HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA3408t'
t
~ •-
~ ' .
. .
I
I •
I '.
j
1.-
. -
L.
...
..
I I
SUSITNA
HYDROELECTRIC .PROJECT
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULA TORY COMMI8110N
PROJECT No. 7114
PHASE II FINAL REPORT
SAMPLE SURVEY AND
PREDICTIVE MODEL REFINEMENT
FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES LOCATED
ALONG THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT LINEAR FEATURES
PREPARED BY
HISTORICAL RESEARCH
ASSOCIATES
UNDER CONTRACT TO
[}{J~WJ~=~rn3~~@
SUSITNA JOINT VENTURE
VOLUME I
FINAL REPORT
JUNE 1888
DOCUMENT No. 3408
I I
L===:===== Alaska Power Authority ========~
SUSI'l'M IIYDROBLBC'ftiC :hOJBC'r
PDSB Il: I'IIIAL RBPOR'I'
~ ..... s-ttna F'ile No. •·•·'
S.IIIPLB SORVft AIID P~IC'I'IVB IIODBL RBI'I._Ift POit
QoL1'0DL R80UaCBS LOCA'I'BD ALORG
'I'D SOSIBA llrDROBLBC!ftiC PllOJBC'I' LXDIIt PBU'UUS
toLtiiB I
Report by
Historical Research Associates
With Coatribatioas froa
Alaska Beritaae Research Group, Inc.
T. Weber Greiaer, Project Maaqer
Sally T. Greiser, Co-Investiaator
Glenn B. Bacon, Co-Investiaator
Daniel F. Gallacher, Project Historian
Tbo.as A. Foor, Predictive Modelina Consultant
J .. es A. Fall, Conaultina Ethnoarapher
Under Contract to
Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture
Prepared for
Alaska Power Authority
Final Report
June 1986
' l
l IIOI"ICB
Aft QOJIS'l'IOIIS OR a.IDiS COMCDIIIWG
ftZ8 RDOft SJIOOLD 8 DlliBCi'BD '1'0
'!liB U.UD POIID AO!BOitlft
SOBrrD PROJBC'f OPnCB
r
[
l
l
l
l
L
l
'
l
1..
' L
l
TABLB OP COHTBR'l'S
Section
Table of Contents •
List of Tables •
List of Pigures •
Acknovledg ... nts
. . . . . . . . . i
• iv
• vi
vii
1. 0 Illl'l"RODUC"riOR • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1-1
2.0
T. Weber Greiser, Historical Research Associates (BRA)
1.1 Project Description •••
1.2 Bnvironaental Setting •••
1. 3 Cultural Chronology • • •
1.4 Model Developaent ••••
1.5 Phase II Data Collection . . .
lllr.rBODS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
T. Weber Greiser, BRA, and Glenn Bacon,
Ala:l& Heritage tt=:Ct'~ce Group, Inc. (APRG>
• •• 1-1
• 1-3
• 1-5
• • 1-10
•••• 1-13
.• • 2-1
2.1 Introduction •••••••••••••••••• 2-1
2.2 Saaple Selection Methods, Modifications, and
Results • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2-2
2.2.1 Tbe Initial sample ••••••••••• 2-2
2.2.2 The Pinal Sample • • • • • • • • • • 2-3
2.2.2.1 Sample Reduction •••••••• 2-4
2.2.2.2 Sample Stratification and Bias • 2-5
2.3 Phase II Field Methods • • • • • • • • • • 2-14
2. 3.1 Field Survey • • • • • • • • • • • • 2-14
2.3.2 Navigation • • • • • • • • • • • 2-17
2.3.2.1 Determining Sample Unit
Locations • • • • • • • • 2-18
2.3.2.2 Determining and Maintaining
Position within Sample Units •• 2-19
2.3.3 Documentation • • • • • • • • • 2-19
2.4 Curation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2-20
2.5 Laboratory Methods • • • • • • • • • 2-21
2.5.1 Prehistoric Artifact Analyses • • 2-21
2.5.2 Prehistoric Data Analysis • • • • • 2-22
2.5.3 Methods for Model Refinement • 2-22
2.5.4 Historic Data Analysis • 2-22
i
"
I'
I
i..
" l
r
._
L
L
'l'ABLB ar CON'l'BR'l'S
Section
3. 0 RBSUL"l'S OP PIBIDMORK
Paqe
•• 3-1
3.1 Introduction • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• 3-1
3.2 saaple Unit Discussion ••••••••••••• 3-2
3.2.1 Linear Peature 1, Anchorage to Willow
'l'ransaission Line • • • • • • • • • • 3-2
3.2.2 Linear Features 2, 3, and 4 • • • • ••• 3-5
3.2.3 Linear Peature 2, Gold Creek-Devil
canyon Railroad • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3-6
3 • 2. 4 Linear Peature 3, Gold Creek-Watana
'l'ransaisaion Line • • • • • • • • • • 3-6
3.2.5 Linear Peatare 4, watana-Devil
Canyon Access Road • • • • • • • • • • • 3-6
3.2.6 Linear Feature 5, Healy to Fairbanks
Transaission Line • • • • • • • • • • • • 3-10
3.2.7 Results of the Sample Survey •• 3-14
3.3 CUltural Resources • • • • • • • • • • •• 3-16
3.3.1 Introduction • • • • • • ••• 3-16
3.3.2 Su.aary of CUltural Resources • • • 3-22
3.4 Ethnographic Interview~ • • • • • • 3-26
4. 0 REPIRIRG "1'8B PREDICTIVE MODEL • • 4-1
4.1 Evaluation of Sample Selection Modification • 4-1
4.2 Evaluation of Survey Data • • • • • • • • 4-6
4. 3 Model Refinement • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4-13
4.3.1 Site Type 1 -Chipping station/
Lithic Scatter • • • • • • • • • • • 4-15
4.3.2 Site Type 3 -Campsite/Temporary
Habitation • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4-17
4.3.3 Site Type 7 -Isolated Stone Tool
or Plake • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4-18
4.3.4 Site Type 21 -Historic Building/
Structure • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4-18
4.3.5 Site Type 27 -Historic Mining Camps
and operations • • • • • • • • • • • 4-21
4.4 Cultural C~ronology and Environmental
Unit Associations • • • • • • • • • • • 4-23
4.4.1 Historic Period • • • • • • • • •• 4-23
4.4.2 Athapaskan Period • • • • • • 4-25
4.4.3 Unknown Chronological Period • 4-26
5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS •• 5-1
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Archeology
Ethnography •
History ••
Statistics • • • •
ii
• • • S-2
• • • • 5-3
•• S-4
• 5-6
[
,.
L
[
r
L
r
I.
1..
....
....
TABLB 07 COIITDTS
section Paqe
6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ARD RBPBRBRCES CITED • • 6-1
6.1
6.2
APPBIIDICES
A
B
c
D
References Cited • • • • •
Sourcu Consulted • • • • •
WLUIIB II
Phase II Saaple Units
Al.O Saaple Unit Legal Descriptions
and Surface OWnership
A2.0 Saaple Unit Barratives and Maps
CUltural Resources
Bl.O Site Harratives
B2.0 Site Poras
B3.0 Isolated Pind Poras
Ethnographic Interviews
Cl.O Narrative Su.aries
C2.0 Interview Transcripts
Pield Manual/Research Design
Introduction
Research Design and Modifi~ation
Standardization of Proc~ares
BRA Archeological Pield Manual
BRA Historic Site Recording Manual
Additional Project-Specific Po~
• 6-1
• • • 6-4
Extracts from BRA's Phase I Linear Features Report
Curation Agreements and Permits
Hi
[J
t
r
r
l
r~
l
[
L
~
..
...
......
LIS'!' OF '!'ABLES
Section-Rwlber
1-1
1-2
2-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
Site 'l'ypes and Strong Positive or Negative
Bnvironaenta1 Unit Associations • • • • • • •
Chronological Periods and Strong Positive or
Regative Bnvironaenta1 Unit Associations
Terrain and Vegetative Unit Key
Saaple Units • • • • • • • • . . . .
Saaple Units Along the ADcborage~illov
Transmission Line • o • o • • • • •
s .. ple Units Along the Gold Creek-Devil
Canyon Railroad • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Saaple Units Along the Gold Creek-Watana
Transmission Line • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Saaple Units Along the watana and
Devil canyon Access Road • • • • • • • • • •
~le un!ta Along the Bea!y-Fairba~~e
ftauai Ilion Line • • • • • • • • • o • •
SU...ry Comparison of Anticipated Versus
Actual surveyability·of Sample Units by
Linear Feature • • • • • • • • • • • o •
CUltural Resource Sites and Isolates
Located during the Phase II Sample Survey
Prehistoric, Bthnohistoric, and Historic Sites
Located During the Phase ii Sample survey
Cultural Resource Sites on or near the
Linear Features Identified through Interviews
with Selected Athapaskans • • • • • •
Acrages of Vegetative Units in the
Sample and Survey Areas • • o • •
Acreages of Terrain Units in tbe
Sample and SUrvey Areas • • o • • •
Rank Proportions of Vegetative Units
in Sample and Survey Areas • o o o o
Rank Proportions of Terrain Units
in Sample and Survey Areas • . • • o • • • o
Recorded Cultural Resource Sites Within and
Adjacent to the Linear Features During the
1985 Linear Features Sample Survey o •
Site 'l'ype Frequency in the Sample Area
Recorded Lithic Isolates Within and
Adjacent to the Linear Features During the
1985 Linear Features Sample Survey • •
iv
1-12
1-13
2-6
2-7
3-4
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-12
3-15
3-17
3-23
3-29
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-7
4-8
4-9
r
,..
l
L
r
!
L
L
..
LIS'! OF TABL -CJ
Cbapter-Rwllber
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-16
4-17
4-18
4-20
4-21
4-22
4-23
CUltural Raeource COilponents Located
Witbin Linear Peaturea o • • o o • o
8~ Cultural Resource Caaponent Data
by Llaear Peature units • o o • o o o • o
Perce~tages of Prebistorlc and Historic . . . . CCllllpooeftts by Linear Feature units
Pba•e Ii Site Types in Relation to
Vegetative Units • o • o • o o • o • • •
Phase II Site Types in Relation to
'.rel'rain Units o o • • o o • o • • • • • •
Site ~ and Strong Positive or Negative
Bnviromaental Unit Associations •••••••
Prehistoric Chipping Station/Lithic Scatters
by Terrain Unit • • • o • • • • • • • • • • •
e..psite~a.porary Habitation by Terrain Unit
Historic BUilding/Structures by Terrain unit •
Biatoric BUi141ng/Sturctures by Vegetative Unit
Sisto~ic Mining Camps and Operations by
Terrain Unit • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
JU.itQJ:ic IUraiD9 c=~~~~ aiid ~i'ations by
Vegetative Unit • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Chronological Perioas and Strong Positive or
Hegative Environmental Unit Associations •
Historic Period Sites by T~rain Unit ••••
Atbapaakan Period Sites by Terrain Unit
Undated Sites by Terrain Unit • • • • • • • •
v
.
'·
Page
4-9
4-10
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-14
4-16
4-18
• 4-20
4-20
4-21
4-22
4-23
4-25
4-26
4-27
LIST OF FIGURBS
Section-....,_.
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-C
1-5
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
Map of the general locations of the Sasitna
Bydroelectric Project Linear Features ••••
Preliminary reconstruction of past climates . . .
11ap of the stu4y area illustrati119 three
subareas: northern, central, and southern . . . .
CUltural chronology, 110dified froa
Bacon et a1. 1983r55 • • • • • • • • • • • •
Appro~i .. te distribution of Tanaina, Ahtna,
and Tanana groups over tbe project area
Physiographic divisions transacted by or
adjacent to the susltna Hydroelectric Project
Linear Peatures • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
aa.ple Units SUrveyed for CUltural Resources
A.l~ Linear Weat~e 1 • • • • • • • • • • •
Sample Units surveyed for CUltural Resources
Along Linear Peatures 2, 3, and 4 • • • • •
Sample Units Surveyed for CUltural Resources
Along Linear Feature 5 • • • • • • • • • • •
vi
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
1-2
1-4
1-6
1-7
1-8
3-3
3-20
3-21
r
,..
L
,. .
....
L
..
l
...
....
Historical Research Associates acknowledqes the support of
the Alaska Power Authority throuqh Barza-Bbasco.Susitna Joint
Venture for fundinq this project, and recoqnhes that staffs ,!
both orqanizations were crucial in its successful ccapletion.
T. Weber Greiser vas Project Manaqer, and Dr. Sally T.
Greiser served as Co-Principal Inveatiqator. Pedestrian field
crews, each under the direct supervision of an experienced, pro-
fessional archeologist and under overall supervision of Glenn
Bacon, CO-Principal Investigator with Alaska Ber itage Research
Group UBM), conducted field reconnaissance between June 14 and
August 8, 1985. The field crew consisted of crew supervisors
Robert Betts, James Enloe, James Ketz (ARM), Richard Taylor, and
Joan Dale, crew members Beidi Adkisson, Andrew Bailey, Robert
Betts, James Bnloe, Roreen Pritl, Kristen Griffin, Robert John-
son, James Leavitt, Rebecca McLain, Rita Miraqlia, Randy Peter-
son, Ti~~hy Sczawinski, Douqlas Stienbarger, Beth Turcy, and
Steve Winker. Kristen Griffen also served as labcratcri/&d=icia~
trative assistant after ccapletion of fieldwork.
several individuals contributed to this report. Appropriate
credits are listed at the beqinninq of each chapter. weber
Greiser and Sally Greiser edited the entire report, and Greqory
Tollefson vas responsible for technical editinq. William Bay
and Mary Ann Burns prepared fiqure illustrations. Brent Eberhard
prepared redrafts of Saaple Unit maps from field data. Report
production was supervised by Pam Cobb, assisted by Patty Murray
and Suzie Grunenfelder •
vii
,..
'
1.0 I~IOB
T. Weber Greiser, Historical Research Associates
1.1 P~ DaCUPriOII
Historical Research Associates OlRA), under contract to
Baraa-Bbaseo Susitna Joint Venture, conducted a two-phase effort
to develop, test, and refine a model for the purpose of pre-
dieting the occurrence and density of cultural resources that may
occur within prescribed corridors for Linear Features associated
with the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The Linear
Features in this effort included: (1) the Anchc.:-~qe-Willow
Transmission Line, (2) the Gold Creek-Devil Canyon Railroad1 (3)
the Gold Creek-Watana Transmission Line, (4) the latana and Devil
canyon Access Road7 and (5) ~he Healy-Fairbanks Trans•4eeion Line
(see Pig. 1-1). The results of the research effort are intended
for use by the Alaska Power Authority (the Authority) as an aid
in design and siting of the Linear Features, and as a planning
tool for the identification of additional cultural resource sur-
vey requirements and the development of potential mitigation
strategies.
Phase I consisted of background research and statistical
analysis necessary for the successful development and field
testing of the predictive model. Detailed results of Phase I
work were provided in the Phase I Report (Backqround Research and
Pre4ictive Model for CUltural Resources Located alonq the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project's Linear Features) <Greiser et al. 1985).
Phase II consisted of field testing the model, comparison of
field results with the initial model, and the development of
necessary adjustments and refinements in the model. This report
briefly describes the methods used, details the results of field-
work, and presents modifications of the model. A thorough review
1-1
r
0 50
(\
j\
1
!tt !! ~ !!!!!!!!!.
C ll Ancbonge-Willov
Trusai .. ioa Une
C Zl ODlcl Cnelc-Devil
CaayGD Railzoad
Cll Gold cneJc-Watana
Tr-.lulGD Uae
141 VataDa • Devil
CanyGD Ac:ce.. Jlcl,
CSJ llaaly-ralmanka
Traasaiaaion Lina • • m Tranaaiuion Line
JL-..~~------l
Figure 1-1. Map of the generai locations of the susitna
Hydroelectric Project Linear Features.
t
of ezisting data and a detailed discussion of model development
are presented in the Phase I Report and will be useful to the
reader who requires aore information. Summary information pro-
vided in this chapter is drawn prim&rily from the Phase I Report.
1.2 avi~AL SBftiE
The susitna Hydroelectric Project is located along the
Susitna River, approximately 140 miles northeast of Anchorage,
Alaska. The general study area transects four physiographic pro-
vinces. These provinces, from south to north, are the Coastal
'!'rough, including the Susitna Basin, the Alaska-Aleutian Pro-
vince, including the Alaska Range, western Alaska, from the
Alaska Range foothills to the Yukon River, including most of the
lower Yukon-lower 'l'anana-Kuskokwim basins, and the periphery of
~ the Northern Plateaus, extending east into Canada from the
Yukon-'l'anana confluence.
The areas descriited are affected by both the Transitional
climatic zone, located south of the Alaska Range, and the Conti-
nental climatic zone to the north. In general, the Transitional
zone bas a wetter, more temperate climate, while the Continental
zone is characterized by extremes in daily and seasonal tempera-
tures and less precipitation.
A preliminary reconstruction of the past climates of
interior Alaska and the associated floral and faunal charac-
teristics were presented by Greiser and others (1985:2-1--2-6)
and are summarized in Figure 1-2. Pollen studies indicate that
the climate of the past 5, 000 to 6,000 years generally has
remained constant, although localized area of neoglaciation have
occurred. Correlating with the relatively stable vegetative
reqime is the basically stable faunal composition and distribu-
tion. It is not until the last 200 years that major modifica-
tions to the faunal populations of interior Alaska occur •
•
1-3
•
Cliaatic Cbaracteriatica
Moder a
!saentially .adern;
Hacrocliaatic trend of
2.000 J.P. Reoalaciation abows
little or ao effect
on local veaetatioo
4 1 000 B.P.-
6.000 B.P.~'
I
!
a.ooo B.P.
10 1 000 B.P.
12.000 B.P. Drier 1 warmer aummera;
increaaed precipitation;
increaaed viater anov
cover
Flora
Esaentially modern
Decline in apruce
Tree line .. ximu•
I
Wide-
1 spread
Do.inaoce of spruce-peat
birch forestl I accu.u-
---------------------latioa Spruce in lowlands I
Abrupt change to mesic shrub
tundra
rauaa .
Essentially madera
-------------------
Di•iaution of
I lef'iE iiii&&il
specie• -.oat
notably bison
Less diversity in
larae ..... 1. due
to extinctions
B.P.·I-~fP!,O!_i_!ll!e_R~l.2,C,!D!_/ __ 1-___ ---_---_--_ --_-_------
Pleiato~ene boundary
14 .ooo
16.000 B.P.
Colder. drier. & more
continental than present;
aprina do•inant ltor ..
Steppe-tundra
Figure 1-2. Preliminary reconstruction of past climates.
1-4
Large mammal• .are
varied than today;
fauna generally
diverae & abundant
1. 3 cor.mML CIII01IOLOCD'
'l'he study area consists of llorthern, central and Southern
subareas (Pig. 1-3>. Prehistory of these subareas is not well
known, but there is better docuaentation about the Northern
subarea than the others. The central subarea has recently been
the focus of a aulti-year cultural resources study carried out as
part of the Suaitna project CDixon et al. 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984,
1985). The prehistory of the Southern subarea is least well
known.
Various chronologies have been suggested for the region that
includes the study area. Despite investigative bias, some agree-
.ant baa been reached among those offering chronologies. It is
generally agreed that the earliest dated evidence of human occu-
pation occurred some 11,000 years ago for interior Alaska north
of the Alaska Range and 2,000 years later south of the Range.
The prehistoric archeology of CeAtral Alaska can be viewed
within the tr&JDework of the environmental characteristics of
three post glacial subperiods: (1) Early Tundra; (2) Barly
Taiga; and (3) Late Taiga. Figure 1-4 provides a chronology
based on this framework. A synthesis of the cultural chronology
of the Susitna project area has recently been published CDixon
1985).
The study area encompasses parts of the territories of three
Athapaskan-speaking groups [the Tanaina (Dena'ina), the Abtna,
and the Tanana] as they existed at the time of European contact
(Pig. 1-5). These three groups have been indentified on the
basis of linquistic similarities and geographic distribution.
Each of the three groups consisted of a continuum of bands
distribtued across a sometimes broad geographical area, who spoke
1-5
Figure 1-3. Map of the study area illustrating three subareas:
northern, central and southern.
1-6
1
Cultural Chronology Period Associated 'l'echnology
Recent Recent
100 B.P. Historic Modern Copper impl ... nts, atemaed
1-----------B atone projectile points,
X flaked end scrapers, bounder
1000 B.P. Athapaskan p cbip tools
a
2000 B.P. n
s Large bifacially chipped
Late '.l'aiga i forma, microlitha, large
0 lanceolatea
n
6000 B.P. Side-notched projectile
Barly 'l'.aiga
0 points, atone end scrapers,
'f elongated atone bifaces,
(shrub tundra boulder chip scrapers, uni-
dominates) '1' facially chipped foras,
8000 B.P. -------
American Paleo-Arcti'c
a notched pebbles, atone axes,
i bammeratones, choppers
g
a
Barly Tundra
(grassland p Stone corea and .tcrobla4ea,
tundra 0 burins, bifacial atone
dominates) r knives, atone end scrapers
e
s U, 000 B. P. t Early Sites? s
Figure 1-4. Cultural chronology, modified from Bacon et al. 1983:55.
1-7
I I
I~
Figure 1-5 Approximate distribution of Tanaina, Ahtna,
and Tanana groups over the project area.
1-8
, ...
siailar laDguages And/or dialects. BmMVer, a local band at
either end of tbe continua 11ay have bad .ore in c~n with
adjacent bands froa a different language group tb.an with spa-
tially separate bands froa their own group. '!'be concept of a
larger socio-political unit above tbe band, such as a tribe, was
lacking at tbe time of white contact.
Differences in resource availability and interactions among
... 11 contiguous bands resulted in tbe establishment of extensive
prehistoric trade systems (Plaskett 1977). At tbe time of Euro-
pean contact, these trade systeas provided a network for tbe
adoption of non-native trade goods and the involvement of native
Alaskans in tbe econoay of tbe fur trade.
Generally 1 tbe three subgroups conform to the Athapaskan
cultural pattern of small, local bands following a scheduled
cycle of seasonal transbuaance to ezploi t a wide variety of
resources. Siailarities in settlement patterns, resource ase
scheduling 1 technology and material culture of tbe Athapaskan
groups in tbe. study area are apparent. Individual band adap-
tations reflect the int!ute relationship between bunter=
gatherers and tbe environaent. Earlier occupants pJ:eswaably
responded to similar environmental influences.
Russian activities in Alaska, beginning in 17tl, and later
European and American incursions, were primarily focused on tbe
resources and native populations of the coastal areas. Prior to
tbe discovery of gold at Turnagain Hrm in 1895, economic activi-
ties were dominated by the fur trade. Mineral exploration
following tbe first discovery brought increasing numbers of non-
natives to interior Alaska. This activity peaked in the study
area between 1900 and 1920.
Since the original mining activity, the white population has
maintained a permanent and slowly growing presence in the
interior. The constraction of the Alaska Railroad <1915-1923)
1-9
provided tbe first reliable transportation assuring continued
viability of Fairbanks and other interior settleaents.
Bnvironaental and cultural overviews <Greiser et al. 1985)
were prepared based on reviews of the literature, existing data
and current research. These overviews provided a fraaework for
.adel developaent and usess.ant.
A series of environaental units were defined for the study
area, based upon physiographic and vegetative characteristics. A
total of 38 Terrain Units, defined as land forms ranging froa
surface occurrences to those evident at depths up to 25 feet,
were identified CACRBS/RlM 198la, 198lb). Nine Vegetative Units,
closely approximating habitat types, were also defined. Abbre-
viated definitions for each Terrain and Vegetative Unit were
plaeed in a key like that for Table 2-1. These previously iden-
tified and mapped units were superimposed on maps for the Linear
Features study area.
Data were accumulated and examined for 476 prehistoric, eth-
nohistoric and historic cases or components at 398 sites. Of
these, 269 were recorded during the University of Alaska Museum's
five-year survey of the Susitna basin. Information on 18 addi-
tional sites came frCiiii a survey of the Authority's Anchoraqe ....
Pairh:an)l:s Intertie (Bacon et al. 1983) • Information on the
reaaininq 111 sites was obtained from the Alaska Heritage Resour-
ces Survey CABRS) files. Site type descriptions were developed
base~ upon these data.
Seven variables were then noted for each of the recorded
sites. These variables included formal topographic association
C~errain Unit, A-); informal/intuitive topographic setting;
general vegetation (Vegetative Unit, C->: site size; distance to
water; site type; and period of occupation.
1-10
:-i
-----~-~--------
llon-.etric factor analysis applied to these data provided
bivarite assqciation of site type to T~rain p~itJ site type to
Vegetative lhlitJ chronological period to Vecjetative UnitJ a.nd
chronological period to Terrain UJli t. 'l'be results of this sta-
tistical analysis provided the predictive models (Tables 1-1 and
l-2). ODly tboee site types, Terrain Units, or Vegetative Units
tbat were detenained to have significant 1»9sitive or neg~tive
associates appear in the .adel. The ra.aiader are a.itted due to
insufficient data in the files.
The study area was then divided into 552 160-~ere Research
Units. Tbe enviroftllental (Terrain and Vegetative) unit totals
were calculated for all of the Research Units. Tbe 110 Research
Units representing the best proportional distribution of the
entire range of Terrain and Vegetative Units were then selected
as a 20t sa-.ple for field testing tbe .adel. Various statistical
analyses were S1Jbsequently gployed to assure tl\a.t the SU.ple
Units were tbe .oat representative.
In order to determine how well the saaple represented kinds
and quantities of environmental units in the project area, pro-
portions of each environmental unit in the sample and the project
area were tabulated. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient
and Pearson's coefficient of correlation were the analytical
tools selected to determine if the sample was representative. In
all tests run, it was determined that the selected sample was
representative of the research a£ea.
1-11
•
~
...
....
lton-.. tric factor analysis applied to these data provided
bi.arite asaaeiation of site type to Terrain pnitJ site type to
Vegetative UnitJ chroaological period to Vecjetat.ive UnitJ and
chronological ~iod to Terrain Unit. The results of this sta-
tistical analysis provided tbe predictive models (Tables 1-1 and
1-2). Only tboae site types, Terrain Units, or Veqetative Units
tb&t were cteterained to have significant ~sitive or neqative
uaociatea appear in tbe mdel. The ra.ainder are Cllitted due to
insufficient data in tbe files.
Tbe study area vas tben divided into 552 160-acre Research
Unitt!. The environaental (Terrain and Vegetative) unit totals
were calculated for all of tbe Research Units. Tbe 110 Research
Units represent!ng tbe best proportional distribution of the
entire range of Terrain and Vegetative Units were tben selected
as a 20t sample for field testing the model. Various statistical
analys• were subsequently eaployed to assure that the saaple
Units were tbe .oat representative.
In order to deteradne bow well tbe sa.ple represented kinds
and quantities of environmental units in tbe project area, pro-
portions of eacb environmental unit in tbe sample and the project
area were tabulated. Tbe Spearman rank correlation coefficient
and Pearson's coefficient of correlation were tbe analytical
tools selected to determine if tbe sample was representative. In
all tests run, it was determined that tbe selected sample was
representative of tbe research area •
1-11
,.
l
r
l
r
l
t
I
l
..
..
'fable 1-1
Site 'fypes and Strong Positive or &egative
Bnviro~ental Onit Associationaa
Sit<t
'fype Association 'ferrain Unit
1
3
Strong Positive
Strong Regative
Stro119 Positive
Strong HfJ9ati ve
AJ, 4, s. 6, 7, 11, 19
Al, 2, 9, 10, 18, 20,
24, 25
Al, 2, a, 10, 14, 29
AS, 18, 25
7 Strong Positive A3, 8
21
23
2t
Strong Positive
Strong Negative
Strong Positive
Strong Regative
suonq Positive
Strong liegative
A2, 9, 21, 25
Al, 4, 8
A9
A9, 18, 24
25 str01'19 Positive A20
27
40
Strong Positive A25
Strong Regative
Strong Positive
Strong Regati ve
Al6, 19
A3, 4
Vegetative Unit
Cl, 6
C4, 5, 8
C2, 3
Cl, 5, 6, 7, 8
cs, 7, 8
Cl, 3, 6
cs
C3, 6
cs, 7
Cl, 6
C4, 5
C6
•strong aescciaticn: or relationships are statistically signifi-
cant at the 0.05 level and indicate a non-random distribution.
Key to Site Types:
l • Chipping station/lithic scatter
3 • ca.psite/temporary habitation
7 • Isolated stone tool or flake
21 • Historic building/strueture
23 • Railroad bridge
1-12
24 • Railroad station
25 • Railroad tunnel
27 • Historic mining camp
or operation
40 • Disturbed/unknown
,.
,..
l • ,
f
l
....
·-
'!'able 1-2
Chronological Periods and Strong Positive or
Regative Bnvirollllenta1 Unit Associations
CbrODologica1
Period Associations 'l'errain Unit Vegetative
Historic
Athapaskan
Unknown
Strong Positive
Strong Begative
Strong Positive
Strong Begative
Stronq Positive
Strong Begative
1.5 PD8B II ~A C~IOII
A9, 18, 20, 21, C4, 5,
24, 25
A3, 4, 6, 8, 14, Cl, 3,
19
A2, 8 C3
Al2, 16, 19, 20, Cl, 2,
25
AS, 12, 19, 29 C1, 2,
A2, 9, 18, 25 C3, 4,
Unit
7, 8
6
8
6 s, 8
Pie1dvork was conducted in 89 of the 110 selected Sample
Units (for an actual sample of 16t) between June 14 and August 8,
1985. Methods eaploye4 during the field effort generally con-
foraed to those described in the Phase I Report. Modifications
to methods presented in the Phase I Report and BRA's field manual
are briefly presented in Chapter 2 of this report.
Site types encountered during the field work included: Cli
Site Type 1, chipping station/lithic scatter; C2> Site Type 5,
cache pitr C3J Site Type 7, isolates: (4) Site Type 21, Historic
building or structure; (5) Site rype 27, Historic mining camp and
operation; C6) Site Type 31, recent military activity; and C7>
Site Type 32, dump/Historic trash scatter. With the exception of
Site Type 32, each of these site types is fully described in the
Phase I Report. Site Type 32, dump/Historic trash scatter,
refers to Historic Euro-American material concentrations or scat-
ters, consist~ng of cans, bottles, stove parts, domestic items,
utilitarian items, etc., which have been discarded or abandoned.
1-13
....
..
..
..
To aid in testing the predictive model, attempts were made
to collect the followin9 types of data for each archeolQCJical
site found durin9 the survey: U> the presence and depth of sub-
surface cultural depoeitsJ (2) the vertical and horizontal extent
of the aiter and (3) the temporal placa.ent and cultural affi-
liation of site COIIPOnents to the extent possible using site
location infor.ation and data obtained in the course of
establiahin9 site si1e and limits.
Chapter 3 of the present report swaariles the results of
~ fieldwork within each Sample Unit, a discussion of the cultural
resources located, and the results of ethnographic interviews
conducted during the field season. Chapter 4 presents refine-
•nta to the predictive .oclel, along with a discussion of the
l
....
changes. Chapter 5 su.aarbes the results of fieldwork and model
refin ... nt and reca..endations for further archeological, ethno-
graphic, and historical research are presented.
The report contains four appendices. Appendix A describes
the 89 surveyed Saaple Units. Appendix B presents detailed
infonaation on cultural resources recorded during fieldwork in
the fora of site narratives, site foraa, and isolated finds
fortiS. Appendix c sua~ari zes information gathered froa oral
interviews and includes interview transcripts. Appendix D pre-
sellts project background information, including the research
design and modification, field manuals, project forms, extracts
from the Phase I report, and copies of permits issued to conduct
the sample survey •
1-14
•
,..
..
.....
...
2.0 ··-
T. Weber Greiaer
Historical Research Associates
Glenn Bacon
Alaska Heritage Resource Group, Xnc.
2.1 Ifi~IOII
The objective of BRA's Phase II saaple survey of the Linear
Features study was to locate the maximum number of sites possible
using a defined aethodology. This chapter reviews methods used
for ••lection and aodification of sample units for the Phase XI
Survey, reviews aodifications of field methods for Phase IIr and
describes the •thods used to analyze field data. All cultural
resource surveys, regardless of transect width, test depth, or
test placement, at best only sample the environment for evidence
of past activities. Xt is not possible to locate all activity
sites, due to factors such as site size and current depth below
surface. For tbis study, the field strategy for transect spacing
and frequency of testing was based on an average site size (400
to 1,000 square meters) obtained during Phase X analysis.
In order to field teRt the predictive model, it was neces-
sary to establish consistent transect intervals and a systematic
pattern of testing within each Sample Unit. With a standard
transect interval, site discovery was dependent upon site size,
artifact density, and visibility. survey methoo.s were refined
during the first 10 days of fieldwork and were standardized to
provide a satisfactory level of survey coverage within the
allotted time. Additional, subjective, testing outside of tbe
systematic testing grid was conducted when investigators felt it
was warranted. In many cases, subjective tests were placed into
small knolls or portions of terraces between transects or between
50 m test points •
2-1
• · 2. 2 8AIIPLB SBLIIC'l'IOII &lBWS, IK)DIPICA'l'IOB • All) IIBSUL'rS
Saaple units were selected from the 552 160-acre research
units identified in Phase I. The Phase I Report provides details
on the identification of these unitsf all of which were within
0.25 aile of the Linear Features' centerlines.
2.2.1 ~• Initial S!!ple
As part of Phase I, a sample of 110 160-acre units, or 20t
of the total, was selected for the field survey. A review of
data gathered duri.ng Phase I, particularly case density infor-
mation, showed that there were insufficient data to allow
weighted simple random sampling within each environmental unit.
The sample selection process wa~ modified to weight environmental
units for selection by their proportionate representa~ion within
the population. Identified envionmental units showing a large
representation in the overall research area wo~ld be 3iadl.aJ:ly
represented in the sample. Those environmental units with very
small proportions along the Linear Features would reflect that in
the sample.
Chapter 6 in the Phase I Report presents environmental data
for the Research Units and the sample Units (Tables 6-1 and 6-2).
That chapter also describes the statistical testing of the corre-
lation between the proportions of acreages for each environmental
unit in the sample and proportions of acreages in the entire
research area. Using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient
and Pearson's coefficient of correlation tests on proportions of
Terrain Units and Vegetative Units within the sample against
those within the research area, it was determined that there was
strong agreement between project area proportions and the sample
proportions.
2-2
r
l
r· 2.2.2 pe Wiaal S!W»le
i
Pinal selection of the areas included in the sample survey
vas based upon thc. ability to acquire the necessary permits and/
or peraission to enter the land for survey purposes. Land
ownership or jurisdiction for the project area included:
(1) private:
(2) State of Alaska,
(3) University of Alaska at Pair banks COAP} ;
(4) u.s. Army;
(5) u.s. Air Force;
(6} OSDI BLM;
(7) Native Corporations;
(8) State leased;
(9} aunicipal; and
(10) borough.
Most of the land in the study area is under the jurisdiction of
the State of Alaska or BLM. Necessary permits issued to BRA to
conduct the Phase II field work included:
(1) State of Alaska Pield Archeology Permit 185-1 for sur-
vey on State of Alaska lands;
C2) u.s. Department of the Interior CUSDI) Bureau of Land
Management CBLM) Cultural Resource Use Permit IAA-55590
for survey on BLM managed or administered lands;
(3) u.s. Department of the Air Porce License No. DACA85-3-
85-31 (acquired by the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers)
for survey on Clear Air Force Station lands;
(4) USDI National Park Service CNPS) Archeological Resour-
ces Protection Act (ARPA) Permit IARPASS-AK-015, issued
by the Departmental Consulting Archeologist (DCA),
washington, D.c. for survey in Clear Mews Air Force
Base; and
2-3
r
f
(51 Cook Inlet Region, Inc. CCIRI> Land Use Permit tl326.1
for survey in Section 33, Township 15 North, Range 4
west, Seward Meridian.
Peraission could not be obtained for a number of Sample
Units along the Bealy-Pairbanks Transmission Line in the Cold
Creek area, and along the Anchorage-Willow Transmission Line.
Mben possible, the units were replaced; when not possible, they
were eliminated as part of the sample reduction discussed below.
2.2.2.1 aa.ple aeaactioa
Of the 110 Sample Units originally select£~, a total of 84
Sample Units were caapletely surveyed and another 5 Sample Units
were partially surveyed. Tbe 89 units sampled <Table 2-lJ repre-
sented 13,760 acres, or 15.61 of the research area defined in
Pb&ee I. ~be ulti=ate survey area t~us remained larger than the
151 minimum sample size specified in the research design.
The reduction in total Sample Units surveyed resulted from
various factors, including: (l) higher than anticipated site
density in some units; (2) reduced surveyability due to adverse
terrain and vegetation conditions; (3) presence of grizzly bears;
and (4) the caabined constraints of time limitations and adverse
weather conditions at the end of the field study period. All
reductions in total sample numbers ~ere approved by Barza-Ebasco
representatives.
The data in Table 2-1 present both Terrain and Vegetative
Unit acreage projected from Phase I research (see Table 6-1,
Phase I report> as well as vegetation acreage calculated during
fieldwork. Investigators recorded gross vegetation in all Sample
Units, while field checking of Terrain Unit observations was not
possible. Observed vegetation appears to be more evenly distri-
buted than anticipated, with some major discrepancies. It should
be noted that field observations by non-biologists might include
miscategorization of Vegetative Units, such as Deciduous forest
2-4
r
CC4) and Mixed forest CCS>, or Coniferous forest <C3> and Dwarf
tree shrub/Tall shrub <C7>, due to the similarity of these vege-
tative types. Therefore, the observations from these two sets of
Vegetative units should be caapared only in combination.
2.2.2.2 aa.ple StratificatiOD aDd Biaa
Insofar as possible, proportionate ratios of Terrain and
Vegetative Units were maintained as the samplinq fraction was
reduced from 201 to 15.61. However, three Terrain Units CA18,
A21, and A30) which had limited representation in the research
area are sliqhtly CA18 and A21) to heavily (A30) under-repre-
sented due to lack of access. The overall effect is negliqible,
as demonstrated in the test of rank proportions <Chapter 4>, and
the sample is still adequate for statistical analysis.
2-5
Terrain and Ve9etative Unit Key
Ulllt lllllt •. .,...1
Al • o. aa •l"p
AJ • IRa
••• Ult
as ·a
AI • Qtb-f
., ... +btl .. ·.~:r
u • Ppt
All • Pft
W•Ro
A12. btl au • c:.-1 A14•~f
AJ.s•u;p
All. c -I iiiii •---
AU•&
All •••
All••
azo • '* +teH
an • cato au • c:e 1liii
Ul • Cl aa• • Ppo-c: aas • a
Ul • C+Ua
"'iiV aa7 • r .. aat •••• aat • ..
Ali•C:
All • rf-r
AJZ • do
All. 0
R
AJ4 • H
AJS • C:.
iCii
All • C:.-f m=r
Al7 • C:.-f
Gti""
All • C:.-f
iiia
Al9 • DOt aaed at
A40 • oat aaed at
Cl • Dt
C2. lit./•
Cl • Cf
c• • or cs. llf
Cl • La
C7 • Dta/'ra
Cl • DevJ D
Ct • D/~
Ulllt-
ucrah Volta
aes••lc: .. torlal•
Ploo4 plaia ...,.,to
llblatloa tlll
........ ,ta
llblatloa till O<Nr oa-atbond lletlroc:ll
oa .. l tUl tfroaeo)
Collowl-O<Nr lletlroc:ll aa4 badroc:ll aposore
loac:Mtrloa dapoalto Oftr bual till
'hrrac:o
Graawlar allowlal fan
1811or a.po.Lta
U-atborad. -Udated lletlroc:k
Sc!UUac:tloa a.po.lta Cfr-oJ Oftr
torr-aecll-•ta rroa ....... , till -r lbeokoc:ll
rao cower dopaolts aa4 or9anlc:o ower
faa rl .. r bed depoelta
Otllowl• .... ., bedroc:ll a..S bedroc:ll upoaare
I
llllrL• tidaL dapoalto
Ollt. ..... olepctolta
Sollflaetloa dapoalts .... ., .. t ... ab
CollUYl--r bedroc:ll aDd be<froc:k O!lpCIDOire
Glacial tlll
SolUloactlaa <lepoelU ...,.., -bered M<lrocl
La..tsllde <lepaoita
AbelldOIIool flood plala dapoalta
'l'allla,a
C:ollni• and toe .. ower wathoro<l bedrocll
Slltr retreaaported <lepoeita
SoU•• loees
loll .......
Coiloial .-_ita
Allnlal fu ebanael M<li•nta
Dr9aoic: clapoalta OYer out-•h
tr9anlea over <leltalc: 4apoe1ta
FlDYial <lalta depoait
lollfloac:tlaa <lapoait:a ower lletlroc:k
Sollfloctioo <lapoalta lfroaanl OYer
basal till lfroaanl
SOliflac:tloo deposita lfroaenl o9er
ablatl011 til 1
Sollfloaetlon deposita lfroaenl ower bedrock
tbla tl•
thb tl•
Ve9etatlve Units
orr taDCira
Net taadra/ .. rshlaDd
Conlferaaa forest
Dac:l<loaaas foreat
Mixed foreat r-ahrub
Dwarf tree ahrub/Tall shrub
Drrelope<IJ ~tor/barren
Reeentlr bGrne<l/la,9ed area
2-6
'_;;,
r
N ' .. .......
r f '
._1. CIM-••• .u A2 ., ... AS
A L 011 TIIANIIIIIIIOII 1.1!
) ,
12
II U2
t2 10 10 "• 160
51 160
60 Ul
62
74 n
tl tz n
102
Ill
IZO 4J
116 Ill
IJZ
·~ L
U:' -I ... 101
4t9
104 144
I COLD CU U-tt.a TIIANINIISIOII Ll
~: )4 7
464 41 .....
4U
·~~· uz
SIS I 14 ,. ,.,
lu~COUI ~17 4U 761 I I
Table 2-1
Sample Units
"' AJ •• At AID I All All A Ill
•••• eettue. aS
14l
IU
121
,
.... • 11r
I;;
)J u
160 •• Llu., f t•r• :
IU
It
lSJ s ., a u
11>0 .,, an Ult ns ... I IU I
-
1111AI. IIIITI
Al4 Alt,AI6 AU All All u•1 u1
-u
l .. " )
' 160
I lA
J6
41 --
-
10
Ill
10 ..
-n• I I I ... I I I
• • ,.,, •• u, •• , •• ,... ••h•: 10 ocroo , • ..,,.,.. Ia Daleo •••· 641J, Slta ......... ..,., .. •• u.&u HJ, ...
I .......... •'" Gel• C.lft ..... UM ,, ....... 1 .. LIM
I • ower&1p1 vhll llaceu Ace••• .... -
Note: Figures presented in table represent acres,
&21 &21 Al4 .,, ,.,. .,, AU Alt ..
2
lS ,
., ,
.
I I I I I 17 I ,. '
N
I co
r r
Table 2-l. Sa~le Units (continued)
._1. UUAII Ulltl Ccoa&l••~)
0.4n• ""'' U2 .,, .,. .,, Al6 .,, ., . "" A4CI .. , ... , ea&ure
~ u
!I
~ ,..
n
60
62
I ,. 160
n l6
tl IU
tZ 2t Ill
102 160
LU 160
uo
Ut nz 160
GOLD •O&IIlL CAJIYOII lA L •• r ••c•r• ·:;:·
"" "" ~
I G0L11 CU&K-IIATAIIA TIA-11 1011 LIIC l .. ar Pa•tvra ll :::: :: .... ... ,. .. ,
•Sit su
SUI ,,. 160 ,.,
... lOCal I .,. '" Zlt I 160 ISO I I I
lla clth eel ... , a • al41tr ll•lckeca
Cl Cl
10
IU
160
160
Jl
160
1 ..
Ul
160
Ia! , ,.
Sl
U4
Jlt IllS
-Tltl u•m
C)
Itt
It
liS
.,
Olo
4 '
I
14
•
cs ct
n ., liS
Jl
I u
160
160
160
160
llt
1t
2
1:: •• " lOG
·;: .,,
I
I
140 ..
' !!!
1462 til
CJ a ct
~ It
It , u
Jt
40
tl
40
..
41
41
14
... IU I
• • ,.n&allJ' ••"•,.• ••h•• 10 .. roo """",.-I• IIIIIU 416, 46t, Uta 60 ... ,. ... "., .. I• lillie• ,, ....
1 • .... ,.,. wlclo 0.1• er--a• .. tr•-'""'-LIM
1 • ... ra.,. waca. Vet ... &cc••• _.
·--
I -··---Cl Cl OJ Clio cs C6 C70 Cl ct .. :: ~= I II 10 ,. • • 1 .. •• .....
" ..... • .. .. • .. u.. 60 •• IU Jl
J Ul ' ..... I I • .. ..
40 Ill .. • ,. ..
lSI I
lSI I
Ill ..
10 ~: 41 !
145
ti • .. ...
II Jl n
10 ~'Ia 140
:;: ;; .. 41 ... ,. •• lOG ll I 4Ge
41 I 24
Ul u .. •• 41 • : 40
" 140 UUU1 1452 101 216 Sll Ul I
r
/
N
I
\0
r r r r
Table 2-1. Sample Units (continued)
-.._II
At AII,AII
'IIIIAI ... ,11
All All A20 I 4121 liM•·-~ AI A2 u ... ., ... A7 " AU AU Al4 AltT~~· an
T • I ..ar •••••r• 4l -~: 16U
,.. .. IM n I
Ut 10 10
n• 160 ,, 21 tz JZ ,...
172 , uo
liZ. ,, 20 ,, ,., u ' lll " .,, 60 ... l ., ... , 160 ..... ,. ID
410 160
4U 160
Ut 160 ,,. .... II :u J .... 21 107 --Llll •• •• ~l; ' TtJ
IDO 60 ••• 160
an u• " 161 ,. • , ... 160 .,, 120 ...
an IZO 60
liZ ltl 2
Ill II It Ill
Ill ... lU .... tl II tl
lit lZI ll
. ltD
lO l~i .,,
.. -·· ,. , '" D tU I HI .120 ,, .... I .. I u ,., liiO I All I I 112
• • .. r,laU, ••n•,.. .. ,,., '" ureo ••r•e,.a I• ......... ""• Slta 60 •n• III""Jt't Ia .. 1&1 DJ, .. -
_.,
AJZ AU .... .us I AH 4121 AJI A2t •• I
HI
I " I I I I I I I .
r
(
N
I .....
0
r r r r r r r
Table 2-l. Sample Units (cor•tinued)
IMplo 'RIIAII ftlfl Cc•U-1
Qooo<llra &)J AJI &)J ..,. &)I "" &37 AJI AJt ...
"" ... ••r reec•r•'
~: 140 ,..
JU ,,.
Ut • , .. 160
lU u
llh •• Ill
lll IJ6 .,, . .,.
401 -410
4U
4Jt
411 ... -Har fo.lttre ::; 14 ...
In . .,
16t
114
IU
liZ
Ill ... ....
lit
Ito
I" . ,,
ldcocol lJ7 I I I •• UJ I HJ ' I
Gl Cl
40
,..
141
Ill u ., 10 ,.
17
ItO
.. , S2
...
0
man •na
C) ~ C) • G7
UD
1111
ItO
110
160
ItO ..
JO .,. ..,
40
Ut
1111
40
160 ,.. ... ., loU
IU ll
u; .:; , IIJ
Ul u n u
160 ... 110 ... 110
1111
ItO
lilt lZJ , " JO u .. ,
sa ...
1111
u lS ... 1611 liAS
.. at
IJ
I
10
,. I
•• ,..u.u, ••"''" •• , .. 10 ocr .... ",.,.. la lhi4CI 416, 41t, Sltl tO 8C •• ".,.. •• ""' Jt7 ....
--tlla&T-
Cl c:z Cl 04 as • Of • at
.,. 14 • • ...
160 • Uti • .. .. ... .. ... • • Ill Ill It
ItO ... • • 4 ... lit ,. ua .. .. ua .. • .. uo .. Ul
Ufl ..
M_ .. • •
" u 11 Ill = ... ... .. ... .. ... .. • ..
Ill ... • " ,.. • " ,. • • • n Ill
Ill u .. ... .. .. 14 • ... :: •• ..
,.. ... -744 ,. .... "' :UI •
...,
I
1-'
1-'
r r f r r r
Table 2-1. Sample Units (.ccmtinuedl
... 1.
AIOlAII CIM•••., AI A2 AJ AA AS A6 ., AI "' ...... ,. • • • 201
aut
21J
217 us
Ut as l6 124
214 • 2n I
270
IJI
IU
ltl ...
JOJ ,...
JOJ
:101
JU ,..
JU
..... II&. I 41 124 I I I I ' I I I I
-
•••• Ul\'1
All All dO I All AU &lJ .... ..., I .... ..., All .... -All au Al4 .usl~" "'
1: ali
1 .. ... ...
lSI ' 1St ... &2 u• 24
II &42 • lSI ., '' ISS , .,. 4 ., MS • 124
Ill 41
-.: :
I I I .,, I I I I I I I I I I IS INIJ4 I I -
N
I ....
N
r
Table 2-1. Sample Units (continued)
'-1• IIIMII Hlfl C-l-U
QM<Ir-All &JZ &JJ &J4 &JS .. ,. &Jr &JI .,, ..... ..... .. .. ". = ..
UJ au us
Ut ao
J4S
ZM
IU
170
Ul
Ill
HI
lt6
Jll ,..
sor
:101 sn
114 us
.. -·•a..l lOll : I I I I I I I I
........ -·-· ... , .. , ,., .•. ,.
tlallhTift lllfl
Cl cz Cll 0 cs C6 cr --u 1110 I'U ...
u Ul
" ll
160
' .,
I Itt ...
Ui II 14
II u Ul
141 II
45 liS u UJ • •• , liS
It ISO uo
Ill Sl r, .~ -
I ' ur "' "' ... 1110 -
-
I _. ....... .. I Cl ct Cl a cs • 01 Cl .,. Cl
:: • 1M
HI .. .. u .. u
liZ "' .. .. ...
" ... a " .. .. " •• II 10 s .,
IH a • IJI u ,
U6 ..
10 .. " U6 ... .. ... • U6 Zl l
1M •• ... rr a: .. .. t ' ,. .. ., 314 IU IU 110 10 t
....
N
I ..... w
TIIIMII UIIITI
u .u A) A4 A5 A6 A7 .. A9 A10 All Al2 AU A14 Al5 A16 AU All A19 A20
Subtotal 167 4U 765 !63 :ll9 ns 164 liZ lJ6 411
Subcocal 50 79 909 0 S45 47S 292 320 57l 401 u 11 305 no 4:U
Subtotal 41 124 156 -----------------------··-------------------··----------------TMAL 258 616 167fo 0 S45 475 .us 609 Ml 565 uo 313 1111 390 .,,
PIICINI' 1.88 4.41 )1!.17 0 8.96 3.45 3.31 6.43 6.19 4.11 1.S:S 2.17 1.44 Z.ll 6.10 ..
.,r
TIIIMII Ulll'TI (catillllall)
421 .uz A2l U4 us 426 U7 A28 Ut AlO All Al:l All U4 .,, U6 U7 All AH
Subtotal 11 50 5 196 509 226 160 150
Subtotal 182 19 15 Ill 14 !53 :165
Subtotal 1346 874 IOfo
182 19
0.14
15 1363 174 so 5 241 196 ,09 226 14 513 150 265
PIICINI' 1.32 o.u 9.91 6.35 O.l6 0.0. 1.75 1.42 31.10 1.64 0.10 l.7l l.ot 1.91
VICitATIVI Ull~l OllllllVID 'IIOITATIOI
Cl C2 C3 C4 cs C1. C7 Cl C9 1:1 !Clt C3 "' C5 C6 C7 Cl
Soalltocal 329 11115 243 87 146:l !U7 644 17:1 MO ll:tlt 351 1452 101 216 szo 138
Subcocal 615 sz n 115 644 2611 1245 36 S6l IIW ,... 744 243 lUll nt lll
Sulltotal 177 276 '" 461 1110 60 1!KI 1619 314 112 lU :140 10 ----------------------------··-----------------------·---------------------------------TOTAL 944 1217 ., 478 267'2 3!J96 l7ot 269 1408 IUCI 2274 2510 S41 2271 11!9 649
PIICIIIf 6.86 1.99 3.31 3.47 19.42 2t.Ofo 26.15 1.95 10.23 2l.!U 16.Sl 18.:14 I.U 16.56 1.21 4. 72
Cl cz C3/C7 rA/0 c& C8 C1 ct Cl/C7 0./CS C6 C8
OltlaiiiiD
TOTALS 944 1237 4164 llSO 3916 269 1408 29li0 3913 l05l 2279 649
PEIICINT 6.86 1.99 30.26 22.89 26.95 1.95 lO.ZJ ll.~ll 24.80 22.17 16.56 4.72
MO
C9
r· ,
•
2. 3 PIIA8B II PIBLD MftiiODS
Prior to field data collection, crews were issued field
~~~anuals for recording historic and prehistoric sites (Appendix
D). As is nontal for a study of this scope, survey methods
required some modification to address actual conditions encoun-
tered in the field. All modifications were approved and
docuaented prior to iaplementation. 'l'his resulted in slight
variability in survey and docu.entation p~ocedures over the
course of the study.
Once the list of SaJaple Units to be surveyed was estab-
lished, units within the list were assigned to Crew Supervisors
for survey. Assiglllllents were made on the basis of logistical
considerations, with units closest to the field crew base camps
generally being surveyed first. Whenever possible, Sample Units
were assigned to a single crew.
2.3.1 Pie14 SUrvey
Detection of surface and subsurface cultural resources
within each 160-acre Sample Unit was accomplished through pedes-
trian survey. Shovel tests were placed at regular intervals
along parallel transects .<systematic testing), while subjective
shovel tests were excavated at locations, such as knolls or
terraces located between transects, that were considered to have
high site potential.
'l'he interval transect survey strategy is an extension of the
statistical orientation of the study research design. This tech-
nique is theoretically stronger than an inductive ap~~oach,
because it can be used to indicate where sites do not occur, as
well as where they do.
Transects were parallel to one another, generally spaced 30
m apart. They were 800 m long unless interrupted by impassable
terrain, and shovel tests were placed every 50 m. Spacing varia-
2-14
• t:ion between transects was deterained by the density of veg'eta-
t:ion and by the likelihood of encountering cultural resources.
When either condition was judged to be high, spacing between
transects coul4 be deeraased to 20 a. Mben both conditions were
judged to be low, spacing between transects could be increased to
no .ore than 50 a.
The most direct aeans to deteraine the potential for encoun-
tering one or .ore classes of cultural resources was to refer to
the predictive aodel, wh_ich calculated high positive statistical
correlations between cek tain site classes and terrain units.
However 1 saaple units were tested and surveyed at the highest
level of intensit1 allowed by generally dense vegetation and
budgeted field t:iae. Maxillllll survey intnnsity for any single
saaple unit used 32 individual transects (25 m spacing) 1 and
ainiiiiWI survey intensity used 18 transects \44.5 m spacing). The
majority of sample units were surveyed using 30 to 35 m transect
spacing between crew Jlellbers or 24 tranaecta per anit.
Recognizing the potential l~itations of the interval tran-
sect survey, in·whtch transects cogld fall on either side of a
microtopographic feature containing a site, a sabjective survey
also was incorporated into the research design. This sabjective
survey method is an inductive approach, in which archeologists
use comparisons with ethnographic accoants to focas their survey
in paleogeographic settings comparable to those documented ethno-
graphically. Pield efforts focused on settings which recorded
cultures are known to have utilized, even if they did not oc~~r
on transect lines. Shorelines, ancient tributary janctions, and
mountain corridors are some examples.
The subjective survey was conducted at the same time as the
interval transect survey. Additional shovel tests were placed
along and/or off the transect line as crews encountered microen-
vironmental settings (i.e., knolls, terraces) that had relatively
high potential for yielding archeological data.
2-15
Shovel tests were an integral part of both the interval
transect and the subjective survey strategies. These 30x30-cm
tests were to be 30 to 50 em in depth, if possible located every
20 to 50 m, with approximately each 10 em of recovered matrix run
through 0.25-in. mesh screen.
The systematic testing strategy was revised during the first
few days of fieldwork to better address the testing of the model.
The systematic strategy of one shovel test every 50 m, if
possible, was implemented to gather data relevant to all areas
regardless of site probability potential. A practical considera-
tion coincident to this increased testing effort was the .diffi-
culty of each crew member carrying a screen while transecting.
Therefore, aaterial from transect shovel tests was subjected to
troweling and sufficient observation to obtain a recovery rate
equivalent to usinq the screens.
A typical survey unit, up to 24 individual transects or 6
crew transects, would contain 408 potential test locations.
SUDIRary data presented for the 89 Sample Units <Chapter 3)
surveyed indicate that over 25,000 shovel tests were excavated as
part of the interval transect survey. Approximately one-third of
the maximum number of tests were not dug due to natural factors,
t~ch as surface water or rocks. Less than 59t of these shovel
tests were excavated to a depth of 30 em or less due to natural
factors <see Tables 3-1 through 3-5). Those excavated below 30
em did not exceed 50 em. For much of the area surveyed, 30 em
proved sufficient to reach underlying gravel, probably repre-
senting glacial till and assumed to be sterile of cultural
materials.
A second type of test, the controlled shovel test, was con-
ducted within identified prehistoric and certain historic
cultural contexts or sites. Ten historic sites with obvious
structures, features, or surface material, and one prehistoric
site (TLM 275) located outside of a Sample Unit, were not tested.
2-16
The generally larger controlled shovel tests differ from shovel
tests in that the matrices:
a. were screened through mesh finer than 0. 2S in. , when
judged necessary 1
b. were excavated in 10-cm increments or natural/cultural
levelsJ
c. were often excavated by trowel; and
d. were documented with scaled profiles showing observed
strata characterized by sediment composition and color
according to MUnsell Color Charts.
Shovel testing conducted at prehistoric sites radiated in
the cardinal compass directions and four points in between from
the positive teiR,. surface visible feature or concentration of
artifacts. The first series of 30 x 30 em testa were at 10 m
from the positive test. Additional tests were placed at greater
or lesser distances until it was deter.ined that site bOQndaries
bad been adequately defined. Positive tests were expanded to SO
x SO em then excavated and screened or carefully troweled in
10-cm levels or natural/cultural levels if they were definable.
All cultural or ecofactual (soil or tephra) samples were bagged
by level, with finished tools bagged separately. Prior to back-
filling, profiles were drawn for test pits which produced
They were plotted on site sketch maps, and
placed in the bottom for the reference of
cultural material.
foil or plastic was
future investigators.
2.3.2 ._vivation
To successfully test the predictive model, it was necessary
to accurately determine the location of Sample Unit boundaries
and crew positions within Sample Units. This was accomplished
using a variety of techniques. Sample Units 3, 7, and 12, which
were reached via surface vehicle, were less difficult to locate
and delineate than those accessible only by air.
2-17
2.3.2.1 Det~aiag sa.ple Uait LOCatioaa
Sample Unit locations were identified using a set of base
maps, including o.s. Geological Survey (USGS) maps (scale 1:
63,360 or 1:25,000), aerial photographs, and Sample Unit legal
descriptions. Air photos were cross-indexed to the list of
Sample Units which contained their legal descriptions. Legal
descriptions were used to finally determine the correct position
of each Sample Unit.
The next step in the procedure of locating a Sample Unit was
to fly to its general location using topographic maps and pre-
viously surveyed units as guides. Under most circwnstances, unit
boundaries were established within plus or minus 100 m of their
true position. Some units had section lines and sometimes
quarter-section lines blazed, often with associated survey monu-
ments. Many other units contained identifiable natural or recent
cultural Ci.e. roads, transmission lines) features which allowed
for accurate location. In a few instances, notably units located
in the Yukon Flats area, precise unit boundaries could not be
determined. The effect of possible mislocation in this area was
negligible, since only recent cultural resource materials were
recorded in any of the eight units. In addition, no more than
401 of these units was surveyable due to standing water in the
form of marshes. Five of the eight units were less than 12\ sur-
veyable.
One side of each Sample Unit (800 m) was used as a reference
baseline for on-the-ground navigation. This reference baseline
was marked with a visible survey string, using a hip-chain cali-
brated in meters. Placement of the reference baseline depended
on whether the survey was to be parallel or perpendicular to the
contour of the unit, and whether a previously existing, visible,
survey line could be used. A parallel, secondary reference base-
line was established at a distance of 800 m from the primary
baseline when vegetation density required it. The lines were
2-18
sometimes flagged at measured intervals (30 or SO m) to provide
additional reference points.
2.3.2.2 Deter..iniDg and Raintaining Position Within aa.ple Units
Once baselines were established, survey of the unit pro-
ceeded along transects oriented at right angles to this line.
Position on each transect was maintained in four ways, including:
(1) constantly monitoring compass headings: (2) using voice cues
to measure distance between crew members on adjacent transects:
(3) using visual cues to measure distance between crew members on
adjacent transects; and C4J by monitoring topographic maps.
Slight variation to the right and left of each transect cen-
terline was considered beneficial, as it resulted in more of each
transect corridor being examined.
2.3.3 Docuaentation
Individual observations on daily activities, weather, ground
cover, natural features, and other pertinent information were
entered into field notes maintained by all personnel. When
cultural resources were encountered, these were recorded on Iso-
late, Prehistoric Site, or Historic Site forms, as appropriate.
After completion of each Sample Unit, both Shovel Test Summary
and Sample Quadrant Record forms also were completed. Pho-
toqraphic documentation augmented ~Titten observations. A record
of all photographs taken was entered in a photographic log.
The Sample Quadrant Record form was augmented with a Quad-
rant Shovel Test summary form during fieldwork. The Shovel Test
form recorded: (1) the total number of shovel tests placed in
the Sample Unit; (2) how many of these were along transects and
how many were part of the subjective survey; (3) the number of
tests excavated to at least 30 em~ (4) the number of tests which
could not be excavated to at least 30 em and the reasons; and (5)
a brief description of nontestable locations.
2-19
The form used to record prehistoric and historic sites com-
bined information from a short form used by Alaska Heritage
Research Group and a larger form used by the University of Alaska
Museum for the Susitna Hydroelectric project. The present form
is six pages plus attachments. A site field nu~er was assigned
to each discovered site. Site nu~ers consisted of the sample
Unit n~er followed by a n~er representing the consecutive
n~er of finds within the unit. For example, site n~er 110-3
represents the third recorded find <isolate or site) in Sample
Unit 110. Unit n~ers were assigned to sample units prior to
the field survey.
Some of the archeological finds were located outside of
Sample Units. These sites were discovered under a variety of
circumstances. Most were located at or near helicopter landing
places, and some were located by survey crew members who climbed
to vantage points in order to gain terrain perspective during
survey. All of these sites were recorded. All finds have been
assigned Alaska Heritage Resource Survey CAHRS) file site or
resource identification numbers.
2.4 CURA'l'IOR
The survey resulted in the collection of archeological spe-
cimens including isolates, sediment and radiocarbon samples, and
artifacts recovered from shovel testing within sites. Each spe-
cimen or group of specimens, such as lithic material clusters,
was separately bagged. Each specimen bag was coded with infor-
mation such as collector, date of collection, and provenience,
and then cross-indexed to field notebooks and site or isolate
recording forms. Specimen bags were grouped by site and placed
in larger site bags, marked with a unique field site number, and
cross-referenced to Sample Unit. Isolates were packaged either
in bags or other suitable containers and marked with unique iso-
late numbers, cross-referenced to sample Unit.
2-20
Specimens were transported to the laboratory for analysis
upon coapletion of the survey. After analysis, specimens were
turned over to the University of Alaska <Fairbanks) Museum for
long term ~~ration.
2. 5 LABOitUOU MB'riiODS
Data were verified by checking all records and map locations
completed in the field to assure proper recording. CUration of
artifacts included washing, labeling, and cataloging of materials
collected in the field. Artifact labels included individual
accession numbers according to professional standards established
by the University of Alaska (Fairbanks) Museum, the curatorial
repository.
2.5.1 Prebi•toric Artifact Aaaly•ee
Prehistoric artifact analyses included:
Cl) Technological Analysis. All lithic specimens were
macroscopically inspected and characteristics pertinent
to manufacturing techniques recorded.
C 2) Use-Wear Analysis. All intentionally modified lithic
specimens and a representative sample of unmodified
flakes were microscopically examined for edge modifica-
tions.
(3) Raw Material Identification. Materials were visually
inspected and physical properties described using
material types defined by the University of Alaska
(Fairbanks) Museum.
(4) TypOlogical Studies. Recovered bifacial implements
were compared and contrasted
established tool types and styles.
2-21
with previously
2.5.2 Prehistoric Data Ana1xsis
Analyses of prehistoric site data included defining site
types and cultural affiliations through analysis of recorded
cultural materials, and elucidating settlement and subsistence
patterns through analysis of relationships amonq cultural and
environmental variables. Data resulting from the analysis of
cultural materials recovered from the survey and testing activi-
ties were incorporated.
2.5.3 .. thoda for MOdel Befina.ent
Due to the extremely low numbers of cultural resource sites
recorded, the use of elaborate statistical methods was not
appropriate. The new data were added to the existing data base,
and the modi£ ied sample was subjected to the same correlation
tests used on the Phase I data. The tests resulted in some
modifications to positive and negative correlations presented in
the original predictive model. The Phase II data also provide
preliminary information regarding site density for certain site
types in the Linear Features project area.
Survey data were added to the Phase I data base, which was
then analyzed using the non-metric factor analysis program. This
resulted in some refinement of the model for specific site types
and certain time periods.
2.5.4 Historic Data An•~xsis
Research on recorded historic sites identified the historic
period of occupation and site function. This research included
the sources examined during Phase I, and Federal, State, and
local records such as land ownership, plat, and' tax records.
These were examined in an attempt to identify the individual<s>
responsible for site development.
Land ownership records and plat maps maintained by the BLH
were reviewed to obtain the original land disposition information
2-22
for each parcel sunounding a historic site. None of the land
around the sites has ever been patented under either the Mineral
Entry or Homestead laws. Additional research was conducted in
the borough Index to Mining Locations; Mineral Survey Field
Notes; USGS Annual Mining Reports, Bulletins and Professional
Papers; and local histories and newspapers to gain information
about names of locators or developers, existing structures, and
general or specific history of the locality.
2-23
3. 0 RBSUL'IS a. PDn'..,.,_
'1'. Weber Greiser
Historical Research Associates
'l'his chapter su111111arizes the results of the PhasQ II field
survey. Information is presented according to the particular
Linear Feature associated with specific Sample Units. A brief
description of the physical environment for each Linear Feature
is followed by tables summarizing anticipated and actual ground
conditions, and testability and test results. Descriptions and
maps for each Sample Unit are presented in Appendix A.
'l'be cultural resource discussion summarizes, tbrougb tables
and text, the various sites and isolated cultural material occur-
rences located and recorded during the intensive survey. 'l'he
type of cultural material and features identified, as well as an
evaluation of the potential for each site to produce additional
important information, are presented. More detailed site and
isolate data are presented in Appendix B.
'l'he final section of this chapter summarizes the goals and
results of a series of ethnographic interviews conducted as part
of Phase II field research. The ethnographic interviews with
older Athapaskan Indians knowledgeable of portions of tbe study
area yielded information on Indian as well as non-Indian sites on
or near parts of the Linear Features. Detailed summaries of the
interviews, as well as transcripts frcm three interviews, are
presented in Appendix C.
3-1
3.2 ~ 811ft DISCU8SIOII
The geueral study area which includes the Linear Features
transects four physiographic provincesr as 4ef!~ed by Nahrhaftig
<1965). These provinces, fraa south to north, are the Coastal
'l'roughr which includes the susitna Basin, the Alaska-Aleutian
Province, which includes the Alaska RaDCJeJ western Alaska, which
runs north from the Alaska Range foothills to. the Yukon R1ver and
includes most of the lower Yukon-lover Tanana-IUskokwia basins,
and the periphery of the Northern Plateausr which extends east
into Canada from near the confluence of the Yukon and Tanana
Rivers. The four physiographic provinces are further broken into
physiographic divisions by wahrhaftig <1965 >. Seven of these
divisions are located either within or adjacent to the study area
(l!'ig. 3-1> andr fro. north to south, are described below in
Section 3.2.1 through Section 3.2.6.
The South Intertie or Anchorage to Willow Transmission Line
originates in Anchorage, crosses Cook Inlet, and follows a
westerly, then northerly, route across the formerly glaciated,
CoOk Inlet-Susitna Lowland division. The elevation is less than
500 ft. and features include ground moraines, stagnant ice
topography, drumlin fields, eskers, and outwash plains. Near the
Alaska Range and Talkeetna Mountains, rolling upland areas in
this division rise to 3,000 feet. The Susitna River is the pri-
mary drainage in this structural basin. The area has only one
glacier to the west and some permafrost in the north. Bedrock
geology consists of Tertiary age, coal-bearing rocks covered by
glacial moraine and outwash and marine and lake deposits.
A total of 18 sample units were included in the Phase II
survey of Linear Feature 1 (Table 3-1). Of these sample units,
six were over 80\ surveyable; seven were between 50\ and 76\ sur-
veyable; and five were less than 35\ surveyable, with three of
3-2
.. .. .. ::.
....... . ~· .......... ... ~
. I .. "'
(\
t!IIPitpii/IMIIfiF IJJ!.U!JIJtl.•
A. ,.._., ..... 11,_.,
L ,...,..1.....-~
c. ..,,..,. ,..,...,. ., , .. AJ•u• ._...
D. ~-........
'· .,..., ,. /ltull•• ... ,
•. c ... IMU-~1-,..._
.__ ........... c.-.... ,..,..,.,....., ....... ., ...................... .....__.. ...... ..........
.,,,. .
Figure 3-1. Physiographic divisions transacted by or adjacent to
the susitna Hydroelectric Project Linear Features.
3-3
Table 3-1
sample units Along the Anchorage-Willow Transmission Line
I II Ill IV " Yl , .. I VIII II I II Ill lUI II¥
AIIUCI-UDI\'10111&. SE' .. "I----n.-.!"~f ~~~~;;.;--.,---PATIO NICIIII' or NICIIII' or Ulllt TOirAL 110. or ftltl
Mllfl1-RIT IOifl'llll IIOT TIITID -IL TIITI DfAYATID
IIAIII'LI AIILITT AID TIJTIO JTITIIIATICALLT AniiiPTID II aUTIIN JO ... ". i ..... ,.. fiiOID IIWILOIIUrl I YIGIUTIOI f -~I Dlllf or out JHTDAflfiALI.Y •• aAIOII TIIAHICT 0111 TIAIIIICT 0111 01 GIIAHI IOIL/IMTII G-IDCU lint-01 IIGOTJ 11M1 onn ... , uro -
101 121 Ill••···--»4 491 u Ml Ill
(co•nr•ccloa ..•..•.... ,
w 101 "' 311 .... a~._ .. 211 Ml tl ltl ltl tl
I (coutr•c&ioa .... '" ....... ., 41f 12 101 HI 141 •••••• _ .. "' ,. .. 121 II
(trn••luloa u •• ,
!I 101 51l Ill ... ~l PI • ,,. Ill 21 n II
Ill MIWJ Will-
lUI ..
52 101 HI II •rok 40) Jll It n tl 21 ,.. 401 571 4ll•roh 134 571 ,.. n n JOI IZI Ill h .. ,, 571 ltl II n
60 lOI lSI lSI ltko no , .. .. n Ill II
62 til JZl Ill ,,, •• ,. Ut Ill ,. n II ....
14 101 Ill an ... -51 ... Ul Ill 21 n 101 161 ... -··· 310 Ul 151 II 21
tl ,,. 1001 4U ,.. ,.. n
tz lOI 141 161 .... 300 ... 301 II
101 01 01
1001 -···
0 01
Ill 01 II HI •••h ' 1001
UD lOI l41 MIMn .. IJt •• Jl n n Ut lOI 501 501 .... .. JOI •• n
n1 101 Zl ...... h l .. ,. sn
..
those unaurveyable or nearly unsurveyable (lt). A total of 4,496
teats were attempted in the surveyable portions of the sample
units.
3.2.2 LiDe&r Peaturu 2, 3, and '
The Gold Creek-Devil Canyon Railroad (Linear Feature 2), the
Gold Craek-Watana Transmission Line (Linear Feature 3), and the
lower three-fourths of the Watana-Devil canyon Access Road
(Linear Feature 4), as well as the middle Susitna River, are
within the Poq Lakes Opland section of the 'l'alkeetna Mountains
division. The Opland section rises to elevations from 3,000 to
4,500 ft. and varies from extensive glacial sculpturing in the
southwest to high, flat, unglaciated terraces in the northeast.
Portions of the access road also transect foothills of the Chu-
litna Mountains, which consist of a compact group of glaciated
mountain blocks interspersed with low passes.
Glaciers in tbe division are drained by large, braided trib-
utaries to the Susitna and other rivers. The Susitna cuts
through the mountains in a 1,000-ft., steep-walled gorge known as
Devil Canyon. Lakes, primarily in the northern part of the divi-
sion, are located in ice-carved, moraine-dammed basins, and are
up to several miles in length. Geologic resources of the primary
area of interest in the Talkeetna Mountains are northeast-
trending belts of greenstones, graywacke, and argillite of
Paleozoic and Mesozoic age.
The northern quarter of the access road from the Denali
Highway is located in the eastern portion of the Broad Pass
Depression division, which is a broad, glaciated lowland. The
rolling morainal topography and central outwash flats at eleva-
tions of 1,000 to 2,500 ft. are underlain by permafrost. The
area contains the upper Nenana and Susitna Rivers. Since drain-
ages originate in nearby glaciers, the rivers are swift, turbid,
and braided. Lakes are common and were formed either by water
3-5
r
, ..
filling moraine depressions, moraines daJIIIIing basins, or buried
glacial ice thawing into a concavity. The main part of the Broad
Pass Depression is underlain by Tertiary coal-bear inq rocks in
fault contact with slightly metamorphosed Paleozoic and Mesozoic
rocks. The lowlands, east of the Tertiary Age graben, are
.antled with ground moraine.
• 3.2.3 Linear Peature 2, Gold creek-Devil cagon lailroa4
•-
Five sample units included in the Phase II survey are pri-
marily associated with Linear Feature 2, two of which overlap
slightly within Linear Feature 3 (Table 3-2). Three of the units
were 68t to 79t surveyable, while two were between 38t and SOt
surveyable. Sample Unit 486 was only hatf surveyed due to time
constraints, but what was surveyed was lOOt surveyable. A total
of 1,452 tests were attempted in the surveyable portions of the
sample anita.
3.2.4 Linear Peature 3, Gold Creek-lfat&Da 'ftana.iaaion Line
Ten sample ani ts were included in the Phase I I survey of
Linear Peature 3, 6 of which overlap with the iatana Aceess Road
(Tab-le 3-3). Seven of the units were 85i to lOOt and three were
between 2lt and SOt surveyable. However, two of the latter
(Units 469 and 579) were only half surveyed due to time
constraints. Therefore, surveyability of the portions surveyed
would be in the 85t to lOOt range. A total of 3,479 tests were
attempted in the surveyable portions of the sample units.
3.2.5 LiJMar :reature 4, W&taaa-DeYil Coxon .lcc:eaa Roacl
Twenty sample units were included in tbe Phase II survey of
Linear Peature 4 (Table 3-4). seventeen of the units were 8St to
lOOt surveyable; one was 77t surveyable; and two were 25t survey-
• able, one due to time constraints and the other due to the pre-
sence of sow and cub grhzlies. A total of 7,246 tests were
attempted in the surveyable portions of the sample units.
3-6
r
w
I ...a
r-. ,.. -
Table 3-2
Sample Units Along the Gold Creek-Devil Canyon Railroad
.... ,
4101
'"
""
tsl
101
701
101
7SI
SOl
m
:Ill
m
JSI
....... •••Joe• Ill lMcctt•
11•1• olUh
lSI .. llUa 1.1
lSI prlNtt 11 .. 1
11 .......... , , .... ~ ., ......... .. ........ •.... ..•. ,.,, ..
Ul .. d~• a.
117
JJ4
157
313
HI
10 711
Ul
101
Sal
Sl
Ill
Sl
Ill II
• • ,.ruau, """ .. •lUI 10 ... ,, ••n., .. la llloU• 416, ""· ... Slfl 40 ..... .,.,.,.,,.. l.a hUe HJ 1M 401
I • .. 1rl1 .. 'lUll 0.1• Crttl-llaUN Tra ... llll .. lolat
lSI
lSI
lOt
lSI
II
.-···~ .-·-"
41
Ul
Sl
101
1111 UY
onu
II
• II
II II
/
w
I
01)
Table 3-3
sampl.e units Along th~t Gold 9reek-Watana Transmission LinP
I II Ill IY ., " til till u I II Ill au a¥
AllriCI• AllllfiOIIAI. Jlllllllr fll ftiCillrMI fll tiD 1101' ....... 30 • lltfl
81111 ftllllllllfll fti!Cift fll lllf TGrAL •· ar 'IUfl tlftl
101111-lllf IODOU ....: fllfU IIICIRL!Iftl IICo\tAtlll IUCIIIIO ~J :J ~I r·" ·1 ;/ ....... UlLin --nsraAfiCoU.LY Aftlllttlllll Clftllll ,. •111'111 IAIIIAfiD IPm&D 11¥__,/ ¥-Aflllll 1111t
Dllf ar "" 1..-TICAI.LY
"" IIIAICIII
fl&lllllllr ClUJ f...actCIU• 01 CIIIAIU IOIL/liA:fll --•111'111A1m 01 IOCin ILOII C11U1
I' Nt•r• .. ,. 1101 1001 ·~ Ill 2CII 101 Zl
""' 1101 "I II •••~ ·.0. 171 Ul 101 .... 1101 1101 '"' stl Ml Ul Zl ..... tsl 471 u ... ~, 501 ... Ill an -II .. ,. -Ill -ef preJoct ltl ouop olo,. ., Jtl a m n .,., 1101 ---·· "" at I Ul 361 II
pr•Joct
JlZ I lOt lSI 151 -··~ ,, .. Ul II m 5I
5151 101 151 251 MU~ ,,, • ,,. Ill m II ,, 1101 1101 •ICII 151 n 661 ,., 1101 1101 ... , ,.. 41 Ql
• • ,..u.u, ••n.,.. .. au, 10 ecr .. o•n.,.. itt lelolo 416, Ut, -5191 441 Hroo ""''' .. Ia hiU ,, ... 401
' ......... •It~ ...............
Table 3-4
sample units Along the Watan' and Devil Cnn11n Access Road
I II
111 I IV r I Y " Ill Ill I II I II Ill 1111 IIY
AIJTIC:I• AIIIII1'1011AL I'IIICUI' ar I'IIICUI'ACI Dr Pl1'1 --·· :10 • D1Pn Mftl ,. ..... ar 1 1'1-llr ar 111111' 101'AL •· ar nlfl nan ::-~u 1·~~---~ 1.::::, l::::r:~~---101111• Ull1' IOIIIIU r ~-TUIU i -11. nl1'l UCAYATID IIACIII_,
IAIIfU ADILm ... mTU 1'111'111A1'1CALLI AftlllfrD II CIIII'IIDI ·--UIIT ar ••n 111111M1'1CALLY ... -TUIIIc:r CUD tu.ac:r IIIII 01 GIIAftl IOIL/IIaTII -..C:U llftUIMICI 01 IliOn IUirl ona
._, ••t•rw
Ul .,. ,,. n "'"' ol.,.
,, 501 II n :Ill II II
w :MI 1001 1001 401 ltl lll n .u II
I :M6 ttl ... 41 llotelo loho .,, Ul ,,.
\0
,, lSI tu .. -··· 401 :MI 141 511 ,. tSI ,,. n ••••• •lope Ut lSI Ul •n II ,, 101 an Ul •••• ,, .. ,,. JSI ,.. 1001 1001 401 4 261 " Ul
JJZ ... ,.. II •••• 400 • Ul 261 HI
Hb 101 1001 401 Ill Ill 71l 41
H6 101 lSI Ul •••• 261 Ill Ill Ul
:Ill 101 IU ............ IIJ :MI ltl 451 II ,. .... . ,., lSI lSI 751 arlulr .. 14 301 461 5I 141 Sl .....
40. lSI Ul IJI •••• JDI It 4ft Ill 411 II
405 tSI tJI ,. .... Jll HI 101 m II
•401 101 lSI 751 .... , .. II ... .. ,., ... ''' 1001
,..;oct
... I Ill Ul 101 HI II
4U tSI 1001 ., .. Ul zn 411 ..
4lt ,,. 1001 .,. 411 161 411 II
"" ,,. Ml 41 l1k11 II :liN '' 611 31 551 II
._.rock ca•r• ... 1001 1001 ... zn Ill sn Jl II
•• portlalb .. "., .. •Ito& 10 ecno Mn.,..a Ia O.ltoa 416, 46t, ... Sit& 40 ecr11 Mn•~•• Ia Utoilo Jt7 ... 401
3.2.6 Linear W..tur:e 5, Bealx to l'alrbalab 'l'raDsid.aalOD LlDe
1l small part of the central section of tbe Alaska Ranqe
division is included alonq tbe southern periphery of the Healy-
Fairbanks 'l'ransaaission Line. '!'be Nenana Gorge, just south of
Healy, is typical of the superposed drainaqes which cross-cut the
6,000-9,000-foot qlacial ridqes and enhance the 9,500 to
20,000-feet, snow-capped mountains. The Alaska Ranqe contains
numerous valley glaciers which produce swift, braided drainages.
Major faults parallel the ranqe and a canplex of synclines has
forced rocks of Paleozoic and perhaps Precambrian age to the
flanks. Tertiary rocks have easily eroded to form lowlands. A
minimum of four periods of glaciation are recognized in the
Ranqe, permafrost is extensive and well developed, and solifluc-
tion features are present.
Prom Healy to a point between Browne and Rex, the southern
third of the Healy-Pairbanks Transmission Line is in the division
known as the Northern Foothills of the Alaska Range. The foot-
billa are broad, east/west, flat-topped ridqes 2,000 to 4,500 ft.
high, interspersed wltb broad, rolling lowlands 700 to 1,500 ft.
high. Although pdmarUy unglaciated, some valley gl.aciers from
the Alaska Range extended into the foothills. Drainages, flowing
mainly north-northwest across tbe foothills from the mountains,
have cut very deep canyons into the ridges and created terraced
valleys in the lowlands. Extensive badlands have been incised
k into the soft substrate of Tertiary age. Lakes and ponds in the
division are of thaw or morainal origin. There are extensive
.. _
.. __
....
....
permafrost, frost polygons, and solifluction features. Bedrock
geology of the ridqes is schist and granite intrusives, while the
lowlands contain poorly consolidated Tertiary rocks and thick
beds of subbitUDdnous coal capped with coarse conglomerate.
The majority of the remainder of the Healy-Fairbanks Trans-
mission Line is located in the Tanana-Kuskokwim Lowland division,
which is under 1,000 ft. in elevation. Surface topography in-
3-10
r
l
..
..
eludes outwash fans frOJR the Alaska Rangel bands of morainal
deposita at tb9 upper ends of some fans; broad, deep, terraced
valleys associated with rivera originating in the Alaska Range;
flood plains of the Tanana and Kuskokwim; and extensive, stabi-
lized dune fields between Nenana and McGrath. Drainages include
the major east/west-flowing rivers plus braided glacial streams
originating in the Alaska Range. Thaw lakes occur in fine allu-
viua, while thaw sinks are in loess. The aJ:!E'!l is unglaciated and
contains permafrost and dry permafrost. Coarse to fine outwash
fan deposita and alluvial fill several hundred feet thick are the
primary geologic features below the transmission line corridor.
The final physiographic division, along the north edge of
the study area, is the Yukon-Tanana Opland. The area near Pair-
banks consists of flat, alluvium-filled valleys, 1,000 to 1,500
ft. in elevation, generally less than 0.5 mile wide, located be-
tween broad, qentle, generally flat=topped divide ridges and
spurs between 1,500 and 1,300 ft., which are in turn topped by
tight clusters of rvgged mountains rising from 4,000 to 5,000 ft.
Although considered within the Yukon drainage basin, streams
along the south half of the division flow into the Tanana River.
There are few thaw lakes in valley floors and low passes. There
are no glaciers, although active mass wasting occurs in the moun-
tains, ice wedges are present in frozen valley mucks, and scat-
tered permafrost is present. The portion closest to the study
area has thick, windborn silts on slopes, with thick muck over
deep gravels in the valleys.
Thirty-Aix sample units were included in the Phase II survey
of Linear Feature 5 CTable 3-5). Fifteen of the units were bet-
ween 80\ and lOOt surveyable; seven were between 55\ and 78t sur-
veyable; and the fourteen which were less than 48\ surveyable
included one unsurveyable and four nearly unsurveyable (12\, 10\,
3\, and 1\) units. Changes in recording practices after comple-
tion of the survey of the first eight units resulted in a total
of 7,317 recorded tests and an estimated additional 1,604 tests
3-11
I I II olllfiC:I• I PAtiO IUifiY•
IAIIftJI j•lta.an WIT fill lilT
IH .01
IU til ••• "'
""' I lSI tol ....
"" . ., 101 ... 501
U4 Ul
an 101
Ill Ml
Ill IGI
Ill '" .... 101
lit 1001
Ito 1001
Itt .01
101 751
lot 251
211 101
IU Ul
Table 3-5
1 th Healy-Fairbanks Transmission Line Sample Units A ong a
Ill I IV ,,
1 .... ::-I ... 1 Will II I u Ul 1111 IIV I
ftiiCIIIf or ftiiCIIIfAGI or tiTI -IUCIIIIII J0 • D1P111 na• or 1 KIICIIIf 01' lilT ="~-:a: I =Alii I =·· ------i·--·-i·-···i----·-·-..;;;-·-----··-·1 Ullf llllfiYIO .,-tutiO
•nwrr10 aa 'GfttiK 1 JO • llmiJM'niMtU 11 ,_~I I .. _.,I ~-AT lOIII""~ I ... nnu •n-taCAU.Y
I'IIIIMTICAU.Y Allll -~~Guo. t-.cr GUO 1• GIMtU IGUJMYII -• _. j OIITI-011 IGGII Alltl cmaca 1
••
Ill 101-1. IU '" tl .. II
6llo&np •1-
tu u ...... :Itt 2Q 101 141
Ul 4SI· 1111 ... ,..cttr•. :au "' II II u ··-· ............ ....
'" Ul•rtlol II :116 501 1.51 1).51 HI u II II
trnlla 5I Ptrllt "'" ... , 611 JllloMM lo :m m Ul 351 II •• Ill fUMrtlo .105 HI " II
411 Ul ohop olopo ... an 101 au II
lt:lMIIIo
II reUr-....
411 Ulllnp tl ... .... 211 371 341 II ,. ............
51 •• u ........
1001 .... ll "·" 11 "·" 101 0.51 0.51 II
tol 101 ...... "' ,. 5tl II Ul Ill II
1001 ·106 • 611 &.51 " lOS II II 0.51
711 lllllnp tl.,. "' 311 101 151 lll II n II
1001 '" 40 an ,,. Ill lll n II .,. Sl 11re• ,.. II ,,. 711
Ill IIIMrtlo 4t Ill 111
lll u1 .. ,.., us sn 3ft ,. ..
01 ......... , 101 0 01 .............. ,
ll tJI•rtll u 01 1001
lll Ul•rola IH Ul m 551
Table 3-S. Sample unit.a Along, the Bealy-Jrairbanka Tranamiaaion Line (cont.)
,, , ... II Ill lUI nv
I IIIIAVY I raa•l IIW....,_IIr/1 VIGirATIOII lriD I
IIICU 11muuca I'DI 11101'1 ..... ,cmuJ
us lSI Ill Ill•••• .u 01 Ill Jll au lSI 361 ........ 1141 Ul IJI Sll Jl
"' lSI II HI•• .. 0 01
U4 ,,. tn
u -···
liM IJI Jll na w ass tsl ... Ill ••••• j,,. u lSI 16l ...
I e&r••· •r•la
1-' ZIO 701 101 101 ..... liH at '" tl U,SI II O.SI w 271 151 ... II Mrell, creek lll4 4 Ul 131 ...
HI .,. ,.. an .... , •••· ~u Ill II ,. •• Slll!a.,..,
HI ... 1001 4>01 •• SI ..,. ... , .... 401 01 Ul•n•, UIS6> (101) (101) (101) (101)
101 ttup aa.,.. ,., .. tSI 101 aoa ..... (ll)O) CUll (II) lnl) ,.. .. to I 101 aoa .... (3)0) (101) (IU) (611) ,., .. Ul lSI ,. tlttp ..... (Ill) (Jill CHI)
)01 .. HI ,.. ,. "'"' ..... " 411 HI II II n
5I •••••• '" II,.,, • ..,, ,., .. .,. 101 201 •rea. • UISll (401) CIDU
'""' wtlttaUoa , .... tol JJI , ....... Utol •• U4,SI) (II) CUll (2.511
••••• wqttat&H
JU• 101 ... 401•rell, ,. .. , ,_, Ulll (411 (stll
'""' •••••• u •• .. • •• •• .,.,_ac.u, , ..... •• ••••• .....
() .......... , ...... "•···· ............
lin seven of the firP~ eight units) in surveyable portions of the
saaple units.
l. 2. 7 -.J.a of the S!B!l• 8!ln'!!
The data presented in the summar}t tables (see Tables 3-1
through 3-SJ are very useful in evaluating the utility of using,
predetermined Terrain and Vegetative Units to test projected or
anticipated against actual survey coverage of the Sample Units.
Table 3-6 further summarizes the data on the basis of percentage
point differences. The actual survey coverage of 46t of the
Sample Units was within St of what had been predicted using
Terrain and Vegetative Unit information. Surveyability, the pre-
dicted survey coverage of a unit, was obtained by calculating how
auch acreage of Terrain Units, such as landslide deposits or
steep bedrock deposits <cliffs), and Vegetath·e Units, such as
marshland or developed/water, existed within each S&lllple Unit.
By cc.bining the first three colUIBDs of the table, it can be
determined that actual coverage of 83t of the units was within
20t of tbe predicted coverage. Reasons for reduced surveyability
of the 33 units varying from eL~ected surveyability by 6t to 20t
include: more water or marshland than projected Cl3 units); less
water or marshland (13); more cliffs or steep slopes (4); fewer
cliffs or less steep slope Cl>; more dense vegetation Cl); and
more construction (1)= Por the 15 units with greater than 20t
difference, the reasons include: more water or marshland <6);
end of project (4); presence of posted private land (3); presence
of bears (1); and more cliffs than projected (1).
Tbe breakdown by Linear Feature in Table 3-6 also indicates
where the use of Terrain and Vegetative Unit data best predicted
actual conditions. Again, using the 0-St column, the predictions
were accurate in at least half the cases in Linear Features 1, 3,
and 4, and least accurate in Linear Feature 5.
3-14
r
I.
L
..
Linear
Feature
1
2
3
4
5
Total t
of sample
Units
Table 3-6
Summary Comparison of Anticipated Versus Actual
Surveyability of Sample Units by Linear Feature
variation from Anticipated Surveyability Total t of
o~s. 6-101 11-201 >201 saaple Units
10 (561) 1 (5.51) 5 (27.51) 2 (llt) 18 (201)
2 <401) 0 1 (201) 2 (401) 5 (6t)
5 CSOt> 1 ClOt) 2 (201) 2 (201) 10 Cllt)
15 (751) 2 Cl-01) 1 (51) 2 (101) 20 (22.5t)
9 (251) 8 (221) 12 (33. 51) 7 <19.51) 36 (40.51)
41 (461) 12 Cl3.51l 21 (23.511 15 <171) 89 (1001)
The predictability percentages would actually increase for
all Linear Features if units not totally surveyed due to tille and
other constraints were deleted. Onder those circumstances, the
41 units in the 0-SI category would represent 501 of the total
and predictions in four of the five Linear Features would be
accurate to within 51 in over 581 of the units.
It appears that, by using the Terrain and Vegetative Units,
accurate prediction of surveyabili ty within 51 is possible for
about half the cases. If tbe degree of accuracy required is
adjusted to 101, the predictability increases to 601, and for 201
accuracy, 831 of the cases are predictable. This would be a use-
ful tool for estimating how much of any unit is surveyable and
planning survey and testing accordingly. In such a case the 51
to 101 accuracy would probably be preferred •
3-15
----------------,.------------
,.. 3. 3 CUL'!UDL IIB80UIICII8 i
t
l
3.3.1 xatrolactiaa
A total of 51 cultural resource occurrences were documented
during the Phase II fieldwork (Table 3-7). Of these resources,
40 are generally labelled cultural resource sites, defined as
locations containing diverse materials and/or features resulting
from past human activity. The abe of sites varies depending
upon the number of occupants, length of occupation, and activi-
ties conducted. Sites are considered single component when the
evidence indicates occupation and use by a single prehistoric,
etbnobistoric, or historic culture. ltllti-component sites are
those which indicate occupation by more than one previous
culture.
In addition to prehistoric and historic sites, a category
de:igDCd u •recant• vas recorded. Recant si tas eo~s_isi; of
features or activity areas, such as bunting camps or trap lines,
that are generally just a few years old. Information recorded
for recent cultural resource sii.es was generally leas detailed
than that for sites considered prehistoric, ethnohistoric, or
historic. No Alaska Heritage Resource Site <AB~) numbers have
been assigned to these sites.
The primary reason for inventorying recent sites was to pro-
vide general contemporary land use information which may even-
tually be usable in comparison with earlier periods of use of the
study area. Information on recent sites also can provide insight
into the time it takes for site integrity to be lost.
The final category of cultural resource occurrence is the
isolated find (isolate), of which ll were recorded. Isolates are
single occurrences of cultural material that are limited in con-
tent and have no contextual information through which to evaluate
their place in the prehistory or history of the area, other than
~ intrinsically. Recent isolates are included in this category.
3-16
' l
!"'
...
i.
Table 3-7
Cultural Resource Sites and Isolates Located
During the Phase II Sample Survey
SaiiiPle
L unit Sites (including Recent) Isolates (including Recent)
3 A1I1C 536
L ABC 537
3-1
•· 7 ANC 538
75 TYO 67
TYO 68
504 TLM 276 504-1
504-2
;. 444 TLM l08a
549 Sf9-l
364 364-1 ... 364-2
364-3 382a BBA 250
iiBA 251 ~ 404 TLM 274
451 TLM 1104
461 TLM 275b
163 PAI 252
163-1
182 PAI 253b
182-1
245 245-1
254 254-1
255 255-1 .,.,A ..,.,fill_.., 278-1 .. ,.., ,.,v-~
282 282-1
282-2
303 303-1
307 307-1
308 308-1 ::.13 FAI 254
313-1
313-2
314 FAI 255 314-1
FAI 256
FAI 257
FAI 258
314-2
314-3
(continued>
.. 3-17
...
l.
,_
i..
...
---------------------------------
~able 3-7. CUltural Resource Sites and Isolates Located
Duri119 tbe Phase II Saaple Survey (continued)
SUple
Uilit Sites (including Recent) Isolates (including Recent)
315 PU 259 315-2
P.f;l ~~0
PAZ 261
PU 262
PU 263
315-1
315-3
~Previously recorded site
Located adjacent to Sample Unit
Locations where isolates were located were sufficiently tested to
deterwdne that indeed they were isolates and not sites. Ro ABRS
numbers have been assigned to any isolates.
The general distribUtion of cultural resources in relation
to the Linear Features and tbe specific Sample Unit with wbic:b
they are associated is presented in Figures 3-2 through 3-4.
Appendix B provides narrat! ~es, maps, and site foras for sites
and isolates located during Phase II •
3-18
.._,
...
SAMPLE UNITS SURVEYED FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES
ALONG LINEAR FEATURE I JuM-August 1985
0 a
0
R ' '9 p .,,..
5 Ill II zo IS 10-
........ fll..l. ,, .... --,,...,.,.,. .., IJ ,,_ . ---t . ,.....--... -..... _
Figure 3-2
3-19
0 5 10 'I • 0 I , 15 !I! p
----~ _lloii_I_ZI -----T-L• IP'oot • ..,ll
-·Dftfl-=-__ ,,._41
• ~ .... .....,...
so.tlf '*' .tDt c.thnl rtiDWC•
Figure 3-3
i 30-rw......
t
3-20
SAMPLE UNITS SURVEYED
FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES
ALONG
LINEAR FEATURES 2, 3 a 4
June-August 1985
.... .._.uSIS'""'· .. ,...,_... ..........
•I ,_, _, II ,..,_ ---..
0 10
0 ' '
Figure 3-4
,, , 20 Z5 10 .....
E p p:)W._...
3-21
\
' «;. /' + .... .. / '·
/ ' ----t-r-...... ;. ' ..
l( '
! ' ......... ' ' ...... .,
' '
. . ... ___ , " •
UNITS SURVEYED
FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES
ALONG LINEAR FEATURE 5
June-August 1985
"""'------T,_... Lillrl (~ .... SJ . _ .... _
The prehistoric, ethnohistoric, and historic sites were
assigned to site types developed and defined during Phase I
research <Greiser et al. 1985:4-19--4-30) in order to conduct the
statistical analyses necessary for model refinement. These site
types are chipping station/! i thic scatter (Site Type 1), cache
pit (Site Type SJ, historic building/structure (Site Type 21>,
aining camp or operation
activity (Site Type 31>.
result of F.·hase II work.
(Site Type 27), and recent military
one additional site type was added as a
This type is the historie dump or trash
scatter (Site Type 32), which includes historic aaterial con-
centrations or scatters containing cans, bottles, stove parts,
domestic items, utilitarian items, etc., which have been
discarded or abandoned.
Recorded.isolates range from prehistoric flakes and a biface
fragment, to part of a historic small gauge rail, to recent
material including cans1 a bottle; a large, wooden-handled ~~ife;
a steel trap; a coffee pot: and a razor-tipped arrow. The recent
bottle was one of the few items recovered from systematic
testing.
3. 3. 2 su-q of CUl.tural Resources
The 40 cultural resource sites (Table 3-8) can be divided
into the following categories: previously unrecorded prehistoric
(5)7 previously recorded prehistoric (2); ethnohistoric (2);
historic ( 15 >; and recent ( 16 J • The two previously recorded
sites have been discussed in detail (Dixon et al. 1985) and will
not be addressed here.
Rec.::ut sites in the Fairbanks and Healy areas appear to
illustrate continued, though varying, land use patterns. Those
in other areas may reflect a new pattern of exgansion into areas
which demonstrate no previous documentation of extended use.
3-22
w
I
N w
MRS Sit. ......
Me 536
Me 537
Me 538
'1'10 067
'1'10 068
'lUI :174
'lUI 275
'lUI 276
lilA :150
Ba351
PAl 352
PAI 253
PAt 254
PAI 255
PAt 256
l'AI 257
PAt 358
l'AI :159
l'AI 260
PAIHl
PAt 262
PAl 263
Table 3-8
Prehistoric, EthnOhiatoric, ~~d Historic Sites
Located During the Phase l:I Sample Survey
Olltllral *-Jab llld/01: r.tun. Rlmlta of '1WitiJr,r l!lidod al. OCD~tlan
3 pita lib watialr fe~~tane dMaltl llaat•UCIO A.D.•
~·· 109 pita lib t:.tiall f•tune abriGUJI Jllollt•UCIO A.D.*
:~t.,rtta lib uati~~~rr featauw abrb:lu lt25-1950 A.D.
1 t 17 wata1 natbiaJ dlaflaltlve ~
1 pit 16 t:.ta1 nctbiii!J cllf Laitlw Q*nolll
Lithic •terlal 50 t.ata1 2 aaltunl 1~ Onlp'Wit 2, 450-550 A.D.
C NC ••t 1, CIIW 3,000 I.C.
Lithic •tuial lb t.atilllr, oataide 8lllp1e Ull1t ~
Blat«ical .ata.lal, s-a!ble 10 C.taJ ~ hiat:IOcic llaat-ltU
bume4 auuatura ••Lil• Lit.hic •terl.al 1:1 t.ataJ liD ~~~baud-•tlldal u.m-
Lithic ateri.al u teataJ liD IUbau&face •t•Jal Ullknclll
Hlatoric •ter.lal Llllttall prcblng, •terLil l'tdllbly lt25-1150
Lithic •t•Jal
....... al~ UlaudiCII
10 uatar & 1.-t 1 lalblurf.-Dl*nalln
C:OU.tpllld Clbln, 2 ~ plita,
CXIIplll*lt
lb taatiniJf f•taar• abrlaua 1100-1933
hilltaric •t•Jal
'hntl?) ..... 2 ~ pita, Lllalt.S pi'Cib1rJJ 1 •tadal 1900-1933
biatOI: 1a •tar: .141 .uncia lllighely aua.w:fac»
Col.lapaad aMlin, 2 ~ pLu, lb t:.ti111r fatune abriaua tauiblt 2 CXIIIpllllntal
1 tna Olldllt, hiatOI:la •t:K.Ial lltch m, 1tlt-1MO 01: 1950
Collllpled c.lnn, 2 praepeot pita, lb taattng, featur• c::twiaua llaat-ltOD*
1Ud.ted •tadal
Cribbed lag fjCOIIpact pit lb t.atilll:lr futurea abriaua llaat-JJOO•
IVt.IAlly col.lapMd Clbln, auttlauM, lb t:.tf.niJJ futurea abvlaua lt3G-1HO
threa ~. •tada1 acattar
Crlllbad lag fjCOIIpact plt lib t.otlN,II fMtur• ablliaua llaat-1900*
'1'WD aril:lbed lG!J proafja:t lhaft., Liaited *tillg' ao aul!llud-ra.t-1900*
l pitl
Hlatacla -tter ~tall P&'Obllllr ltlG-1150 101: lHO
HistOI: ic -ttar lb teatiniJ1 •t•ial an .ur&ca IPclt-1100*
*l'rc:Dble data
IUIII:It:hM1 categocr
110.1~~
IIO.ial:y Nlal:d
lllU:-;t~
CleM t?
~pit?
Cillp7'
.!lllp?
=01: 1ant.OIIIIfl
~
DnknaiiD
Clb1a?
e.p?
Jd..-•a Clbin
..,_ •• CIIIP
MI.Mr'• cabin
..... cabin
lllnlnl
lllnar 1 at?l ao: t:aww'• Cllb1n
lllninl
lllnlll!r
ftllporuy CIIIP7
DIIP
r
[
r l:.
,.
t
r
L
l
..
..
...
SU...ry details of the ra.aining cultural resource sites are
presented in Table 3-8. The table briefly describes cultural
.. terials or features recorded at each siteJ nuaber and results
Of SUbsurface testSJ chronological placement Of the Site based on
cultur~ •terials obserV'edJ and tentative categorization, if
possible, of each site baaed on the features and materials
observed.
The five prehistoric chipping station/lithic scatters ranged
froa surface visible with no subsurface CBBA 250 and BBA 251>, to
surface visible with subsurface (PAl 253), to subsurface multi-
coaponent with no surface visibility C'l'LM 274). A single site
CTLM 275) located outside the saaple area was recorded on the
basis of surface materials but not subjected to testing.
Deposition occurring at prehistoric sites appears to be
somewhat variable based on the limited sample obtained. Bven
sites located on fairly apoaed surfaces within several ailes.of
each other (JIBA 250, BBA 251, and 'l'LM 274) appear to have been
subjected to variable deposition rates. In the case of TLM 274,
aevelo~nt of soils is at least partially explained through the
depoai tion of volcanic ash layers which were not subsequently
eroded.
The pattern of location of prehistoric sites generally fits
two of tbe intuitive patterns suggested by previous investiga-
tors. All of the sites are located where the view is good to
excellent, and in four cases (BBA 250, REA 251, TLM 274, TLM
275), outlet drainages or confluences are within the nearby
viewshed. Thus, the current data support the intuitive site
location models hypothesizing overlooks and outlets/confluences
as prime site locations.
Two sites are tentatively identified as cache pits asso-
ciated with former Athapaskan occupants of the area CTYO 067 and
TYO 068). Although no conclusive data were obtained during
3-24
[
..
l
(
[
l
l
l
..
l
L
L
L
L
I
L
testing and recording of the e1tes, a number of factors seem to
indicate their use as cache pits. ~be general size and shape of
tbe pita fit the range for previously ~ecorded cache pits. The
sites are located on a well-drained terrace not too far from the
Little Susitna River, and in close proximity to a trail and ford
of the river used by the Tanaina. A recent fishing caap and tree
cache are located nearby.
~he 15 historic sites include historic building/structures
(Site Type 21 -PAl 254, PAJ: 255, PAI 256, PAI 257, FAI 258 )J
historic adning.camps or operations (Site Type 27-PAI 258, PAI
260, PAI 26l)J recent military (Site Type 31 -ANC 536, ANC 537,
ANC 538)J and historic dump or ~xash scatter (Site Type 32 -TLM
276, PAI 252, PAI 262, and PAI 263).
The primary distribution pattern is large in numbers of
historic sites in saaple units adjacent to the major population
centers of Ancllorage and Fairbanks. Three sites are tentatively
identified as ~elated to movements of United States ground troops
stationed in Anchorage dar inq World war II. Members of the
Council on Alalerica's Military Past (formerly the Council of
Abandoned MiRitary Past) who were contacted indicated that,
although the descriptions of pits sounded unusual for fox holes,
it was possible that some other related activity might havE:.
occurred. It is possible that the site features could be testa
or prospectimg pits, which would then resemble the even stronger
pattern of mining-related sites in the Fairbanks area. Further
investigation in the Anchorage area of adjacent sites, such as
the cabin foundation near Sample Unit 7, as well as the recorded
sites, should include additional archival research to better
address questions of site function.
L. A summary of the· historical events prominent in Alaska in
the late 1800s and early 1900s provides insight into sites
L recorded in the Fairbanks area. The discovery o~ gold at Turn-
3-25
r
r
r
r
[
r
t
(
l
r
L..
L
again Ara in 1895 r•dically altered the course of Alaskan his-
tory. '!his strike,. and a subsequent discovery oa the ltlondike
River two years later, resulted in an influx of miners. In 1898
and for several decades thereafter, the u.s. Gover•eat, uader
the auspices of the u.s. Geol09ical Survey, funded major expedi-
tions into the Alaskan interior. The information obtained during
these surveys increased interest in Alaska as a potentially
.tneral-rich area. In addition to prompting increased governaent
funding for exploration, the gold strikes in the mid-1890&
resulted in widespread prospecting ventures throughout the
interior. Miners worked in virtually every major drainage,
hopiag to locate rich mineral deposits.
Although prospector• first discovered gold within the study
area near Fairbanks in the 1.8708, they were ill-equipped to deve-
lop the deposits. It was not ~til the early 1900s that the gold
deposits in the Fairbanks re;ior. were mined productively.
Strikes on Pedro, Cleary, and Fairbanks Creeks during the summer
of 1902 led to a rapid influx of miners and settlers, and the
growth of both Fairbanks and Chana. The Fairbanks mining boom
was short-lived, however, and by 1920, the population of Fair-
bailks had dropped from a high of over 5,000 in 1904 to less than
1,200.
Other mininq districts in the study area flourished briefly
shortly after and as a direct result of the Fairbanks strikes.
Most of the areas that included the Yentna and Willow Creek
Districts were discovered by miners who were either en route to
Fairbanks or who bad been unsuccessful in prospecting the Fair-
banks placers.
The evolution of Alaska • s economy during the early 1900s
prompted the U.S. Government to develop dependable transportation
facilities. The extensive network of overland trails that miners
and settlers used to travel from the coast to interior settle-
3-26
r
r
r
r
[
r
t
t
l
------------------------------------------------
.ants were often unreliable due to weather. ~bus, in 1~15, the
u.s. Goveraaent began construction of the Alaska Railroad.
Although the project was not completed until 1923 and proved far
.ore expensive than initially expected, it provided reliable and
relatively easy access to previously isolated areas.
2be Bdning boaa and the construction of the Alaska Railroad
characterized the economic development of Alaska during the first
two decades of the 1900s. These two developaents were directly
responsible for the establishaent of support industries,
including agriculture and service-related businesses. As stated
above, the mining boca was brief and relatively few miners were
successful. However, many prospectors remained in the various
mining districts, working the known deposits during the spring
and summer months and tr~ing fur-bearing animals in the winter.
out of the 10 historic sites recorded along Alder creek, 8
bave been identified as related to mineral prospecting. The
remaining two may be material scatters related to mining or
possibly trapping. In any case, the oldest occupation may pre-
date 1900. At least broad bracketing dates have been established
for 1110st of the sites on the basis of diagnostic features, or
even dates on bottles and cans (Fontana et al. 1962J Tolouee
1971; Ward et al. 1977). A review of doc~ments (see Section 6.2,
References Reviewed) on file at the Fairbanks District Recorder's
Office indicate that 377 mining claims w~re filed along Alder and
~ Emma Creeks between 1930 and 1940, although no map was prepared.
It
As a result of this archival inventory, records of mining loca-
tion notices were reviewed which may contain sufficient detail to
recreate a map of mine claims. Preparation of such a map should
be undertaken as part of additional research on selected sites in
the area. Sites PAl 254, PAl 256, and PAl 259 have well-defined
features including at least partial cabins and subsistence-
related materials.
3-27
-~------------·---·----------------------------r
r
r
r
[
t
t
r
~.
L
I
~.
I
b
!
I
"
I ...
I..
3. 4 B!DMMPBIC IllfDVIBE
Durinq the course of the Phase II fieldwork, four interviews
were conducted vi th Athapaskan people who were known to have
lmovledqe, or who were thought might have knowledge, of various
parts of the Linear Features area. The interviews were conducted
to gather as mach additional information as possible about sites
located during the field surveyJ to gather initial information
about additional sites on or near the Linear Features outside the
Sample UnitsJ and to identify other knowledgeable individuals for
further contact.
Interviews were conducted with Shem and Billy Pete (Upper
Cook Inlet Tanai4a), who formerly lived, trapped, and bunted in a
large area south of Willow to the Little Susitna River, with
Henry Peters and Jake Tansy <western Ahtna>, who trapped and
hunted in the Deadman Creek area and were knowledgeable through
oral history of people, places, and events in the general area;
and Thomas Albert (Lower Tanana), who was generally knowledgeable
about Atbapaskan use of and movements tbrou~b the study area, but
who was more familiar with areas further e~st.
Attempts were made to visit recorded sites with each inter-
viewee, but both Shem Pete and Thomas Albert were not able to
walk to the sites recorded in their areas due to their health and
difficult access to the sites. Henry Peters and Jake Tansy were
both taken to accessible prehistoric sites in their areas, but
they had no knowledge of them.
In all cases, the interviewees knew of a range of sites in
their specific areas. Sites on or reasonably near the Linear
Features are listed in Table 3-9. More information on these
sites, as well as sites further from the study area, is presented
in Appendix c. The age range of sites varied from early contact
or possibly even precontact sites known through oral history, to
abandoned cabins or campsites known first hand to sites still
occupied as part of their annual subsistence cycle.
3-28
r
[
r
r
r
t
t
l
i..
..
'fable 3-9
CUltural Resource Sites On or Near the Linear Peatures
Identified through Interviews with delected Athapaskans
Linear Peature 1
n) cabiD sl te at the RtOUth of Shea Pete Slough -
built in 1925 and used until 1940s by Shea Pete
and Wilson Nicolle familiesJ apparently washed
away.
(2) Head of Shell Pete Slough -tenainus of one of the
trails fro. Red Shirt Lake used historically and
probably earlier; canoe storage area.
(3) Red Shirt Lake Village -previously recorded (see
Fall 1981: 382-384); also contains a nearby aban-
doned trapper's cabin used over the past 30 to 40
years.
(4) ~ identifiable loc:at!one, but cache pits should
be fairly numerous throughout tbe area.
Linear Peature 4
(1) Trapper's cabin (or possibly two cabins) southeast
of Deadman Creek near where it enters the ti.ber
(not located).
C 2 J Tent camp located at the confluence of Deadman
Creek and the outlet stream froa Pass Lake; used
by Jake Tansy as a trapping base camp from
1926-1940; cultural material still visible.
(3) Salt or mineral lick area south of the summit be-
tween Deadman and Brushkana Creeks; no known or
visible sites.
(4) Laughing Ole's (prospector) cabin, located near a
tributary to Lilly Creek; built around 1924; cabin
collapsed but still visible.
(continued)
3-29
I
t
[
[
t
t
l
l
l
L
,
L..
l
I~
l
l
L
L
Table 3-9. Oll.taral Reaoarce Sit .. on or aea"r tbe Linear
l'•tures Identified through Interviews with
Selected Atbapasbns (continued)
Linter Peature s
Cl> Old Indian village at Suntrana.
C2> 01• Indian village at Healy.
(3) Old IDdian trail in the vicinity of the current
route of the Alaska Railroad, at least froa Healy
to Rex.
C4) Old Indian trail paralleling the Alaska Range and
running at least from 'l'oklat to Perry, then east
to Japan Bill.
C 5) Clarence Bundy's cabin, located next to the
railroad south of Browne, cabin still standing.
(6) Happy Jack'a cabin, located near the railroad just
north of Browne, current status unknown, one of
tba ~uilding• posSibly is at Br~a.
(7) Barlow cabin, located near the railroad somewhere
between tbe previous two cabins CIS and 16 above)J
current status unknown.
(8) Stite's (?) Roadhouse, located either between
Browne and Rex or possibly at the river crossing
near RexJ current status unknown.
(9) Renana River ford near Rex [forDlerly ColbyC?>h
used by !nd!ane prior to any bridges across the
river.
UO> A series of fishing/bunting cabins of uncertain
age are located along the Tanana River in the
general vicinity of Linear Feature 5. These
include cabins identified as belonging to Teddy
Blkins, Gene Lake, the wrights, Mrs. Albert
C'l'homas Albert's mother) at Six Mile, the
Targhee's, and Frank Jones.
3-30
r
(
r
r
t
[
(
r
l
,
L
f
L
r
L
,
I ...
I
L.
' ...
...
As indicated by ethnographic dai;a revievec! and su.tarUed
during Phase I research, tbe Tanaina area, wbicb is most closely
associated with Linear l'eature 1, produced tbe only known villaqe
sites. The village sites visited or learned about are located
near inlets or outlets of larger lakes wbere salliOn could be
exploited and other food and fuel resources would be available
during the winter. It should be noted that even at Red Shirt
Lake Village, which was occupied into tbe early 1900s, tbe pri-
.. ry visible evidence at tbe site is a series of pits wbicb are
heavily reveqetated. This kind of evidence suggests that at
least Atbapas.k.an sites used on a abort term basis will bave an
even 110re subtle expression archeoloqically and that finding
knowledgeable elders ma~ be a key to initial site location.
3-31
t
[
[
L
t
L
L
L
L
I ...
4. 0 IIBFIBIE ~ PBBDIC'fiVB IIODBL
Thoma. !'I A. Poor
Predictive Mod~ling Consultant
4 .1 BV'ALUUIOII 01' SAIIPLB S-..::'1'1011 IIODII'ICUIOII
Several factors necessitated changes in the proportional
distribution of acres in Vegetative and Terrain Units. These
factors have been detailed in Chapter 2. The results, which
varied from unit to unit, are summarized from Table 2-1 (Tables
4-1 and 4-2), but the final effect was negligible. For example,
in the research design for testing the predictive model CGreiser
et al. 1985a:6-36), it was proposed to survey 346 acres classi-
fied as the •Organic Materials• Terrain Unit CAl). Due to
changes in the sample, discussed in Chapter 2, only 258 acres
were in the surveyed sample. Since the proportion of acres pro-
posed for survey in each unit was judged to be similar to the
proportion of acres in the corresponding population unit CGreiser
et al. 1985:6-37 to 6-39), the appropriate question to ask of the
surveyed sample is whether the rank order of topographic and
vegetative units in the survey sample can be predicted from
knowing the rank order of rmmbers t)f acres in the population's
units.
Again, the Spearman rank order correlation coefficient was
selected to measure association between each pair of series. In
the original sample, the calculated rank order coefficient be-
tween the proposed Vegetative Unit sample and the study area
Vegetative Unit ranks was ~s = 0.99 <Greiser et al. 1985:6-37).
The correlation coefficient between the surveyed sample and the
project area ranks (Table 4-3> is ~ = 0.95. This observed value
also exceeds the table value of 0. 783 for the nine Vegetative
Units at the 0.01 significance level. Thus, it is concluded that
4-1
I
l
l
I
I
L.,
I
L
1
L
' j
L..
L
' L
I
I
i..
Table 4-1
Acreages of Vegetative Units in the S~~!e and
Projected Projected
Acres in Acres in
V~getative Unit Sample Population
Cl
C2
C3
C4 cs
C6
C7
CB
C9
944
1,237
455
478
2,672
3,996
3,709
269
7,527
6,521
3,792
7,474
16,035
26,611
18,831
1,462
67
Survey Areas
Observed
Acres in
sample
1,408
2,960
2,274
2,510
541
2,279
1,139
649
there is very little lost in predictability and one order can be
predicted by knowing the other.
As field crews surveyed Sample Units, they recorded dominant
vegetation percentages that they observed. As mentioned in
Section 2, the data recorded by the archeological crews are
likely to differ somewhat from that which would be recorded by
trained biologists. The data, presented in Table 2-1 and sum-
marized in Table 4-1 and Table 4-Ja, indicate some gross discre-
pancies, probably due to lack of training in vegetation
categorization. The correlation of coefficient between the pro-
jected or anticipated vegetation in the sample and the observed
vegetation was Es = 0.33, below the critical value of 0.60 at the
0.05 significance level. When comparing the rankings of the pro-
jected versus the observed vegetation combining Vegetative Onits
3/7 and 4/5, a closer correlation is observed. The value of the
Spearman's Rank Order Coefficient is 0.89], which is significant
at the 0. 01 level. This indicates that the rank order of the
anticipated vegetation can be used to predict the observed vege-
tation.
4-2
"""' ~ .,_ '' .. -,, r
r
'l'able 4-2
( A'"'reages of Terrain Units in the Sample and Survey Areas
'l'errain Unit Acres in sample Acres in Population
r Al 258 2,547 L A2 616 4,632
r A3 1,674 9,314
A4 0 701
AS 545 2,671
A6 475 3,256
t A7 455 4,975
AS 609 4,342
A9 948 6,205
t AlO 565 3,285
L All 0 316
Al2 210 896
' All
L Al4 393 3,579
Al5 1,161 5,986
Al6 390 1,515
I' A!? 0 80 [
t, AlB 839 6,871
Al9 0 91
r· A20 0 1
l A21 182 1,465
A22
A23 19 51
f A24 0 210 f
l. A25 0 594
A2S 15 IS
A27 1,363 7,559
L A28 874 4,809
A29 so 243
' A30 5 306
l All 241 1,512
A32 196 798
L A33 509 3,180
A34 226 1,222
A35 u H
A36 513 2,965
I A37 150 840 L A38 265 1,274
L
L
...
4-3
l
l
I
..
Table 4-la
Rank Proportions of Vegetat!9e Units in Sample and Survey Areas
Vegetative
Unit
Cl
C2
C3
C4 cs
C6
C7 ca
C9
Rank Proportion
of Projected
Acres in Sample
5
6
3
4
7
9
8
2
1
Rank Proportion
of Acres in
Projected
Project Area
6
4
3
5
7
9
8
2
1
Table 4-Jb
Rank Proportion of
Observed Acres in
Sample
5
9
6
8
2
7
4
3
1
Rank Proportions of Vegetative Units in sample and survey Areas
Csome combined>
Cl
C2
C3/7
C4/5
C6
C8
C9
3
4
7
5
6
2
1
4
3
5
6
7
2
l
3
5
7
6
4
4
1
Similarly, the data were reviewed to determine whethel:' the
survey sample still suggests agreement between the ranks of acres
for each Terrain Unit in the sample and the ranks of acres for
each Terrain Unit in the study area <Table 4-4). The calculated
coefficient !s • 0.99 exceeds the critical value of 0.47 for 0.01
significance level and 31 ranks. This result is almost identical
to the value obtained for the proposed sample and the study area
CGreiser et al. 1985:6-39). This again suggests a great deal of
predictability between the study area ranks and the sample ranks.
4-4
r
r
t
t
i
I.
i...
I
I.
l
L
L
L
l
L
L
'!'able 4-4
Rank Proportions of Terrain Units in Sample and Survey Areas
Terrain
Unit
Al
A2
Al
A4
AS
A6
A7
A8
A9
· AlO
Al2
Al4
AlS
Al6
Al7 ua
A21
A23
A26 An
.o\28
~\29
A30
A31
.!\32
A33
A34
A35
A36
A37
A38
Rank Proportion of
Acres in Sample
13.5
24
28
1.5
21
18
17
23
25
22
10
16
26
15
1.5
23
8
6
5
27
24
0
3
12
9
19.5
ll
4
19.5
7
13.5
4-5
Rank Proportion of
Acres in Project Area
16
24
31
7
17
20
26
23
28
21
10
22
27
14.5
3
29
13
6
1.5
30
25
4
5
14.5
8
19
11
1.5
18
9
12
L
t
L
I • l.
I
l
l
l
l
t
I
L
l
t
L
l
l
L
l
-------------------=--"""'""""'""-';,;;;·-.,o;•'""''""""'O.O."" ___ ....,;.;._
4.2 BVALOAriOR OP SORVB! DA~A
The survey results were collected in a faahion intended to
allow comparison to the two hypothesized models generated by the
background research (Greiser et al. 1985:5-7). The hypothesized
models are outlined in the Phase I Report as:
<lJ The first predictive settlement model is derived from
previous archeological work, the factor analysis, and
the ethnographic and historic records. This model
hypothesizes that there are preferred geographic set-
tings for particular activities.
(2) The second is a model which is analogous to the null
hypothesis used in inferential statistics. The model
specifies a hypothesized settlement pattern with
environmental uniformity --a random site distribution
when considered across the relevant geographic
variables.
BRA's survey crews recorded or observed 24 cultural resource
sites containing 25 components (Table 4-5) in the survey of
13,760 acres C! = 1.8 X lo-3 sites per acre or 1 site per 550.4
acres for the overall area>. Bight of the 25 components (321)
are classified as chipping station/lithic scatter (Site Type !).
Five of the 25 components (201) are classed as Historic building/
structure (Site Type 21). None of the other components occurred
in frequencies this high (Table 4-6). These two types of compon-
ents also were among the most frequently reported classes in the
sample used for the background research and predictive model.
Table 4-3 in the Phase I report (Greiser et al. 1985:4-32) shows
that chipping station/lithic scatter is the single most frequent
4-6
[
[ Table 4-5
Recorded Cultural Resource Sites Within and Adjacent to the
l Linear Features During the 1985 Linear Features Sample Survey
l ABRS Expected Site Distance
Site Terrain Terrain Veqetativ:3 S.ue to Water Site Period of NWII.bera Unit Ab Unit 9b Unit ct: cm2 > (m> Typeb Occupationb l ANCS360 A09 819 C07 800 400 31 1
ANC5370 A09 816 COl 12,000 300 31 l
l ANCS380 A09 817 cos 25,000 450 31 1
FAI2520 A09 817 cos 30 400 32 1
l FAI2530 A10 803 C04 77 200 1 0 FA12540 A27 803 C07 150 300 21 1 PAl2550 A27 817 C03 560 33 21 1 PAI2560 A27 827 COl 600 100 21 1 l PAI2570 A27 817 C03 768 19 21 1 PAI2580 A27 803 C03 100 76 27 1 PAI2590 A27 816 C04 1,500 100 21 1
I FAI2&00 A27 8!8 COl 20 100 27 1 I i'AI26l0 A27 816 C04 4,500 150 l 27 1 PAI2620 A27 818 C07 100 2 32 1
L PAI2&30 A27 818 C07 10 so 32 1
HBA2500 A03 813 C06 780 200 1 0
HBA2510 A03 819 C06 112 200 1 0
l TLK108Qc A08 816 COl 270 100 1 0 TLM1100C A03 801 COl 52 20 1 0
l TLK274A AOS 808 C06 200 122 1 3
TLM2748 AOS 808 C06 200 122 1 7
'l'LM2750 Al2 808 C06 50 700 1 0
L
TLM2760 A02 818 cos 112 10 32 l
TY00670* Al8 816 C04 25 480 5 3
l
TY00680* Al8 816 C04 25 380 5 3
aAlaska Heritage Resources survey CABRS) site numbers are based on the
L three-letter abbreviation of the 1:250,000 USGS maps on which they are
located, and the specific number assigned to that site.
boefinitions of these variables are presented in the Phase I Report.
L Cpreviously recorded site within a surveyed sample unit.
L
'I
.l 4-7
1
l.
I
I
I
I
l
I
1
l
l
1
'1,
Ill
l
.L.
l
Table 4-6
Site Type Frequency in the Sample Area
Site (Component) Type
l -Chipping station/lithic scatter
S -Cache pit
21 -Historic building/structure
27 -Mining camp and operation ·
31 -Recent military activity
32 -Dump/historic trash scatter
Frequency
8
2
5
3
3
4
.!! = 25
Prehistoric component type as well as the most frequent overall
component type. Historic building/structure is the most frequent
of the Historic component types.
In addition, three pieces of isolated lithic material were
recorded during the sample survey (Table 4-7). Isolated stone
tool or flake C Site Type 7) was one of the cultural resource
variables included in the Phase I data.
The survey results do not include enough sites or isolates
to use inferential statistics to test the relationships between
the eurvey results and the two hypothesi~ed models. However, the
survey reported information on site density, which does provide
some indication of low site densities throughout the study area.
4-8
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
]
]
l
1
Table 4-7
Recorded Lithic Isolates Within and Adjacent to the
Linear Features During the 1985 Linear Features Sampl~ Survey
Distance
Site to
Isolate Terrain Terrain Vegetative Size water Site Period of
Number Unit A Unit 8 Unit C Cm2) (m) Type OCcupation
364-1 A38 819 Cl 1 450 7 0
364-2 AS 819 C6 1 120 7 0
364-3 A38 81 C6 1 75 7 0
Por density analysis, the survey area was first divided into
three units (Table 4-8), each of which has been divide~ further
into 160-acre subunits. Table 4-9 presents the relevant infor-
mation by Linear Feature unit. Inspection of Table 4-10 indi-
cates that overall site density does not vary much, with a pro-
ject area-wide figure of 0.29 sites per 160-acre unit. Linear
Feature values vary between a low of 0.28 sites per 160-acre unit
for Linear Feature 1, to a high of 0.3~ sites per 160-acre unit
for Linear Feature 5. While overall cultural resource occurrence
does not seem to vary much, the proportional contribution of
historic versus prehistoric properties does seem to vary greatly.
Table 4-8
Cultural Resource Components Located Within Linear Feat•1res
Linear Features
Number of Linear Feature 1 2, 3, and 4 Linear Feature 5
Components C 18 subunits) ( 32 subunits> C36 subunits)
0 17/16* 27/31 35/32
1 0/l 3/1 1/2
2 1/1 2/0 0/0
3 0/0 0/0 0/0
4 0/0 0/0 0/1
5 0/0 0/0 0/1
11 *Prehistoric/historic components per 160-acre subunit
"' 'I
J.
') 4-9
J.
I
I
J
J
I
1
j
. l
-~
..oj
j
...
' .l
Table 4-9
Summary CUltural Resource Component Data by Linear Feature Units
No. Prehistoric No. Historic
No. of Components & Canponents &
160-acre Percentages per Percentages per
Unit Units 160-acre Unit 160-acre unit Totals
LPl 18 UO.ll 3/0.17 5/0.28
LF2, 3, 4 32 7/0.22 1/0.03 8/0.25
LP3 36 l/0.3 11/0.36 2/0.33
Totals 86 9/0.11 14/0.16 25.0.29
Table 4-10
Percentages of Prehistoric and Historic Components by
Linear Feature Units
Unit
LF1
LP2, 3, 4
LFS
Total Project Area
' Prehistoric
in Or.it
40
88
8
60
\ Historic
in Unit
60
12
92
60
The five components in th~ Linear Feature 1 160-acre parcels
are relatively evenly split, with two prehistoric and three
historic components reported by the survey crews. This propor-
tion is identical to that calculated for the study area as a
whole. A different pattern is suggested, however, for both of
the remaining units. Eight components were found in the group
comprised of Linear Features 2, 3, and 4. Seven of those eight
sites (881} are coded as prehistoric. The opposite pattern is
indicated when considering the 12 sites found in the group of
160-acre units coded within the Linear Feature 5 unit. Eleven of
the 12 components (92\) are coded as historic •
4-10
.J.
Site density information is important to archeologists for
many reasons. These ranqe from the theoretical issues of inten-
sity of human occupation in a specified area, to the practical
management considerations of sample size and predictive effi-
ciency. The latter reasons are of particular interest here. As
mentioned earlier, 5 of the 25 components recorded dur inq the
survey were classified as historic building/structure. Three of
the five were recorded in Coniferous forest CCJ), in which 455
acres were surveyed CTable 4-11). This provides a population
estimate of 1 site per 151.67 acres of Coniferous forest. This
leads, then, to a question reqardinq the accuracy of this esti-
mate. Because a relatively rare occurrence is being dealt with
(i -= 6.6 x l0-3 components per acre>, the Poisson series is
assumed and a 9St confidence interval for the sample mean is
calculated (Burstein 1971). Calculations indicate that th•l odds
are about 19 out of 20 chances that the true population m~an Cg)
lies between 0 and 14.0 9.24 x 10-2 components per acre, or 0 and
14.01 co~9onents per 1,000 acres.
Table 4-11
Phase II Site Types in Relation to Expected Vegetative Units
Site (Component> Type
Vegetative
Unit 1 5 .,, ..,., ... , 32 Total ... ... .u .
1 -Dry Tundra 2 0 0 0 l' 0 2
3 Coniferous Forest 0 0 3 2 1 0 6
4 -Deciduous Forest 1 2 1 1 0 0 5
5 -Mixed Forest 0 0 0 0 l 2 3
6 Low Shrub 5 0 0 0 0 0 5
7 -Dwarf tree shrub/
Tall shrub 0 0 1 0 1 2 4
Total 8 2 5 3 3 4 25
4-11
.....
! ' t 1
I ' ' ~
..
I' ....
!
!·' .....
-
-
-
...
-
-
-
REFERENCES
r:
[
6. 0 BIBLIOGRAPB!' UD RDBRBHCBS CI'fBD
6 .1 J.BI'BRBIJCBS CITED
ACRBS American Incorporated and R&M Consultants
198la Subtask 5.02, Photo Interpretation Terrain Unit Maps.
Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority's Susitns Hydro-
electric Project.
198lb Transmission corridor Terrain Unit Maps: South Inter-
tie/North Intertie. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authori-
ty's susitna Hyd~oelectric Project.
Bacon, Glenn H. and Charles B. Holmes
1980 Archeological survey and Inventory of Cultural Resources
at Fort Greely, Alaska, 1979. Report submitted to the
Alaska District, u.s. Army Corps of Engineers.
Bacon, Glenn, Charles M. M~bley, Terrence Cole, and
ChArles Holmes
1983 The Final Report of the 1981 and 1982 cultural Resources
Survey of the Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie.
Report from Alaska Heritage Research Group, Inc., through
Commonwealth Associates, Inc., to the Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage.
Burstein, a.
1971 Attribute Sampling. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Coombs, C.B. and R.C. Kao
1955 Non-metric Factor Analysis. Engineering Research Bulle-
tin No. 38. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
1964 on a Connection between Factor Analysis and Multidimen-
sionftl unfolding. Psychometrika (25J:219-23l.
Dixon, E. James
1985 Cultural Chronology of Central Interior Alaska. Arctic
Anthropology 22(1):47-66.
Dixon, E. James, George Smith, and David Plaskett
1980 Archeological Survey and Inventory of Cultural Re-
sources. Report to the Alaska District, Corps of Engi-
neers, from the University of Alaska Museum, Contract No.
DACA85-78-C-0047.
Dixon, E.J., Jr., G.s. Smith, R.M. Thorson, and R.C. Betts
1981 Annual Report-1980, Subtask 7.06. Cultural Resources
Investigation for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
6-l
,
Dixon, E.J., Jr., G.s. Smith, R.C. Betts, and R.M. Thorson
1982 Pinal Report, Subtask 7.06. Cultural Resources Investi-
gation for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project: A Prelimi-
nar1 Cultural Resource survey in the Opper Susitna River
Valley.
Dixon, E.J., Jr., G.s. Smith, M.L. King, and J.D. Romick
1983 Pinal Report, Subtask 7.06. 1982 Field Season, Cultural
Resources Investigation for the Susitna Hydroelectric Pro-
ject: Cultural Resources Survey in the Middle susitha
River Valley.
Dixon, E.J., G.s. Smith, W. Andrefsky, B.M. Saleeby, C.J. Oter-
mohle, and M.L. King
1984 Susitna Hydroelectric Project, 1983 Field Season,
Cultural Resources Investigations. 3 vola.
Dixon, E.J., G.S. Smith, w. Andrefsky, B.M. Saleeby, and C.J.
Otermohle
1985 Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Cultural Resources
Investigations, 1979-1985. Draft Report prepared for
Alas~ Power Authority.
Fall, James A.
1981 Patterns of Opper Inlet Tanaina Leaderships, 1741-1918.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin,
Madison. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Fontana, Bernard L., Cameron Greenleaf, Charles w. Ferguson,
Robert A. Wright, and Doris Frederick
1962 Johnny Ward's Ranch: A Study in Historic Archeology.
!!!..!. 28:1-115.
Greiser, T. Weber, S.T. Greiser, G. Bacon, T. Foor, P. Kari,
J. Karl, 0. Gallacher, and J. Ca}~ood
1985 Phase I Final Report: Background Research and Predic-
tive Model for Cultural Resources Located Along the Susitna
Hydroelectric Linear Features Project. Report to Harza-
Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture from Historical Research Asso-
ciates under contract number 076L04-00.
Guthrie, R. nale
1983 Paleoecology of the Site and Its Implications for
Hunters. In Dry Creek: Archeology and Paleoecol7:y
Late Pleistocene Alaskan Bunting Camp, pp. 209-28~
National Park Service report on file with the Alaska
Regional Office.
Kari, James
Early
of a
1977 Nay'nadeligha I'Ghaan Dgbat•aen'den. The War at Nay'na-
deli Told by Henry Peters with Jennie Peters. Transcribed
and edited by Jim Kari. Alaska Native Language Center,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
6-2
I.
,.
...
1982 Dena'ina Place Names in the Talkeetna Study Area. In
Cultural Resource Assessment, Part One: Talkeetna-Lower
SUsltna River Basin, edi~ed by Glenn Bacon, pp. 16-65.
Report to the u.s. Department of Agriculture Soil conser-
vation Service. Alaskarctic, Fairbanks.
Xari, James and Priscilla Russell Kari
1982 Dena•ina ~nena, Tan~ina country. Alaska Native
Language Center, Fairbanks.
McRennan, Robert A.
1981 Tanana. In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 6,
The Subarctic, edited by June Helm, pp. 562-577. The
Silthsonian Institutio~. Nashington, D.C.
Ortb , Donald J.
1967 Dictionary of Alaska
Professional Paper 567.
Washington, D.C.
Pewe, Troy
1975 u.s.
m-.mt
Plaskett, David c.
Place Names. Geological survey
Government Printing Office,
Alaska.
Govern-
1977 The Nenana River Gorge Site: A Late ~rehistoric Atha-
paskan Campsite in Central Alaska. Unpublished M.A •. the-
sis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Reger, Douglas Roland
1978 Willow-wasilla-Lower susitna River Basin. In Cultural
Resource Assessment, Part One: Talkeetna-Lower Susltna
River Basin, edited by Glenn Bacon, pp. 1-~~. Report to
the o.s. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation ser-
vice. Alaskarctic, Fairbanks.
1981 A Model for Cultural History in Opper Cook Inlet,
Alaska. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State
University, Pullman. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
1983 Report of Archeological Field Survey in the Willow-
Wasilla Area, 1978. In Susitna River Basin Study:
Cultural Resource Assessment of Willow-Talkeetna-Bel~a
Areas, River Basin Studies--Alaska Rivers: Susltna R1ver
Basin. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Porest Service,
Economic Research Service and State of Alaska, and Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, ~nchorage.
Toulouse, Julian Harrison
1971 Bottle Makers and Their Marks. Thomas Nelson, New York •
6-3
.. Townsend, Joan
1981 Tanaina. In Handbook of American Indians, vol. 6, The
Subarctic, edited by June Helm, pp. 623-641. The Smits=--
sonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Van Stone, J.K.
1974 Atbapaskan Adaptations. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.
Wahrhaftig, Clyde Adolph
1965 Physiographic Divisions of Alaska. u.s. Geological Sur-
vey Professional Paper NO. 482. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Ward, Albert B. I Emily K. Abbink, and John R. s·:ein
1977 .Ethnohistorical and Chronological Bash of the Navajo
Material Culture. In Settlement and Subsi~tence Along the
Lower Chaco River: The CGP Survet, edited ?y c.A. Reher,
Chapter 9. University of New Hex co Press, Albuquerque.
6. 2 RBPBRBIICBS CONSULTED
Archives, Elmer E. Rasmuson Library
n.a. Rare Maps Index and Map Collection, Elmer E. Rasmuson
Library, university of Alaska, Fairbanks. The following
maps were consulted:
Pairbanks Area, Alaska:
"Fairbanks special map" (Washington] u.s. Geulogical
Survey, 1908. col. map 42x89 em. <Alaska sheet no. 642A)
Scale: 1:62,500 RARE MAP/G 4372/P34/l908/U51.
"Reconnaissance map of the Pairbanks Quadrangle, Alaska"
(Washington] o.s. Geological Survey, 1913. col. map
93x80 em [Bulletin 525, Plate ll Scale: 1:250,000
RARE MAP/G 4372/F34/1913/US1.
•Geologic map and sections of the Fairbanks District,
Alaska,• by L.M. Prindle and F.J. Katz (~ashington),
u.s. Geological survey, 1913. col. map 44x91 em
(Bulletin 525, Plate lll Scale: 1:52,500 RARE MAP/G
4372/P34/CS/1913/U5l.
•Map showing lode mines and prospects, sample locations,
outlines of mined placer gold deposits, and granitic
rock bodies in the Fairbanks District, Alaska.• USGS
1969 Professional Paper 625-0, Plate 1. MAP COLLECTION/
G 4372/F34/l/1969/US1.
n.a., Irving Mckenney Reed Collection, Alaska and Polar
Regions Department, Elmer E. Rasmuson Library, University
6-4
r
r
I
._
of Alaska, Fairbanks. The following materials were
reviewed:
Box 7, Field Notes--Patent surveys, 1925-1942
[Book] No. 28. •Book V. Fairbanks Land District,
Miscellaneous Patent surveys, Irving McK. Reed. Dome-
Independence-Bngineer-Ester-Cripple.•
[Book] No. 30. "Book VIII. Miscellaneous Patent SUr-
veys, Irving McX. Reed. Chatham-Pedro-Cripple-Cleary-
Pairbanks-Fish-Ester.•
[Book] No. 31.
veys, Pair banks
Creek··Pedro-St.
Engineer.•
•Book VII. Miscellaneous Patent Sur-
Land District. Irving McK. Reed. Coal
Patrick-Fairbanks-Fish-Ace-Cripple-
(Book] No. 41. 11 Miscellaneous Patent surveys. Fair-
banks-Fish (Opper)-Livengood-Fish tLower)-Slippery-
Bl,~rado-Pearl-Cleary-Goldstream (Opper and Lower)-Ester
-Cripple.•
Brooks, Alfred s.
1905 Placer Mining in Alaska in 1904. In A.H. Brooks et a1.,
Report on Pr2!ress of Investigations of Mineral Resources
of Alaska in 904. o.s. Geological Survey Bulletin No.
284, pp. 109-127. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.
1907 The Mining Industry in 1906. In A.B. Brooks et al.,
Report or. Progress of Investigations of Mineral Resources
of Alaska In 1906. D.S. Geological Survey Bulletin No.
3l4, pp. 19-39. Government Printing Office, Washington, o.c.
1908 The Mining Industry in 1907. In A.B. Brooks et al.,
Mineral .Resources of Alaska: Reeort on Proqresa of
Investigations In l907. o.s. Geological survey Bulletin
No. 345, pp. 30-53. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
1916 The Alaskan Mining Industry in 1915. In A.B. Brooks et
al., Mineral Resources of Alaska: Report on Pr29ress of
Invest1gations in 1915. u.s. Geological survey Bulletin
No. 642, pp. 16-11. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
1918 The Alaskan Mining Industry in 1916. In A.B. Brooks et
al., Mineral Resources of Alaska: Report on Progress of
Investigations in 1916. u.s. Geological survey Bulletin
No. 662, pp. 11-62. Government Printinq Office,
washington, D.c.
6-5
('
( Brooks, Alfred H. et al.
1921 Mineral Resources of Alaska: Report on Progress of
Investigations in 1919. u.s. Geological survey Bulletin
No. 714. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Chapin, Theodore
1914 Placer Mining in the Yukon-Tanana Region. In A.B.
Brooks et al., Mineral Resources of Alaska: Report on
Proyress of Investi9ations in 1913. o.s. Geological Survey
Bul etln No. 592, pp. 357-362. Government Printing
Office, washington, D.C.
1919 Mining in the Fairbanks District. In G.C. Martin et
al., Mineral Resources of Alaska: Report on Progress of
Investigations .;n 1917. o.s. Geological survey Bulletin
No. 692, pp. 321-327. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Chapman, R.M. and R.L. Foster
19 6 9 .::L:rod=e;....:.M:::i:.;;n::.:e:-:s~a:;:n;:.;d~P:;.;r;;..ors~e~c;;..:.ts=:-:-;;:.i:;.n~t-=h.;:;e~F~a.;:;i.;:;r,.b..-;a;.;;n;.;;k;_;s~D~i;.;;s:;.;t~r:;.;J.~· c::-t;;..,.__
Alas a. u.s. Geological survey Profess1onal Paper No.
625-D. Government Printing Office, washington, D.C.
Cobb, Edward B.
1973 Placer Deposits of Al~ska: An Inventory of the Placer
Mines and Prospects of Alaska, Their History and Geologic
Setting. Geological survey Bulletin l374. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Cole, Terrence
1981 E.T. Barnett: The Strange Story of the Man Who Founded
Fairbanks. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company, Anchorage.
Eakin, B.M.
1915 Mining in the Fairbanks District. In A.B. Brooks et
1., Mineral Resources of Alaska: Report on Progress of
Investigations in 1914. U.S. Geological survey Bulletin
No. 622, pp. 229-238. Government Printing Office,
washington, D.C.
Ellsworth, C.E.
1910 Placer
Resources
in 1909.
230-250.
Mining in the Yukon-Tanana Region. In Mineral
of Alaska: Report on Progress of Investigations u.s. Geological survey Bulletin No. 442, pp.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1912 Placer Mining in the Fairbanks District. In A.B. Brooks
et al., Mineral Resources of Alaska: Report on Progress of
Investigations in 1911. u.s. Geological Survey Bulletin
No. 520, pp. 240-245. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
6-6
I
I
I
{
t •
r
i
l
.
~
i
[
Ellsworth, C.E. and G.L. Parker
1911 Placer Mining in the Yukon-Tanana Region. In A.B.
Brooks et al., Mineral Resources of Alaska: Report on
Pr!iress of Investigations in 1916. o.s. Geological Survey
Bu letln No. 480, pp. 153-172. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Ellsworth, C.E. and R.W. Davenport
1913 Placer Mining in the Yukon-Tanana Region. In A.B.
Brooks et al., Mineral Resources of Alaska: Re;rrt on
Progress of Investigations in 1912. o.s. Geolo9 cal Survey
Bulletin No. 542, pp. 203-222. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Bales, David A. (compiler and editor)
1980 An Index to the Early History of Alaska as Reported in
the 1903-1907 Fairbanks Newspapers. Elmer E. Rasmuson
Library, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Heiner, Virginia Doyle
1977 Alaska Mining History: A Source Document. Miscella-
neous Publications, History and Archeology Series No. 17.
Offiee of History and Archeology, Alaska Division of Parks,
"--~------nuwu.'J&. a.':JC.
Martin, e.G. et a1.
1920 Mineral Resources of Alaska: Report on Progress of
Investigations in 1918. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin
No. 712. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Prindle, Louis M.
1905 The Gold Placers of the Fortymile Birch creek, and
Fairbanks Regions, Alaska. o .s. Geofogical Survey Bulietin
No. 251. Government Printing Office, Washington, o.c.
1906 Yukon
Progress
in 1905.
109-127.
U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin No. 284, pp.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1913 A Geo1 ic Reconnaissance of the Fairbanks uadran le,
Alas a (w th Geology of the Fairbanks District, by L.M.
Prinale and F.J. Katz; and Lode Mining Near Fairbanks, by
P.S. Smith]. u.s. Geological survey Bulletin No. 525.
Government Printing Office, washington, D.C.
6-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. '• ,--·. ---~ '-:... ; .
Prindle, Louis M. and P.J. Katz
1909 The Fairbanks Gold Placer Region. In A.B. Brooks et
al., Mineral Resources of Alaska: Report on Progress of
Investigations in l908. u.s. Geological Survey Bulletin
No. 379, pp. 195, 197, 199-200. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
State of Alas~a, Fairbanks District Recorder's Office
n.d. Index to Mining Locations, Fairbanks, u.s. Commissioner,
Fourth Division, Alaska. Vol. 1(2], 1902 to 1938 to 1943
[•!• has been crossed off and •2• written beside it, but
this is •volume 1•1
n.d., Index to Mining Locations, Fairbanks, U.S. Commissioner,
Third Division, Alaska. Vol. 2.
n.d. Index to Placer Mining Locations, Fairbanks, u.s. com-
missioner, Fourth Division, Alaska. Vol. 3, 1909-1944.
n.d. Record of Mining Locations. 35 vols., including:
Transcribed Locations, Fairbanks, Vol. T-1, October 23, 1902, to APrll I, 1903.
Locations, Vol. 1. Commencing April lOth 1903, Ending Nov.
21st 1903.
Locations, Vol. 2. Nov. 21, 1903, to June 22, 1904
Locations, Vol. 3. June 23, 1904, to October Jl, 1904.
M1n1ng Locations, Vol. 4. Fairbanks Precinct, Third Divi-
sion, Nov. 1, 1904 to March 1st 1905.
Mining Locations, Vol. 5. Fairbanks Precinct, Third Divi-
sion, March l, 1905, to May 23, 1905.
Mining Locations, Vol. 6. Fairbanks Precinct, Third Divi-
sion, May 23, 1905 to Nov. 29, 1905.
Mintng Locations, Vol. 7. Fairbanks Precinct, Third Divi-
sion, Dec. 1905 to Nov. 5, 1906.
Record of Mining Locations, Vol. 9, District Court of
Alaska, Third Div1sion, Oct. 25, 1906 to July 5, 1907.
etc.
u.s. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
1966 Township 1 South, Range 3 West, of the Fairbanks Meri-
dian, Alaska {Rectangular Survey). Microfilm copy on file
at the Public Records Room, Fairbanks District Office,
Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks, Alaska.
1972 Township 1 South, Range 2 West, of the Fairbanks Meri-
dian, Alaska: Supplemental Plat of Section 18. [Rectangu-
lar Survey] Microfilm copy on file at the Public Records
Room, Fairbanks District Office, Bureau of Land Management,
Fairbanks, Alaska.
n.d. Mineral survey No. 1699, Fairbanks Land District: Ori-
ginal Field Notes of the survey of the Mining Claim of
6-8
]
]
]
J
J
J
J
]
J
J
j
I
I
I
I
I
Dnited States Smelting, Refining, and Mining Company Known
as the Discovery Left Limit Bench Association, one above
Discovery, Star Association Claim, Seattle Association
Claim, Venus Bench, Sunny Bench Claim, Ben Claim, Jupiter
Bench Placers, Fairbanks Mining District, Territory of
Alaska, Sections 17 ana 18, Township 1 South, Range 2 West,
Fairbanks Meridian. Microfilm copy on file at the PUblic
Records Room, Fairbanks Distr'~t Office, Bureau of Land
Management. Microfilm Volume H-80, pp. 420-457. Pair-
banks, Alaska.
u.s. Department of the Interior, General Land Office
1939 Township No. 1 South, Range No. 3 West, of the lairbanks
Meridian, Alaska [Rectangular survey]. Microfilm copy or.
file at the Public Records Room, Fairbanks District Office,
Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks, Alaska.
o.s. General Surveyor's Office
1913 Township No. 1 3outh, Range No. 2 West, of the Fairbanks
Meridian, Alaska (Rectangular Survey]. Microfilm copy with
various supplements on file at the Public Records Room,
Fairbanks District Office, Bureau of Land Management, Pair-
banks, Alaska.
6-9