Creek, with a developed trail to
Tsusena Falls.
28
It is expected that Watana reservoir will receive low-volume,
dispersed use, mostly for boating, hunting, and sightseeing
activities. Reservoir access will be via a boat launch and
parking area near Deadman Creek. Proposed camping facilities,
which would be located near Deadman Creek, would be similar to
those offered at the Cheechako Canyon campground but with fewer
units for the first three years (Phase 1). All developed
campgrounds and picnic areas would have conveniently located
toilets and trash containers, with scheduled maintenance at
both.
(c) Other Areas
Proposed recreation developments in the semi-primitive
opportunity setting adjacent to the access road offer visitors
scenic views of the Susitna River valley; the reservoirs; the
alpine tundra landscape, dotted with clearwater lakes and
streams; and the Talkeetna Mountains and the Alaska Range,
including Mt. McKinley. Developed portages and trails would lead
to larger lakes and waterfalls within the area. Primitive trails
to additional lakes in the area would be cleared of brush and the
wet areas stabilized. To protect this sensitive environment and
the recreational opportunity it affords, no facilities are to be
provided except for the overlooks, portages, and trails.
Dispersed tent camping would be allowed and a "pack-in, pack-out"
policy used. All ORV use would be prohibited and the regulation
strictly enforced for both visitors and the maintenance and
operations personnel at the two dam sites. A public information
campaign wo~ld be initiated to acquaint people with the
regulations and to explain their necessity.
7.3 -Long Range Recreation Development
The semi-primitive opportunity setting would be maintained for both
reservoirs and for the land adjacent to the access road. Areas
'assified in the primitive setting would remain so. In terms of
29
actual development for recreation, Figure 10 shows the location,
type, and number of various recreational facilities planned for the
future. Table 5 describes them in greater detail.
These developments would focus on the expansion of the campgrounds
near Watana reservoir and a boat-in picnic area at Devil Canyon
reservoir. Delay in the development of these facilities is necessary
until the anticipated demand is known and until the reservoirs are
entirely filled and the shoreline effects of erosion and slumping can
be evaluated. These developments would include the addition of 40
camping units at the Cheechako Creek campground and 30 units at the
Deadman Creek campground. Boat-in campgrounds would have ten
primitive campsites each, and both boat-in campgounds and the picnic
area located at Devil Canyon reservoir would have toilets, water, and
picnic facilities serviced on a regular basis, and food caches
provided to minimize bear/man encounters. The "pack-in, pack-out"
policy would be enforced for waste disposal, and a monitoring system
would be used to measure environmental and site deterioration created
by overuse or vandalism.
Boaters coming down the Susitna River from the Denali Highway area
and from the Tyone River by way of Lake Louise would be accommodated
by a camping area near the confluence of the two rivers. A
cooperative agreement could be made with the future landowner [either
CIRI (Cook Inlet Region, Inc.) or the Bureau of Land Management] that
would stipulate the type and location of recreational facilities that
would be provided and maintained when such development is needed.
Any plans for additional facilities would have to incorporate
anticipated and actual public demand and still be compatible with the
resource capability. The option of providing commercial services,
such as a service station, lodging, boat rental, or campstore, would
be considered if such developments were shown to be economically
feasible and suitable to the opportunity setting. If this option
were desirable, it could be pursued under a tightly controlled
concession contract.
30
7.4 -Shoreline Buffer Zone, Boundary, and Land Acquisition Program
A shoreline buffer zone will allow for public access at both
reservoirs, while protecting the scenic, cultural, and environmental
values associated with the reservoir shorelines. For the protection
and enhancement of these values and the visual quality of the buffer
zone; proposed recreational facilities have been designed and located
so as to cause the least impact on the landscape. Developments at
the dam sites are situated away from the reservoirs, and with their
rustic design and their location within vegetation types with higher
absorption factors, are intended to blend into the landscape. By
lDcating recreation facilities near areas of existing or prior
development, the number of additional unnecessary disturbances to
natural areas is reduced. Low-density, dispersed use in the
semi-primitive and primitive opportunity settings will minimize
potential damage to reservoir shorelines and other environmentally
sensitive areas that could result from overuse or inappropriate types
of use. See Section 7.7 (f) for a discussion of potential
disturbance of cliff-nesting raptors.
The lands recommended for acquisition Cor other means of protection
from incorporated development) include: the rights-of-way of the
access roads; the visual corridor, or "seen" area, for both Devil
Canyon and Watana reservoirs; and the land circumscribed by the
access road joining both dams on the north boundary, the dam sites to
the west and east, and Devil Canyon reservoir to the south. In
addition, some type of cooperative agreements should be made with the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources for the protection of public
fishing access adjacent to Indian River and with CIRI or the Bureau
of Land Management for a designated camping area near the confluence
of the Tyone and Susitna rivers.
7.5 -Estimate of Existing and Future Recreation Use
(a) Existing Data
There are no statistical records on the amount of recreational
use the interior Susitna River basin receives on an annual basis.
31
The type of use the area receives (primarily dispersed,
low-volume activities such as hunting, fishing, boating) and the
principal mode of travel to the area {predominantly private
aircraft) combine to make accurate data collecting difficult and
expensive. Two of the private lodges in the project area
(Stephan Lake and Tsusena Lake lodges) currently receive between
1,458 and 4,864 combined visitor-days of use. The third lodge,
at High Lake, currently serves only project personnel during
summer field seasons.
Traffic counts taken for the Denali and Parks highways provide
some indication of the amount of use these highways receive
during the summer months, the time of the year when most
recreational use occurs within the region. The results of
traffic counts conducted from 1973 to 1978 are shown in Table 6,
with the average daily traffic count for the full length of the
Denali Highway and for the East Fork Maintenance Station, which
is approximately 32 kilometers (20 miles) north of the
intersection of the proposed access road to the project area and
the Parks Highway. Table 6 also shows the average daily traffic
count for both highways for the period from the middle of May to
October (when the Denali Highway is open to the public) and the
annual average daily traffic count for the Parks Highway.
Results from the 1975 outdoor recreation study for the Denali
Highway area indicated that for a 75-day season from July 1 to
September 13, 1975, approximately 6,400 recreation groups
(average size of 3.2 persons) used the Denali Highway area, for a
total of 20,500'recreation visits. The study (Johnson 1976)
found that 90% of highway travelers interviewed (1,088
respondents) cited recreation as the primary purpose of their
trip. The majority of the respondents (82%) were Alaska
residents, with 35% from Anchorage and 27% from Fairbanks.
Visitor counts taken by the Alaska Division of Parks for state
recreation areas adjacent to the Parks Highway are shown in
32
Table 7 and were compiled from all available data collected for
the summers of 1979 and 1980.
Most methods of estimating future recreational use of the
proposed reservoirs are based on existing, analogous reservoirs
or other regions with similar conditions. The value of such
analogies is doubtful, however, when used for comparison with the
unique environmental, economic, and social conditions existing in
Alaska. General factors to be considered when estimating the
projected recreational use of the project area are:
-The majority of the user population is located 240 to 320
kilometers (150 to 200 miles) north and south of the project
area in the primary population centers of Anchorage and
Fairbanks. This siting places the project area at the extreme
of the travel radius acceptable for day-use but well within
the radius considered feasible for weekend or overnight use.
-The potential user population for the project area, including
both reservoirs, could be 484,000 people, by the year 2000
(Anchorage, Fairbanks and the Railbelt populations) (Frank
Orth & Associates 1982). On the other hand, the competition
from Dena 1 i Nation a 1 Park, Dena 1 i State Park, Nancy Lake State
Recreation Area and Big Lake (East and South) Recreation
Sites, the Denali Planning Block, and other regional
attractions is difficult to determine.
-Additional considerations when estimating project use include
the possible conditions of the reservoirs (including the cold,
silty water; steep slopes; erosion and slope stability
problems; large fluctuations in pool levels and aesthetics of
the drawdown zone; and low fish populations); the degree of
access; seasonal availability; and the location and design of
hydroelectric facilities, including transmission lines,
substations, permanent housing and other associated
facilities.
33
(b) Recreation Participation Survey
To obtain additional information concerning potential future use
of the proposed recreational facilities, a participation survey
(Appendix E) was mailed to 3200 randomly selected Anchorage,
Fairbanks, and other Railbelt residents. Survey results have not
been analyzed, but they will be used to estimate the future use
likely for project facilities.
7.6-Schedule and Cost of Recreation Facility Development
Most of the site developments proposed are scheduled for completion
during the first three years of project operation. Much of the
development cost is road-related and could be accomplished during the
initial phase of road construction with minimal extra cost. In
addition, once the type and location of opportunities to be offered
to the public have been established, the essential developments for
each opportunity setting should be completed in the first three
years to develop and protect these opportunity settings properly.
Failing to protect the settings early would permit the original
opportunities to be changed or lost as additional developments are
introduced.
Short-term costs for recreational facility developments, exclusive of
.road construction costs, are estimated to be $2,062,235 in 1981
dollars. With the addition of road construction costs, the total is
$4,383,876 in 1981 dollars. A summary of these costs, with subtotals
for each opportunity setting and proposed site, is given in Table 8.
The estimated cost of parking areas varies with the type of area
designed. Parking areas located at boat launchings have 3.1 meters
x 12.2 meters (10 feet x 40 feet) spaces; in all other locations,
parking areas will be 3.1 m x 9.1 m (10 feet x 30 feet). The
estimated cost of scenic overlooks and pull-outs is based on an
average size of 1,300 square meters (14,000 square feet). Actual
34
Actual costs are expected to vary with actual site conditions,
distance to nearest material site, and other factors. Cost estimates
are subject to modification when detailed site planning and
construction drawings are completed.
Proposed facility developments scheduled for completion after the
first three years (that is, the long-term development) include a
boat~in picnic ground at Devil Canyon Reservoir, two boat-in
campgrounds at Watana Reservoir, and the expansion of the campgrounds
at Cheechako Canyon and Deadman Cove. The long-term cost of these
proposed facilities, exclusive of road construction costs, is
estimated to be $1,050,585 in 1981 dollars. Adding road construction
costs, the total in 1981 dollars is estimated to be ·$1,664,877. A
summary of these costs, subtotaled for each opportunity setting and
recreation site, is shown in Table 9. The total projected cost of
capital improvements, exclusive of road construction costs, is
$3,112,820 in 1981 dollars. With the addition of road construction
costs, the total projected cost in 1981 dollars is $6,048,753.
Estimated operating costs are shown in Table 10 and were developed by
determining normal agency operations, developing a list of possible
cost categories, and soliciting 1981 costs for these items. The
projected total operating cost in 1981 dollars is $405,939 for the
first year and $290,280 per year after that.
7.7 -Management Issues
Management issues refer to possible actions that would be required to
protect and enhance an area's recreational opportunities and
resources for a peri·od of time. This interrelationship of the types
of opportunities, the specific opportunity settings, and the
management issues that must be addressed to maintain them both are
addressed below according to the opportunity settings in Table 7.
(a) Semi-modern Opportunity Setting (A)
Primary use will focus on road-oriented, day-use activities,
chiefly sightseeing and photography. Area information signs will
35
be necessary for visitor orientation and information pertaining
to recreational opportunities and regulations in the project
area. Scenic viewpoints and pull-outs are intended primarily for
short-term observation, with a short trail to a scenic waterfall
near the road. A waste container will be placed at the Indian
River pull-out with scheduled waste disposal; no other pull-outs
will have waste containers. Off-road vehicle (ORV) use should be
prohibited, but minimal enforcement should be necessary, since
the natural terrain will greatly limit such use in this zone.
(b) Semi-modern Opportunity Setting (B)
Along the access road between Devil Canyon and Watana dam sites,
day-use activities will focus on low-speed, auto-oriented
sightseeing, with scenic overlooks and trails to acc~ssible lakes
and waterfalls within the area. Pull-outs will provide panoramic
views of alpine tundra with clearwater lakes, the Susitna River
valley, the Talkeetna Mountains, and the Alaska Range, including
Mt. McKinley. To protect this sensitive resource base and to
maintain maximum aesthetics, no facilities {except overlooks and
trails) are to be placed in this setting. To avoid further
conflict and interference with existing private lodge operations
at High Lake, this area will not be developed for recreation.
The issue of ORV use must be addressed during both the initial
construction phases of the project and after construction.
Design considerations and construction activities, as well as
leisure activities by construction workers could have significant
impacts on the resource base by permitting irreparable damage
while creating unplanned patterris of recreational use that, once
developed, would be difficult to reverse. The result would be
the destruction of the opportunities that the recreation plan and
other mitigation plans are designed to protect. Road patrols
would monitor the area and a visitor check point, perhaps at
Devil Canyon dam, could be established. No overnight use would
be permitted along the road.
36
(c) Semi-primitive Opportunity Setting (C,D)
Day and overnight use would be accommodated by picnic areas,
campgrounds, boat launches, and trails. Providing two access
points to Devil Canyon reservoir would disperse some of the
recreational use of the reservoir. To minimize conflict with
non-motorized, day-use of the canyon, upper Cheechako Canyon,
above the boat launch area, would be designated as a no-wake
zone.
Boat launching, docking, and mooring facilities will need to be
designed to accommodate changes in pool level· of as much as 15
meters (50 feet) in the Devil Canyon reservoir and 9 meters (30
feet) in the Watana reservoir during the June-September
recreation season. At Watana, the maximum drawdown range of 43
meters (140 feet) will also need to be taken into consideration.
Daily fluctuations are not expected to be significant. Both
Watana and Devil Canyon reservoirs may have hazards caused by
wind, wakes from passing boats, the depth and temperature of the
water, the steep and unstable reservoir banks, and the
fluctuating water levels. For public safety and to encourage
boating courtesy, boat patrols will be necessary.
(d) Semi-primitive and Primitive Opportunity Settings (E,F)
Trails and portages from the access road would lead to the more
accessible lakes and waterfalls on Devil, Cheechako, and Tsusena
creeks. Overnight camping would be permitted and the "pack-in,
pack-out" policy enforced. Enforcement will require periodic
inspection of the popular camping areas to assess impact, to
communicate with visitors, and to insist on compliance.
(e) Opportunity Settings (A-F)
Interference with the normal operations of the hydroelectric
dams and facilities will be alleviated by the design of the
37
facilities• access and appropriate fencing and signing.
Scheduled tours of the dams could be arranged if public
interest were sufficient.
Patrolling of the project area, including the reservoirs,
will be necessary for visitor safety and to reduce vandalism
of public and private property. Off-road vehicle use will be
prohibited and enforcement wi 11 be a norma 1 part of the
patrolling effort.
To minimize encounters with bears, visitors will be informed
of the rules on the proper handling of food and waste
di sposa 1 in the project area. Boat-in faci 1 it i es wi 11 offer
food caches to store food i terns, and the 11 pack-in, pack-out 11
policy will be enforced. A solid waste management program
will also be mandatory.
Measures to protect cultural resources in the project area
will consist of a combination of avoidance and preservation
measures implemented throughout the entire planning,
development, and operation and maintenance phases. Important
cultural features and artifacts should be protected and
preserved, since they are an integral segment of the resource
base. Mitigation of impacts to cultural resources resulting
from recreational activity in the area is discussed in the
report on Subtask 7.06, Cultural Resources Investigation (APA
1982).
Coordination with Bureau of Land Management and private
1 andowners wi 11 be necessary. An interagency council should
perhaps be established for communicating and coordinating
activities, and project area boundaries should be clearly
designated to discourage casual trespass onto private lands.
As recreational use of the area increases, the feasibility of
establishing additional services, such as food, lodging, and
38
minor repair should be investigated to determine if they are
warranted by public preference. If warranted and if
concession operations are the best approach, such services
should be obtained under a tightly controlled concession
contract.
It is important for management purposes that a system for
unobtrusively monitoring use patterns be established. One
such system could include electronic vehicle counters
installed at the entrance to each major site. Such counters
would need to be calibrated periodically to ensure accurate
interpretation of the data they produce. In addition,
periodic assessments for signs of overuse of areas and
facilities must be a routine part of the recreation
management program.
(f) Conflicts with Cliff-nesting Birds
A potential conflict exists between the protection of
cliff-nesting raptors and recreational development at
Cheechako Canyon and Deadman Creek. Because of potential
disturbance by nearby construction activities, it may be moot
to attempt to avoid disturbance by limiting recreational
development at these locations. At the least, however, some
restrictions on visitor activities close to active nests may
be warranted.
39
Site Deve 1 opment
WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
1 Stephan Lake Lodge
2 Tsusena Lake Lodge
3 High Lake Lodge
OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA
4 Denali National Park
and Preserve
A Riley Creek
Campground
B Morino Campground
c Savage River
Campground
D Sanctuary River
Campground
E Teklanika River
Campground
F Igloo Creek
Campground
G Wonder Lake
Campground
5 Denali Planning Block
A Brushkana River
Campground
a. Locations of facilities
23
13
10
TABLE 1: REGIONAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
(a)
Location
km (14 mi) SW of Watana damsite
at Stephan Lake
km (8 mi) NW of Watana dams ite
at Stephan Lake
km (6 mi) NE of Devil Canyon
dams ite at High Lake
Managing
·Agency
Private
Private
Private
45
15
15
Capacity/
Units
people maximum
people maximum
people maximum
Entrance: Parks Highway,
Mile 237.3 National Park Service 228 campsites
Denali Highway, Mile 105
Bureau of Land
Management
outside the project area taken from the 1980 Milepost.
33 campsites
Total
Area
17 hectares
( 42 acres)
20 hectares
(49 acres)
45 hectares
(111 acres)
2,305,000 hectares
(5,696,000 acres)
1,800,000 hectares
(4,500,000 acres)
TABLE 1 -Page 2 of 4
(a) Managing Capacity/ Tot a 1
Site Development Location Agency Units Area
B Clearwater Creek Denali Highway, Mile 55.9
Campground
c Upper Tangle Lakes Dena 1 i Highway, Mile 21.7
Campground
D Tangle Lakes Denali Highway, Mile 21.5
Campground
6 Tangle Lakes Archeo-Bureau of Land 186,000 hectares
logical District Management (460,000 acres)
7 Paxson Lake Wayside Richardson Highway, Bureau of Land 4 campsites 1.6 hectares
Mile 179.4 Management ( 4 acres)
8 Paxson Lake Campground Richardson Highway, Bureau of Land 20 campsites 16 hectares
and Boat Launch Mile 175 Management (40 acres)
9 Sourdough Creek Richardson Highway, Alaska Division 20 campsites 65 hectares
Campground, Mile 147.4 of Parks (160 acres)
10 Dry Creek State Richardson Highway, Alaska Division 58 campsites 151 hectares
Recreation Site Mile 117.5 of Parks 4 picnic sites ( 372 acres)
11 Denali State Park Alaska Division 61 campsites 170,427 hectares
of Parks 15 picnic sites (421,120 acres)
A Byers Lake Parks Highway, Mile 147
12 Willow Creek State Parks Highway, Mile 71.2 Alaska Division 17 campsites 97 hectares
Recreation Site of Parks ( 240 acres)
13 Nancy Lake State Parks Highway, Mile 66.5 Alaska Division 30 campsites 14 hectares
Recreation Site of Parks 30 picnic sites (36 acres}
14 Nancy Lake State Parks Highway, Mile 67.2 Alaska Division 106 campsites 9,181 hectares
Recreation Area of Parks ( 22,685 acres)
TABLE 1 -Page 3 of 4
(a} Managing Capacity/ Total
Site Development Location Agency Units Area
A South Rolly Lake Parks Highway, Mile 67
Campground
15 Rocky Lake State Parks Highway, Mi 1 e 52.3 Alaska Division 10 campsites 19 hectares
Recreation Site of Parks ( 48 acres)
16 Big Lake, East and Parks Highway, Mi 1 e 52 Alaska Division 28 campsites 14 hectares
South, State Recre-of Parks . 8 picnic sites (35 acres)
ation Sites
17 Houston Campground Parks Highway, Mile 57.3 Community of 42 campsites 32 hectares
Houston (80 acres)
18 Finger Lake State Bogard Road, Mile 6 Alaska Division 41 campsites 19 hectares
Recreation Site of Parks (47 acres)
19 Independence Mine, Hatcher Pass Road Alaska Division no developed 110 hectares
State Historical Park of Parks faci 1 ities (271 acres)
20 Moose Creek State Glenn Highway, Mile 54.7 Alaska Division 8 campsites 16 hectares
Recreation Site of Parks ( 40 acres)
21 King Mountain State Glenn Highway, Mile 76.1 Alaska Division 22 campsites 8 hectares
Recreation Site of Parks 2 picnic sites (20 acres)
22 Bonnie Lake State Glenn Highway, Mile 82.5 Alaska Division 8 campsites 52 hectares
Recreation Site of Parks (129 acres)
23 Long Lake State Glenn Highway, Mile 85 Alaska Division 8 campsites 194 hectares
Recreation Site of Parks (480 acres)
24 Matanuska Glacier Glenn Highway, Mile 101 Alaska Division 6 campsites 94 hectares
State Recreation Site of Parks (229 acres)
25 Little Nelchina State Glenn Highway, Mile 137.4 Alaska Division 6 campsites 9 hectares
Recreation Site of Parks (22 acres)
26 Lake Louise State Glenn Highway, Mile 157 Alaska Division 6 campsites 35 hectares
Recreation Area of Parks (90 acres)
TABLE 1 -Page 4 of 4
(a} Managing Capacity/ Total
Site Development Location Agency Units Area
27 Tolsona Creek State Glenn Highway, Mile 172.5 Alaska Division 5 campsites 243 hectares
Recreation Site of Parks (600 acres)
28 Mirror Lake State Glenn Highway, Mile 23.5 Alaska Division 30 picnic sites 36 hectares
Recreation Site of Parks (90 acres)
29 Peters Creek State Glenn Highway, Mile 21 Alaska Division 32 campsites 21 hectares
Recreation Site of Parks (52 acres)
30 Chugach State Park Alaska Division 100 campsites 200,406 hectares
of Parks 74 picnic sites (495,204 acres)
A Eklutna Campground Glenn Highway, Mile 26.2
B Thunderbird Falls Glenn Highway, Mile 25.5
Picnic Area
c Eagle River Glenn Highway, Mile 11.9
Campground
D Upper Huffman Upper Huffman Road, Mile 104
Picnic Area
E McHugh Creek Seward-Anchorage Highway,
Picnic Area Mile 15
F Bird Creek Seward-Anchorage Highway,
Campground Mile 25.8
REGION
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Rail belt
Total
% of Total
TABLE 2: RESPONSE TO THE CONCEPT PLAN SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
NO. MAILED
715
715
715
2145
100
NO. RETURNED
UNDELIVERED
191
188
101
480
22
NO. OF NO
RESPONSES
347
372
397
1116
52
NO. COMPLETED & RETURNED
Number (%} of Returns
177
155
217
549
26
32
28
40
100
TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF CONCEPT PLAN CHOICE BY REGION AND PREFERENCE
REGION
Anchorage Fairbanks Railbelt Total %
Number % Number % Number % Responses Total
1. Approach indicated as
having most value to
respondent
Approach A 34 21 20 15 29 16 83 18
Approach B 34 21 34 25 48 27 116 24
Approach C 24 15 14 11 24 14 62 13
Approach D 22 14 18 13 30 17 70 15
Approach E 47 29 48 36 47 26 142 30
Total m 100 134 100 DB TOO 473 100
% of Total Responses 34 28 38 100
2. Approach indicated as
having least value to
respondent
Approach A 66 41 70 52 70 39 206 44
Approach B 11 7 2 2 5 3 18 4
Approach C 3 2 0 0 4 2 7 1
Approach D 3 2 4 3 4 2 11 2
Approach E 78 48 58 43 95 54 231 49
Total 161 100 134 100 178 100 473 100
% of Total Responses 34 28 38 100
3. Residency
Classification
Urban 142 86 120 85 12 6 274 55
Rural 19 12 13 9 142 74 174 35
Remote Rural 3 2 3 2 28 15 34 7
Other 2 1 5 4 10 5 17 3
Total 166 100 m 100 192 100 499(a) 100
% of Total Responses 33 28 39 100
a. Does not equal 473 because not a 11 respondents ranked concept plans in order of value
to the respondent.
TABLE 4: DESCRIPTION OF OPPORTUNITY SETTINGS
(Keyed to Figure 8)
Recreation
Opportunity Site Activity Management
Setting Numbers Emehasis Program
Semi-modern A 1-6 Day-use; auto Pull out and area information siin
sightseeing; at Parks Highway intersection. lso
photography a series of scenic pull-outs at
Indian River, Susitna River, water-
falls and over look at Susitna
canyon. The road will be gravel.
Semi-modern B 1-8 Day-use; auto A series of scenic overlooks and
sightseeing; pull-outs in the alpine zone along
photography the road connecting the two dams.
Portages and trailheads to alpine
lakes and waterfalls in the area
with 1 imited parking areas. No
overnight use will e permitted
along the road.
Semi-primitive c 1-4 Day-and over-Boat launch, picnic grounds and
night use; parking area near Cheechako Creek.
boating; sight-Primit1ve, auto-oriented ca~ground
seeing; hik1ng; and trail at Cheekchako Cree with
at Devil Canyon no-wake zone management of the canyon
reservoir · to separate motor1zed and non-
motorized boatin5. At Tsusena Creek
there will be a oat launch with
parking area and gravel road access.
A prim1tive, auto-oriented gicnic
ground will be located near y.
Long-term development will provide
for a boat-in picnic ground.
Semi -primitive D 1-4 Day-and over-Gravel road access from Watana dam
night-use; boat-area to Deadman Cove. A boat launch,
ing; sightseeing; campground and parking area are
hunting; and scheduled for Watana reservoir.
fishing at Long-term development will provide
Watana reservoir two small, boat-in campgrounds near
the shoreline of Watana reservoir.
Semi -primitive E 1-6 Day-and over-Trails and portages from the road
ni~ht-use; will lead to the more accessible
hi inf; canoe-lakes and waterfalls on Devil,
ing; ishing; Cheechako, and Tsusena creeks.
photography; Emphasis will be on dispersed,
hunting low-density use with camping
permitted and the 'pack-in, pack-out'
policy enforced. Primitive portaAes
will not have developed trails. 11
ORV use-will be prohibited.
Primitive F Day-and over-Low-density use with camping
ni~ht-use; permitted, no developed tra1ls, no
hi ing; back-ORV use; 'pack-in, pack-out' policy
packing; sight-will be enforced.
seeing; and
hunt in
TABLE 5: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED RECREATION SITES AND FACILITIES
Opportunity
Setting
A
Semi-modern
B
Semi-modern
Semi-
primitive
Site
Number
(Keyed to Figures 9 and 10)
Site
Description
Pull-out with area information sign
Pull-out and parking area limited to five vehicles,
with access to Indian River
3(a) Scenic pull-out near the Susitna River
4(a) Scenic pull-out, with small parking area limited to
five vehicles, and a trail to waterfalls near the
road
s(a) Scenic pull-out with a project entrance size
s(a) Scenic pull-out and parking area with view of Devil
Canyon dam and Devil Canyon
Scenic pull-out and parking area with panoramic view
of reservoir and trailhead to observation point
2(a) Scenic pull-out and portage trailhead to several
alpine lakes; parking area limited to seven vehicles
3(a) Scenic pull-out and portage tra"ilhead to Mermaid Lake;
parking area limited to five vehicles
4(a) Scenic pull-out with parking area and trailhead to
Devil Creek Falls; parking area limited to five
vehicles
s<a) Scenic pull-out overlooking Swimming Bear Lake; park-
ing area limited to two vehicles
s(a) Scenic pull-out with panoramic view of the upper
Susitna River basin
7(a) Scenic pull-out and access to Tsusena Creek; parking
area limited to two vehicles
g(a) Pull-out and trailhead for short trail to overlook of
Tsusena Creek Canyon and Tsusena Falls; parking area
limited to seven vehicles
Boat launch and picnic grounds with parking area
near Cheechako Canyon with trailhead to Cheechako
Creek waterfalls
2(a) Primitive, auto-oriented campground (100 units, 60
units to be developed for first 3 years) and a
secondary trailhead to Cheechako Creek waterfalls
a. Handicapped accessible.
TABLE 6: DAILY TRAFFIC COUNT FOR THE DENALI AND PARKS HIGHWAY
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
Denali HighwayCa) 36 53 103 66 72 58
Parks Highway (a) 551 588 721 619 739 735
Parks Highway (b) 334 387 516 452 481 468
a. Average daily traffic count, from mid-May to October
b. Annual average daily traffic count
TABLE 5 (Continued)
Opportunity Site
Sett ·i ng Number
3
4(a)
D 1(a)
Semi-
primitive
2
3
4
E 1
Semi-
primitive
2
3
4
5
6(a)
F
Primitive
Site
Description
Primitive, boat-in picnic ground (10 units, long-term
development)
Boat launch, and picnic grounds with parking area at
Tsusena Creek and gravel access road ,
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 reservoir (10
units long-term development)
Primitive boat-in campground near Jay Creek (10 units
long-term development)
Camping area for Susitna and Tyone River floaters (to
be developed in agreement with 8LM or the native
landowners)
Trail to observation point north of Devil Canyon (see
8-1)
Developed portage to alpine lakes and primitive
portages to more distant lakes (see 8-2)
Developed portage to alpine lakes (see 8-3)
Developed trail to Devil Creek Falls (see 8-4)
Developed trail to Tsusena Creek Falls (see B-7)
Developed trail to Cheechako Creek Falls (see C-1,
C-2)
No developed facilities
TABLE 7: VISITOR COUNTS FOR STATE RECREATION AREAS
ADJACENT TO PARKS HIGHWAY
Location
1. Byers Lake Campground
2. Dena 1 i State Park
(excluding Byers Lake
Campground)
3. Nancy Lake Recreation Site
4. Nancy Lake Recreation
Area (excluding Nancy
Lake Recreation Site)
5. Big Lake -East Recreation Site
6. Big Lake -South Recreation Site
(a)
Summer -1979
10,238
N.A. (c)
10,487
8,976
15,075
17,883
a. Total for the months of July, August, and September 1979.
b. Total for the months of May, June, July, and September 1980.
c. Not Available.
(b)
Summer -1980
13,327
1,337
10,035
8,179
14,776
11,887
(a)
TABLE 8: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS FOR PROPOSED FACILITIES, SHORT-TERM
Opportunity Site Total Cost(b) Total Cost(b)
Setting Number Excluding Roadwork Including Roadwork
1 $ 1,216 $ 37,291
2 2,329 48,534
3 336 36,103
A 4 1,779 47,791
5 1,264 37,356
6 480 46,038
$ 7,404 $ 253,113
1 $ 564 $ 46,151
2 886 50,558
3 886 46,585
4 336 45,843
B 5 336 39,999
6 336 36,103
7 336 39,999
8 886 50,482
$ 4,566 $ 355,720
1 $ 128,705 $ 328,425
2 1,083,282 1,866,004 c 3 -0--0-
4 128,705 3282425
$1,3 40,692 $2,522,854
1 $ 574,999 $1,117,615
D 2-4 -0--0-
$ 574,999 $1,117,615
1 $ 23,482 $ 23' 482
2 4,548 4,548
3 4,548 4,548
E 4 31,811 31,811
5 8,443 8,443
6 61,742 61,742
$ 134,574 $ 134,574
Total $2,062,235 $4,383,876
a. In 1981 dollars.
b. Roadwork includes the cost of roads, pull-outs and all parking areas.
TABLE 9: CAPITAL IMPROVEtJIENT COSTS (a)
FOR PROPOSED FACILITIES, LONG-TERM
Opportunity Site Total Cost<b) Total Cost(b)
Setting Number Excluding Roadwork Including Roadwork
A 1-6 $ -0-$ -0-
Subtotal $ -0-$ -0-
B 1-8 $ -0-$ -0-
Subtotal $ -0-$ -0-
c 1 $ -0-$ -0-
2 583,748 909,640
3 50,365 50,365
4 -0--0-
Subtotal $ 634' 113 $ 960,005
D 1 $ 350,232 $ 638,632
2 33,120 33,120
3 33,120 33,120
4 -0--0-
Subtotal $ 416,472 $ 704,872
E 1-6 $ -0-$ -0-
Subtotal $ -0-$ -0-
Grand Total $1,050,585 $1,664,877
a. In 1981 dollars.
b. Roadwork includes the cost of roads, pull-outs and all parking areas.
TABLE 10: ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COST(a)
Projected First
Items Year Operational
1. Personnel
1 Park Ranger III -permanent, 3 months
1 Park Ranger II -permanent, 12 months
1 Park Ranger I -part-time, 6 months
1 Park Tech. II -permanent, 12 months
2 Park Tech. I -part-time, 6 months
1 Main. Worker -part-time, 6 months
1 Clerk/Typist -part-time, 6 months
2. Travel Expenditures
3. Contractual Services
4. Commodities
5. Equipment
Shop Maint. Equip., Tools & Supplies
2 Boats with Equip., Tools & Supplies
4 Pick-up Trucks with Equip., Tools &
Supplies
Office Equip., Tools & Supplies
$19,579
38,134
34,936
8,571
Subtotal
20% Contingency Factor
Tot a 1
a. In 1981 dollars.
Cost
$ 145 '140
7,257
72,570
12,095
101 ,22Q(b)
$ 338,282
67' 657
$ 405 '939
b. Projected equipment costs would be less for successive years and
estimated to be $4,838. Total operating cost·would be estimated at
$241,900 with a 20% contingency factor for a total of $290,280.
REGIONAL SETTING
PREPARED BY TES FIGURE 1
~
RESOURCE : CONCEPT SUITABILITY + PLAN STUDIES I
I ~
PREPARED BY TES
PUBLIC ~ SURVEY SELECTION DRAFT OF + PLAN , CONCEPT PLAN PUBLIC
WORKSHOP.
THE RECREATION PLANNING PROCESS
~
+
~
PARTICIPATION 1 ...._~
SURVEY ~
PUBLIC
REVIEW
RECREATION
PLAN
FIGURE 2
LEGEND
• WATERFALL
*CANYON
• LAKE
A RIVER
*VALLEY
0 PARTIAL/TOTAL INUNDATION
.•.· ··::
Elevation over 4000 ft.
0--~~=--~10 Miles
0 15 Kilometers
PREPARED BY TES I UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
EXCEPTIONAL NATURAL FEATURES (SYMBOLS)
AND OTHER IMPORTANT NATURAL FEATURES
FIGURE 3
e RECREATION FACILITIES KEYED TO TABLE 1
10 20 30 40 Miles ~~--=~--:::::J,=:)I
10 20 30 <'10 50 Kilomalars
ES ARCHEOLOGICAL
DISTRICT • BLM
• 'RECREATION AREAS
REGi-O-NAL! RECREATION \AREAS :AND. FACILITIES
Q ·'
PREPARED BY TES FIGURE 4
E:::::::::::::j Elevation over 4000 ft.
o;.•-~:::::iiiiiiiiii~10 Miles
0 15 Kilometers
• • • • •
RECREATION SITES CONSIDERED
PREPARED BY TES I UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FIGURE 5
Elevation over 4000 ft.
o 10 Miles ~o••r~=iiiiiiiiiiiii~15 Kilometers
SITES SELECTED FOR RECREATION DEVELOPMENTS
PREPARED BYTES/UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FIGURE 6
to ll:*t
Fairbankl\·-··
!Ill
liD
PREPARED BY TES I UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
PREFERRED CONCEPT PLAN
FIGURE 7
SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY SETTINGS
Elevation over 4000 ft.
A. ROAD CORRIDOR
PARKS HIGHWAY TO DEVIL CANYON DAM
B. ROAD CORRIDOR
0 10 Miles •o•~~=-iiiiiiiiiiiiii~15 Kilometers
DEVIL CANYON DAM TO WATANA DAM
C. DEVIL CANYON RESERVOIR
D. WATANA RESERVOIR
E. ALPINE LAKES/WATERFALLS
F. ROADLESS AREA
RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY SETTING FOR THE SUSITNA AREA
· PREPARED BY TES I UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FIGURE 8
e RECREATION FACILITIES KEYED TO TABLE 5
E:::;:;:::::::] Elevation over 4000 ft.
0 10 Miles 'o••~::::::::iiiiiiiiiii~15 Kilometers
RECREATION FACILITIES --IMMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT
PREPARED BY TES I UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FIGURE 9
e RECREATION FACILITIES KEYED TO TABLE 5
Elevation over 4000 ft.
0 10 Miles •o••~=:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii1~5 Kilometers
b
()C'
~han Lake
RECREATION FACILITIES--LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT
PREPARED BY TES I UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FIGURE 10
REFERENCES
Acres American, Inc. 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Plan of
Study. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
ADNR. 1980. Alaska State Park Master Plan. Alaska Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Parks, Anchorage, Alaska.
ADNR. 1980. Chugach State Park Master Plan. Alaska Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Parks, Anchorage, Alaska.
ADNR. 1980. Susitna Basin Land Use/Recreation Atlas. Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska.
ADNR. 1981. Catalog of the Alaska State Park System. Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks, Anchorage,
Alaska.
ADNR. 1981. Estimated Facility Costs. Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Parks, Anchorage~ Alaska.
ADNR. 1981. Tokositna Development Study. Prepared by HKS Associates
in Association with D. D. W. L. Engineers for the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 1973-1978.
Annual Average Daily Traffic--State Route 140000 Denali Highway.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,
Fairbanks, Alaska.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 1973-1978.
Fixed Recorder Summary, Recorder Number F-03-35. Alaska
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Fairbanks,
A 1 as ka.
APA. 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies
Procedures Manual Subtask 7.08: Recreation Planning. Submitted
by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. and the University
of Alaska to Acres American, Inc. for the Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage, Alaska.
APA. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies
Subtask 7.06: Cultural Resources Investigation Phase I Report.
Submitted ; by University of Alaska Museum and Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists, Inc. to Acres American, Inc. for the
Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
Behan, R.W., and J.J. Gratzer. 1966. Recreation at Libby Reservoir-
An International Opportunity for Regional Development. Montana
Forest and Conservation Experiment Station.
Brown, P.J., B.L. Driver, and C. McConnell. 1978. Integrated
Inventories of Renewable Natural Resources: Proceedings of the
Workshop. General Technical Report RM-55. United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
Cantril, H. 1944. Gaging Public Opinion. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey.
Christiansen, J.L. 1977. Park Planning Handbook. John Wiley and
Sons, New York.
Chubb, M., and E.H. Bauman. 1977. Assessing the Recreation Potential
of Rivers. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.
Clark, R. and G.H. Stankey. 1979.
Recreation Impacts Conference.
Proceedings of the Wildland
Seattle, Washington.
Clark, R. and G.H. Stankey. 1979. The Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, Management and Research.
General Technical Report PNW-98. United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Daniel, T.C., E.H. Zube and B.L. Driver. 1979. Assessing Amenity
Resources Values. General Technical Report RM-68. United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska. 1979. Outdoor
Recreation in Alaska. Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska. 1979. Outdoor
Recreation in Alaska: An Examination of Governmental
Roles -Commission Study No. 36. Federal-State Land Use Planning
Commission, Anchorage, Alaska.
Fogg, C.E. 1975. Park Planning Guidelines. National Recreation and
Park Association. Special Publication Series No. 15001.
Gatto, L.W., C.J. Merry, H.L. McKim and D.E. Larson. 1980.
Environmental Analysis of the Upper Susitna River Basin Using
Landsat Imagery. CRREL Report 80-4. Hanover, New Hampshire.
Hamill, L. 1975. Analysis of Leopold's Comparisons af Landscape
Esthetics. Journal of Leisure Research.
Henning, G., Editor. 1980. The Milepost. Alaska Northwest Publishing
Company, Anchorage, Alaska. _
Johnson, L. 1976. Off-Road Vehicle Use and Its Impact on Soils and
Vegetation on Bureau of Land Management Lands Along the Denali
Highway, Alaska: A Report on the 1975 Outdoor Recreation Survey.
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
Alaska.
Jones & 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.
Jubenville, A. 1981. Role Segregation: A Conceptual Framework for
Recreation Management Research. Recreation Research Review,
Volume 9, No. 1.
Leopold, L.B. 1969. Quantitative Comparison of Some Aesthetic Factors
Among Rivers. Geologic Survey Circular No. 620. Washington,
D.C.
Lynch, K. 1971. Site Planning. The Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Marsh, W.M. 1978. Environmental Analysis for Land Use and Site
Planning. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Pewe, T.L. 1975. Quarternary Geology of Alaska. Geological Survey
Professional Paper No. 835. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
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.
Spurr, S.H. 1960. Photogrammetry and Photo-Interpretation. The
Ronald Press Company, New York.
Tatsuoka, M.M. 1971. Multivariate Analyses. John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
USACOE. 1975. South Central Railbelt Area, Alaska, Upper Susitna
Riv~r Basin Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 1, Parts 1 and 2.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska.
USDA (FS). 1974. Guide to Public Involvement in Decision Making.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Washington, D.C.
USDA (FS). 1978. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast A 1 ask a, Outdoor
Recreation and Scenic Resour~es. General Technical Report PNW-66.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland,
Oregon.
USDA (FS). 1980. RIM Cost Figures for Selected Facilities. United
States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
USDA (FS). 1981. Chugach Cost Data Guide for Engineering and Road
Construction. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, Alaska.
USDA (SCS). 1979. Alaska Rivers Cooperative Study, Beluga and Upper
Susitna Sub-Basins. Plan of Work, Addendum. United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Anchorage,
Alaska.
USDA CSCS). 1979. Exploratory Soil Survey of Alaska. United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Anchorage,
Alaska.
USDI (BLM). 1980. BLM Land Use Plan for Southcentral Alaska: A
Summary. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Anchorage, Alaska.
USDI. Bureau of Reclamation. 1952. Susitna River Basin. United
States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Anchorage, Alaska.
USDI CFWS). 1978. Reservoir Ecosystems and Western Coal Development
in the Upper Missouri River Basin. United States Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
USDI (NPS). 1980. Bighorn Canyon. United States Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado.
USDI (HCRS). 1980. A Proposal for Protection of Eleven Alaskan
Rivers. United States Department of the Interior, Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service, Washington, D.C.
AUTHORITIES CONTACTED
Federal Agencies
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service, Institute of Northern Forestry
-James Tellerico: Landscape Architect
United States Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries Service
-Bradley Smith: Fishery Biologist
United States Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District
-Loran Baxter: Civil Engineer
-Col. Lee Nunn: District Engineer
-Lt. Col. J. Perkins: Deputy District Engineer
United States Department of Energy
Alaska Power Administration
-Frederick 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
-Gerald 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
Louis Carufel: Fisheries Biologist
William Gabriell: Leader, Special Studies Group
Art Hosterman: Chief, Branch of Biological Resources
Peter Jerome: Landscape Architect
John Rego: Geologist
Gary Seitz: Envi ronmenta 1 Coordinator
-Dick Tindall: Anchorage District Manager
-Richard Tobin: Recreational Planner
Bureau of Mines
-Michael Brown: Chemist
-Bob Ward: Chief, Environmental Planning Staff
Fish and Wildlife Service
-Bruce Apple: 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
-Robert Lamke: Chief, Hydrology Section
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
-Janet McCabe: Regional Director
-William Welch: Supervising Outdoor Recreation Planner
-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
-John Cook: Regional Director
-John Haubert: Analyst, Rivers and Trails Division
-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 Evaluatjon Branch
State Agencies
Alaska Department of Administration
Division of General Services and Supplies
-Bi 11 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 Community and Regional Affairs
-Lee McAnerney: Commissioner
Alaska Department of
-Ernst Mueller:
-Robert Flint:
-Rikki Fowler:
Environmental Conservation
Commissioner
Region II Program Coordinator
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
-Dan Timm: Game Biologist III, Chief of Waterfowl Section
Division of Habitat Protection
-Phil Brna: Habitat Biologist II
-Joe Sautner: Biologist
-Carl Yanagawa: Regional Supervisor
Division of Sport Fisheries
-Michael Mills: Senior Fisheries Biometrician III
-Thomas Trent: Regional Supervisor, Susitna Aquatic Studies
Coordinator, Vice-Chairman of Susitna Steering
Committee
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
-Robert LeResche: Commissioner
Division of Forest, Land and Water Management
-Ted Smith: Director
-Frank Mielke: Chief of Land Management
-Jim Fichione: Land Management Officer
-Michael Franger: Special Projects Officer
-Mary Lou Harle: Water Management Officer
-Joe Joiner: Land Management Officer
-Raymond Mann: Land Management Officer II
-Debbie Robertson: Land Management Officer II
Division of Geological and 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 Planner
-Pete Marten: Park P 1 anner I I
-Al Miner: Student Intern
-Doug Reger: State Archeologist
-Sandy Rabinowitz: Park Planner
-Robert Shaw: State Historic Preservation Officer
-Larry Snarsky: District Manager
-Vicky Sung: Regional Planner/Landscape Architect
-Larry Wilde: District Manager
District 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
-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
-Co 1. Robert Stick 1 es: Director
-Wayne Fleek: Region III Commander
-Lt. Rod Mills: Administrative Officer
-Lt. Col. Tetzlaff: Deputy Director
Alaska Department of Transportation
-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
Local Agencies
City of Houston, Alaska
-Elsie 0 1 Brien: City Clerk
City of Palmer
-David Soulak: City Manager
Fairbanks North Star Borough
-Paula Twelker: Planner II
Mantuska-Susitna Borough
Borough Office
-Rick Feller: Planner
-Rodney Schulling: Planning Director
-Lee Wyatt: Acting Borough Manager, Planning Director
Other Institutions, Organizations and Individuals
Ahtna, Incorporated
-Robert Goldberg: Attorney
-Douglas MacArthur: Special Projects Director
Bob's Service Unlimited
-Bob Brown: Owner
Chickaloon Village
-Jess Landsman: President
Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated
-Agnes Brown: Executive
-Lynda Hays: Shareholder and Community Relations Coordinator
-Robert Rude: Senior Vice-President
-Roland Shanks: Manager of Land Administration
-John Youngblood: Executive Director
Fairbanks Environmental Center
-Jeff Weltzin: Energy Coordinator
Keua 1 Village
-James Shoalwolfer: President
Knikatnu Incorporated
-Paul Theadore: Chief
Knik Canoers and Kayakers
-Bruce Stanford: Member
Land Field Services, Incorporated
-P. J. Sullivan: Representative
Ninilchik Native Association, Incorporated
-Arnold Orhdhoff: President
Ninilchik Village
-Arnold Orhdhoff: Chief
Norsk Hydro, Sweden
-Iver Hagen: Public Relations
Salamatoff Native Association, Incorporated
-Andy Johnson: President
Seldovia Native Assocation, Incorporated
-James Segura: Chief
Susitna Power Now
-E. Dischner: Executive Director
Tyonek Native Corporation
-Agnes Brown: President
Appendix A
Extent and Limitations of Principal Soil Associations Present
in the Upper Susitna Basin
EXTENT AND LIMITATIONS OF PRINCIPAL SOIL ASSOCIATIONS PRESENT IN UPPER SUSITNA BASIN
Soil Association
INCEPT! SOLS
Histic Pergelic Cryaquepts, clayey
nearly level to rolling
Histic Pergelic Cryaquepts, loamy
nearly level to rolling
Histic Pergelic Cryaquepts,
gravelly, nearly level to rolling
Histic Pergelic Cryaquepts,
gravelly, hilly to steep
Pergelic Cryumbrepts, gravelly
hilly to steep
SPOOOSOLS
Humic Cryorthods, gravelly,
hilly to steep
Pergelic Cryorthods, gravelly,
nearly level to rolling
Pergelic Cryorthods, gravelly,
hilly to steep
OTHER
Rough Mountainous Land
General Location
Copper River Lowland; west to Goose
Creek, north to Denali along Susitna
River
Widespread in lowlands of northern and
eastern Susitna Basin
Low-lying areas of central Fog Lakes
Upland, Stephan Lake NE to upper Tsusena,
Deadman and Watana Creeks
Higher elevations of Clarence Lake Upland
Higher elevations throughout Fog Lakes
and Clarence Lake Uplands
Terraces and uplands of Devil Canyon
area; west of longitude l49°W
Well-drained areas of central Fog Lakes
Upland, Stephan Lake NE to upper Tsusena,
Deadman and Watana Creeks
Widespread on uplands of northern and
eastern Susitna Basin
Extensive above 4,000 feet elevation
throughout Talkeetna Mountains
roads
very severe:
wet soils,
permafrost
very severe:
wet soils
permafrost
severe: wet
soils, perm a-
frost
severe: wet
soils, steep
slopes
severe: steep
slopes
severe: steep
slopes
moderate:
permafrost
severe: steep
slopes
very severe:
steep slopes
(a)
Limitations
(b)
buildings recreation
very severe: severe: wet
wet soils, soils
permafrost
very severe: severe: wet
wet soils soils
permafrost
severe: wet severe: wet
soils, perm a-soils
frost
severe: wet severe: wet
soils, steep soils, steep
slopes slopes
severe: steep severe: steep
slopes slopes
severe: steep severe: steep
slopes slopes
moderate: moderate:
permafrost stony
severe: steep severe: steep
slopes slopes
very severe: very severe:
steep slopes steep slopes
off-road
use
severe: wet
soils
severe: wet
soils
severe: wet
soils
severe: wet
soils, steep
slopes
severe: steep
slopes
severe: steep
slopes
s 1 ig ht
severe: steep
slopes
very severe:
steep slopes
a. Limitation Ratings: Slight -soil limitations, if any, are easily overcome; Moderate-soil limitations need to be recognized, but can be
overcome; Severe -soil limitations difficult to overcome; Very Severe-soil limitations too severe to overcome.
b. Recreational uses requiring site development.
SOURCE: USDA 1979
Appendix B
Field Data Forms
Site Date ----------------
Location ---------------------------------
Area ------Elevation -------Slope ___ _ Aspect _______ _
Exposure: Exposed Moderate Sheltered
Distance to Water Supply -------------
Distance to Reservoir Shoreline
Water Source
-------------
Scenic or Unique Natural Features: yes
Describe
-------------
no
------------------------------------------------------
Distance Direction -------------------------------------------
Evidence of Prior Human Use: yes no
Describe -------------------------------------------------------
Access to Fishing?
Access to Hunting?
yes
yes
no
no
Moose Browse (proportion of available browse):
Species
0-25% 26-50% 51-75%
------------
76-100%
Other Ani rna l Sign -------------------------------------------
Potential Hazards: yes no
Describe ------------------------------------------------
Remarks -------------------------------------------------------
Site Date -----------
Vegetation Type ------------------------
Species of Interest -----------------------
Suitability for Recreational Use: good fair poor
Soi 1 Depth: organic ________ _ mineral
Mineral Soil Texture ----------
Stoniness: Abundance --------angular rounded
Size Range (proportions)-------------
Soil Frost Features: yes no
Type -------------------------------------------
Extent ----------------------------------------
Drainage: xeric
Erosion Potential:
Exposed Bedrock:
Other Soil Features
dry mesic
high
yes
mesic wet mesic hydric
moderate low
no Extent ------------------
----------------~---------------
(Add map designating features, photo points)
Appendix C
Recreation Concept Plan Survey
Questionnaire
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA. FAIRBANKS
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management
Agricultural Experiment Station
October 30, 1980
Dear Questionnaire Recipient:
The University of Alaska is preparing a tentative recreation plan for the proposed Susitna
River hydroelectric project. This plan is one phase of a preliminary investigation of various
aspects of the Susitna proposal that is being carried out for the Alaska Power Authority. No
decision has been reached on the feasibility of the power project but, if it proceeds, we intend to
develop the best possible plan for public recreational use of the project's lands and waters. We
need your suggestions during the investigative process if our plan is to properly reflect the
interests and desires of all potential users of the area. Please will you assist by completing the
enclosed questionnaire?
The goal of this questionnaire is to determine how you would like the project area to be
developed for recreation. Each part of the form has its own instructions. Please begin by reviewing
the introductory information and accompanying map. Then go on to carefully consider the
merits of each of the 5 proposed approaches to recreation development and the possible access
routes that have been suggested. Evaluate each of these possible approaches and routes according
to your own interests remembering that none of the approaches are tied to a specific access
route.
We think you will fmd the experience of answering this questionnaire to be quite interesting
since it provides an opportunity for you to make a direct contribution to planning a potentially
new state recreation area. If you wish to comment on any topic not covered by the form, write
your suggestions on a separate sheet of paper and return them with the completed questionnaire
in the enclosed stamped, self-addressed envelope. Your answers will be considered completely
confidential and will only be used to produce totals and averages~ Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Jd!-;tjd
]. K. Feyhl
Project Coordinator
JKF:ks
1
PART I-BACKGROUND INFOR.\ItATION ON PROPOSED SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
1. Location: The· proposed Susitna River hydrodectric project is located on the upper Susitna River,
approximately 125 air miles northeast of Anchorage and 150 miles southwest of Fairbanks as
. shown on the map below.
2. Dams: Two dams are being considered for the Susitna River; a 635·foot-high concrete dam in Devil
Canyon and a 810-foot-high earth-filled dam between Tsusena and Deadman Creeks (hereinafter
referred to as the Wauna dam). Of the alternatives being considered, it is possible that this
scheme or some modification of this scheme would be recommended. A preliminary plan of
recreational usc of the projects land and water will be based upon this scheme with the under-
standing that modification Will occur depending upon the outcome of other phases of the Susima
study. ·
3. Reservoirs: · If built, these dams would create two reservoirs, the Devils Canyon resenroir being approxi-
mately 30 miles in length and no more than Y.z mile in width, covering an area of approxnnately
6500 acres to a maximum depth of 650 feet. The Watana reservoir being approximately 50 miles
long and range from ~ mile to 5 miles wide, covering an area of approxunately 55 ,000 acres to a
maximum depth of 800 feet.
4. Present Land Use: The project area is presently used by trappers, white water enthusiasts and guided
hunters. Scattered private cabins are present on most of the larger lakes in the upper Susitna
basin. In addition, mining claims have been flied on many of the tributary streams within the ·
drainage. Access to the area is presently limited largely to aircraft, although there is access by
river from the east. Because of the hazardous nature of much of the Susitna River within the
project area, it receives relativeiy light use by boats, canoes, and other watercraft.
--· .... ..,.,
~Study area
_.......Dam sites
0 Km. 80
0 lol. 50
. '~
. <I :r
.·~ . · .. :~·:_-~
2
PART 11-POSSIBLE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT APPROACHES
Please review the five possible development approaches described on the pages that follow and indicat~ the
acceptability of each approach independently. If you feel some modifications can improve the acceptability
of an approach, include your suggestions in the space provided. The key given below explains the type of
development represented by the various symbols used on each of the maps.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
D
m
B a
CD
G
=
Visitor Center: services would probably include information, natural history and resources
interpretive displays, tour schedules, gift shop/bookstore, restrooms, and a parking area
all designed and operated to meet the needs of the majority of visitors. The most strate-
gic location for a VlSitor center would be along the Parks Highway. ·
Information: interpretive displays and oral and written information concerning facilities
and services aviilable to the public in sheltered locations.
Picnic Area: would likely include picnic tables, a picnic shelter, a drinking water source,
restrooms, and a parkmg area. .
Campground (Primitive/Boat-in): these sites would be relativelY. small and include 5-10
campsites spread over an area of 2 to 3 acres. Facilities available would probably be:
picruc tables, pit toilets, bear-proof food caches, and boat tie-ups where necessary.
Campground (Developed): improved campsites consisting of parking spurs for vehicles,
trailers and motor homes, picnic tables, fireplaces, and complete water and sanitary
facilities.
Camp~ound (Group): organizational campground that could be either developed or
pnmitive depending on location. Developed group facilities would include tent sites,
tables, fireplaces, campfire circle, parking, restrooms, water supply and cooking shelters.
Minimal facilities would be available at the primitive, backcountry group campgrounds.
Boat Ramp: a concrete boat ramp providing accesss to a reservoir; including parking for
vehicles and boat trailers. ·
Docking/Marina: simple docking facilities providins mooring and docking space. A devel-
opcC. marina would also offer parking and docking space for boats and storage of vehi-
cles and boat trailers, on-shore restrooms, water and electric services, boat sanitary
dump station, and boat fuel, as well as rentals and supplies. Developed marinas would
probably be constrUcted only at major developments near the damsites. .
Store: groceries, dry goods, and souvenirs.
Service Station: full service for all types of recreation area users' vehicles.
Lodging: complete overnight accommodations.
Food Service: restaurants and other food outlets that mav or may not be associated with
lodging facilities. ·
Float Plane Access: suitable access, shelter, mooring and aviation fuel supplies provided at
areas used heavily by aircraft.
Guided Boat Tour: would probably be tied in with a bus tour originating at a visitor center
or overnight accommodations complex. It might include a one·dav tour of the Devil
Canyon Reservoir. • ·
D. Scenic Trail: short, (one or two mile) day-use trails to scenic areas or interesting natural
features.
3
APPROACH "A"-A MINIMALLY DEVELOPED AND MANAGED WILDE& .... ESS
This approach could be used in the event that public access by road to the Susitna reservoir areas is restricted
or not permitted at all In this case, development will probably be limited to a visitor information center on
the Parks Highway. Access bv float plane would likely be extended to include the reservoirs. Access by
canoe, kayak, and riverb. oat Via the upper Susitna, Maclaren, and Tyone rivers would continue. Land use
within the project area would probabfy be much the same as at present with management limited to fish
and game management and the regulation .of mining activities.
!·:·:-:-:-:-:• Elevation over 4000 It
l(m. IS
loll. 10
QUESTIONS:
1. Do you flnd this plan to be (check only one).
. 0 Not acceptable?
0 Acceptable? .
0 Acceptable with modifications?
2. If any modifications (additions or deletions) are suggested, mark the loca-
tion with an "X" and briefly describe the proposed modifications below:
Deletions ______________________________________________ ___
Additions _______________________________________________ __
OFFICE USE ONLY
1-4
5-10
11
12, 13
14, 15
4
APPROACH uB"-MANAGED WlLDERNESS WlTH LIMITED ACCESS
In the event that road access to both reservoirs is possible, the area could be managed as a wilderness recrea-
tion area, with development limited to minimal interpretive services, primitive campgrounds, and simple
boat ramps at both damsites. These ramps woUld facilitate access by boat to the reservoir shorelines and
adjacent areas for camping. hunting, flshmg, and other backcountry activities. As in Approach "A", a visi-
tor center would be built on the Parks Highway. Information would be provided on the Denali Highway
should access be available at this location (see access map). A tour boat service would be offered at the
Devil Canyon damsite for day tours of the reservoir. · ·
c-:-:-:-:-:·:1 El.watlon over 4000 rt.
0 l(m. 15 ,..
QUESTIONS:
1. Do you flnd this plan to b, (check only one).
0 Not acceptable?
0 Acceptable?
0 Acceptable with modifications?
2. If any modifications (additions or deletions) are suggested, mark the loca-
tion with an "X" and briefly describe the proposed modifications below:
Deletions-----------------------
Additions ______________________ __
OFFICE USE ONLY
16
17, 18
19,20
5
APPROACH "C"-WATANA RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT
One possible approach to more e."'Ctensive recreational development is to offer highly developed facilities at
the Wauna damsite and only minimal interpretive services at the Devil Canyon damsite. In addition to the
services offered at both reservoirs in Approach "B", there would be greater development at the Wauna
damsite to accommodate increased visitor use. Simple backcountry campsites would be provided at selected
locations around the Watana reservoir, with add1tional improvements being made at the mouth of Jay
Creek. More intensive resource management would be necessary around the Watana reservoir but the
remaining project area would still be managed as wilderness. As in Approaches "A" and "B", visitor infor-
mation woUld be available at highway entrance(s).
:-:-:-:-:-:-:, EleYatiOn over 4000 It
0
c
QUESTIONS:
1. Do you find this plan to be (check only one).
0 Not acceptable:?
0 Acceptable?
0 Acceptable with modifications?
2. If any modifications (additions or deletions) are suggested, mark the loca-
tion with an "X" and briefly describe the proposed modifications below:
Deletions-------------------------------------------------------------------
Additions--------------------------------------~----------------------------
OFFICE USE ONLY
21
22,23
24,25
6
APPROACH "D"-DEVlL CANYON RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT
In this approach highly developed facilities would be offered at the Devil Canyon reservoir and damsite and
only minimal facilities at the Wata.na damsite. The Devil Canyon area would be developed and managed
intensively to provide a diversity of recreational opportUnities, while. the Watana reservoir area could be
developed and managed in a manner that would maintain its wilderness character.
:·:·:·:·:-:-:) EIIMltiOn 011er 4000 ft.
0 Km.
0 Ml
QUESTIONS:
1. Do you tind this pla.n to be (check only one).
0 Not acceptable?
0 Acceptable?
0 Acceptable with modifications?
2. If any modifications (additions or deletions) are suggested, mark the loca-
tion with an "X" and briefly describe the proposed modifications below:
Deletions _________________________________________________________ __
Additions ______________________________________________________ ___
OFFICE USE ONLY
26
27,28
29, 30
7
APPROACH "E"-HIGHL Y DEVELOPED AND MANAGED THROUGHOUT
This approach involves a high level of recreational development and offers a wide variety of recreation activ-
ities around both reservoirs. Complete visitor facilities would be located at the damsites, with additional
improvements made at the Jay Creek site, and backcountry boat-in campsites built at s·locations. Intensive
resource management would be necessary throughout much of the recreation area to reduce conflicts
between uses and to maintain the quality of the environment.
~ ElevatiOn over 4000 It
0 l(m.
Ml 10
QUESTIONS:
1. Do you fmd this plan co be (check only one).
0 Not acceptable?
0 Acceptable?
0 Acceptable with modifications?
2. If any modifications (additions or deletions) are suggested, mark the loca-
tion with an "X" and briefly describe the proposed modifications below:
Deletions------------------------
Additions ________________ .;.__ ______ _
OFFICE USE ONLY
31
32, 3 3
34,35
8
PART III-WHICH APPROACH, KINDS OF ACTIVITY, AND
LEVEL OF SERVICE WOULD BE BEST FOR YOU?
Now that you have had an opportunity to read the background information and review
5 different approaches to recreation development at the Susitna River project, please
think about which approach would best serve your needs.
1. Rank the five approaches in order of each one's value to you personally. (Number·
1 being of greatest value and Number 5 of least value).
RANKING
.APPROACH "A"-A MINIMALLY DEVELOPED AND MANAGED
WILDERNESS ................................ ·---
APPROACH "B"-MANAGED WILDERNESS WITH LIMITED ACCESS .. ---
.APPROACH "C"-WATANA RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT ........... ·---
.APPROACH "D"-DEVIL CANYON RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT ..... ·---
APPROACH "E"-HIGHLY DEVELOPED AND MANAGED
THROUGHOUT ................. · ......... ; .... ---
2. Now, please list the main kinds of recreational activities in which you would take
part in at the Susitna project if it were developed according to the approach which
you ranked first in Question 1 above. Then for each activity you checked, please
give the number of years of experience for that activity.
Recreational Activity Years of Recreational_Activity Years of
Experience Experience
0 All terrain vehicle use 0 Motorcycling
0 Backpacking 0 Picking wild foods
0 Boating-motorized 0 Picnicking
0 Boating-nonrnotorized 0 Photography
0 Camping 0 Rock hounding
0 Dog-sledding 0 Sightseeing
0 Fishing 0 Skiing
1 0 Flying 0 Snow-mobiling
0 Four-wheel driving 0 Snow-shoeing
0 Hiking 0 Other activities
0 Horseback riding
0 Hunting
OFFICE USE ONLY
9
3. Please indicate the level of services you would like to be offered at the reservoirs.
(Check only one).
0 Minimal (only an access road to the reservoir is adequate).
0 Some simple boat launching ramps, parking areas, and campgrounds pro-
vided but with minimum supervision by operating personnel.
0 Small marina, visitor center, and improved campgrounds for RV's. More
personnel provided for supervision of operations, maintenance, information
services, and on-water safety.
0 Large marina, boat storage, restaurant facility, motels, and gift shops
provided plus the substantial numbers of personnel needed to staff such
facilities and assist visitors.
4. Now, please indicate the approximate amount of money (if any) you would be
prepared to pay each day for the level of service checked in Question 3 above for
each of the amenities listed. Check $0 if you are not willing to pay for a service or
N/A (not appropriate) if you don't feel the service is appropriate for the level of
development that you prefer.
Primitive Campsite (pit toilets only)
(Check only one).
0$0
0 $1.00-$2.00
0 $3.00-$5.00
0 $6.00-$10.00
0 more than $10.00
ON/A
Developed Campsite (water and sanitary facilities)
.(Check only one).
0$0
. 0 $1.00-$2.00
0 $3.00-$5.00
Simple Boat Launching Ramp
(Check only one).
0$0
0 $1.00-$2.00
0 $3.00-$5.00
Small Marina (with minimal services)
(Check only one).
0$0
0 $1.00-$2.00
0 $3.00-$5.00
0 $6.00-$10.00
0 more than $10.00
ON/A
0 $6.00-$10.00
0 more than $10.00
ON/A
0 $6.00-$10.00
0 more than $10.00
ON/A
OFFICE USE ONLY
85
86
87
88
[
89
10
PART IV-GENERAL DESIRABILITY OF FACILITIES
Now, not thinking in terms of any particular approach to recreational development at
the Susitna project, please check the desirability of each of the following facilities.
Facility Very Desirable Not Undecided
Desirable Desirable
Paved, high-speed roads
Paved, lower speed roads
I Gravel roads
Bicycle trails
Nature trails
Short hjking trails (a mile or two)
Long distance hiking trails
(several miles)
Off-road vehicle trails
I Recreational vehicle campgrounds
Less developed campgrounds
accessible by auto
Organizational/group campgrounds
Boat-in campgrounds
Simple boat launching ramps
I Full service marinas
! Canoe trails
Float plane moorings
1 Auto~riented picnic grounds
J Group picnic shelters
j Restaurant/dining facilities
j Motel accommodations
I Vistior centers
j Scenic overlooks
! .-\mphitheater for nature talks
! Boat tours
t
OFFICE USE ONLY
90
91
92
93
94
[
95
[
96
[
97
[
98
[
99
[
100
[
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
]
111
112
113
11
PART V-PROPOSED ACCESS ROUTES
Several routes as sho'Wll in the mao below have been proposed for access to the Susima reservoirs. Final
selection of access routes will be: made on the basis of environmental impact studies, cost analysis, public
input and level of site development. The degree to which recreational facilities might be developed may
also influence route selection. A fmal access plan would probably include only a single route to each of the
damsites but it is possible that separate routes, one: from the Parks Highway and the other from the Denali
Highway, might be: included. Ptease review this map and answer the succeeding question.
;-:-:·:-:-:-:! Elevation over 4000 lt.
0 l(m.
Mi.
If road access is developed to the Devil Canyon and Wauna. damsites, where:
should the routes begin to each of the: damsitc:s?
a. Dc:vils Canvon damsite:
0 Denali Highway
0 Parks Highway
0 No preference
0 No public access by road
b. Watana. damsite:
0 Denali Hi~way o Parks Higiiway
0 No preference
0 No public access by road
PART VI-BACKGROUND INFO&'v!A TION
Please check the appropriate response for each of the: following questions.
1. In which region of the state do you live:?
0 Anchorage area .
0 Fairbanks area
0 Railbelt (betWeen Anchorage and Fairbanks)
How would you classify the place where you live?
0 Urban
0 Rural
0 Remote rural
0 Other (Explain)
OFFICE USE ONLY
114
115
116
117
118
12
COMMENTS
IN THE SPACE BELOW, PLEASE WRITE ANY COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE
CONCERNING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE (If you need more space, please attach another sheet ofpaper).
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE
If you accidentally misplace the return envelope provided, please mail to:
Susitna Recreation Project
School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Appendix D
Public Forum Questionnaire
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
RECREATION PLAN
Public Forum Questionnaire
1. The development approach I most prefer is ,...( 1:;-e-:-t-:-t e-r.-)
(List only one.)
2. Do you have any suggested modification to the above selected approach?
Please number each suggestion.
3. Why did you choose your particular approach?
4. a. In which region of the state do you live:
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Railbelt (between Anchorage and Fairbanks)
b. How would you classify the place where you live?
Urban Small town ----
Rural Rura 1 remote ----
--Other ••. list -,...--------------------
c. Do you represent a particular interest group? If so, please
list. ----------------------------
You may use the back side for any additional comments.
Thank you.
Appendix E
Recreation Participation Survey
Questionnaire
errestrial
nvironmental
pecialists, inc.
2207 SPENARO ROAD, ANCHORAGE, AK 99!103
Dear Alaskan Resident:
April9, 1982
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. is preparing a preliminary recreation plan
for the Alaska Power Authority's proposed Susitna hydroelectric project. By completing
the attached survey questionnaire, you will assist us in estimating the potential
recreational use of the area. The results of this survey will not affect, in any way, the
decision to approve or disapprove the proposed Susitna hydroelectric project.
Construction of the two dams, reservoirs, and access road would create new
recreation opportunities for sightseeing, boating, camping, hunting, fishing, hiking,
backpacking, and winter activities. The dams themselves would be an attraction -
Watana would be one of the highest dams in North America. The amount and type of
recreational development that are proposed were determined from a previous public
survey and from a series of public workshops, both of which indicated a preference for
minimal recreational development. The results of the present survey will permit us to
adjust planned developments on the basis of type and number of anticipated users.
Please review the maps and description of proposed recreational facilities and complete
the questionnaire on the last page.
We ask you to take the time to complete the questionnaire and mail it as soon as
possible. Even if you do not expect that you would visit the project area, your response
is important. Thank you for your assistance.
RLA:sa
Enclosures
Sincerely,
~W~-4~
Robert L. Anderson
Group Leader, Recreation Planning
DESCRIPTION OF AREA
RESERVOIRS
Devil Canyon would be 28 miles long, a half mile wide; average water level would rise 50
feet from June to September. Watana would be 54 miles long, one to six miles wide;
average water level would rise 30 feet from June to September. Reservoirs would be cold,
and perhaps silty, and ice-free about five months of the year. Fishing is expected to be fair.
ACCESS
A 68-mile gravel road would be constructed from Hurricane on the Parks Highway to the
dam sites. The portion of the road between the two dam sites would traverse a scenic
alpine zone and would afford some distant viewing of the Alaska and Talkeetna ranges.
Travel time by auto to the Devil Canyon dam would be about five hours from Anchorage or
Fairbanks; Watana would be an additional hour's drive. Round-trip travel time, including
stops on the Parks Highway for food and gas, would average some 12 hours. Restroom
facilities are planned for the project area, but no facilities for food or gas are planned.
SETTING
Elevation of the surrounding landscape varies from 1200 to 5500 feet, with some higher
points. Much of the access road between the dams would be above timberline, where
vegetation tends to be shrub or tundra. Vegetation adjacent to reservoirs and other low
elevations is predominantly wooded.
There are numerous small, clear lakes and streams in the area, many with resident
populations of grayling, Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, and lake trout. Salmon migrate up
Indian River and the Susitna as far as Portage Creek. The project area has populations of
moose, caribou, black and brown bears, and Dall sheep.
LEGEND
~ ProjectArea
D Devil Canyon Dam Site
W Watana Dam Site
(][] Elevation_ over 4000 ft.
.__.,..~iiiiiiiiii~10 Miles
15 Kilometers
PROPOSED SUSITNA RECREATION DEVELOPMENTS*
D
DEVELOPED CAMPGROUNDS will have campsites that include picnic
tables, fireplaces, parking, tenting areas, water, and restrooms.
PICNIC AREAS will have tables, water, and restrooms. Some will be ac-
cessible by car; some, by boat.
BOAT RAMPS will provide access to both reservoirs. Parking areas for
vehicles and boat trailers will be available.
TRAILS will be short (one or two miles) leading to scenic waterfalls, and
other interesting natural features. Several alpine lakes within one mile of
the road will have canoe portages.
BOAT-IN CAMPGROUNDS will include five campsites with picnic
tables, bear-proof food caches, pit toilets, and boat tie-ups.
*Some facilities will be designed for use by the physically handicapped.
QUESTIONNAIRE
1. a. Do you currently use the proposed project area (see map) for r!ecreation?
_____ Yes ____ No
b. If the proposed Susitna hydroelectric project is approved and the recreation facilities as described are developed, do
you think you will travel to the area to see it or to participate in any recreational activities:
_____ Yes ____ No
If you answered No to Question lb, you have completed the survey. Please fold and mail. If you answered Yes to
Question lb, please go on.
2. a. How often would you expect to visit the site? (Check only one response).
----~Just once
----~More than once, but n9t every year
_____ O·nce a year
b. Would you visit: (Please indicate by number:
1 -most often; 2-next often; and 3-least often or never)
____ By yourself
_____ With your family
____ With friends
_____ Twice a year
____ Three to five times a year
_____ More than five times a year
c. How long would you expect to stay? (Please indicate by number:
1 -most often; 2-next often; and 3-least often or never)
_____ One day or less
_____ Two days
_____ Three or more days
d. What activities would you expect to engage in? (Check as many as apply).
_____ Driving for pleasure, sightseeing
_____ Camping
_____ Boating (exceptcanoeing)
_____ Canoeing
_____ Hunting
____ Hiking or backpacking
_____ ,Fishing
____ Picnicking
____ Photography
_____ .Cross-country skiing
_____ Others_~---------------
e. What facilities would you expect to use? (Check as many as apply).
____ _.Access road
_____ Scenic pullouts
_____ Reservoirs themselves
(for boating or fishing. etc.)
_____ Boat launch
3. Additional comments:
_____ C.ampground (accessible by auto)
_____ Boat-in campground
_____ ,Picnic area
---...,--Trails
____ Existing lakes and streams in area
PLEASE FOLD THIS PAGE AS SHOWN AND MAIL THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE.