HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA67DRAFT
STUDY
To Determine the Desirability of Creating
The Denali
National Scenic High\Nay
An Interagency Study
Prepared under the Direction
of the
Alaska Land Use Council
May 1983
DRAFT
STUDY
To Determine the Desirability of Creating
The Denali
National Scenic Highway
' An Interagency Study_
Prepared under the Direction
of the
Alaska· Land Use Council
May 19·83
HARZA-EBASCO
Susitna Joint Venture
Document Number
"l ---r-~-:8s~=" Return To
1!'\ ... t"'n,~~~:T CO~JTROl
I -·
•
~·
...
SUMMARY
Section 1311 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)
requires that a study be completed to determine the desirability of creating
a Denali National Scenic Highway System in Alaska. This report analyses a
study area which includes nearly 500 miles of existing highways in Alaska
and makes recommendations based on that analysis.
The objectives of the study are specified i n the legislation. Giving
special consideration to the scenic and recreational values of the area,
and to their protection, the study is to determine if it is desirable to
designate a National Scenic Highway for the purposes of (1) enhancing the
experience of persons traveling between national parks in southcentral
Alaska and; (2) providing a symbolic and actual physical connection between
those parks. The study recommendations pertain only to Federally-managed
public lands in Alaska.
• •
•
The responsibility for this interagency study was assigned to the Alaska
Land Use Council (ALUC). This group was created under Section 1201 of
ANILCA to foster cooperative land management and planning between Federal,
State and other agencies in Alaska. A specific function of the Council is
to conduct cooperative studies. A Study Group was appointed by the council
to oversee the completion of this study.
===~-
RECOMMEND AT IONS • •
1. Parks, Richardson and Edgerton Highways -No Designation
This recommendation stems primarily from the fact that little Federal
public land exists along these routes. This recommendation was unanimous
among all members of the Study Group.
2.
•
• McCarthy Road -No Designation • • •
This recommendation was based on:
a. the lack of significant contiguous Federal public lands;
b. the ability to manage this road corridor for its natural, scenic
and recreational values using existing Federal and State authority;
c. a cooperative planning effort between management agencies, under
the direction of the Alaska Land Use Council, could effectively
manage this area for its natural values without a Federal desig-'
nation; and
d. public comments were adverse to the creation of this route, or
any other route, as a part of a National Scenic Highway System.
This recommendation was unanimous among all members of the Study
Group. See page 55 for a more detailed analysis.
-
-
•
-
,..
3. Denali Highway -No Designation •
While this segment contains the greatest contiguous stretches of
Federally-managed public lands, this recommendation was made for the
same reasons as stated in #2 through #4 above. See page 46 for a
detailed analysis.
This was the recommendation of all study group members with one
exception (see page 47).
1._
Pursuant to Section 13ll(a), all Federal public lands within one mile
on either side of centerline of all highways located within the study
corridor (see page 67) were withdrawn from all forms of entry or
appropriation under the mining laws and from operation of the mineral
leasing laws of the United States. Based on the preceding recommenda-
tions, it is also recommended that this withdrawal be cancelled.
--·,....--~ ...
... .s. -=· ....
-
·-
..
--, ,..
il
,.
I ,_
i'l
...-·
r
'("
I
I
'J
I
' I
-
• ..
PREFACE -"'" -I
The purpose of this study is to recommend to Congress the desir-
~ ability of establishing a Denali Scenic Highway in Alaska .
•
There is little doubt that the corridor withdrawn for this study
is truly "scenic." Regardless of formal designations, the
majestic scenery along most of the c.orridor will probably remain
far longer than the highway corridor, or those who use it.
The question appears to be, then, given the fact that most of the
500 mile study corridor is indeed "scenic," what did Congress
have in mind when it mandated this study which is required by
Section 1311 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (ANILCA)? -
The Act did not define the term "scenic highway." Furthermore,
there is no generic predecessor that can be used to define
"scenic highway." While there are scenic highways and parkways
at a Federal level, and scenic highways managed by several
states, the management and purposes differ. Therefore, no speci-
fic criteria exist upon which to base recommendations in this
report, although the study team has drawn heavily on the experi-
ence gained by other similar studies or designations.
The objectives of the study are briefly described in the legis-
lation. In conducting the study, the study team, when making
their recommendations, was directed to consider:
-the s c en i c and r e c r e a t ion a 1 v a 1 u e s o f the 1 and s w i t h drawn
for this study;
-the desirability of enhancing the experience of persons
traveling between national parks in Alaska; and
• -..
• •
---
..
-
•
•
I
-the desirability of providing a symbolic and actual physi-
cal connection between those parks.
The questions then, that this study will address are, first,
whether a national designation is desirable or necessary to
protect these values, given that the management priorities of
public (Federal) lands are subject to change and, second, if such
a designation is recommended along any part or all of the study
corridor, what shall be the intent and extent of that desig-
nation? J_ --• •
This is not a management plan. Rather, it is a study mandated by
Congress to determine the feasibility and desirability of
establishing a national scenic highway along certain existing
highways in Alaska. If Congreao decides to create such a scenic
highway, then, at that time, a management plan would be written.
The study that follows, then, results from the combination of (1)
statements of purpose and goals described in the legislation and
its history, (2) the experience and lessons learned by examining
other scenic highways and their management, (3) the survey of
resources and factors that relate to or may be affected by a
scenic highway designation, and (4) an analysis of the effects of
making a particular designation. The report and recommendations
resulting from the study are to be given to the President so that
he may report to Congress. ... ...
I I • -----••
"' ... • --, I --'II
--
2
•
• -
t ••
f.!
r
:~
•
I f
... '' .,.
~J.
I
•
I
•
~ --... ... TABLE OF CONTENTS ......--a = --= --I --.... -... ·-· . ..
• • -- --• . ......... -~~~:-Pa ge
~ PREFACE . . . •• 1
•
I •
•
I --il
.t -.
•
•
INTRODUCTION • ••••••• ! •••••••• 6
•
Area Map • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7
Legislation and Legislative History
Study Organization • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Goal of Study
Critical Issues
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• :J..' ••••• ... m
SECTION ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
P a rks Highway, Richardson Hi g hway, and
Parks Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......
• 9
• 1 1
• 1 1
............ ·-· .2 0
Ed ge rton Highwa y
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2 1
_, Land Status • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2 1 .. Existing/Proposed Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 2 1
Segment Map • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 22
• • Scenic and Recreational Resources . ... • .. • • • • ••• 2 3 • _.... ---..
Other Considerations -•••• 2 5
----I •
_..
,~
---
Richardson Highway
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I
-~; ............. ~"".~• ...... .
.........
. • • • ••• 2 6
---"·------Land Status .. r~ .0::::.. '":---r
•
--I I-
= -
~------------
·-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Ex isting/Proposed Land Use • • • . . . . . . .
Segment Map • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Scenic and Recreation a l Resour c es . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.26
.27
.28
.29
.. ...
I
•
•• •
Ill.
• •
J •
• • •
• • • ... .. •
•
Edgerton Highway
Land Status
Existing/Proposed Land Use . . . . . .
Scenic and Recreational Resources
Segment Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-•
•
• •
Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ·-~ ·-~ JJ. ••
Richardson Parks,
Rationale
and Edgerton Highways Recommendation and
• Denali Highway -. •
•
r
... I' ·-:.-.. . -.. • •
·~
• ._
p
Land Status
Existing/Proposed Land Use
Segment Map • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Scenic and Recreational Resources
Other Considerations ••
Alternatives • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Preferred Alternative and Rationale
·-• McCarthy Road • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
I
Land Status
, -L . • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
I • • • Existing/Proposed Land Use
• •••• .35
.35
.35
•••••
••••
• • 3 7
. . . . • •• 4 6
•• ••• 46
•• 48
.-Segment Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.48
.48
.48
.so
.53
• L __ ----.. ...
J
--·
1-
Scenic and Recreational Resources
Other Considerations • • • • • • • • • • • •
Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preferred Alternative and Rationale
~ -, ... .. . -II--
-~ .. -•
4
•
• • • • • • •
..
.55
.55
•
•
r~ ..
I
~~
~ • I
•• • • •• ~L
I
1 .. •
I
• I I I. A P P EN 0 LX E S -1 •
•
A. Bibliography
B. Public Involvement
c. Legislation
• • •
I
• • •
--D. Study Organization •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••68
E. Boundaries, Administration, Costs and Legislation •••• 6 9
I
• •• •
:,~~~~~~~~ •
• II
~
II •
. -·
• •
• ...
•
• . .. . .
II I I •
I y•
-• ·--:-.. •
-• I • • . . • • •
• -----_....-.. .....
•
• ~-· .. : ... -.I I
•
1 .. -..
• I. ~_...3-~ • ---------------
• •
-----.-
-I
_..J_.._I I; ..
1_.1-. .•
I .. -. .-. .. .
---
·-. . -.
L
-
• ...
• -. •
I •
• .. .,.
•
•
.-• I -. ... , :1
• ~. rml'-
I -. r ...... .._
~·
5
-• --•
-•
•
I
r ---
-• .. .
•
-...
•
I
1 ..
•
• ..
• 1-
•
I •
-
I . • ---.--·
-II ...
I
...
•
-------.__.......
--
--
I
--....
,,._
-~. .,
"I .. -... ---.
..,.
: = ...... l
..
..... ,
-I
--1 • --~ ·-......... -~ 1 I !It
•• ""t" I r -r ..... ... --... ........,. -
- -• • L. I •a-I ~ ! _.... - --··-_._ ..
T t _I • -... -.
~ I \
--i ·~
t~ .. I r -J ~ .. -I
Jl. I • •
• li. • -· I • .. •• I -
••
I
!
INTRODUCTION I ii '!.-:~ l--. .. -~
.... .: . :.· .
I.
• : ;---=1 'I
I ':: - : _-I ."\
:---_;J. l .
-----I
_., ._. , ... 1
-. .. ---.. _....._ _ __.__._ ...
•
• •
-------.IW
-..-...-
• • ----.. -.._. -----• --II;
-I • I -J ..
,..-- --------:-----a..-__... ----------
6
.·
I -I Map ~. ~enali Scenic Highway Study Corridor
--.
c----
I
_,
LEGISLATION AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
I
--
•• , ..--•
•
• L .. ~---
This study report is intended to meet the requirements of Section
1311 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA). This section of the law is shown in Appendix C. This
Act requires the Secretary of the Interior, in conjunction with
the Secretary of Transportation, the National Park Service, the
Bureau of Land Management, the State of Alaska, and the affected
Regional Native Corporations, to study the desirability of estab-
1 I lishing a Denali Scenic Highway to consist of all or part of the
I
\ "'"-,_ .
following existing highways: the Parks Highway between the
T a 1 ke e t n a J u n c t ion and the en t r an c e to Den a 1 i N a t i o n a 1 P a r k , the
Denali Highway between Cantwell and Paxson, the Richardson High-
way and Edgerton Highway between Paxson and Chitina, and the
existing road between Chitina and McCarthy. The study report
must be submitted to the President by the Secretary no later than
December 2, 1983.
This report must include the views of all members of the Study
Team along with the views of the Governor of Alaska and, in
:\
j
addition, contain recommendations as to the creation of a Denali ..
. .
•
-
•
Nat ion al Scenic High way, "together with maps thereof, a de fin i-
tion of boundaries thereof, an estimate of costs, recommendations
on administration, and proposed legislation to create such a
scenic highway, if creation of one is recommended." II
Legislative History for Section 1311 of ANILCA is rather sparse.
The House Interior Committee, when speaking of the Scenic Highway
Study, stated that the study should be a cooperative effort
between the Secretary, local Native Corporations and the State.
The commit ~ further stated that the study should consider
whether the existing approaches to Denali and the Wrangell-St.
Elias National Parks/Preserves should become a scenic highway
linking the two national parks and thus provide a road corridor
that would enable tourists and residents of Alaska to have better
access to the parks and a scenic round trip from Anchorage to
each park. (Report //95-1045, p. 221).
B
---• ·-~ ....----·~ ~ ail
-~ r .-...
r
I
• • -
The Senate Energy Committee (Report /196-413 pp. 306 & 307) also
addressed the Scenic Highway Study contained in HR 39 and stated:
• •
•
•
• •
The committee does not intend that this study affect existing
businesses, residences or other occupancies along the study
route . It is the intent of the study that the scenic highway
serve to promote tourism between the two park system units .
The withdrawal during the study relates only to mining and
mineral leasing and will not affect existing residences,
businesses or other occupancies. -
..
... ~
I Additionally, the House Congressional Record speaks to the issue
of minor road realignment and maintenance on p. H-10549, which I
specifically states that "minor" realignment and maintenance is
not to be construed so as to allow widening or substantial up -
grading of the "primitive" McCarthy Road.
STUDY ORGANIZATION
By delegation from the Secretary of the Interior, overall lead
and ,responsibility for the Denali Scenic Highway
assigned to the Alaska Land Use Council (ALUC).
"" I
Study was
•
• •
•
•
-
•
Under the auspices of the ALUC, a Study Group was created to I
I
• -••
• • •
complete the study and submit it, through the ALUC, to the Presi-•
dent, and then on to Congress as required by the Act (see Appen -
dix D & Illustration 1). I ...
The Study Group directly represents the ALUC and has been ap-
pointed by it. The Technical Team was also created by the ALUC
and is composed of representative s of various Federal, State,
Regional and local agencies, who were appointed by the respective
agencies to actually draft the study.
directly to the Study Group.
'
--• -
-
I
r
•
• -• • 9
I I
•
The Technical Team reports
I iii ., ·. -I .... .. . ::.
I -.
---~--------------------------
•
-.
-0
I I
I I
. I
I
~
Illustration 1
• ~ .
l ~
I ' I ~
~r· I ll
I I •
t ..,
r
L -
TICHHICAL TIAII "
El 1 I I
~ .
d· ••
I I
~
• t I
I I I
'I'll
( ( ~ I I I • (
• 1-
~
• • •
T
-I
_I I I I
I I :1 I I • I I .o11
il:i
I I
• •
•
I I ..
I""''
• • i
I I I
II I F I
• -'-' -I
I--'-•• r--.~ Jl!. .~I
_.,. ... • I -• I I
·I ~ ~ r
I
I I
I
I I
• [ I
...
•
• -~-· u
•
--... •
GOAL OF STUDY -
The goal of this study is to determine the desirability of crea-
ting a Denali National Scenic Highway along any, all, or none of
n e a r 1 y 5 0 0 m i 1 e s o f ex i s t in g high w a y s in A 1 a s ka • • il
• I
The study objectives are outlined in ANILCA. While completing
the study, the Study Team was directed to consider:
the scenic and recreational values of the lands withdrawn
under this section, the importance of providing protection
to those values, the desirability of providing a symbolic
and actual physical connection between the national parks
in Southcentral Alaska, and the desirability of enhancing
the experience of persons traveling between those parks by
motor vehicles. (Section 1311, ANILCA)
CRITICAL ISSUES
._
-· ...
I
In light of the discussion above, it is necessary to determine
which lands the Act requires be studied, what these lands are to
• I be s t u d i e d f o r , and wh a t o b j e c t i v e s s h o u 1 d be c on s i d e r e d in t h i s
study. Consequently, land status, scenic highway definition, and
symbolic and physical connection are critical issues. Also, a
n I""" cooperative approach to management of existing highway corridors
•
II
-
is discussed whereby various land management agencies could con-
solidate their planning efforts in order to achieve unified,
common management goals. •
•
Land Status . -
Section 1311 of ANILCA requires that all public lands within the
designated corridor be studied and recommendations be made
regarding designation as a National Scenic Highway. Public lands
are defined in ANILCA as Federal lands which have not been
selected by the State of Alaska under the Statehood Act or by
Native Corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA). Since r ec ommenda t ions are
Federal public lands, land ownership
l 1 -• I -------•
only
is
-
• •
to be made for these
a major consideration.
• •
r
• ..
•
. I •
~·;.r
• ••
J
•
• -
----------
••
r
•
• • • • .-
• I • • • •
Land status along the study corridor is quite varied. The
Federal Government, the State of Alaska, the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough, various Native corporations and numerous private indi-
viduals all own or manage land in the study area. (See
Appendix C). The corridor is approximately 472 miles long. Of
this approximately 24 percent is in Federal ownership, 33 percent
in State ownership, 6 percent in Mat-Su Borough ownership, 29
percent in Native corporation ownership and 8 percent in private
ownership (Table 1). These percentages include State and Native
corporation selected lands as well as those lands which have been
cohveyea under ANCSA and the Statehood Act.
ANILCA withdraws a 11 Federal "pub lie" lands located one mile on
either side of centerline during the coarse of the Study. Since
the selected lands, described above, are not "public lands", they
are not withdrawn under Section 1311. The withdrawal contained in
Section 1311 applies only to new mineral entry or leasing.
Consequently, valid existing mining claims are not affected by
this study. Additionally, other forms of use of the "public
lands" are not affected by the withdrawal •
~·· -1 ---• •
• --~-., . f-:~ r-z ~-1 ' ,.,. T.l ·
-.. ~ ... 1111. .I
,.. • • .. .-....... l • I " I • ,. '·l ~
I -I .__ • ._. •-•
I -I "'I ... .. •
• • 1.1 ·-· -··-... .. -. .----;---~ ~ -t:..--:-.. ..----' --...-r
... -........ Ill -I 1 2 I ,.... • ......-:--""1j ~ •• • •.
• r
-.. --------
•
•
-~
•
•
•
•
•
r
I
I
•
•
I ,. -
I •
•
•
•
.. I
BLM
NPS
ARR
State *
Borough
Native *
Private
TOTAL
* Includes
-
-~i"•.r::.. ~.· "' -.. . -........... -
Denali National Scenic Highway Study Corrtdor
Estimated Length and Generalized Ownership
10 mi. 7%
75 mi. 54% r
26 mi. 19% • ..
20 mi. 15%
}lJ
7 mi. 5%
138 mi.
•
I
Denali
Highway(%)
88 mi. 65%
16 mi. 12%
29 mi. 21%
2 mi. 2%
135 mi.
Richardson
Highway(%)
9 mi.
37 mi. 36%
13 mi. 13%
103 mi.
Edgerton
Highway(%)
20 mi. 60%
13 mi. 40%
McCarthy
Road(%)
7 mi. 11%
20 mi. 32%
33 mi. 52%
3 mi. 5%
63 mi.
Total(%)
97 mi. 21%
7 mi. 1%
10 mi. 2%
155 mi. 33%
26 mi. 6%
139 mi. 29%
38 mi. 8.%
472 mi. •
•
I
A
•
• •
•
1 I
II
!l
, -
I
Symbolic and Physical Connection r. ....
The Act requires that the "desirability of providing a symbolic
and actual physical connection between the national parks in
So u t h c en t r a 1 A 1 a s ka " be s t u d i e d • Regardless of whether any of
the corridor is designated as a National Scenic Highway, the fact
remains that the Denali National Park and Preserve and the
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve are physically
connected by the Parks, Denali, Richardson and Edgerton Highways
and the McCarthy Road.
The question of a symbolic connection is somewhat more difficult .
What was intended by this term cannot be ascertained from the Act
nor from the legislative history. It would appear that a sym-
bolic link would not necessarily be a true link, i.e., "actual
physical." Con s e q u en t 1 y , a s ym b o 1 i c 1 ink c o u 1 d the o r e t i c a 11 y
only include a portion of the entire 500-mile corridor.
The symbolic connection mentioned by Congress would be desirable
if the two parks had some development theme in common, and if
many tourists really do travel between the two parks by motor
vehicle. Denali National Park is a popular tourist destination
by motor vehicle partly becaus e of its central location between
Anchora g e and Fairbanks and because its relativ ely established
tourist facilities are only a few miles off of one of the State's
major intercity arterials (the Parks Highway). Wrangell-St.
Elias National Park and Preserve has not developed tourist facil-
ities and the National Park Service has indicated that they
intend to manage it as a wilderness park, with few motor vehicle/
tourist r e lated facilities. The Park Service has not decided yet
where th ~access to the park will be, but the McCarthy Road
in its present condition could not serve a large number of motor
...
• I
•
rl
,.• I
-
-I
•
-L
r
I
• --
•
• •
•
~
a, I
I lliil --
•
:J
Table 2.
-g ~ ~ ~ -2rj .:;: ~ ., () ., ., I O::IQI~"S C:O) -~~~8_~GI~oc -.., CIO > ori 0
~~~~ 8 trl 'B~~QI~b .. -c~ ~;,~:;:~~~~~ -
STATE ~~~~ .s~~ct COMMENTS -I -
.-4 IN r ~ ~ oD " 00 ~ "J:J-'C G/OP$ ~
Art zona X y X X X l)A Scenic Roads, Historic Roads & Parkways I
2) Restricted access (driveways & intersections)
3) Allows acquisition of easements . . . -I
Arkansas X YX X J --I -::-_ --
California X X Y XX X X 1) Advertising signs restricted ' I
2) Requires protection plan from local government
~ -Color ado X y X X 1) Criteria are general • 2) Advertising signs restricted I --, ·-, r . --
~.i ~ cO
Maine
I
y X X 1) Preservation actions developed on site specific basis
Mas s achuse tts X NX X 1) State recognizes local designations -2) Maintenance restrictions (tree cutting, fence r emoval)
Mi s sissippi X N X X
~ . -
Nebra ska XX X 1) Maintenance Standards relaxed in case of con fl i ct
Nev J ers e y XX NX X 1) "Parkway" system, restricted use & access .
~ ,.
--
Nev York I I• X 1) No Statewide System l
..-\. --
Ohio X y X X 1) Criteria & protection are general in nature
Oregon X X X 1) Restrictions on signs & junkyards
---
South Dakota X X X 1) Commits fixed amount of money to system's construction
Tennessee XX X X 1) Parkway System .. 2) Protection measures to be studied
3) Increased maintenance -~--
Vermont X y X X 1) Roadside maintenance restrictions
Virginia X y X X 1) Protection based on local zoning
2) Authority to buy easements
This information was compiled from the material sent by each state, and shows the variability
among state programs. Columns l and 2 indicate the type of road included in the system .
Column 3 indicates whether any criteria are used in route selection . Columns 4, 5, and 6
indicate the level of government making the route selection, Column 7 is marked if the
designation means no more than posting the route as scen!c, and Columna 8 and 9 indicate
whet her there are any aotivity restriction& associated with the designation, or speci al
pr o t ect ion measure& ~any of the values associated with the deaignation.
15
~
-
I
• ..'!. -•
It appears that the two park units at present have no common bond
other than both being National Parks in Alaska. The need for a
symbolic connection between the two National Parks has not been
demonstrated.
• Range of Definitions -.I. Before examining the desirability of a scenic highway desig-..
(I
-.
..
nation, it is necessary to know what that designation means and
what criteria must be considered before such designation is made.
In short, the term "scenic highway" must be defined. To do so,
the Study Group examined other Federal and State efforts to
develop scenic highways. •
Two relatively comprehensive Federal references are A Proposed
Program for Scenic Roads and Parkways prepared by the U.S. Depart
ment of Commerce for the President's Council on Recreation and
Natural Beauty, published June 1966, and the Manual: National
Scenic Highway Study 1974, prepared by the Federal Highway Admin-
istration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal
Scenic Highways include the multistate Great River Road and
various scenic highways through National Forests and lands admin-
istered by the U.S. Forest Service, such as the Highland Scenic
Highway, the Tellecho Plains-Robbinsville Road and the Kancamagus
Scenic Road. Finally, the Parkways of the National Park Service
were briefly examined to determine their applicability to this
study.
Information on state scenic highways was requested from each
state to determine what has occurred on a state level that might
~
provide useful information. Thirty-eight (38) states responded,
and of those 15 reported some kind of scenic highway system .
Table 2 summarizes the nature of the state scenic highway systems.
This research indicates that there is no single, accepted set of
d e f in it i v e c r i t e r i a wh i c h a s c en i c hi g h way m us t me e t •
16 • '
In some
'• .. ~ -L
---•t --• ..... .. I -•
states, a scenic highway designation is strictly a legislative
process without any explicit criteria. At the other extreme, at
least one state requires a survey, in one-tenth mile increments,
detailing about 30 positive and negative elements of the la!ld-
sc ape. Common to the criteria studied is the concept of
outstanding and unique scenic beauty. One set of criteria that
was referenced by several sources was found in the 1974 Manual
prepared by the FHWA. The range of factors c onsidered includes:
-the scenic quality of the corridor;
-service to major population centers;
-economic feasibility;
-availability and variety of complementary facilities
-availability of other scenic routes and recreation
resources in the area;
-access to parks and recreation areas;
-providing connectivity among recreation facilities;
-access to major highways-commuter and nonrecreation
travel needs;
-potential for conserving energy and meeting user needs;
-protection of corridor and ecology;
-public demand for development; and
-suitability for use by other modes.
These criteria were developed to apply to all of the
They offer a useful expansion of the issues
in S e c t ion 1 3 1 1 o f AN I L C A , i. e • :
-the scenic and recreational values of the land;
-the importance of providing protection to those
-the desirability of providing a symbolic and
link between parks; and
values;
physical
-the desirability of enhancing the experience of
trav e ling between parks by motor v ehicles.
people
The range of management considerations for scenic highways was
also examined. In general, state-authorized scenic highwa y s are
existing multipurpose roads with little difference in management
from that of other highways. Federal efforts in the past have
tended to involve more new construction and to be more dedicated
to recreational use. Minimal implementation of both Federal and
State scenic highway systems may be simply marking the highway as
a scenic route . Colorado has restrictions o n advertising signs
....I _. =--m-.-.. -• ~-~ ,Ia • -.. ... • ... j .. • • ... • ..-.. .I II= • -.. -----------
.. --
-. i Ill -· • • .~
..
•
• ..
and Oregon also restricts junkyards in designated scenic areas.
Massachusetts and Vermont have restrictions on roadside mainten-
ance activities like tree-cutting and fence removal. Several
states, including Arizona and California, are authorized to buy
scenic easements or obtain property in fee title through purchase
or gift. Several responses from states without scenic highway....l
systems indicated that scenic and recreation values along their
highways receive similar protection through department policies
or local zoning restrictions.
At another level of development, the Federal Government is pro-
viding money to Mississippi River states for improvements to
roads in the Great River Road system along the Mississippi. The
improvements being funded include general pavement and alignment
upgrading, and the provision of turnout and roadside recreation
facilities. About $250 million has been authorized for Great
River Road projects through 1983. The funds are appropriated by
Congress as a line item under the Federal-Aid to Highways Act.
An ext r em e exam p 1 e of a s c en i c highway i s a Park wa y ad min i s t e r e d
by the National Park Service such as the Blue Ridge Parkway and
the Natchez Trace Parkway. The entire corridor along such a road
is managed primarily for its scenic and recreational values, as a
part of the National Park system. Travel may be restricted to
non-commerical use and entrance fees may be charged. A Parkway,
being a linear National Park, is recognized as a distinct classi-
fication; there is no evidence either in ANILCA or the legis-
lative history that Congress intended such a designation for the
Denali Corridor.
Since there has been no uniform application of the designation
"scenic highway," this study will not adopt any single specific
descriptive definition, criteria, or management plan. For the
purposes of this study, the foregoing discussion of the range of
management options will serve as defining what a scenic highway
in Alaska ~ be. Each segment of the corridor will be studied
•-with this range of alternatives in mind.
-~ .. 18
. 1-• .---• -• --ra • .... -• "&. • .... .. "' I I .._ • . • • .. • •
...~
"" • •
.. • II ------l .
-·
.,
II
•
• •
• • • •
There are a number of agencies which currently have responsibili-~
ties and interests in lands and resources adjacent to the high-
ways within the study corridor.
Regionally, numerous plans exist or are proposed which, if
implemented, could impact land uses or resources along these
highways. Locally, many of those who own or manage lands or
resources directly adjacent to the highways within the study
corridor have plans, either existing or proposed, on how those
resources should best be managed.
Because of the existing and potential impact of these planning
efforts at both a regional and local level, the agency repre-
sentatives in the Study Group (Appendix D) recognized the need
for a means to coordinate planning efforts and land management.
Therefore, a position paper, seperate from this document, will be
prepared and presented to the Alaska Land Use Council (ALUC) on
how to best plan for and manage these and other resources within
the study area.
The ALUC has statutory authority to establish cooperative
planning zones in which the management of lands or resources by
one agency may significantly affect the mana g ement of lands or
resources of other agencies [ANILCA Section 120l(j)]. As
cooperative planning would appear to be particularly appropriate
for this study area, this paper will examine how Federal, State,
regional and local agencies can cooperatively manage those lands
-· • I
• Ill
• I
and resources within the study area to protect and enhance the _. ••
recreational and scenic opportunities.
submitted as a part of this study
This proposal will not be
but will be submitted
seperately to the ALUC for their evaluation and action. • ..... -.-... .. .... •
-II • • • • • • -..
• • •
....-------
-I I .,.--I -I .. -
• •
I . -•
I • I f:l
• • •• -_ _.
I -... -... -II
I .. -J ..
r~---r -.
•
I
~
,r
..
•
..
.... • ,
•
I
--...
H ........ -
I
I .....
•
•• .,.
" I ..... -. --....., "% .. ____ ....
b ;,. *'-_ ~ r. ..._. r
"'I I I
• -,.., 1 II
I • ·'---· II. SECTION ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
II
:I.. I
_ _.
•
--
-I
-•
I -
I -•
... .--...
•
rl ~-
•
:I !1-II
IIIII 1 .... 111 • • ....
• •
• -r--.. I ,..
-1 ,.~ ·----
. -------------
------
• • 20
• ... .
I-
. .
----.. I-
-.--.
- L I
"'
• -
_ .....
-•
. .II
-..
•
L
1 r
I I
• •
• •
. ]1 • -.. ....
-r ._
w;J.-
._
1 -I
-. ~
--
~· . .
I'
I
...
I
1.~ .. PARKS, RICHARDSON AND EDGERTON HIGHWAYS
• • .. -
Because of numerous similarities, the most notable of which is
land status, the Parks, Richardson and Edgerton Highways are
discussed together, and one recommendation is made for all three.
PARKS HIGHWAY •
Land Status •
The Parks Highway from the Talkeetna Junction (milepost 99) north
to the entrance of Denali National Park and Preserve (i.e., the
Nenana River Bridge, milepost 231.1) is within the study corri-
dor. This section of the corridor is approximately 138 miles
long. Of this length, approximately 75 miles of the land along
the roads are owned by the State of Alaska; approximately 26 miles
are owned by the Mat-Su Borough; approximately 20 miles are Native
Corporation owned land, about 7 miles are in private ownership,
and the remaining 10 miles are under the administration of the
Federal Government and withdrawn as gravel reserves for the
Alaska Railroad. (Map #2 ,Table 1) -. • • I ..
I • I Existing/Proposed Land Use
Existing land use along the Parks Highway is varied. Numerous
small settlements and businesses dot the route. These include
Road Junction, Hurricane, Colorado, Summit, and
II
• •
-
/-
II
I
l
I the Petersville
Cantwell. • • ·" . . .
I • I •. • ··~/
From milepost 132 to milepost 169, the Parks Highway passes
through the Denali State Park; however, there are scattered
inholdings of private land. Activities within most of the Park
are restricted to non-motorized uses. Discharging of firearms is
not allowed in the Park. .. • • • --'2 1 _....--..... ·---
-·---
• II
-I
II -I! --
-
Federal
Public
Land
...
•. I
.....
~: :,. --~__;;... ........ ......
······ t't't't'
::~r.
········ ~rr
t't't'
~((
((( ....
((
(I'
((
(I'
(t
((
I
Federal
Public
Land
~"" ~~~ ~ Talkeetna .. ,.,. ......
t't't'
······ ,. ......
········ (((( ............
(f"r( P'(
(~(P'P'r
~(P'r
((r'
))J. To
Anchorage
-----
---
r
• .. -·
.:.
• ....
---
.__
-. ) -. __.
...
LEGEND
• Federal Public Land
I Native Corporation Land
r State Land
-Other Private Land
See page 11, Land Status
for more information
.... ---• .:t:;-. ·..: ·-• •
I
--
Map 2. Parks Highway Land Status
-22 ----I
-1 ~ I
}.
-
.·
•
,
Several parcels of State owned land north of the Denali State •
Park have been tentatively identified as being available for
settlement under the State's land disposal program. These
parcels may or may not be disposed of, depending upon public
interest.
II J ll
not the by the Alaska Power Although
Authority (APA),
Project has been
an
alternative preferred
access route to the
studied from Hurricane
proposed Susltna Hydro
(milepost 174) east, and
therefore, it could become a possible access route to that area
pending the outcome of APA's study and review process. ..J
Except for
the entire
the extreme northerly portion
study cor r id or is wi thin the
of the
Mat-Su
Parks Highway,
B o rough • Th e
corridor area has not been zoned; thus the Mat-Su Borough exer-
cises little regulatory control over the area although it has
legislative authority to do so. However, along approximately 26
miles of the corridor from Talkeetna junction northward, the
Mat-Su Borough owns lands that are being considered in the
Borough-wide Com pr ehensiv e Plan
tified for disposal.
Scenic and Recreational Resources
and have tentatively been
.-I I
-I
id en-
•
The scenic resources of the Parks Highway were inventoried in
1978 by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The
DNR study,
divided the
subdivided
entitled "Scenic Resources Along the Parks Highway,"
highway into segments based on character types, and
the character types into assessment units no longer
than three miles. The "intrinsic visual quality" of each assess-
ment unit was rated according to its various components, includ-
ing patterns of form, line, color, and texture. Also assessed
for each unit was a "composite visual quality" rating which added
or subtracted the effect of development on the intrinsic visual
quality. The potential for screening development areas with
vegetation was also rated. Unless otherwise stated, the values
and ratings referred to are the "composite visual quality."
23
•
• •• ...
•
I
I
•
,.
•
II
• -According to this study, scenic values along the Parks Highway
range from low to exceptional. Excluding the portion of the
highway passing through Denali State Park, about 25% of the
segment rated low, 15% moderate, and the remainder high to excep-
tionally high in scenic value. The largest block of Federal
land, managed by the Alaska Railroad near Hurricane, was rated as
exceptionally scenic. The roadway there curves through a rolling
topography with many unobstructed views of Denali National Park
and Mount McKinley. The foreground lands have a low capability
to absorb visual impact.
Recreational opportunities in this area of Federal land include a
paved
Gulch
berry
II
viewpoint at milepost
that includes a trail
picking. Other scenic
170.3 and a rest area at Hurricane
with several scenic views and good
features along the Parks Highway
-dense stands of birch-spruce forest on gently rolling
topography;
-views of Mount McKinley, the Alaska Range, and their numer-
ous glaciers; and the
-canyons and bluffs of the Chulitna River, Hurricane Gulch,
and Honolulu Creek.
-developed and undeveloped rest areas and turnouts, includ-
ing some at specific viewpoints;
I
• -fishing in feeder streams of the Susitna River and the
~
Chulitna River and in v arious lakes in the area; •
-camping at Honolulu Creek or in the Denali State Park;
24
...
•
-
•
--. 'I
-picnicking at Byers Lake
-boating at Byers Lake;
'I •
I ..
or any of a number of rest
-hiking at Denali State Park; and
areas;
-hunting and trapping between Talkeetna Junction and
entrance to Denali State Park.
Other Considerations -
The corridor passes through or near several mineralized prov .-
inces. Near Broad Pass are many mining claims, with known
deposits of gold, lead, copper, and zinc in the area. Other
minerals found along the corridor include silver, platinum,
nickel, chromium, and molybdenum. Non-metallic resources include
coal, sand, gravel, and a low potential for oil and gas. The •
commercial value of these resources is unknown. Water power ......
sites inventoried by the Alaska Power Authority include two sites
on the Chulitna River, as well as the sites being developed on ·
the Susitna River. Additionally, A~ Willow-Healy Intertie
Project parallels the Parks Highwa·y for much of its length.
The Parks Highway is a major transportation link and connects the
State's two most populous cities: Anchorage and Fairbanks. The
Parks Highway also provides a vital commercial link between the
port facilities in Anchorage and interior Alaska. The Parks
Highway meets Federal-Aid Highway standards. Because of its
importance as a transportation corridor, it has also been desig -
nated as a part of the Interstate Highway system .
...
25
'I
• II
R
Lill
i
•
RICHARDSON HIGHWAY
Land Status
That portion of the Richardson Highway that is within this study
corridor is approximately 103 miles in length. Of this about 44
miles is either State selected or conveyed to the State under the
Statehood Act, and about 37 miles is either Native Corporation
selected or conveyed to various Alaska Native Corporations under
ANCSA. There are private parcels scattered along the highway
with concentrations at Paxson, Gakona Junction, Glenn Highway
Junction, Copper Center and Edgerton Highway Junction. These
private lands encompass approximately 13 miles of the study
corridor. The remaining 9 miles are Federal public lands
administered by the Bureau of Land Management. (Map 113,
Table 1)
Existing/Proposed Land Use
As is typical of highways in the State of Alaska, the Richardson
Highway has numerous small businesses scattered along its length.
F o r the mo s t p a r t the bus in e s s e s are con cent r a ted wh ere the
private lands are concentrated. Several historic roadhouses are
located within the study corridor. The most notable of these is
the Sourdough Roadhouse at Mile 147, which is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.
Additionally, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline parallels the Richardson
Highway for the entire length of the study corridor. Within this
section of the study corridor, numerous access roads and material
sites exist associated with the construction and operation of the
pipeline .
This section of the Richardson Highway is located outside of any
organized Borough. Therefore, the area has not been zoned by the
-26 ..... --------r.. •
• •
• • -----
. -• . ---
-
(
1
Map 3. Richardson llighway
Land Stat us
I
~ II
' Denali
:t
Highway
-I.
I
.-
1
I .J.l
' . ' .
\ 1 I -
' ... -
' l
• I
LEGEND
Federal Public Land
I Native Corporation Land
r State Land
-Other Private Land
See page 11, Land Status
for more information
. ·--' -\ .
Iii
G -
Glennallen
To .
Anchorage
I
/.
I
To
Fairbanks
Gakona
Gulkana
Glenn
Highway
I ...
Federal
Public
Land
-
To
Tok
Federal
Public
Land
-
.-
• •
Borough and the State has not elected to impose zoning restric-
tions either. There are no current land-use plans for this area.
Several areas within the corridor include lands which the State
has identified
program. This
will continue
for future settlement under its
property has
to be offered
been offered in past
until the available
transferred into private ownership.
Scenic and Recreational Resources
land disposal
disposals and
land has been
According to a Draft Study prepared by the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources, the scenic resources along the Richardson
Highway are mostly of moderate value, with several areas of high
value and a relatively confined area of low scenic value. Near
Paxson, distant views of the Chugach and Wrangell Mountains to
the south and the Alaska Range to the north contribute to the
high scenic value. Foreground features in this area include the
Gulkana River, the river valley, and Paxson Lake. Much of the
terrain is rolling and the road generally conforms well to the
topography. At the extreme southern end of this segment are
stunning views of the Wrangell Mountains with Willow Lake in the
foreground. Much of the Richardson segment is an enclosed
corridor through the spruce/hardwood forest, and of moderate
scenic value. The areas of low scenic value include the
more-populated areas near the junctions with the Tok Cutoff and
the Glenn Highway.
Recreational opportunities are
half of the Richardson Highway. ---more abundant along the northern
Along the Gulkana River and at
Paxson Lake are campgrounds and good spots to put in and take out
rafts, canoes, kayaks or motorboats. As a Wild and Scenic River,
the Gulkana receives considerable use for float trips, and it is
a good fishing river as well. Campgrounds along the route
include two Paxson Lake Campgrounds, the Sourdough Creek Camp-
ground, and the Dry Creek Campground . Also, along the Richardson
Highway are trails for hiking and access to various lakes and the
Gulkana River . Trailheads include the June Lake Trailhead,
Gillespie Lake Trailhead, and Haggard Creek Trailhead .
. 28
....
•
•
•
..
Other Considerations
The area along the Richardson Highway is not as heavily minera-
lized as other segments of the study corridor. There are several
isolated mines, and the area around Paxson Lake is noted as a
mineralized province containing molybdenum, gold, and copper. At
the extreme south end of the Richardson segment is a highly
mineralized area, containing chromium, nickel, copper, and
platinum. Sand and gravel are exposed along the Copper River,
and the Copper River Petroleum Basin has a low potential for oil
or gas deposits.
Caribou and moose may be found along this segment.
..... -
A fall
caribou migration route crosses the highway about midway between
Paxson and Gulkana. During the winter, moose will concentrate
along the Gulkana and Copper Rivers. There is a moderate
concentration of furbearers within the area.
The Richardson Highway, like the Parks Highway, is a major trans-
portation and commercial link to Interior Alaska. Valdez, the
southern terminus of the Richardso ~~Highway, is the site of the
northernmost year-round ice-free deepwater port in the State.
(This was the ma j o r reason for s e 1 e c t in g V a 1 de z as the t e r minus
of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline.) That part of the Richardson
Highway between the Glenn Highway Junction and Gakona Junction
has been designated an Interstat e rout e and the remainder of the _ ---~
Richardson Highway is a Federal-Aid primary route .
29
-
EDGERTON HIGHWAY
Land Status
The Edgerton Highway is approximately 33 miles long. The
length is within the study corridor. About 20 miles is either
Native-selected or conveyed, while 13 miles is in private owner-
ship. There are no Federal public lands on this segment
(Map #4, Table 1). Lands in private ownership were predom-
inantly patented under the Homestead Act, and farming remains the
livelihood of many of those along the route, particularly between
the small communities of Kenny Lake and Lower Tonsina. There are
a few small parcels of State land. The Liberty Falls Campground,
although belonging ~o the State, continues to be managed by the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) through a cooperative agree-
ment.
Existing/Proposed Land-Use
The Edgerton Highway is not within any local governmental unit.
Land-use planning is virtually non-existent. Future land-use of
the area will in large measure be determined by the major land-
owners; e.g., the appropriate Native corporations. The highway
is a Federal-Aid Secondary route.
• Scenic and Recreational Resources
--
Using the numerical rating system of the DNR consultant, the
Edgerton Highway is one of the most scenic of any of the seg-
ments. Except for short lengths with moderate ratings, the
entire road is highly scenic. Mount Drum, Mount Sanford, Mount
Blackburn, and Mount Wrangell offer the backdrop for small farms
and homesteads along th e road. According to the study, the farms
.<~
and homesteads are generally neat, and add to the character and
quality of the view. The Copper River is also a scenic
30
-
• • :-.
...
-..
...
II .. , -""
II
...
r-~-/I \:~ ~
I OlNALI NATIONAl
• PAAk
{
To
Glennallen
Richardson
•
I I
II
Highway Chitina
To
Valdez
LEGEND
· Federa 1 Pub 1 i c Land
Native Corporation Land
State Land
Other Private Land
See page 11, Land Status
for more information
Hap 4. Edgerton Highway land Status
There is no Federal Public land in this
segment.
31
•
I
r
I
. '
•
..
I
•
•
. --
I I Iii
attraction, being a braided river in a broad valley with steeply
cut banks. The road varies from flat and straight near Kenny
Lake to winding nearer to Chitina. Ground cover in view ranges
from spruce/hardwood forest to alpine tundra, to rocky, barren
ground. :::3' •
Near Chitina are several lakes which not only add to the scenic
qualities of the road, but are good recreation sites as well.
On emile lake has a rest a rea and picnic table. Gray ling and
rainbow trout can be caught from Twomile Lake and Threemile Lake.
The Cop p e r Rive r is pop u 1 a r f o r sub s is ten c e sa 1 mo n f ish in g and
for floating. Hiking and camping facilities are available at
Liberty Falls Campground, where berry picking can also be pro-
ductive. These facilities receive very heavy use during the peak
salmon runs on the Copper River. Buffalo can sometimes be seen
across the Copper River, and mountain sheep in the hills above
Twomile and Threemile Lakes. The Tonsina River, which crosses
the highway, offers an exciting whitewater float-trip.
Other Considerations
The entire length of the Edgerton Highway lies within a highly
mineralized area, with known deposits of chromium, nickel, copper
and platimum. The westernmost end of the Edgerton Highway lies
within the Copper River Petroleum Basin, but the probability of
oil or gas deposits is co nsidered low. The western half of the
corridor area is mostly agricultural •
Moose and furbearers may be present anywhere along the Edgerton
Highway, but are not known to be concentrated there. Black bear
will concentrate along the Copper River. • •
Of particular significance is the fact that there are virtually
no Federal lands along the Edgerton Highway.
.. 32
•
I
I
..
I
I!
PARKS, RICHARDSON AND EDGERTON HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDATION AND RATIONALE:
..ra;
I • I I
L
No Designation
r • ;
The Study Group concurred unanimously that it is undesirable to
recommend that these highway segments be designated as part of
a National Scenic Highway (NSH) System. The rationale behind
this conclusion includes the following points: -
1.
•
2.
Land Ownership S e c t ion 1 3 1 1 o f AN I L C A (A p p e n d i x C ) man-
dates that recommendations be made to Congress on "pub 1 i c"
(Federal) lands. The Parks, Richardson and Edgerton High-
ways traverse lands that are almost entirely non--Federally
owned
make
or managed. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to
a recommendation to create a NSH on these highway
segments. 111 ... ....
II
Commercial Use -The Parks and Richardson Highways are major
commercial corridors in Alaska. As a principal intent of
Congress was that a scenic highway serve to promote tourism,
a potential conflict exists between a national designation
and the existing reliance on these highways as commercial
routes.
3. Public Opinion-Over 25 public meetings were held in Alaska
• to seek out comments and concerns relating to creation of
J
. . ----.._ a National Scenic Highway System in Alaska (see Appendix B) •
It was apparent from those meetings that there was over-
whelming opposition to any such Federal designation in
Alaska.
4. Existing Authority -The State of Alaska has existing
authority to create and manage a State Scenic Highway
System, if they so choose.
33
-
---I
s.
-.
-
cooperative-Management
land managers (Federal,
There is a recognized need among
State, local and private) in Alaska
that an opportunity exists to consolidate and coordinate • 1j
management efforts on their lands to address common manage-
ment goals, especially for those lands adjacent to trans-~
port a t ion cor rid o r s in A 1 as ka ( See Discussion on Page 1 9 ) •
An interagency effort will be undertaken to address these
management goals and issues such as the management of
recreational and scenic values along existing highways.
The Study Group cone luded that this is a more desirable
approach to protection of scenic and recreational values,
and enhancement of tourism than a National Scenic Highway
designation. .. -
• r-J _-; ;~ • ..)II • G • .....
t-~ -..
-
~
-
... . -
I
-.!,....,.. .,
. .
••
~
t
,
.'C
l
. 1
..
---
...
J r ....
.Jill IIIII
I _ , , _ ...
---... I
II
I ---.. ... -..,. . -
r
. ---,. ..
1
• --· •
A ,.,• ,_ ;~::~_--£ -· ...... --I ,_ 1
...
-
I ~
• I
t , I ..
1'
I
..
DENALI HIGHWAY
Land Status
The entire length (135 miles) of the Denali Highway is within the
study corridor. This highway provides the east-west link between
Cantwell, on the Parks Highway, and Paxson, on the Richardson
Highway. Until completion of the Denali Highway in 1957, the
only access to Denali National Park (formerly Mt. McKinley
National Park) was via the Alaska Railroad. The Denali Highway
remained the only vehicle access to the National Park until the
opening of the George Parks Highway in 1972.
Of the highways involved in the study, i.e., the Parks, Denali,
Richardson, Edgerton and McCarthy Road, the Denali has by far the
greatest amount of ANILCA public land adjacent to the road. The
route crosses approximately 88 miles of ANILCA public land (BLM),
16 miles of State land, 29 miles of Native Corporation owned land
and 2 miles of other private land (Map #5, Table 1).
Most of the private lands are located near Cantwell and Paxson.
Several commercial establishments are scattered along the route,
for instance, at Mile 20 (Tangle River Inn), Mile 22.6 (Sports-
man's Lodge), Mile 42 (Maclaren River Lodge), Mile 52 (private
campground), Mile 77 (Susitna Lodge), Mile 82 (Gracious House),
and at Mile 100 (Adventures Unlimited).
Native
western
located
Corporation
end of the
primarily
owned
Denali
at the
lands are located primarily at the
Highway, while the State lands are
eastern end. BLM lands are located
along the remainder of the route .
Existing/Proposed Land-Use
The Denali Highway traverses the BLM Denali planning block. The
Denali planning block is part of the larger Southcentral Planning
35
II
I To
ll
Fairbank s
•
Cantwell
' ' •
I
'•
'
(
I
lN
0"\
Parks
Highway
f t" I
Jl
I.
• ..
r! -··· Ill To
Fairbanks
To
Glennallen
LEGEND
•· Federal Public Land
I Native Corporation Land
,. State Land
-Other Private Land
See page 11, Land Status
for more information
5. Denali Highway
Land Status
Iii
• I
•
... .. ,_
..
..
Unit.
1980.
A land-use plan for this unit was completed by BLM in
The passage of ANILCA in late 1980 prompted an amendment
to the original plan. This amendment, pertaining to the Denali
planning block, was completed in July 1982.
The major provisions of the amendment allow mineral activities to
take place in the planning block. However, the Denali Scenic
Highway Stuuy Corridor was specifically excluded from the opening
order which allows mineral exploration, leasing, and location.
By the same token none of the lands within the Denali study
corridor
laws or
were opened to
designated for
settlement under the Alaska Settlement
lease or sale under the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act. These decisions were postponed to
allow for completion of the Denali Scenic Highway Fe as ib il i ty
Study as well as for c omp let ion of the Ma tan uska-Sus i tna-B elu ga
Corporative Planning Program being prepared jointly by the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the State of Alaska.
Basically, the Denali Highway west of the Maclaren River and
approximately 20 miles east of Cantwell is within the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough; i.e. Milepost 40 to Milepost 107. The
joint plan for the area is not scheduled for completion until
late 1983. Therefore, recommendations on future settlement are
pending.
That portion of the Denali Highway which transects the Mat-Su
Borough is within the Talkeetna Mountains Special Use District.
The intent of the ordinance establishing this I District is to
---_J provide the Borough with a Multiple Use Management Tool. Allowed
uses of the district are "recreational, mining, grazing, timber
harvest, guiding, hunting, fishing, trapping, water resource use
and enterprise activity."
Scenic and Recreational Resources
The scenic resources of the Denali Highway (and the remainder of
the Corridor being studied) were inventoried by the Alaska
37
Dep ar tment of Natural Resources in 1982. The work was done u n de r
t he same project manager and consultant who prepared the Par ks
H ighway report.
d ra f t report.
The following description is taken from th e
The Denali Road is characterized by very high visual resource
values. This is due to the numerous distinctive landscape
elements along its length and the constantly unfolding views
t h at are expressive of the full range and diversity of t he
five landscape character types. At the western end of the
road, views across forested uplands to the Nenana River encom-
pass the Talkeetna Mountains and the Alaska Range, including
the glaciated peaks of Mt. McKinley, Mt. Deborah, Mt. Hess and
Mt. Hayes. The Susitna River dominates a broad valley land-
scape enclosed by the Alaska Range, Talkeetna Mountains and
the Clearwater Mountains. Expansive vistas across glacial
topography with associated features of moraines, eskers ,
kettle lakes and pingoes are defined along the edges by moun-
t ain ranges, including the Clearwater, the Amphitheat e r
Mountains and glimpses of the more distant Wrangells.
-
-------The road alignment generally conforms to the surrounding
topography, resulting in a route that provides continually
changing views and orientations. In addition it~ gen e r al
location on the mountain foothills provides a series of
composite views that include the full range of landform ,
waterform and landcover elements for each unit. While some
areas along the Denali have a truly superlative scenic
quality, the entire length of the highway is a rich scenic
resource.
The richness of the views is also due in part to the openess
of the landscape. Along most of the highway the vegetation is
low brush or tundra; there are few trees to obscure views. In
addition, the flat to rolling glaciated valleys yield broad
views that can almost reach from horizon to horizon, adding a
sense of immensity to the landscape that is only bounded by
s teep mountains.
• 1
The a rea, therefore, is exceptional for sightseeing a nd pho to-
g raph y, not only because of the beautiful views, but also beca u s e
of t he opportunity to see wildlife and to view unique geologica l
f ea t ures such as a melting pingo, kettle lakes and eskers . From
th e Denali Highway there are opportunities to see caribo u,
(pa rt of the Nelchina herd crosses the area in late Augu s t ,
ea rly September), moose, bear, beaver, porcupine, ptarmigan, an d
s wa n s . The probability of seeing these animals is greate r t ha n
38
..
on other State highways because there is
views
salmon
are
can
generally
be seen
August and September.
unobstructed along
from the bridge over
less traffic,
the Denali.
and the
Spawning
the Gulkana River in
A photographer or hiker may also be interested in the historic
sites near the road. The Tangle Lakes Archeological District is
entered on the National Register of Historic Places. Some of the
artifacts there are among the oldest found in Alaska, and the
area may contain evidence of essentially continuous human use for
about 10,000 years. Close to the Susitna River is the townsite
of Denali, near which gold was discovered in 1903. Gold mining
continues there today.
Tangle Lakes
Highway of fer
and many of
good fishing
the
for
small streams along the Denali
grayling. The Tangle Lakes are
the headwaters for
River. The Delta
the Delta River, a National Wild and Scenic
River Canoe Trail can be reached from the
...
Tangle Lakes campgrou ~ Acces-s o the Upper Tangi"e Lakes ?-
Wilderness Canoe Trail is from the Tangle River Boat Launch.
There are trails in the area which can be used for recreation.
Examples of such trails include Swede Lake Trail, Landmark Gap
Lake Trail, Roosevelt Lake Trail, and Snodgrass Lake Trail.
Other trails have been used for mining ~urposes. Some trails are
open to off-road vehicle (ORV) use, although the Clearwater
Controlled Use Area prohibits the use of motorized vehicles for
hunting. In some areas, berry picking can be fruitful. BLM
campgrounds are
Several of the
maintained at Brushkana Creek and Tangle Lakes.
lodges offer guide service as well as lodging.
These resources are important not only to the tourists driving
the highway, but to Alaskan residents as well. The Denali Highway
area has been an important hunting location for Alaskan residents
even before the highway was completed. Hunter check stations were
operated by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Alaska Dept.
39
of Fish and Game on the highway beginning in
shows the numbers of hunters counted between
1954. (Table 3
1960 and 1971.)
They
and
that
also recognized the importance of the surrounding habitat
established caribou range stations along the Denali Highway
have been studied since the early 1960's . The attrac-
tiveness of the area for hunters probably stems from several
in t e r r e 1 a ted char act e r is t i c s wh i c h are d up 1 i c a ted by on 1 y a few
other locations in Alaska. First, the area possesses a diversity
of moderately abundant wildlife populations, including moose, _______.,
caribou, grizzly bears, ptarmigan, spruce grouse, waterfowl,
snowshoe hares, and furbearers. Of special importance is a
reasonable opportunity of success for hunters pursuing caribou
from the Nelchina herd. Second, Denali Highway junctions are
located between, and within reasonable driving distances of, the
major population centers of Alaska. Third, a large portion of
the highway is located above timberline, a characteristic which
enhances some aspects of hunting. Fourth, the road seems to have
had 1 i t t 1 e imp a c t on migrations by either car i b o u or moose and
provides the hunter with the opportunity for a relaxed drive (in
part due to low numbers of other vehicles) while serching for a
location to stop and glass the surrounding country side. Fifth,
the 128 mile distance from Paxson to Cantwell and accompanying
spur trails, rivers, and lakes can accommodate a relatively large
number of hunters using a variety of equipment, thereby mini-
mizing competition among them. Sixth, the location is ideal for
family outings because of the presence and the variety of game as
well as berries and fish provide a broad spectrum of outdoor
activities.
40
Table 3. ADF&G Denali Highway hunter check station results, 1960-71 .
• ._
,. I
-Er
II
r ... t
1-
tf
I I • -•
. .. ._
... a J ., ~-'~I
I
·-
~ ..
--I
--,.--
~ . .
~
... ...
... -
Year
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
19 71
I -I
I -
L
I -. -
I
I
:L.im -.... ------IIH t. .. --~ -__,._ __ --· .. '\,.~_--
~·-I . --, -4 ! ---... --· -~ -------...
I'll r J
Dates of Operation Number of hunters
8/20-10/03 ..... • 18 92 ------8/20-10/05 -... 3694 -. .--.. -~~~~ -
8/12-10/21 ...-... ,. 5271 .. -• • ~
• 8/17-10/28 ... 4814
19 •r-~·
8/12-10/12 • ..__I~--.. -5052
8/14-10/10 3088
8/15-10/10 2799
8/14-10/09 .u ----2977
8/10-10/02 .,. ........ -3238
II
8/10-10/13 • • 4029
rl
8/10-10/02 --2176 •
8/10-09/23 3247 -------... ---
~ I ---L -.....
!' -I ... --
-1-I ... -
r .----
... --
41
J
....
--
~ --
I I
Although hunting and other recreational interests are usually
biologically compatible, the two different types of users are
frequently intolerant of each other. In situations where the
two different
do occur and
user groups co me in f r e que n t co n t a c t con f 1 i c t s
managers have usually responded by restricting
need not always be the case however, as Canadian hunters. This
Park authorities have demonstrated by excluding non-hunters
from portions of their Parks during open hunting seasons.
Regardless of whether or not a scenic highway designation is
made, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plans to enhance
recreational resources along the Denali Highway. In its 1980
Management Framework Plan (MFP), which covers the Denali area,
BLM outlines its management approach for the next 10 years.
Included in the MFP are the following projects:
...... --
a. develop water trails in addition to those already
completed, Maclaren River to Susitna River to Tyone
River to Lake Louise;
h. rehabilitate campgrounds at Tangle Lakes and Brushkana
Creek; • 0 I •
c. develop three-family-unit waysides every 10 miles along
Denali Highway;
d. develop 10-unit family campgrounds near the Clearwater
River; • ••
e. develop an interpretive program using the Denali High-
way Information Plan as the base study. The Denali
Highway Information Plan was prepared by the Colorado
State University in 1976. It discusses information
signs, pamphlet programs, visitor information centers,
and interpretive pullouts (e.g., for geologic points of
interest such as eskers or a melting pingo, for
wildlife viewpoints and scenic viewpoints, for identi-
fication, and for education);
42
I
-
r:i'
-... -
-
•
11
I
I
I ..
... ..
-
.-..
..
f. develop or maintain foot trails for extended hikes or
day hikes, e.g., Tangle Lakes Campground to Sourdough
Campground, Tangle Lakes Campground to Cantwell via
historic route, Denali Highway north along Maclaren
-g •
River, and Denali Highway along Brushkana
intersect Cantwell trail; and
develop winter-use trails out of Paxson.
Creek
. •
•
to
•
Implementation of any of these projects is subject to funding
levels. • • _ .. _ • •
The outstanding scenic resources of the area were recognized in
the Management Framework Plan (MFP). Specifically, the Sugarloaf
Mountains, the Talkeetna Mountains, the Alaska Range, the
Maclaren River, the Clearwater River, and the Monahan Flats were
identified as highly scenic. As such, these areas should be
managed in accordance with BLM guidelines J which suggest that
"changes in any of the basic elements (form, line, color and
texture) caused by proposed
the characteristic landscape.
not attract attention."
Other Considerations .. '
I -
activities should not be evident in
A contrast may be seen, but should
•
Of significance are Alaska Power Authority's (APA) plans for
development of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Present plans
call for the construction of the Watana Dam first, and later
another dam at Devil's canyon, both on the Susitna River.
Proposed access to these sites is via the Denali Highway at a
point approximately 21 miles east of Cantwell on Federal public
land, where APA proposes construction of an access road south to
the Watana Dam site. This road would be of approximately the
same width and quality as the Denali Highway. Additionally, APA
proposes the construction of a temporary (20 years) overhead 150
KV transmission line. The exact location of this line is not
43
•
._
~
II
II
II
-
known; however, location within the viewshed of the Denali
Highway could have a significant effect on existing scenic
quality. Additionally, upgrading of the Denali Highway from
Cantwell east approximately 21 miles to the junction of the
proposed Watana Dam access road is planned. Another APA project,
the Fairbanks-Anchorage intertie (a power transmission project),
is proposed to cross the west end of the Denali Highway on
,~rivate Native Corporation owned lands. ._ •
• In a letter dated December 21, 1982, the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities reported that they have:
• ·----
several proposals to upgrade the Denali Highway. These
include reconstruction £!:_ rehabilitation possibly with paving
or without paving. There are many variables and factors
involved in establishing any definitive plans or time schedule
for this work. The only preparations to date are the comple-
tion of a Location Study Report and Environmental Assess~nt
evaluating reconstruction of the Denali Highway including
recommendations; and preliminary engineering work for recon-
struction of the Denali Highway from the Parks Highway to
Seattle Creek. At this time we haven't decided whether or not
to pave the Parks-Seattle Creek segment. It is entirely
possible that we would reconstruct only certain segments of
the highway and rehabilitate others or rehabilitate a section
and postpone its reconstruction. Again, traffic forecasts,
costs and other factors will influence our ultimate decisions.
I
--
Even with the upgrading, the State is not, at this time,
proposing year-round (winter) maintenance. The State has a
300-foot right-of-way along most of the Denali Highway, and the
vast majority of realignments and other upgrading would take
place within the existing right-of-way. --
The effect of the State's plans on the resources along the Denali
Highway is unknown. The State projects a 4 per...:_e ~ per year
increase in traffic along the route through 1985 and 3 percent
per year thereafter through 2005. Wh e the r a s c e n i c h i g h way
designation will cause greater rates of increase in traffic
volume is not known, but is generally assumed.
1-__ II
44 I
1-1-
I
-------------
• I i
• •
•
•
I
II
II
I
Commercial land use is at present very limited on the Denali
Highway, and consists of the various lodges along the route and a
few active mining claims, the most notable of which are at Valdez
Creek and the old townsite of Denali near Milepost 79. Should
the Denali Highway become the access route for construction of
the Watana Dam, then commercial traffic will increase
dramatically on the portion of the highway east of Cantwell
approximately 20 miles. ... ___ ..
Active mining occurs not only around the old townsite of Denali,
but also elsewhere along the road, as much of the area is minera-
lized. Major metallic minerals are gold, molybdenum, and copper.
Other minerals in the area are platinum, nickel, and chromium.
As mentioned earlier, it is likely that the traveler will see
wildlife from the Denali Highway, and the area is used by local
hunters and those from Anchorage and Fairbanks. There is concern
that an increase in traffic which may accompany an upgrading of
the road and scenic highway designation may cause the Ne lch ina
caribou herd to avoid parts of their present range.
Unfortunately, there is no data which will allow prediction of
the effect a scenic highway designat~will have on traffic
levels, but it is generally thought that an upgrading of the road
would have a greater effect on traffic levels than designation
alone. I .. -
As with the other highway segments the entire range of alter-
natives for a scenic highway were considered under the "designa-
tion" alternative.
Regardless of which alternative Congress may choose pursuant to
sect ion 1311 of ANILCA, there is recognized need in Alaska to
manage the outstanding resource values found along the 135 mile
Denali Highway. A cooperative planning effort is being
undertaken within Alaska to coordinate land use plans and
concerns within various Federal, State, local and private
agencies.
45
•
I
--
I
ALTERNATIVES
Alterhatlve ·t -No designation.
Alte rnatlve '2-Designation
The cost associated with this Alternative 1upgraaln g ~the 'hlghway
without · pavlhg) is $88,000,000. This cost is for reconstruction
to a safe and modern standard without paving.
approximately $20,000,000 to this figure.
Paving would add
PREFE RRE D'ALTE RNATIVE 'AND'RATIONALE I ...
II
Alternatlve·t No Designation
The Study Team concluded that a "no designation" alternative was
segment of the study corridor fof\Yth'e
~
( most desirable for
~,o l ~dwi ng reasons:
this
1 • Cooperatlve-Hahagefueht -The Study Team felt that under the
auspices and direction of the Alaska Land Use Council (ALUC)
the existing land manager along ~he Denali Highway should
consolidate their planning and management efforts so that
common concerns and goals are attained (See Page 19). It
was felt that the direction for this effort could be
coordinated by the ALUC and would be more desirable than
a Federal designation along this route.
2. Exlsl:lh~( Autnc>rlt)r -As with the other highways within the
study corrodor, there is existing State authority to manage
the right of way with consideration of scenic and recrea-
tiona 1 values without a Federal designation. Further, the
major land manager of the lands adjacent to this highway,
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has completed management
plans which recognize the need to manage their lands for
46
I
I, : l
~ I
II
3.
their scenic and recreational values. The cooperative
management approach, discussed above, would then consoli-
date their management planning with these of the State and
other adjacent land owners to achieve a common objective.
Puollc -concern. There has be en overwhelming pub 1 ic op po-
sition to the creation of a Federal Scenic Highway System
in Alaska (See Appendix B).
~*-X:-
The Study Group was not unanimous in this recommendation. In a
letter received on February 14, 1983, Ahtna Incorporated's
position was set forth. That letter is as follows:
_,. __ ......... -It is Ahtna, Incorporated position that there is a need
to designate a Federally recognized scenic highway link
between Denali National Park and Wrangell-St. Elias
National Park.
Ahtna recommends that the Denali Highway be designated
a modified scenic highway that would take into consid-
eration commercial use while at the same time providing
for the up grading of the Denali to a primary highway
that could be used extensively during the summer months
for tourism and recreational travel. We recommend that
the Denali Highway be realigned and pa v ed to Federal
highway standards at the earliest possible date.
Areas that have high scenic value could be identified
and protected through a procedure that considers the
views of all the land holders in the area. We feel
that developed areas could continue their operations
without further government intervention and regula-
tions.
Ahtna recommends that the State designate the highways
between Paxson and McCarthy as a scenic State Highway
without adding any additional regulations on adjacent
land owners or hinder State ability to upgrade the road
system.
4 7
-
-
McCARTHY -ROAD
Lana · stal:us
The McCarthy Road is 63 miles long and connects the small towns
of Chitina and McCarthy. Approximately 3 3 miles of the road
cross Native Corporation owned land, 20 miles cross State land, 3
miles cross private lands, and about 7 miles cross National Park
Service lands. With the exception of the westernmost mile, the
entire road is within the external boundary of the Wrangell-St.
Elias National Park and Preserve (Map #6, Table 1). The
amount of
the route
land administered by the National
could increase significantly if
Park Service along
a proposed State of
Alaska I Nat iona 1 Park Service land exchange is consummated. A
block of land between Long Lake and the Kennecott River along
approximately 12 miles of the road would be affected.
The road for the most part follows the old Copper River and
Northwestern Railway Company right-of-way.· This right-of-way was
granted in the early 1900's. The railroad was built to haul
supplies to and copper ore from the Kennecott copper mines near
McCarthy to the ice-free port at Cordova. The State claims
ownership of this right-of-way by virtue of a quit-claim deed
from the u.s. Department of Commerce to the State of Alaska
pursuant to the Alaska Omnibus Act (PL 86-70).
Future land use, to a large extent, will depend upon the land-use
plans adopted by the State of Alaska, the various Native Corpora-
tions and the National Park Service. The area is not within any
organized borough or other local governmental unit; therefore,
local governmental land-use controls are non-existent.
48
.. II
~I
•
-•
l
'I "'I
·-
----/lA
•
;:!'-; .. A \i.~
DENALI NAT IONAL
PARK
l
To
Glennallen
Richardson
Highway
Chitina
(To
tVa 1 dez
LEGEND
•· Federal Public Land
I Native Corporation Land
r State Land
-Other Private Land
See page 11, Land St atus
for more info r mation
~i~~lt'&:fw., ~,.J.
~'1/I'AfV.I. McCarthy ~~ .~ p~I.I.L ... ·PP~IIIA: {• I 77f~::~
I
Federa 1
Public
Land
Map 6 . McCarthy Road Land Status
49
--
National Park Service planning could have a significant effect on
the use of the McCarthy Road even though the road crosses very
little Park land. The majority of the land outside the study
corridor is administered by the Park Service; thus, off-corridor
development and use will be controlled by the Park Service. This
adjacent land use and planning will no doubt affect land use
within the study corridor. The Park Service land-use plan for
the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve is presently
being drafted. The Park Service representatives on the Study
Group have indicated that a Scenic Highway Designation would have
little impact upon the Park.
•=-• •
Scenic and Recreational Resources
The following description of the scenic resources of the McCarthy
Road is taken directly from the draft of the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources report quoted earlier. That draft suggested
the road be called the McCarthy Wild and Historic Road, and
consequently, that title appears in the following description.
-~·-
Along the road between Chitina and McCar-
thy seen ic resource values are quite
variable. The most dramatic views and
experiences tend to be concentrated near •
the two ends around the Copper and
Chitina Rivers at the west end and the
McCarthy-Kennicott area at the east end.
There are several highlights in between -
particularly the Kuskulana Bridge and
gorge, the Gilahina railroad trestle and
Long Lake area. However, for the most
part the landscape visible from the road
between Chitina and McCarthy is typical of
that found a long major river valleys in
south cent r a 1 A 1 as ka . T h is is , to a 1 a r g e
extent, the result of the position of the
road in the landscape. It follows upper
terraces on the north side of the Chitina
River valley, through dense, predominantly
spruce-hardwood forest. This location
limits good views to the Chitina River
itself and to the higher Wrangell Moun-
tains to the north and east, which are
either too distant or hidden by nearby
lower mountains.
50
.,c
n
I
•
..
In spite of this the McCarthy Wild and
Historic Road does provide a visually
interesting and, at times, memorable
experience due to a combination of factors
which enhance and complement the inherent
visual opportunities within the landscape.
First there is the spatial definition.
The road, in passing through the predomi-
nantly dense forest landcover offers an
interesting range of spatial experiences -
from "tunnels" created by unmaintained
roadside vegetation completely enclosing
the road, to places wheE.!!-f natural and
man-made openings offer opportunities for
pa no ramie views, to numerous places where
variations between these two extremes
exist.
Second, the character of the road is a
source of interest. It is narrow, gen-
erally unmaintained, with small bridges,
potholes, wet spots and drainage channels
c r ossing its surface. These tend to slow
the traveler and are a constant focus of
attention. The road is in many ways a
challenge to drive, creating a unique
experience not found on many other
commonly traveled roads.
Third, land use and development adds to
the visual interest. Since the scenery is
oftentimes not particularly distinctive,
the land uses along the road become an
important addition, either opening up
distant views across their clearings or by
calling attention to picturesque
homesteads or to remnants of the bygone
railroad era. The railroad features are
of special significance and visual
interest even though some are being
removed and the remainder are
deteriorating or becoming overgrown with
vegetation and are not highly visible.
Fourth, there is a sense of destination
associated with this road. Most people
drive it to get to the McCarthy-Kennicott
area, not to pause and spend time along
the way. Thus there is a real sense of
anticipation and a greater emphasis on the
destination rather than the experience of
getting there. f While all roads to a
certain degr ~ instill this feeling of
destination it is particularly strong
along this one because there are few
intermediate stops.
.51
These four conditions-spatial definition,
road character, land use, and sense of
destination-work together to make this 63
mile long road visually and experientially
rich.
There are few developed recreational resources along the road. ~ .
The photographer will find the scenic resources of interest and
the railroad buff or historian will be interested in what remains
from the Copper River and Northwestern Railroad. Sculpin, Van
and Strelna Lakes are stocked with rainbow trout and coho salmon,
and, of course, the Copper River provides several runs of salmon.
Other streams have low productions of Dolly Varden, grayling and
salmon. Long Lake has grayling, rainbow/steelhead, whitefish,
burbot, Dolly Varden, Lake trout, red and coho salmon. Long Lake
produces an escapement of 4 to 46,000 red salmon annually with an
estimated equal number caught in the commercial fishery.
Campsites are available at one or more lodges along the route.
The McCarthy Road has never had the abundance of wildlife that is
present along the Denali Highway . Major wildlife species include
moose, brown and grizzly bear, black bear, spruce grouse, hares,
and furbearers. Sheep and goats are located in nearby mountains
but are rarely seen from the road itself. During 1981 18 moose
I hunters reported hunting on the McCarthy Road killing 7 moose.
-.1
These figures no doubt underestimate the numbers of moose hunters
(no hunter check stations have been operated) but in relative
importance, the McCarthy road is not as important for moose
hunting area as many other areas in Alaska except of course to
local hunters. During some years, snowshoe hare populations have
been quite high on the McCarthy road whil.e other more northerly
hare populations have already crashed. During those years a
relatively large number of snowshoe hare hunters may travel to
the McCarthy Road, but this phenomenon cannot be expected to
re-occur more often than every 9 to 10 years. The McCarthy Road
does offer transportation to the McCarthy airstrip where fly-in
hunters for sheep, goat, brown/ grizzly bear, black bear and
bison depart for the remote parts of the Wrangell-St. Elias
Preserve.
52
-
..
... •
• -
•
.___,
•
•
• ...
•
Other Considerations --. -
I • ----...
The McCarthy Road is in extremely poor condition. Road main -
tenance at present is minimal. Be that as it may, the McCarthy
Road is the only vehicular access to the town of McCarthy and to
numerous private residences along the road . It carries a certain
amount of traffic in spite of the fact that the Kennecott River
immediately west of town can only be crossed by use of a hand -
cable tram because the two bridges have washed away and have not
been replaced. -
For the McCarthy Road to remain eligible for Federal-Aid Highway
•
• -
• r
money, it must retain its status as a 11 major}collector." Unlike ~
the Denali Highway, the McCarthy Road is cons ide red an "uncon -
•
structed" road. Therefore, if the State classifies the road as a
"major collector", (the State is currently revising its func-
tional classification system), it must commit to construct the
road as a secondary route. Construction to secondary standard s
would certainly change the seen ic and re c rea t io nal experiences
the road now offers. Improving the
surf ace and bridges may be considered
quality of the driving
a beneficial change by
• some, but not others. The consultant working on the DNR scenic
resources inventory judged that making significant changes in the
road, such as drastically altering the alignment or significantly
widening the road and clearing vegetation, could have a negative
impact on the scenic values and the recreational experience of -driving the road. Cons true tion and ma intena nee as a secondary
highway would almost certainly increase traf f ic on the road.
The McCarthy area is a highly mineralized area, as evidenced by
the Kennecott Copper Mine (now inactive) and nume rous g old mines .
Nearer to Chitina is a mineralized area containing chromium,
nickel, copper and platinum. There are no large scale mining
operations at present. The known remaining copper deposits are
generally high quality-low quantity or high quantity-low quality.
There is low probability of another Kennecott. In general, the
I ,
53 I
I
L
...
•
-
i: ---
l
,,.....
...
other mineral deposits around McCarthy are small and well
scattered. However, as ~price of these minerals rises, so
does the likelihood that mining claims will be more strongly
exploited.
... I -· J
...
There is very limited grazing or farming in the area due to the
nature of
potentially
the
be
soil
of
and climate. Some
commercial quality.
of
The
the forest
impacts of
may
any
harvesting are unknown, but heavy truck traffic would affect the
condition of the road.
A Scenic Highway designation should not interfere with the
operation or management of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park
and Preserve. Planning for the Park is ongoing, and the
wilderness areas of the Park are away from the road. If at some
future time the National Park Service were to select a primary
entrance and develop a visitor facility inside the Park, a Scenic
Highway designation on the McCarthy Road may influence that
decision . ........... ...
Finally, if a scenic highway designation causes traffic on the
road to increase significantly, it will negatively impact the
seclusion sought by many of those now living there.
As with the other highway segments the entire range of alter-
natives for a scenic highway were considered under the "designa-
tion" alternative.
-I ...
Regardless of which alternative Congress may choose pursuant to
section 1311 of ANILCA, there is a recognized need in Alaska to
manage the outstanding historic resource valu e s found along the
63 mile McCarthy Ro ~ A cooperative planning effort is being
undertaken within Alaska to coordinate land use plans and
concerns with in various Federal, State, local and private
agencies.
54
•
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative ·t -No designation.
Alternative ·z -Designation.
The cost associated with this alternative is $45,000,000 in 1985
dollars. It is an estimate for construction to a safe and modern
standard without paving, and includes replacement of deficient
y
bridges.
PREFERRED 'ALTERNATIVE '&'RATIONALE I I
No Designation. --
tt--.~------
•
The Study Group unanimously agreed that the McCarthy Road should
not be recommended as a National Scenic Highway for the following
reasons:
1i. Lana · Owners nip -while almost entirely with in the external
boundaries of Wrangel-St. Elias National Park, the ownership
of the lands immediately adjacent to the road (See Table 1
and Map 6) are, infact, predominately non-Federal.
2.
3.
Exlst1ng·AutnorltY-From a Federal perspective the National
Park Service (NPS) has the authority and is mandated by law
to manage this park as a wilderness park. As such}it is the
intent of the NPS to manage the park lands adjacent to the
McCarthy Road for their natural scenic and recreational
values. Further, the State of Alaska has existing authority
to manage the road and its right-of-way as they so choose.
cooperatlve -Hanagefuefit
highway corridors in
As
their
is the case with the other
study, an effort to initiate
cooperative managment of this highway segment among
55
-
-
4.
various land managers is underway. It was felt by the Study
Group that this method of interagency, cooperative planning
and management could enhance the scenic and recreational
opportunities along these routes without a requirement of
a formal Federal designation. The effort should be direct-
ed, it was felt, under the auspices of the Alaska Land Use
Council.
Publlc -cotntnent During numerous public meetings held in
communities adjacent to the study corridor, there was over-
whelming public opposition to creation of a National Scenic
Highway System in Alaska (See Appendix B).
It is, therefore, the unanimous recommendation of the Study Group
that the McCarthy Road not be designated a National Scenic
Highway.
•
so
...
•
..
...
..
I
...
• ... • •
•• J'. •
•
•
• • I
•
•
....
-t ..
-.. ..1. I --, -• --,_ .. _ .,..----
•
... I
---
-11
L ,.1
-· ... _ _.
... -----......a.
---· --... -•
-n
--
_ .. .. "
.... L II •• Ill ~ -t r-.~~-.. :-... _ • • •• ... ... --•
-
I
.....
. --...
'll ... -r-. APPENDIXES
I· ....-.-.. ... .. -~ , .. . _..... ._ -
• I -a ,.... I _....,...""'
,... . I: --...• .... -----_:_ _I
• • -
..-·--.......,.. ----------...r--~--
.... N -·~ ....... _ _..~------.. ---·--•~--"·· •4 I I lli1 ::we ,.-• .Ill
~--.
•
• I •-
•
• • •
• •
D
I -
• •••• ·-· •
I
I
• r-----
... •
~-~...I --
~-I::
-i I r ...
....... L ----L ..L• ...
• t I • ,
...
I
II
.. ... . ,., ., __
-..
-...
--..... ---.... ..
J
I
...
-·
-
--_ .. ---I • ---... -----. ---•
~ .... ___________________ _
.. .
. ., ------
....____ ----------------.. --------
I-' .
•
·-
... ----
-..
• ---
II
•
r------~ -_---... _ .... ___ _ ---------------57
---..c
--
•
-
:...rr
APPENDIX A
BIBLIOGRAPHY
lr ~
Dessauer, P.F.; Harvey, D.W. An historical resource study of the Valdez creek
mining district, Alaska--1977 (J.L. Beck, editor). Anchorage, AK:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Anchorage District Office; 1980; WICHE report No. 24610 •
Joues and Jones. Scenic and recreational highway study, prepared for the
Legislative Transportation Committee. Olympia, WA: State of
Washington; 1974.
Jones -. and Jones. An inventory and evaluation of the environmental, aesthetic
and recreational resources of the Upper Susitna River, Alaska, final
report. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska
District; 1975; Contract No. DACW85-74-C-0057.
Logsdon, . ;:-.
• •
C.L., et al. Copper River -Wrangells socioeconomic overview.
Report prepared by the Institute of Social and Economic Research of
the University of Alaska for the U.S. Forest Service. Alaska: U.S •
Department of Agriculture with the University of Alaska; circa
1976.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Background report, comprehensive plan, Matanuska-
Palmer, AK: 1978. Susitna Borough.
Milepost, The Anchorage, AK: Alaska Northwest Publishing Company; 1982.
Miller, W.D.; Auberman, R.; Fletcher, R.C. The Denali Highway information
plan for the Bureau of Land Management. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado
State University; 1976.
Pragne ll, R.C. Scenic road: A basis for its planning, design and management.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service;
1970; Engineering Technical Report ETR-770Q-2.
Shane, B.A. et al . The Wrangell Mountains: Toward an environmental plan.
State of
State of
Santa Cruz, CA: University of California Environmental Studies
Of fice; 1973.
Alaska, Department
Visitor Industry:
Enterprise; 1978.
of Commerce and Economic Development. Alaska
A summary. Juneau, AK: Division of Economic
Alaska, Department of
Resource bibliography,
Natural Resources. Susitna River basin:
1977. Supplement by Davy Lockhart, 1979.
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. Susitna basin land use /
recreation atlas. Anchorage, AK: Division of Research and
Development; 1980.
58
•
•• •
•
•
•
'I
II
•
•
•
•
..
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. Scenic Resources along the
Parks Highway. Anchorage, AK: Division of Research and Development,
Land and Resource Planning Section; 1981.
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. Denali to Wrangell-St.
Elias: assessment and management of scenic resources along the
highways between Denali and Wrangell-St. Elias National Parks,
prepared by D.L. Kuklok et al. for Alaska Department of Natural
Resources. Anchorage, AK: 1982a. Unpublished draft supplied by
Alaska DNR.
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. Final report: Roadside
recreational facilities study, Richardson Highway-M82.6 to Ml85. 5.
Anchorage, AK: Alaska Department of Natural Resources; 1982b; No.
cc 10-0901.
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. Land use issues and preli-
minary resource inventory: Vol. 1 of 2, planning background report.
Ma tanuska-Susitna--Beluga Cooperative Planning Program; 1982c .
State of Alaska; Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska.
Alaska regional profiles, Vol. 1, Southcentral region; edited by
Lydia Selkregg. Anchorage, AK: State of Alaska; 1974.
State of Alaska, Department of Transportation. Location study report,
Cantwell to Paxson, Denali Highway. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Depart-
ment of Transportation, Interior Region Reconnaissance Section;
1981; Project RS-0750(1)
State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Six year
transportation improvement program, fiscal years 1983 1988,
Assembled by Statewide Policy Section Southeast Region, Planning and
Programming. Alaska: Alaska Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities; 1982a.
State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
tion of highway and maintenance costs. Fairbanks, AK:
Compila-
1982b;
Report No. AK-RD-82-16.
State of Arizona, Department of Transportation. Guidelines for the establish-
ment of parkways and historical and scenic roads (Draft). Roadside
Development Services, Highway Division.
State of California, Department of Public Works .
for the official designation of
Sacramento, CA: 1970; 81219-500-11-70.
The scenic route: A guide
eligible scenic highways.
State of Nebraska, the Board of Public Roads. Procedures for classifications
and standards; Minimum design standards. Lincoln, NE: 1981.
State of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation and Department of Environ-
mental Resources. Guidelines to improve the aesthetic quality of
roads in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA: State of Pennsylvania;
1978.
59
State of Tennessee, Department of Transportation. Tennessee parkway plan.
Nashville, TN: Tennessee Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Planning and Development; 1982.
State of Vermont. Designating Scenic Roads: A Vermont field guide.
u.s.
Montpelier, VT: Vermont Scenery Preservation Council and Vermont
Transportation Board; 1979.
Department of Agriculture, Forest
location and design of the
Monongahela National Forest,
Service; 1964 July.
Service. Evaluation criteria for the
proposed High land Scenic Highway in
West Virginia. Elkins, WV: Forest
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Talladega Scenic Drive recre-
ation management composite. Montgomery, AL: National Forests in
Alabama; 1968.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
ment, proposed Wrangell Mountains
Washington: GPO; 1973.
Final environmental state-
National Forest, Alaska.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest. Copper River -Wrangells area guide,
preliminary. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Region; 1977.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Final E.I.S., Highland Scenic
Elkins, WV: Forest Service, Highway study. Draft EIS, 1981.
Monongahela National Forest; 1982.
U.S. Department of Commerce. A proposed program for scenic roads and park-
ways. Prepared for the President's Council on Recreation and
Natural Beauty. Washington, DC: GPO; 1966.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Budget. Manual: Scenic roads and
parkways study. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Budget; 1964; No.
41-6454.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Management frame-
work plan: Chitina Valley. (unpublished) Available for reference
at the Anchorage District Office, Bureau of Land Management; 1973.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
resource management plan for
District, first draft; by J. L.
District Office, BLM; 1979.
Land Management. Interim cultural
the Tangle Lakes Archeological
Beck. Anchorage, AK: Anchorage
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Visual resource
management program. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Land Management,
Divison of Recreation and Cultural Resoruces; 1980a; GPO No. 024-
011-00116-6.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Management frame-
work plan: Southcentral planning area. Anchorage, AK: Anchorage
District Office; 1980b. Available at Anchorage District Office,
Bureau of Land Management, 4700 E. 72nd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99507.
60
..
•
• .. •
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. BLM land use plan
for Southcentral Alaska: A summary. Anchorage, AK: Anchorage
District Office, BLM; 1980c.
•
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Draft amendment
to the Southcentral Alaska Land-Use Plan for the Denali/Tiekel
planning blocks. Anchorage, AK: Anchorage District Office; 1982.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Sleeping Bear Dunes:
Scenic road study. Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore,
Michigan: 1977 ..
U.S. Department of Transportation. Manual: National scenic highway study.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; 1974.
U.S. Department of Transportation; State of Alaska Department of Transporta-
tion. Environmental assessment Big Timber to Paxson, mile 129-186,
Richardson Highway. Juneau, AK: Federal Highway Administration;
1982a; Project RF-071-3(4).
U.S. Department of Transportation; State of Alaska Department of Transporta-
tion. Environmental assessment, Cantwell to Paxson, Denali Highway.
Juneau, AK: Federal Highway Administration; 1982b; Project
RS-0750(1).
United States, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Alaska National Interest Lands. Washington, D.C.:
Publication 95-153.
Workshops on
1978; Senate
United States, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Alaska
National Interest Lands. Washington, D.C.: 1979; Senate Report
96-413.
...
• ---
6 1
...
---
• •
~ -· • ~ li ...
.-
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The pub lie invol verne n t process employed in the Denali Scenic
Highway Study was first outlined by a scoping team working under
the auspices and direction of the Alaska Land Use Council (ALUC).
That plan consisted of five basic components:
0
0
0
0
0
inform the public of the study and solicit comments and
questions in an effort to have those concerned parti-
cipate in the project,
analyze and use those comments received,
distribute the draft study report to the public,
conduct formal public hearings to gather comments, and
analyze and respond to those comments in the final
study report.
The f i r s t s t e p , info rm in g the pub 1 i c and r e que s t in g in p u t , w a s
done in conjunction with the Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) and the National Park Ser vice
(NPS). It included printing and distributing an information
brochure and questionnaire, compiling a mailing list, and holding
public meetings in communities along the route. The question-
naires were distributed by, and returned to, the DOT&PF, and the
public meetings were held in association with the DOT&PF's public
meetings for regional planning. A schedule of the meetings held
is in Table B-1. The formal public hearings, to elicit comments
on the draft study and the accompanying environmental statement,
were to be held at Cantwell and Copper Center.
The first series of public meetings showed very strong and wide-
a pre ad opposition to a Federal seen ic highway in any form. The
62
0
" ..
a 11
-I
-
•
overriding feeling expressed by those attending the meetings was
that people fear that a Federal designation will ultimately lead
to land use restrictions and l oss of private properties,
regardless of assurances to the contrary. Therefore, nearly
everyone attending the meetings was very much against the scenic
highway designation . General distrust of the Federal Government
was voiced. A petition was signed by almost 500 people against a
seen ic highway designation be cause "the proposed withdrawal will
cause severe hardships to long time residents, hunters,
fishermen, and campers who love these lands and care for them."
The most vocal, overwhelming rejections of a scenic highway
designation came from the communities of Paxson, Chitina, and
Glennallen. Representatives from Paxson traveled over 150 miles
to an ALUC meeting in Anchorage strictly to voice opposition to
the designation.
• II
There were many questions raised about what effect a scenic --,
highway designation would have. While some voiced the feeling
that their input would have no impact on the final recommendation
and decision most people were anxious to be kept informed and to
have continued input into the study efforts. ,.
Nevertheless, most people recognized a need for better road
maintenance, and agreed that these roads (as well as most roads
in Alaska) are scenic. Also, several lodge owners and workers
indicated that they would welcome more tourism, and that the poor
condition of the Denali Highway was a definite deterrent to
visitors. Others noted a need for more dump facilities and
"cleaning up" after tourists.
The questionnaire which was distributed at the meetings and
mailed out was prepared to determine what people thought a scenic
highway was or should be, and what qualities and impacts people
associated with such a scenic hi g hway. A number of those who
attended the public meetings objected, because many of the
63
•
ques tiona assumed the existence of a scenic highway, and they
expressed the fear that any answer could be interpreted as
support for a designation. It was made clear that they weren't
interested in saying what a national scenic highway should be,
only that they didn't want one. Approximately 350 of the
questionnaires were returned, and while they have not been
analyzed statistically, each one has been read. The following
summarizes the information from the responses.
The most objectionable land use along a scenic highway is a large
scale commercial development such as a shopping center or fac-
tory, whereas small scale commercial developments (e.g. stores,
gas stations or restaurants) are quite acceptable. The Denali
Highway and the McCarthy Road were considered by most to "qualify"
as scenic highways, even though a national designation may be
u nde s ireab le. The Richardson and Edgerton Highways were gene r-
ally considered much less scenic . The majority of respondents
could see both advantages and disadvantages for corridor resi-
dents of a seen ic highway designation, but corridor residents
envisioned threats to their existing lifestyle more often than
they envisioned advantages. For the tourist, a seen ic highway
designation was seen also as having both advantages and disadvan-
tages. About half of the respondents not living in or near the
corridor agreed that long term protection of the significant
qualities or resource values in the corridor would enhance the
experience of tourists, while almost no one from the corridor
agreed with that viewpoint. Nearly half of those 1 i ving in the
corridor added strong comments against a national designation.
As a r e s u 1 t of these f irs t pub 1 i c meet in g s , the pub 1 i c in v o 1 v e-
ment plan was strengthened by scheduling public meetings in the
communities virtually every other month. Public meetings were
also held in Anchorage and Fairbanks. In response to the concern
and questions raised during the first series of public meetings,
a video tape was produced in which the Federal Co-chairman of the
ALUC, the Commissioner of the DOT&PF, the Regional Director of
the NPS, Ahtna's General Manager and others responded to some of
the most commonly asked questions.
64
,.
• • • .... ..
' ,
At more recent public meetings, even though opposition to a
Federal scenic highway still was predominant, some individuals
noted that on Federal lands, such a designation may be preferable
to other decisions (i.e., National Park classification) that
would affect their lifestyle more adversely.
In summary, there was s ignif ica n t opposition to any Federal
designation for the following reasons:
A. ) Basic distrust of the Federal Government
B • ) "National" designations in Alaska have already brought
significant and unwelcomed land use restrictions. -;._
•
~· -r-r • • Ill
.. • .,
... • ... ... II 1.1 -li
•
-.. ~.
---.. ---.. --..-
ft
.... ---.-... '-1-., -
IZ • ~ -• _.. -II a • ... • -. 7 -• • • ...... .... ~· -~ IC -• • II II il ---_._-
II
..
• I -...
• .,
65
r.
1
~~
-1 r Iii
-
Table B-1, Schedule of Public Meetings
DATE PLACE
June 14,1982 Gakona, Alaska
June 1 5 Copper Center
J u ne 15 Glennallen
J u ne 16 Chitina
June 17 Kenny Lake
June 22 Paxson
June 23 Cantwell
June 29 McCarthy
Sept 27 McKinley Park Village
"' October 1 Paxson
October 4 --Glennallen -,._. I
..__
Oc t ober 5 Chitina
October 6 Kenny Lake
October 8 Fairbanks
October 12 McCarthy
November 9 Fairbanks
November 1 1 Anchorage
December 15 Glennallen
December 16 Kenny Lake
February 1 7 t 1983 Talkeetna
March 11 Fairbanks
March 12 Cantwell
March 14 Anchorage
March 16 Glennallen
March 17 Paxson
March 21 Chitina
March 22 Kenny Lake
66
..
APPENDIX C
PUBLIC LAW 96-487-DEC. 2, 1980
8CDnC BIOBW-'Y STUDY
SJIC. 1311. (a) WITBDBAWAL.-8ubject to valid ezisting righta, all 16 usc 8200.
public laDda within 8D area. the centerline of which is the centerline
of the Parka Highwa1 from the entrance to Denali National Park to
the Talksetna junc:tion which ia one hundred and thirty-.ix miles
aouth of Cantwell. the Denali High~een Cantwell and
Paucm, the Rich.ardacm Hiahway and Highway betwa:m
Pauon and Chitina, and the ailtillg road between Chitina and
McCarthy (u thoee highwaya and road are depicted on the official
IDapl of the department of tran.portation of the State of Alaaka) and
the boundariell of which are parallel to the centerline and one mile
distant thm-efi'Olll on either side. are hereby withdrawn from all
forma of entry ar appropriation under the mining laWI and from
operation of the mineral leasing laWI of the United States. Nothing in
thia aec:tion shall be ccmst:rued to preclude minor road realignment,
miDor road improvement, or the extraction of gravel for such pur-h::n. from lands withdrawn or affected by the study mandated
(b) SnmY.-During the three-year period beginning on the date of
enac:tment of thia Act, the Secretary shall study the desirability of
establiahiDg a Denali Scenic Highway to consist of all or part of the
laDda d8ICribed in subeeetion (a) of thia aec:tion. In conducting the
studiee, the Secretary, through a study team which includes repre-
eentativea of the Secretary of Transportation, the National Park
Senice, the Bureau of Land Management, the State, and of each
Regional Corporation. within whose area of operation the Janda
delc:ribed in sublection (a) are located. shall consider the scenic and
recreational values of the lands withdrawn under this section, the
importance of providing protecti9Jl to those values. the desirability of
providing a symbolic and actual physical connection between the
national parka in lOUth central Alaska, and the aesirability of
enhancing the aperiem:e of peraons traveling between. those parks
by motor vehicles. Memberw of the study team who aie not Federal
employees shall receive from the Secretary per diem (in lieu of
apenaee) and travel allowaDc8ll at tbe·rates provided for employees
of the Bureau oflDdiaD·Affairs in Alaaka in grade GS-15.
(c) CooPD.ATIOM Nom:z Hz.uuNoa.-In conducting the studies
required by tiWI aection. the Secretary shall cooperate with the State
and shall couu1t with each Village Corporation within whoee area of
operation Janda deecribed in thia eection are located and to the
meximum extent practicable with the owner of any lands adjoining
the lands deecribed in subeecticm. (a) concern.ing the desirability of
establiabing a Denali Scenic Highway. The Secretary. through the
National Park Serrica, shall aJ.o give such public notice of the study
u he deems appropriate, incl~ at least publication in. a newa-
papei' or newspapers having general circulation in the area or areas
of the l8Dda deecribed in subeec:tion (a)r and shall hold a public
hearing or hearinp at. one or more locations convenient to the areas
aftected.
(d) RKPOBT.-Within three yean after the date of enactment of thia
Act, the Secretary shall report to the President the results of the
studiacarriecl out pursuant to thia section together with hia recom-
mendation u to wbetber the IIC8D.ic highway studied· should be
establiahed and, if hia recommendation ia. to establish the acenic
highway, the 1andl described in aubsection (a) which should be
included therein. Such report ahall include the views and recommen-
dations of all members of the study team. The President shall ad viae
the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House . of
Repreeentatives of hia recommendations and thoee of the Governor of
.Al.aska with respect to creation of the acenic highways, together with
mapa thereof, a definition of boundaries thereof, an estimate of costa,
recommendations on administration, and proposed legislation to
create such a acenic highway, if creation of one ia recommended.
(e) PDioo ow WITHDRAWAL-The lands withdrawn under subsec-
tion (a) af thia section shall remain withdrawn until such time as the
Congresa acts on the President's recommendation, but not to exceed
two years after the recommendation ia transmitted to the Congress.
67
stuay·croup
Wayne Boden
Chuck Budge
Chuck Chappell
Robert Venusti
Reed Stoops
Sterling Eide
Charles Hubbard
Martin Finnesand
Herbert Smelcer
Mac Stevens
Cary Brown
Joan Gidlund
Charles Howard
John Martin
Dave Watsjold
Al Meiners
Bill Beaty
Lee Adler
APPENDIX 'D
STUDY ' ORGANIZATION
-U.S. Bureau of Land Management ( Chairman)
-National Park Service
-Federal Highway Administration
-Alaska Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities
-Alaska Department of Natural Resources
-Alaska Department of Fish and Game
-Cantwell Shareholder Association
-Chitnia Native Corporation
-Athna, Inc.
-Matanuska-Susitna Borough
-u.s. Bureau of Land Management
Leader)
-National Park Service
-Federal Highway Administration
(Project
-Alaska Department
Public Facilities
of Transportation and
-Alaska Department of Fish and Game
-Alaska Department of Natural Resources
-Alaska Department of Natural Resources
-Ahtna, Inc.
APPENDIX "E
BOUNDARIES~-ADMINISTRATION~-COSTs;· AND " LEGISLATION
The Act required that the boundaries, the administration, the
cost, and appropriate legislation be provided if a recommendation
was mad e for the designation of a National Scenic Highway.
Since the Study Group has not recommended National designation
the above information is unnecessary and therefore is not
included in this report.
69