Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA3437I I I I I I _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION~"","-~()~,~~ t y ~ti'"rf'I~o~..\.. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE FOR MAJOR PROJECT ~G SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT VOLUME 13 T EXHIBIT E CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 8 CHAPTER 9 [X]~[ffi~~=~~~@©@ SUSITNA JOINT VENTURE lasks ower uthority :=::::::::=~ .::t c( 1 00 I- I :::rJ.::::I oco If) !W ) BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR LICENSE FOR MAJOR PROJECT SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION VOLUME 13 EXHIBIT E CHAPTER 7 -RECREATIONAL RESOURCES CHAPTER 8 -AESTHETIC RESOURCES CHAPTER 9 -LAND USE ARLIS .Alaska Resources LIbrary &InfonnatJOn Se"" An ,v,ces chorage,Alaska November 1985 It< 11..{~5 .~~ pl.n I Ho.SL(37 1 J ) 1 j J J I d 1 1 1 ( 1 .! .\ j I 1". NOTICE A NOTATIONAL SYSTEM HAS BEEN USED TO DENOTE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS AMENDED LICENSE APPLICATION AND THE LICENSE APPLICATION AS ACCEPTED FOR FILING BY FERC ON JULY 29,1983 This system consists of placing one of the following notations beside each text heading: (0)No change was made in this section,it remains the same as was presented in the July 29,1983 License Application (*)Only minor changes,largely of an editorial nature,have been made (**)Major changes have been made in this section (***)This is an entirely new section which did not appear ln the July 29,1983 License Application 1 j 1 j ] J VOLUME COMPARISON VOLUME NUMBER COMPARISON LICENSE APPLICATION AMENDMENT VS.JULY 29,1983 LICENSE APPLICATION JULY 29,1983 AMENDMENT APPLICATION VOLUME NO.VOLUME NO.EXHIBIT A CHAPTER Entire DESCRIPTION Project Description 1 1 B Entire Project Operation and Resource Utilization 2 2 &2A App.Bl MAP Model Documentation Report 3 2B App.B2 App.B3 RED Model Documentation Report RED Model Update 4 4 2C C Entire Proposed Construction Schedule 5 1 D Entire App.Dl Project Costs and Financing Fue Is Pricing 5 5 1 1 E 1 2 General Description of Locale Water Use and Quality 6 6 5A 5A Tables Figures 7 5A 5B Figures 8 5B 3 Fish,Wildlife and Botanical Resources (Sect.1 and 2) 9 6A 6B Fish,Wildlife and Botanical 10 Resources (Sect.3) 6A 6B Fish,Wildlife and Botanical 11 Resources (Sect.4,5,6,&7) 6A 6B Socioeconomic Impacts Geological and Soil Resources 4 5 6 Historic &Archaeological Resources 12 12 12 7 7 7 4 3 9 8 8 8 lOA lOB 14 13 13 13 14Designs Aestheti~Resources Supporti~g Design Report 16 Project Design Plates 15 Recreational Resources Plates Project Limits and Land Ownership 17 Alternative Locations, and Energy Sources Agency Consultation Land Use 7 8 9 11 10 Entire Entire Entire G F F 1---- """C'\Ico..... """"""ooo LO LO '"M M 1 J ".I j j 1 "1 1 -/ l I ! I j "j j ] 1 ,] SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS II 0 ..• SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LICENSE APPLICATION SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS EXHIBIT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION Title I -PROJECT STRUCTURES -WATANA STAGE I (**) 1.1 -General Arrangement (**).•••• 1.2 -Darn Embankment (**) 1.3 -Div~rsion (**)..•.. 1.4 -Emergency Release Facilities (**) 1.5 -Outlet Facilities (**)•••• 1.6 -Spillway (**).... 1.7 -This section deleted. 1.8 -Power Intake (**) 1.9 -Power Tunnels and Penstocks (**) 1.10 -Powerhouse (**)•.• 1.11 -Tailrace (**)•••• 1.12 -Main Access Plan (**) 1.13 -Site Facilities (**)•.•.. 1.14 -Relict Channel (***).......• 2 -RESERVOIR DATA -WATANA STAGE I (**) 3 -TURBINES AND GENERATORS -WATANA STAGE I (**) 3.1 -Unit Capacity (**). 3.2 -Turbines (***)•.. 3.3 -Generators (**) 3.4 -Governor System (0) .. . . . Page No. A-1-2 A-1-2 A-1-4 A-1-6 A-1-9 A-1-10 A-1';'13 A-1-15 A-1-15 A-1-18 A-1-19 A-1-22 A-1-23 A-1-25 A-1-29 A-2-1 A-3-1 A-3-1 A-3-1 A-3-1 A-3-3 ..4 -APPURTENANT MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT - WATANA STAGE I (**)••••••••••0 • 0 0 4.1 -Miscellaneous Mechanical Equipment(**) 4.2 -Accessory Electrical Equipment (**)...• 4.3 -SF6 Gas-Insulated 345 kV Substation (GIS)(***) A-4-1 A-4-1 A-4-5 A-4-12 5 -TRANSMISSION FACILITIES FOR WATANA STAGE I (0) 5.1 -Transmission Requirements (0) 5.2 -Description of Facilities (0) 5.3 -Construction Staging (0)••• .....A-5-1 A-5-1 A-5-1 A-5-11 851014 1. SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) 6.1 -General Arrangement (**)· · · · · · · · A-6-1 6.2 -Arch Dam (**)· · · · ·· · · · . .· · · A-6-2 6.3 -Saddle Dam (**)· · · · · · · · · ·A-6-4 6.4 -Diversion (**)·· · · · A-6-6 6.5 -Outlet Facilities (**)· · · · A-6-8 6.6 -Spillway (**)· · · · . .··A-6-10 6.7 -Emergency Spillway · · · · · ·· · ·A-6-12 (This section deleted) 6.8 -Power Faci li ties (*)· · · · · · A-6-12 6.9 -Penstocks (**)· · · ·· · · · · A-6-13 6.10 -Powerhouse and Related Structures (**)A-6-14 6.11 -Tailrace Tunnel (*)A-6-17 6.12 -Access Plan (**)A-6-17 6.13 -Si te Facili ties (*)· · · · · A-6-18 EXHIBIT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION Title 6 -PROJECT STRUCTURES -DEVIL CANYON STAGE II (**) Page No. A-6-1 J ] l I 1 I ) I ) ~~~~_~~.~L -Mi sce 11 a ne ous Mecha ni cal Eg ui :R=m=.=ec::;n:.=t--->-(.=.o.!-).~.~-=--,,--=---=--~.A:::.---,9:....--=-1 ~.~_~....~~._. 9.2 -Accessory Electrical Equipment (0)• • •A-9-3 9.3 -Switchyard Structures and Equipment (0).A-9-6 11 •1 -Gene!"alA!"!"CitlgE!mE!tlt:(*"~)• • • • • • • • • • • 11.2 -Dam Embankment (***)••• 11.3 -Diversion (***)••.••.•.•••• 11.4 -Emergency Release Facilities (***)..•• ·8 -TURBINES·AND GENERA!fORS-DEV~I-L~CANYONSTAGE II (**~) • •e • • • ••• •] 1 J .I .1 ! ] 1 ] ) A-l1-1 A-11-3 A-11-5 A-1l-6 A-11-1 A-lO-l A-9-1 A-7-1 A-8-1 A-8-1 A-8-1 A-8-2 A-8-I-.--.. ·. ••• ·.. 1.1. 8.1 -Unit Capacity (**) 8.2 -Turbines (**) 8.3 -Generators (0)•• 8.4 -Governor System (0) 10 -TRANSMISSION LINES -DEVIL CANYON STAGE 1I(**)• 11 -PROJECT STRUCTURES -WATANASTAGE III (***)• 851014 9 -APPURTENANT EQUIPMENT -DEVIL CANYON STAGE II (0). .7 -DEVIL CANYON RESERVOIR STAGE II (*) SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION Title Page No. 11.5 -Outlet Facilities (***)· ·· · A-11-6 11.6 -Spillway (***).··· · .···A-11-7 11.7 -Power Intake (***)·· · ·····A-11-8 11.8 -Power Tunnel and Penstocks (***)·····A-11-11 11.9 -Powerhouse (***)·· · · .···· ···A-11-11 11.10 -Trai lrace (***)···A-11-13 11.11 -Access Plan (***)· · A-ll-13 11.12 -Site Facilities (***)···A-11-13 11.13 -Relict Channel (***)····A-11-13 12 -RESERVOIR DATA -WATANA STAGE III (***)•· · •· · A-12-1 13 -TURBINES AND GENERATORS -WATANA STAGE III (***) 13.1 -Unit Capacity (***).•.•. 13.2 -Turbines (***) 13.3 -Generators (***) 13.4 -Governor System (***) 14 -APPURTENANT MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT - WATANA STAGE III (***)•••••••••••••• 14.1 -Miscellaneous Mechanical Equipment (***) 14.2 -Accessory Electrical Equipment (***)•. ··A-13-1 A-13-1 A-13-1 A-13-1 A-13-1 •·A-14-1 A-14-1 A-14-1 15 -TRANSMISSION FACILITIES -WATANA STAGE III (***)· ..A-15-1 15.1 15.2 Transmission Requirements (***)• Switching and Substations (***). A-15-1 A-15-1 16 -LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES (**)· . . • • • 0 • • A-16-1 LJ 17 -REFERENCES 851014 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • ••• iii A-17-1 SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT B PROJECT OPERATION AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION 1.1 -Previous Studies (***)•••• 1.2 -Plan Formulation and Selection Methodology "(***). 1.3 -Damsite Selection (***)••••••••••••• 1.4 -Formulation of Susitna Basin Development Plans (***)• • • • • • • 1.5 -Evaluation of Basin Development Plans (***) 2.1 -Susitna Fiydro~l~ctric Development (***) 2.2 -Watana Project Formulation (***)••••• 2.3 -Selection of Watana General Arrangement (***) 2.4 -Devil Canyon Project Formulation (***). 2.5 -Selection of Devil Canyon General Arrangement (***)• • • • • • • • • • • 2.6 -Selection of Access Road Corridor (***) -2.Z -Sele.;.t:iQ!l Qf_!rcH!13mi~siQg.E'~~ilit:ie~_.(*~~tL"'" 2.8 -Selection of Project Operation (***) J J ] J j j ) ] J 1 "J B-2-1 B-3-1 B-2-60 B-2-67 B-2-83 B-2-131 B-1-1 B-1-12 B-1-17 B-2-1 B-2-1 B-2-22 B-2-48 B-1-1 B-1-4 B-1-5 Page No. • 0 • • • · .... • • 0 •0 0 0 • •0 ••o 0o0 3 -DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OPERATION (***) 2 -ALTERNATIVE FACILITY DESIGN,PROCESSES AND " OPERATIONS (***)0 0 • • • • • • • • • • 0 • Title 1 -DAMSITE SELECTION (***)•0 0 5 -STATEMENT OF POWER NEEDS AND UTILIZATION (***) 4.1 -Plant and System Operation Requirements (***) 4.2 -Power and Energy Production (***)••• 5.1 -Introduction (***).••••••••••• 5.2 -Description of the Railbelt Electric Systems (***) 5.3 -FOrecasting MethOdOlOgy (***)• • 5.4 -Forecast of Electric Power Demand (***) " J J j 1 1 1 } ) B-5-1 B-6-1 B-3-1 B-3-6 B-3-20 B-4-1 B-4-10 B-7-1 B-5-1 B-S-1 B';"'S';"'17 B-5-47 • 0 •'0 Ct .0.• •0 • 0 ... iv ..... ... . . . ... ... 3.1 -Hydrology (***)••••••••• 3.2 -Reservoir Operation Modeling (***) 3.3 -Operational Flow Regime Selection (***) 851014 7 -REFERENCES 6 -FUTURE SUSITNA BASIN DEVELOPMENT (***) SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT B -APPENDIX B1 MAN-IN-THE-ARCTIC PROGRAM (MAP) TECHNIC~DOCUMENTATION REPORT STAGE MODEL (VERSION A85.I) REGIONALIZATION MODEL (VERSION A84.CD) SCENARIO GENERATOR Title Stage Model Page No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Introduction • • • • • • • • Economic Module Description Fiscal Module Description Demographic Module Description • Input Variables •••• • • • • • • • • • Variable and Parameter Name Conventions Parameter Values,Definitions and Sources Model Validation and Properties Input Data Sources • • • . • • • Programs for Model Use • • • . . • Model Adjustments for Simulation • Key to Regressions •• • • . • Input Data Archives • • . . . . 1-1 2-1 3-1 4-1 5-1 6-1 7-1 8-1 9-1 10-1 11-1 12-1 13-1 Regionalization Model 1.Model Description ·· · ·1 2.Flow Diagram ·..···· ····. .5 3.Model Inputs ..·· · ···7 4.Variable and Parameter Names 9 5.Parameter Values ·.·.····.13 6.Model Validation · · .31 7.Programs for Model ··.··· · ·38 8.Model Listing · ···.39 9.Model Parameters ····· · 57 10.Exogenous,Policy,and Startup Values · ·· · 61 Scenario Generator Introduction • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1.Organization of the Library Archives. 2.Using the Scenario Generator •••• 3.Creating,Manipulating,Examining,and Printing Library Files •• • . • 4.Model Output •.••••••••• 1 1 8 14 22 851014 v SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT B -APPENDIX B2 RAILBELT ELECTRICITY DEMAND (RED)MODEL TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION REPORT (1983 VERSION) Title 1 -INTRODUCTION • • 2 -OVERVIEW • • 3 -UNCERTAINTY MODULE 4 -THE HOUSING MODULE 5 -THE RESIDENTIAL CONSUMPTION MODULE 6 -THE BUSINESS CONSUMPTION MODULE 7 -PRICE ELASTICITY • • • • • • •••• 8 -THE PROGRAM-INDUCED CONSERVATION MODULE 9 -THE MISCELLANEOUS MODULE 10 -LARGE INDUSTRIAL DEMAND, -THE PEAK DEMAND MODULE 12 -MODEL VALIDATION '13 -MISCELLANEOUS TABLES 851014 Page No. 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.1 •1 12.1 13.1 J J ] .1 } 1 ~] 1 ] '\ ,I 'j j ] 'I } ] ] f] III I ) lJ IJ I SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT B -APPENDIX B3 RAILBELT ELECTRICITY DEMAND (RED)MODEL CHANGES MADE JULY 1983 TO AUGUST 1985 Title 1 -INTRODUCTION 2 -RED MODEL PRICE ADJUSTMENT REVISIONS 3 -RESIDENTIAL CONSUMPTION MODULE • 4 -BUSINESS SECTOR 5 -PEAK DEMAND 6 -EFFECT OF THE MODEL CHANGES ON THE FORECASTS Page No. Ll 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 851014 vii SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT C PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ] ,j ] Title 1 -WATANA STAGE I SCHEDULE (**). . Page No. C-l-l ,I J 3.1 -Access (***) 3.2 -Site Facilities (***)••.•••. ,,~.~,,-,D;;lIl1~1:>_C!n.~Il1~nt:{'l'rir'l'r)• • • 3.4 -Spillway and Intakes (***)•••••. 3:5'-Powerllouse-arid-Other-Und'-er-groundWork'Si"(**) 3.6 -Relict Channel (***)•..••••.. 3.7 -Transmission Lines/Switchyards (***)•.••.• 3.8 -General (***)• • • • • • . • • . • . • . . . • • 1.1 -Access (*)••....• 1.2 -Site Facilities (**).••• 1.3 -Diversion (**).••. 1.4 -Dam Embankment (**)• •...•..•. 1.5 -Spillway and Intakes (**). 1.6 -Powerhouse and Other Undergro~nd Works (**) 1.7 -Relict Channel (**)• • . • • . • • •••• 1.8 -Transmission Lines/Switchyards (*) 1.9 -General (**)•••'•••••••••• 2.1 -Access (**)••••••••••. 2.2 -Site Facilities (**) 2.3 -Diversion (*). 2.4 -Arch Dam (**)•..•. 2.5 -Spillway and Intgke (*) ,,'2.6 -Powerhouse and Other Underground Works (0 ) 2.7 Transmission tines/Switchyards (*) 2.8 -General (*).... . . ..... ,I I '1 ] 1 'j I I ] C-3-1 C-2-l C-2-1 C-2-l C-2-l C-2-l C-2-2 C-2-2 C-2-2 C-2-2 C-1-2 C-1-2 C-1-2 C-1-2 C-1-3 C-1-3 C-1-3 C-1-3 C-1-3 C-3-l C-3-1. C-3-l C-3-2c":3=z" C-3-2 C-3-2 C-3-2 . .. .. ••• • 3 -WATANA STAGE III SCHEDULE (***)• 2 -DEVIL CANYON STAGE II SCHEDULE (**)• 4 -EXISTING TRANSMISSION SYSTEM (***) 851014 viii • • ...• 0 C-4-1 SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT D PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING Title 1 -ESTIMATES OF COST (**). . . ........ Page No. D-l-l 1.1 -Constructio~Costs (**)•.•..••..••.. 1.2 -Mitigation Costs (**)....• 1.3 -Engineering and Administration Costs (*).... 1.4 -Operation,Maintenance and Replacement Costs (**) 1.5 -Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFDC)(**).•••••.•.•.• 1.6 -Escalation (**)......•••••..• 1.7 -Cash Flow and Manpower Loading Requirements (**). 1.8 -Contingency (*). 1.9 -Previously Constructed Project Facilities (*) D-l-l D-1-6 D-1-7 D-I-I0 D-l-11 D-l-12 D-l-12 D-l-13 D-l-13 2 -EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE EXPANSION PLANS (***)•. ..D-2-1 ... 2.1 -General (***)•.•.•••••. 2.2 -Hydroelectric Alternatives (***) 2.3 -Thermal Alternatives (***) 2.4 -Natural Gas-Fired Options (***)• 2.5 -Coal-Fired Options (***)••.• 2.6 -The Existing Railbelt Systems (***) 2.7 -Generation Expansion Before 1996 (***) 2.8 -Formulation of Expansion Plans Beginning in 1996 (***).•••••••.•••. 2.9 Selection of Expansion Plans (***) 2.10 -Economic Development (***).••..••• 2.11 -Sensitivity Analysis (***)...•. 2.12 -Conclusions (***)••.••• D-2-1 D-2-l D-2-10 D-2-10 D-2-19 D-2-24 D-2-27 D-2-28 D-2-33 D-2-39 D-2-44 D-2-46 3 -CONSEQUENCES OF LICENSE DENIAL (***)• • • 0 ••D-3-1 3.1 -Statement and Evaluation of the Consequences of License Denial (***). 3.2 -Future Use of the Damsites if the License is Denied (***). . • • . 4 -FINANCING (***)• • • • • • • • • • • • • 4.1 -General Approach and Procedures (***) 4.2 -Financing Plan (***)•.•.. 4.3 -Annual Costs (***)..•..• ..... D-3-1 D-3-1 D-4-1 D-4-l D-4-1 D-4-3 851014 ix Title SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT D PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING 4.4 -Market Value of Power (***)• • . 4.5 -Rate Stabilization (***) 4.6 -Sensitivity of Analyses (***) ,j ~J .j ] 1 j '1 1 1 l' D-5-1 D-4-4 D-4-4 D-4-4 Page No. . ..• ••• 0 • • ••• • 0 • 5 -REFERENCES (***) 851014 x 1 1 .1 1 1 SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT D -APPENDIX Dl FUELS PRICING 2 -WORLD OIL PRICE (***)• • Title 1 -INTRODUCTION (***). . ...... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Page No. Dl-1-1 Dl-2-1 2.1 -The Sherman H.Clark Associates Forecast (***) 2.2 -The Composite Oil Price Forecast (***) 2.3 -The Wharton Forecast (***) 3 -NATURAL GAS (***). . ... . .. ..... . Dl-2-1 Dl-2-2 Dl-2-5 Dl-3-1 3.1 -Cook Inlet Gas Prices (***)•. 3.2 Regulatory Constraints on the Availability of Natural Gas (***). .~. • . • . • . . . . 3.3 -Physical Constraints on the Availability of Cook Inlet Natural Gas Supply (***). 3.4 -North Slope .Natural Gas (***) Dl-3-1 Dl-3-10 Dl-3-12 Dl-3-20 4 -COAL (***)... . . . .Dl-4-l 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 -Resources and Reserves (***) -Demand and Supply (***). • . -Present and Potential Alaska Coal Prices (***) -Alaska Coal Prices Summarized (***). • . . Dl-4-1 Dl-4-3 Dl-4-4 Dl-4-10 5 -DISTILLATE OIL (***)• • • • • • • • • • • •GO.• •Dl-5-1 5.1 -Availability (***) 5.2 -Distillate Price (***) Dl-5-1 Dl-5-1 6 -REFERENCES 851014 o 0 • • • • • 0 •0 • • • • • • • • 0 • • • xi Dl-6-1 SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALE E-I-2-1 Page No. E-1-3-1 E-l-l-l E-l-l-l E-I-I-2 • • 0 0 o 0 0 ••0 • • • o • • • • • • • • • o 0 0 •• • •II xii • • • • • • • D • • " • • o • •0 • 0 • • • 0 • .. . . ... .. 1.1 -General Setting (**) 1.2 -SusitnaBasin (*)• Title 1 -GENERAL DESCRIPTION (*)• • 851014 2 -REFERENCES 3 -GLOSSARY SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 2 WATER USE AND QUALITY Title 1 -INTRODUCTION (**)• • • •... .·..... Page No. E-2-1-1 2 -BASELINE DESCRIPTION (**).••.•.····•E-2-2-1 2.1 -Susitna River Morphology (**)E-2-2-3 2.2 -Susi tna River Water Quantity (**)E-2-2-12 2.3 -Susitna River Water Quality (**).E-2-Z":,,,19 2.4 -Baseline Ground Water Conditions (**)· · · · E-Z-2-46 Z.5 -Existing Lakes,Reservoirs,and Streams (**)E-Z-Z-49 Z.6 -Existing Instream Flow Uses (0)E-Z-Z-50 2.7 -Access Plan (**)..··E-Z-2-63 2.8 -Transmission Corridor (**).E-Z-2-64 3 -OPERATIONAL FLOW REGIME SELECTION (***).··•· · ..E-Z-3-1 3.1 -Project Reservoir Characteristics (***) 3.Z -Reservoir Operation Modeling (***)•. 3.3 -Development of Alternative Environmental Flow Cases (***)...•••..•... 3.4 -Detailed Discussion of Flow Cases (***)• 3.5 -Comparison of Alternative Flow Regimes (***). 3.6 Other Constraints on Project Operation (***) 3.7 -Power and Energy Produc tion (***). • • . . E-2-3-1 E-Z-3-2 E-2-3-6 E-Z-3-17 E-2-3-37 E-2-3-43 E-Z-3-53 4 -PROJECT IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY (**) 4.1 -Watana Development (**)•.•••••••• 4.2 -Devil Canyon Development (**)•.• 4.3 -Watana Stage III Development (***). 4.4 -Access Plan (**)•••.•.••••. ·. . E-Z-4-1 E-2-4-7 E-2-4-110 E-2-4-160 E-2-4-211 5 -AGENCY CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (**)o 00.•••E-2-5-1 6 -MITIGATION,ENHANCEMENT,AND PROTECTIVE MEASURES (**) 6.1 -Introduction (*)•.•.•••••.•.•••• 6.2 -Mitigation -Watana Stage I -Construction (**) 6.3 -Mitigation -Watana Stage I -Impoundment (**). E-2-6-1 E-Z-6-1 E-2-6-1 E-2-6-5 851014 xiii Title SUMMARY.TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 2 WATER USE AND QUALITY. E-2-8-1 E-2-7-1 E-2-6-15 E-2-6-16 E-2-6-16 E-2-6-18 E-2-6-7 Page No. E-2-6-13 E-2-6-13 E-2-6-13 • • 0 •• • • •0 • 0 •eo.•• • • • • ••0 0 • • • •eo.0 • 6.4 -Watana Stage I Operation (**). . . • . 6.5 -Mitigation -Devil Canyon Stage II - Construction (**)• • . • 6.6 -Mitigation -Devil Canyon Stage II - Impoundment (**)•••• 6.7 -Mitigation -Devil Canyon/Watana Operation (**) 6.8 -Mitigation -Watana Stage III - Construction (***)•.•••• 6.9 -Mitigation -Watana Stage III - Impoundment/Construction (***) 6.10 -Mitigation -Stage III Operation (***) 6.11 -Access Road and Transmission Lines (***) 7 -REFERENCES 8 -GLOSSARY. ') ,I ) "I SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Ccont'd) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 3 FISH,WILDLIFE,AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES Title Page No. 1 -INTRODUCTION Co)E-3-l-1 1.1 -Baseline Descriptions Co) 1.2 -Impact .Assessments C*).•.• 1.3 -Mitigation Plans C*) 2 -FISH RESOURCES OF THE SUSITNA RIVER DRAINAGE C**)•. . E-3-1-l E-3-1-1 E-3-1-3 E-3-2-1 2.1 -Overview of the Resources C**)•••.• 2.2 -Species Biology and Habitat Utilization in the Susitna River ·Drainage C*)•••• 2.3 -Anticipated Impacts To Aquatic Habitat C~k)• 2.4 -Mitigation Issues and Mitigating Measures C**) 2.5 -Aquatic Studies Program C*)• • .. 2.6 -Monitoring Studies C**)•••••.•.••••• 2.7 -Cost of Mi tigation.C***)••••••••• 2.8 -Agency Consultation on Fisheries Mitigation Measures C**) E-3-2-1 E-3-2-l4 E-3-2-104 E-3-2-244 E-3-2-279 E-3-2-280 E-3-2-303 E-3-2-304 3 -BOTANICAL RESOURCES C**)• • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 E-3-3-1 3.1 -Introduction C*) 3.2 -Baseline Description C**) 3.3 -Impacts C**).••• 3.4 -Mitigation Plan C**)•••• 4 -WILDLIFE (**)••••...••. .. E-3-3-1 E-3-3-6 E-3-3-34 E-3-3-63 E-3-4-1 4.1 -Introduction C*)•••••••• 4.2 -Baseline Description C**) 4.3 Impacts C*)•• 4.4 -Mitigation"Plan C**)•••• 5 -AIR QUALITY/METEOROLOGY C***)••o • • • •.0.... E-3-4-1 E-3-4-3 E-3-4-110 E-3-4-248 E-3-5-1 5.1 -Introduction C***) 5.2 -Existing Conditions C***)•••• 5.3 -Expected Air Pollutant Emissions (***). 5.4 -Predicted Air Quality Impacts (***)•• E-3-5-1 E-3-5-1 E-3-5-2 E-3-5-3 851014 xv SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 3 FISH,WILDLIFE,AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES Title Page No. 5.5 -Regulatory Agency Consultations (***). PRELIMINARY LIST OF PLANT SPECIES IN THE INTERTIE AREA (THIS SECTION HAS BEEN DELETED AND ITS INFORMATION INCORPORATED INTO APPENDIX E3.3.) PLANT SPECIES IDENTIFIED IN SUMMERS OF 1980 AND 1981 IN THE UPPER AND MIDDLE SUSITNA RIVER BASIN,THE DOWNSTREAM FLOODPLAIN,AND THE INTERTIE 1 '..IE-3-6-1 E-3-7-1 E-3-5-3 . . . ... . . .. . ... • • 0 • •e • . . . . . ... FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION POLICY ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES MEMORANDUM (THIS APPENDIX HAS BEEN DELETED) 6 -REFERENCE • • E2.3 E4.3 El.3 E3.3 APPENDICES 7 -GLOSSARY E5.3 STATUS,HABITAT USE AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF BIRD SPECIES IN THE MIDDLE SUSITNABASIN E6.3 ·E-7.3 STATUS AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF BIRD SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE LOWER SUSITNA BASIN DURING GROUND SURVEYS CONDUCTED JUNE 10 THE JUNE 20,1982 SCIENTIFTCNAMESOFMAMMAL SPECIESFOUNDINTHE' t} E8.3 METHODS USED TO DETERMINE MOOSE BROWSE UTILIZATION AND CARRYING CAPACITY WITHIN THE MIDDLE SUSITNA BASIN E9.3 E10.3 E1l.3 851014 EXPLANATION AND JUSTIFICATION OF ARTIFICIAL NEST MITIGATION (THIS SECTION-HAS·BEEN·DELETED) PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS-(THIS'SECTION-HAS BEEN DELETED) EXISTING AIR QUALITY AND METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS xvi SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 4 HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Title 1 -INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (**)• 1.1 -Program Objectives (**) 1.2 -Program Specifics (**) 2 -BASELINE DESCRIPTION (**)• • . . ... .o •0 • .. Page No. E-4-1-1 E-4-1-4 E-4-1-4 E-4-2-1 2.1 -The Study Area (**). • • • • . .•.• 2.2 -Methods -Archeology and History (**) 2.3 -Methods -Geoarcheology (**) 2.4 -Known Archeological and Historic Sites in the Project Area (**) 2.5-Geoarcheology (**)•••••••• E-4-2-1 E-4-2-2 E-4-2-10 E-4-2-12 E-4-2-13 3 -EVALUATION OF AND IMPACT ON HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES (**)••.•••. . . . ..0.E-4-3-1 3.1 -Evaluation of Selected Sites Found: Prehistory and History of the Middle Susitna Region (**).••....••...•.. 3.2 -Impact on Historic and Archeological Sites (**)• E-4-3-1 E-4-3-4 4 -MITIGATION OF IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES(**)•••••••... . . .. . .E-4-4-1 4.1 -Mitigation Policy and Approach (**) 4.2 -Mitigation Plan (**) 5 -AGENCY CONSULTATION (**)... .o •eo.0 •• E-4-4-1 E-4-4-2 E-4-5-1 6 -REFERENCES 7 -GLOSSARY 851014 o 0 0 • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •.0.• • • • • 0 • xvii E-4-6-1 E-4-7-1 SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 5 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS Title 1 -INTRODUCTION (**)• • • • • 2 -BASELINE DESCRIPTION (**)• ... ... ... . . . • • • • • • • • •-0 • • Page No. E-5-1-1 E-5-2-1 ,I ".l ') \ 2.1 -Identification of Socioeconomic Impact Areas (**). • . . . • • • • . . • . • • • 2.2 -Description of Employment,Population,Personal Income and Other Trends in the Impact Areas (**) 3.1 -Impact of In-migration of People on Governmental Facilities and Services (**)•.•••• 3.2 -On-site Worker Requirements and Payroll, by Year and Month (**)•.• • • • • • . 3.3 -Residency and Moveme,nt of Project Construction Personnel (**)• • • . 3.4 -Adequacy of Available Housing in Impac t Areas (***)•.••. • • • • . 3.5 -Displacement and Influences on .Residences and BusT nesses~~T**T ~:-~~~-....~:::.:~~:-.:--:::. . . . 3.6 -Fiscal Impact Analysis:Evaluation of Incremental Loca 1 Government Expendi tures and Revenues (**)• • • • • • • 3.7 -Local and Regional Impacts on Resource User Groups (**)• 3 -EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OFTRE PROJECT (**).... . E-5-2-1 E-5-2-1 E-5-3-1 E-5-3-2 E-5-3-32 E-5-3-35 E-5-3-39 E-=S"':j=49 E-5-3-59 E-5-3-65 j I 4 -MITIGATION (**)• •........ ..........E-5-4-1 .....----~-~-~~·~--~-~~~-~-4-.-1---··-I-nt;-ro.oduc~t-ion~~~E~**-)~~-.~~.-~.-.-.--.-~.-~;,-~.~.-.--.. 4.2 -Background and Approach (**) 4.3 -Attitudes Toward Changes (This section deleted) 4.4 -Mitigation Objectives and Measures (**) E-5-4--l-----~~ E-5-4-1 E-5-4-2 E-5-4-2 ,I . f 851014 xviii SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 5 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS Title 5 -MITIGATION MEASURES RECOMMENDED BY AGENCIES(**)• • • • 5.1 -Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR)(**) 5.2 -Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)(*) 5.3 -U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)(*) 5.4 -Summary of Agencies'Suggestions for Further Studies that Relate to Mitigation (**) Page No. E-5-5-1 E-5-5-l E-5-5-1 E-5-5-2 E-5-5-2 6 -REFERENCES 851014 . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ..... . xix E-6-6-1 SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) 3.1 -Reservoir-Induced Seismicity (RIS)(*) 3.2 -Seepage (*)• • • • • • • • ••••• 3.3 -Reservoir Slope Failures (**)•.••••.••• 3.4 -Permafrost Thaw (*)••.••••... 3.5 -Seismically-Induced Failure (*)....•.. 3.6 -B.~~erYQiJ:'F re~bQ.:lrcj fo t'~.Win~d~.W~v~es~(~~) 3.7 -Development of Borrow Sites and Quarries (**) Title E-6-3-1 E-6-1-l E-6-2-1 Page No. E-6-2-1 E-6-2-2 E-6-2-3 E-6-2-4 E-6-2-11 E-6-2-17 E-6-2-23 E-6-3-1 E-6-3-4 E-6-3-4 E-6-3-11 E-6-3-11 E...6:-3-11 E-6-3-12 ·.. ·. . . .. eo.• • • •• .. .•• . .. (*) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 6 GEOLOGICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES 2.1 -Regional Geology (*) 2.2 -Quarternary Geology (*) 2.3 -Mineral Resources (0) 2.4 -Seismic Geology (*)•......• 2.5 -Watana Damsite (**)•• 2.6 -Devil Canyon Damsite (0)•••• 2.7 Reservoir Geology (*)...• 1 -INTRODUCTION (**) 3 -IMPACTS (*)• • 2 -BASELINE DESCRIPTION 4 -MITIGATION (**)•.. ....• • •· . . E-6-4-1 E:'~6-z.~.:~r E-6-4-4 E-6-4-4 E-6-4-1 E-6-4-1 E-6-4-2 E-6-4-2.~~...= 4.1 -Impacts and Hazards (0)•••• 4.2 -Reservoir-Induced Seismicity (0)•••••• 4.3 -Seepage (**)••••••.••..••••• 4.4 -Reservoir Slope Failures (**)•• 4•5 '=~----Pe-rm-af-r-o's"t-'Tfiaw"""-~"**'r-~~"-~-."-:-------:------:--0 0 ~q.~~Seismicany-Inaucea~-Fanure-C*T~:•••~~~~~-~-­ 4.7 -Geologic Hazards (*)•.•. 4.8 -Borrow and Quarry Sites (*)•••••. 5 -REFERENCES 6 -GLOSSARY • • • • • •~• • 0 • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • o • • •0 • • • • • • 0 • 0 • • • • • • E-6-5-1 ) ""J ) 851014 xx SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES Title 1 -INTRODUCTION (**)• •. .. ..•• Page No. E-7-1-1 1.1 -Purpose (**) 1.2 -Relationships to Other Reports (*) 1.3 -Study Approach and Methodology (**) 1.4 -Project Description (**)••... 2 -DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING AND FUTURE RECREATION WITHOUT THE SUSITNA PROJECT (**)••••••••• 2.1 -Statewide and Regional Setting (**) 2.2 -Susitna River Basin (**)..... 3 -PROJECT IMPACTS ON EXISTING RECREATION (**)• 3.1 -Direct Impacts of Project Features (**).••.• 3.2 -Project Recreational Demand Assessment ••• (Moved to Appendix E4.7) . 4 -FACTORS INFLUENCING THE RECREATION PLAN (**) 4.1 -Characteristics of the Project Design and Operation (***). . . . . • • . . • . • . 4.2 -Characteristics of the Study Area (***). 4.3 -Recreation Use Patterns and Demand (***) 4.4 -Agency,Landowner and Applicant Plans and Policies (***)••...••••.••. 4.5 -Public Interest (***)•.••.••.•. 4.6 -Mitigation of Recreation Use Impacts (***) E-7-1-1 E-7-1-1 E-7-1-1 E-7-1-3 E-7-2-1 E-7-2-1 E-7-2-8 E-7-3-1 E-7-3-1 E-7-3-12 E-7-4-1 E-7-4-1 E-7-4-2 E-7-4-2 E-7-4-3 E-7-4-12 E-7-4-13 5 -RECREATION PLAN (**).... . . . . . . . ...E-7-5-1 5.1 -Recreation Plan Management Concept (***).•.. 5.2 -Recreation Plan Guidelines (***)..••.. 5.3 -Recreational Opportunity Evaluation .••• (Moved to Appendix E3.7.3) 5.4 -The Recreation Plan (**) E-7-5-1 E-7-5-2 E-7-5-4 E-7-5-4 6 -PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (**) 851014 • • • 0 xx~ . ........E-7-6-1 J SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) 7 -COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED RECREATION FACILITIES (**)•••• • • • • • • Title EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES .1 1 I 'J I ) ) .) 1 j I I E-7-10-1 E-7-9-1 E-7-8-1 E-7-8-1 E-7-8-1 E-7-8-1 E-7-8-2 Page No. E-7-7-1 E-7-6-1 E-7-6-1 E-7-6-2 E-7-6-3 E-7-7-1 E-7-7-1 .E-7-7-2 .. .. • 0 •• o •••0".0 0•• o •0 • 0 0 • • 0 • 0 • • • • . . .. ••• • • • • • • • • • • 0 • •0 0 • • ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA DATA ON REGIONAL RECREATION FACILITIES .. 7.1 -Construction (**)•• 7.2 -Operations and Maintenance (**) 7.3 -Monitoring (***)•••• 6.1 -Phasing (**)..••.••... 6.2 -Detailed Recreation Design (***) 6.3 -Operation and Maintenance (***) 6.4 -Monitoring (**).••••.••• 8.1 -Agencies and Persons Consulted (**) 8.2 -Agency Comments (**) 8.3 -Native Corporation Comments (***) 8.4 -Consultation Meetings (***) E2.7 . 9 -REFERENCES El.7 8 -AGENCY COORDINATION (**) 10 -GLOSSARY APPENDICES -RECREATI0N-S·ITE·-INVENTORY-·AND-··(}PPORTUNTTY···EVALUA:TTON····~-·- E4.7 PROJECT RECREATIONAL DEMAND ASSESSMENT E5.7 851014 EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL RECREATION FACILITY DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE SUSITNA PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS OF SITES WITHIN THE PROJECT RECREATION STUDY·AREA xxii .I ) ) ) 1. SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 8 AESTHETIC RESOURCES Title 1 -INTRODUCTION (**)•. . ... . . . . . Page No. E-8-1-1 1.1 -Purpose (*)....•.........• 1.2 -Relationship to Other Analyses (*) 1.3 -Environmental Setting (**).... E-8-1-1 E-8-1-1 E-8-1-1 2 -PROCEDURE (*)• • • • 3 -STUDY OBJECTIVES (*) . ... . ...... ... . . . ... .. . . . . . E-8-2-1 E-8-3-1 4 -PROJECT FACILITIES (*).. . . . . ... 4.1 -Watana Project Area (*) 4.2 -Devil Canyon Project Area (*).... 4.3 -Watana Stage III Project Area (***) 4.4 -Denali Highway to Watana Dam Access Road (*) 4.5 -Watana Dam to Devil Canyon Dam Access Road (*) 4.6 -Transmission Lines (*). 4.7 ~Intertie . (This section deleted) 4.8 -Recreation Facilities and Features (*) E-8-4-1 E-8-4-1 E-8-4-1 E-8-4-1 E-8-4-1 E-8-4-2 E-8-4-2 E-8-4-2 E-8-4-2 5 -EXISTING LANDSCAPE (**)• •• • 0 • •...E-8-5-1 5.1 -Landscape Character Types (*) 5.2 -Notable Natural Features (**) E-8-5-1 E-8-5-1 6 -VIEWS (**). . . .• • • • • • • ••0 ••E-8-6-1 6.1 -Viewers (***) 6.2 -Visibility (***) 7 -AESTHETIC EVALUATION RATINGS (**)• 7.1 -Aesthetic Value Rating (*) 7.2 -Absorption Capability (*) 7.3 -Composite Ratings (**) . ...• • • • 0 • E-8-6-1 E-8-6-1 E-8-7-1 E-8-7-1 E-8-7-1 E-8-7-2 851014 xxiii SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 8 AESTHETIC RESOURCES J J I 1 ) ) j J ] I ) ] ,j ) E-8-11-1 E-8-11-1 E-8-11-1 E-8-10-1 E-8-12-1 E--8-9-1 E-8-8-1 Page No. E-8-8-1 E-8-8-2 E-8-8-3 E-8-8-4 E-8-8-5 E-8-8-6 E-8-9-1 E-8-9-2 E-8-9-11 E-8-9-12 . .. ... • • •0 • • ..... . . . . . ••• ... ..... ••••• .. o • • • • . . ............. . .... • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • EXCEPTIONAL NATURAL FEATURES -Mitigation Planning of Incompatible Aesthetic Impacts (Now addressed in Section 9) -Watana Stage I (***)• • • • • -Devil Canyon Stage II (***)• Watana Stage III (***) -Access Routes (***)• • -Transmission Facilities (***) 11.1 -Agencies and Persons Consulted (**) 11.2 -Agency Comments (**) 9.1 -Mitigation Feasibility(**)•• 9.2 -Mitigation Plan (***) 9.3 -Mitigation Costs (**)•••• 9.4 -Mitigation Monitoring (***) 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.1 Elo8 11 -AGENCY COORDINATION (**)• APPENDICES 12 -REFERENCES 10 -AESTHETIC IMPACT EVALUATION OF THE INTERTIE (This Section Delected) Title 13----GLOSSARY-iiii ii.•• 9 -MITIGATION (**)• • • • • • • 8 ..AESTHETIC IMPACTS (**) E2.8 E).8- E4.8 851014 SITE PHOTOS WITH SIMULATIONS OF PROJECT FACILITIES PHOTOS OF PROPOSED PROJECT FACILITIES SITES EXAMPLES OF EXISTING AESTHETIC IMPACTS xxiv SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 8 AESTHETIC RESOURCES Title APPENDICES (cont'd) Page No. E5.8 E6.8 E7.8 E8.8 E9.8 851014 EXAMPLES OF RESERVOIR EDGE CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE ANTICIPATED AT WATANA AND DEVIL CANYON DAMS PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS AND CHARTS GENERAL AESTHETIC MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPES OF THE PROJECT AREA AESTHETIC VALUE AND ABSORPTION CAPABILITY RATINGS xxv SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 9 LAND USE AR.EA (***). •0 ••..• • • •I>• •e 0 1 J J ] ..J I ! _J 1 1 r I } I ·1 J 1 ) l E-9-5-1 E-9-6-1 E-9-2-1 E-9-1-1 E-9-3-1 E-9-4-1 E-9..;.2-1 E-9-2-1 Page No. e .. ..o •II Cl e e e . ... .. . .. . . . . . " 0 • • • ...... ...... xxvi .... • •e 0 .... •• • 0 2.1 ~Historical Land Use (***) 2.2 -Present Land Use (***) 851014 3 -LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING.IN THE PROJECT 1 -INTRODUCTION (***).. .... .... .. .. .. ...... Title 5 -MITIGATION (***).. 2 -HISTORICAL AND PRESENT LAND USE (***) 6 -REFERENCES 4 -IMPACTS ON LAND USE WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROJECT (***)e e e e ....e SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont1d) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 10 ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS,DESIGNS,AND ENERGY SOURCES Title Page No. 1 -ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC SITES (*)• • • • • • • 1.1 -Non-Susitna Hydroelectric Alternatives (*) 1.2 -Assessment of Selected Alternative Hydroelectric Sites (***)..... 1.3 -Middle Susitna Basin Hydroelectric Alternatives (0)••••••••••••• 1.4 -Overall Comparison of Non-Susitna Hydroelectric Alternatives to the Proposed Susitna Project (***) 2 -ALTERNATIVE FACILITY DESIGNS (*) · ..E-10-1-1 E-lO-1-1 E-10-1-2 E-10-1-17 E-10-1-32 E-10-2-1 2.1 -Watana Facility Design Alternatives (*)..•.. 2.2 -Devil Canyon Facility Design Alternatives (0) 2.3 -Access Alternatives (0)••••••• 2.4 -Transmission Alternatives (0)••••• 2.5 -Borrow Site Alternatives (**) E-10-2-1 E-10-2-3 E-10-2-4 E-10-2-24 E-10-2-53 3 -OPERATIONAL FLOW REGIME,SELECTION (***)...· ..E-10-3-1 3.1 -Project Reservoir Characteristics (***).. 3.2 -Reservoir Operation Modeling (***) 3.3 -Development of Alternative Environmental Flow Cases (***).•.•.•••••.••. 3.4 -Detailed Discussion of Flow Cases (***)...•• 3.5 -Comparison of Alternative Flow Regimes (***) 3.6 -Other Constraints on Project Operation (***) 3.7 -Power and Energy Production (***)...•.• E-1O-3-1 E-10-3-2 E-1O-3-6 E-10-3-17 E-1O-3-38 E-10-3-43 E-10-3-53 4 -ALTERNATIVE ELECTRICAL ENERGY SOURCES (***)•· ..E-10-4-1 4.1 -Coal-Fired Generation Alternatives (***)..•. 4.2 -Thermal Alternatives Other Than Coal (***) 4.3 -Tidal Power Alternatives (***)•••. 4.4 -Nuclear Steam Electric Generation (***)• . 4.5 -Biomass Power Alternatives (***)...• 4.6 -Geothermal Power Alternatives (***).. E-lO-4-1 E-lO-4-27 E-lO-4-39 E-lO-4-41 E-lO-4-42 E-lO-4-42 851014 xxvii Title SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) 5 -ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF LICENSE DENIAL (***) j . ,J l ) :I l ,-1 I 1 1 J 1 1 t E-10-5-l E-10-7-l E-1O-6-l E-10-4-43 E-10-4-44 E-10-4-44 Page No. o • • • • •0 •0 • •0 .00 •.0.• ••• • 0 • • • 0 • • • • 0 • EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 10 ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS,DESIGNS,AND ENERGY SOURCES 4.7 -Wind Conversion Alternatives (***) 4.8 -Solar Energy Alternatives (***).•.• 4.9 -Conservation Alternatives (***) 7 -GLOSSARY 6 -REFERENCES 851014 .xxviii SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 11 AGENCY CONSULTATION Title Page No. 1 -ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO FILING THE INITIAL APPLICATION (1980-February 1983)(***). . . . . .. . .E-ll-1-1 2 -ADDITIONAL FORMAL AGENCY AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION (***)• • • • • • • • • • • 2.1 -Technical Workshops (***) 2.2 -Ongoing Consultation (***) 2.3 -Further Comments and Consultation (***) E-1l-2-1 E-1l-2-1 E-1l-2-1 E-1l-2-2 851014 xxix SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT F SUPPORTING DESIGN REPORT (PRELIMINARY) j Ij j 2.1 -Topographical Data (0) 2.2 -Hydrological Data (**) 2.3 -Meteorological Data (*)• 2.4 -Reservoir Data (0) 2.5 -Tailwater Elevations (0) 2.6 -Design Floods (**) 00"• Title 1 -PROJECT DATA (***). 2 -PROJECT DESIGN DATA (**) ·. · . •••• • ••••• • • • • • • • • 0 • • Page No. F-l-1 F-2-1 F-2-1 F-2-1 F-2-1 .F-2-1 F-2-1 F-2-2 .~ J 3 -CIVIL DESIGN DATA (*)•· ···•·.•0 •0 0 ·.·.F-3-1 3.1 -Governing Codes and Standards (0)F-3-d 3.2 -Design Loads (**)·F-3-1 3.3 -Stability (*).· · F-3-6 3.4 -Material Properties (0).·· · F-3-9 4 -GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN DATA (**)···0 · ···0 ·•·.F-4-1 4.1 -Watana (..···F-4-1 4.2 -Devil Canyon (**)··F-4-10 5 -HYDRAULIC DESIGN DATA (**)··•· ···• • 0 F-5-1 5.1 -River Flows (**) 5.2 -Design Flows (**) 5.3 -Reservoir Levels (**) 5~4 :';;"'ReservoirbperaEing 'RtiTe'C**) '.'..~~'~--------"--'~5-;-5~-----a-es~erv~o-tr~-Da ta-(-*'A"r~~~-.--.-~'~~~-'~~-...-,.. 5.6 -Wind Effect (**) 5.7 -Criteria (***) • • • • •0 •F-5-1 F-5-1 F-5-l F-5-2...."'-'~~'~~'~-~F":'~5 -2--- · • • •F-5-3 · •••F-5-3 I .I 1 i J 1 j l 6 -EQUIPMENT DESIGN CODES AND STANDARDS (**)•F-6-1 6.1 -Design Codes and Standards (*) 6.2 -General Criteria (*)•••••• 851014 ··xxx o 0 • 0 F-6-1 F-6-2 SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT F SUPPORTING DESIGN REPORT (PRELIMINARY) f I I Title Page No. 6.3 -Diversion Structures and Emergency Release Facilities (*)• •••••••• 6.4 Spillway (**)• ••••• 6.5 -Outlet Facilities (*). 6.6 -Power Intake (*). 6.7 -Powerhouse (**).•••• 6.8 -Tailrace Tunnels (**)•••• 7 -REFERENCES APPENDICES • •0 • ••• •. . ... . . . . . F-6-4 F-6-6 F-6-6 F-6-8 F-6-9 F-6-l2 F-7-1 F1 F2 F3 851014 THIS APPENDIX DELETED WATANA AND DEVIL CANYON EMBANKMENT STABILITY ANALYSES SUMMARY AND PMF AND SPILLWAY DESIGN FLOOD ANALYSES xxxi :<1 ,I J ill ,J :) ,I iJ ,.\ "JI_,~ \ \ I J I,I u l.J CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES I' TABLE OF CONTENTS SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS Title 1 -INTRODUCTION (**)• 1.1 -Purpose (**) 1.2 -Relationships to Other Reports (*) 1.3 -Study Approach and Methodology (**) 1.3.1 -Approach (**) 1.3.2 -Methodology (**) 1.4 -Project Description (**) Page No. E-7-1-1 E-7-1-1 E-7-1-1 E-7-1-1 E-7-1-1 E-7-1-2 E-7-1-3 1.4.1 -Construction (**).· · · · . . . . .E-7-1-3 (a)Watana Dam and Reservoir - Stage I (**).·E-7-1-3 (b)Devil Canyon Dam and Reservoir - Stage II (**)· · · · · · E-7-1-3 (c)Watana Dam and Reservoir - Stage III (***). . . . .E-7-1-4 1.4.2 -Operational Characteristics of the Project (**)· · · · · ·E-7-1-4 (a)Watana Stage I Dam and Reservo ir (**)·E-7-1-4 (b)Devil Canyon Dam and Reservoir - Stage II (**)· · · · · ·E-7-1-5 (c)Watana Dam and Reservoir - Stage III (***)· · · · · E-7-1-5 2 -DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING AND FUTURE RECREATION WITHOUT THE SUSITNA PROJECT (**)••••••• 2.1 -Statewide and Regional Setting (**). 2.1.1 -Background (*)•...•...•. 2.1.2 -The Southcentral Region (*) 2.1.3 -Existing Regional Facilities (*) 2.1.4 -Existing Regional Recreation Use (*) 2.1.5 -Regional Recreation Trends (*) E-7-2-1 E-7-2-1 E-7-2-1 E-7-2-2 E-7-2-3 E-7-2-4 E-7-2-5 851016 1 -_...~-.-~"·_"~---~-~----~_·~---·-3-;-171-------Wat-ana-c-8t-a·g·e~I-I)e-ve-l-o·pme·n·t-(-*-*-)~---.---.-.---.-•.-.....---- (a)Construction (**)••••••••• (b)Operations (**)•••••••••• 3.1.2-Devil Canyon Stage II Development (**) (a)Construction (**)••.•• (b)Operations (**)•••••• 3.1.3 -WatanaStage.IITDe.velopment..(ic:**.)..• (a)Construction (***) (b)Opera tions"{***}·..-......•• 3.1.4 -Watana Access Road (*)• • • • (a)Construction (*)•••••• (b)Operations (*)• • • • • • • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES } I l } } 1 ) 1 r 1 j ] 1 1 1 I .) I E-7-3-l E-7-2-9 E-7-2-9 E-7-2-9 E-7-2-l0 E-7-2-11 E-7-2-12 E-7-2-13 E-7-2-l3 E-7-2-l4 E-7-2-l4 E-7-2-16 E-7-3-l E-7-2-8 E-7-2-6 Page No. E-7-2-8 E-7-2-17 E-7-2-l7 E-7-2-l8 E-.]·-3-1---·--··. E-7-3-2 E-7-3-4 E-7-3-5 E-7-3-5 E-7-3-6 _..E:--7-3-6 E-7-3-6 E-7-3-7 E-7-3-8 E-7-3-8 E-7-3-9 .... . ... . -Background (*)••••• Existing Facilities and Activities In the Study Area (**)• • • • (a)Facilities (**)•••••••• (i)Public Facilities (***)• (ii)Privat~Facilities (***) (iii)Trails (**)• • • • • • • (b)Ac t i vi ties (*)• • • • • • • • • (i)Sports and Trophy Hunting (*) (ii)Fishing (*)• • • • • • • • • (iii)Food Gathering (**) (iv)Boating (**)•••• (v)Winter .Sports (**') -Future Aci:1.vTi:ies ·anci-Facfiiti.es In the Study Area (**)• • • • (a)Private Landowners (**)•••• (b)BLM Plans (**)• • • • • • 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.1.6 -Future Facilities 1n the Region (**) 2.2 -Susitna River Basin (**) 3.1 -Direct Impacts of Project Features (**)• 3 -PROJECT IMPACTS ON EXISTING RECREATION (**)• Title SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LICENSE APPLICATION IJ SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Title 3.1.5 -Devil Canyon Access Road (*)...•.• (a)Construction (*)• . (b)Operations (*)• • • 3.1.6 -Gold Creek -Devil Canyon Railroad (*) (a)Construction (*)• • (b)Operations (*)• • • 3.1.7 -Project Transmission Lines (**) (a)Project Area (*). ....••• (b)Intertie and North-South Stubs (**). 3.2 -Project Recreational Demand Assessment ••• (Moved to Appendix E4.7) 3.2.1 -Increased Access and Use (***) 3.2.2 -Impacts of Increased Use (***) (a)Image of the Study Area (***) (b)Fishing Impacts (***) (c)Hunting Impacts (***). (d)Other Activities (***) 4 -FACTORS INFLUENCING THE RECREATION PLAN (**) 4.1 -Characteristics of the Project Design and Operation (***)• • . . • . . . . 4.2 -Characteristics of the Study Area (***) 4.3 -Recreation Use Patterns and Demand (***) 4.4 -Agency,Landowner and Applicant Plans and Policies (***). • . • • 4.4.1 -Assumptions Regarding Future Management Policies (***)• •... . 4.4.2 -Management Objectives (**)..•. (5.1 in 1983 License Application) (a)The Applicant (**)• • • • • • (b)Alaska Department of Natural Resources (**). . . . . . . . Page No. E-7-3-10 E-7-3-10 E-7-3-10 E-7-3-10 E-7-3-10 E-7-3-11 E-7-3-11 E-7-3-11 E-7-3-11 E-7-3-12 E-7-3-12 E-7-3-13 E-7-3-13 E-7-3-l3 E-7-3-14 E-7-3-15 E-7-4-1 E-7-4-1 E-7-4-2 E-7-4-2 E-7-4-3 E-7-4-3 E-7-4-4 E-7-4-4 E-7-4-5 851016 iii SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT ~-CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Title (i)Recreation •••• • • • (ii)Management Guidelines (iii)Land Allocation Summary • (c)Alaska Department of Fish and Game (**)••••••••• (4.1.3 in 1983 License Application) (d)U.S.Bureau of Land Management (*)• (4.1.4 in 1983 License Application) (e)Cook Inlet Region Inc.(CIRI) and Village Corporations (**) (4.1.5 itl 1983 License Applic:ation) (f)Matanuska-Susitna Borough (*) (4.1.6 in 1983 License Application) (g)Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (*)••••• (4.1.7 in 1983 License Application) --4~5 -Public:InEerest(***}~~~.'.• • • 4.6 -Mitigation of Recreation Use Impacts (***) '] I 5 -RECREATION PLAN (**)•• 0 • 0 • • • • • • • • • 5.1 -Recreation Plan Management Concept (***) _····_·_·--5 •.2--Recreation ·Plan .Guidelines .('K**}_•._•._._._._.•.•..__E~7-5-2 ... .~ 5.2.1 -Reservoirs (***)•••••••••• 5.2.2 -Rail Spur and Airfield (***) 5.2.3 -Trail Development (***)•••••• 5.2.4 -Interpretive Programs (***) 5.2.5 -Scenic Viewpoints (***)•••• 5.2.6 -Campgrounds (***) 5.2.7 -F{shing Lakes",.'•. 5.2.a -Concesl?:iQJl...PQ tel1J:;:ial •!_._.......• •..!.• E-7-5-2 E-7-5-2 E-7-5-2 E-7-5-3 E-7-5-3 E-7-5-3 E-7-5-4 E-7-5-4 5.3 -Recreational Opportunity Evaluation. (Moved to Appendix E3.7.3) 5.4 -The Recreation Plan (**).. . . .. . ..... E-7-5-4 E-7-5-4 j l r IJ Title 851016 5.4.1 - 5.4.2 - 5.4.3 - 5.4.4 - SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Phase One:Watana Stage I Construction (**)• . . • . • . . . . . . (a)Site A -Susitna River/Denali Highway Bridge Boat Launch (***) (b)Site B -Watana Construction Camp and Townsite Worker Recreation Plan (***) (c)Site C -Middle Fork Chulitna River/Caribou Pass Trail (***) (d)Site D -Project Entry Sign (***) Phase Two:Watana Operation/ Devil Canyon Construction (**)•..•. (a)Site E -Watana Damsite Temporary Visitor Center and Boat Access (***) (b)Site F -Tsusena Creek/Caribou Pass Trail (***)•.•... (c)Site G -Susitna Entrance Campground (***)•.••..•. (d)Site H -Deadman/Big Lakes Trail (***). . • • • . (e)Site I -Stephan Lake Portage Campsite (***). • . • . • • . . (d)Site J -Devil Canyon Construction Camp and Village Worker Recreation Plan (***). . • . . • . • . . . Phase Three:Devil Canyon Operation/ Watana Stage III Construction (***) (a)Site K -Devil Canyon Damsite Visitor Center and Boat Access (***) (b)Site L -Devil Creek Falls Trai I (***).•.. (c)Site M-Tsusena Butte and Tsusena Creek Falls Trails (***) (d)Site N -Mermaid Lake Campground (***)• . • • . (e)Site 0 -Devil Canyon Dam Overlook (***) Phase Four:Watana Stage III Operation (***). . v Page No. E-7-5-4 E-7-5-5 E-7-5-5 E-7~5-5 E-7-5-6 E-7-5-6 E-7-5-6 E-7-5-7 E-7-5-7 E-7-5-7 E-7-5-8 E-7-5-8 E-7-5-8 E-7-5-8 E-7-5-9 E-7-5-9 E-7-5-10 E-7-5-l0 E-7-5-10 E-7-5-11 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Title Page No. 5.4.5 -Recreation Plan for Construction Camps, Villages,and Permanent Townsite (**).. (a)Housing Facilities (***)..•.• (b)Workers and Resident Activities (***) (c)Recreation Programming (**).•.• (d)Proposed Recreation Plan for Workers and Residents (**). E-7-5-11 E-7-5-11 E-7-5-12 E-7-5-13 E-7-5-13 6.2 -Detailed Recreation Design (***) 6 -PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (**) 6.1 -Phasing (**) ••. ..E-7-6-1 E-7-6-1 E-7-6-1 "7 -COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED RECREATION FACILITIES (**)• • • • • • • • • •••E-7-7-1 6.4 -Monitoring (**)•. 6.3 -Operation and Maintenance (***) 1 ] ] J ] j E-7-7-1 E-7-6-3 E-7-6.;.2 E-7-7-2 E-7-8-1 E-7-8-1 E-7-6-2 -E'"7=6 ...2 .. . . . . . ... . 6.3.1 -Personnel (***).•••• ••2 -Interpret Program (***)- 7.3 -Monitoring (***) 7.1 ~Construction (**)••. 8.1 -Agencies and Persons Consulted (**) 8 -AGENCY COORDINATION (**) 8.2 -Agency Comments (**J 8.3 -Native Corporation·~omments (***)E-7-8-1 8.4 -Consultation Meetings (***)E-7-8-2 851016 vi Title SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Page No. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .9 -REFERENCES 10 -GLOSSARY • 851016 • • .. ... vii . . .. E-7-9-1 E-7-10-1 Number E.7.2.1 E.7.2.2 E.7.2.3 E.7.2.4 E.7.2.5 E.7.3.1 E.7.5.1 E.7.5.2 E.I.S.3 E.7.6.1 E.7.7.1 E.7.7.2 E.7.7.3 EL7.1 E2~7.1 E4.7.1 EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES LIST OF TABLES Title STATEWIDE RECREATION INVENTORY -BY LAND OWNERSHIP STATEWIDE INVENTORY OF EXISTING RECREATION FACILITIES BY REGION PERCENTAGE OF ADULT POPULATION PARTICIPATION IN INLAND OUTDOOR RECREATION:SOUTHCENTRAL REGION ALASKA STATE PARK SYSTEM VISITOR COUNT SUMMARY EXISTING TRAILS IN THE STUDY AREA ESTIMATED RECREATION DEMAND RECOMMENDED PROJECT RECREATION AREA MANAGEMENT ZONE DESCRIPTIONS CONSTRUCTION WORK FORCE ESTIMATES P.ROPOSED~RECREATIONPLANFOR~GONSTRUCTION CAMPS, VILLAGES,AND PERMANENT TOWNSITE SUGGESTED INTERPRETIVE PROGRAM THEMES FOR VISITOR CENTER AND SURROUNDINGS ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF PROJECT RECREATION PLAN ADDITIONAL STAFF REQUIRED AND STAFF EXPENSES TO O"E'E1tA1'EANlf MAINTAIN SUSITNAPROJECT··RECREATION ........-----~FACTITTTES--;;;,-198-5-·DOI.;LttRS----~-----~--------.. ADDITIONAL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT TO BE PURCHASED FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AS PART OF THE SUSITNA PROJECT'S RECREATION PLAN -1985 DOLLARS DATA ON REGIONAL RECREATION FACILITIES ATTRACTIVE FEATURES-INVENTORY DATA POPULATION ESTIMATES OF SELECTED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE REGION I ] j 1 ,1 .] 1 ] \ 1 ),.l Number E4.7.2 E4.7.3 E4.7.4 E4.7.5 E4.7.6 E4.7.7 E4.7.8 E4.7.9 851016 EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES LIST OF TABLES Title AVERAGE REGIONAL RECREATION PARTICIPATION DISTANCES TO CENTROID OF RECREATION AREA ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL DAYS FOR RESIDENTS OF SELECTED LOCATIONS,TO WATANA AND ALL OTHER LOCATIONS EQUIDISTANT FROM THEIR ORIGIN ASSUMED PROJECT RECREATION CAPTURE RATES ESTIMATED RECREATION DEMAND ANNUAL RECREATION VISITOR DAYS -DENALI NATIONAL PARK NUMBER OF ANGLERS WHO SPORT FISHED IN ALASKA BY AREA OF RESIDENCE,1977-1981 NUMBER OF ANGLER DAYS FISHED IN ALASKA AND PERCENTAGE BY REGION AND AREA,1977-1981 ix Number E.7.!.1 E.7.!.2 E.7.2.1 E.7.2.2 E.7.5.l E.7.5.2 E.7.5.3 E.7.5.4 E.7.5.5 E.7.5.6 .7~5~7 E.7.5.8 E.7.5.9 E.7.5.10 851016 EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES LIST OF FIGURES Title STUDY METHODOLOGY PROPOSED PROJECT FEATURES EXISTING AND PROPOSED REGIONAL RECREATION FACILITIES EXISTING RECREATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT CONCEPT RECREATION FACILITIES RECREATION SITES RECREATION SITES RECREATION SITES RECREATION SITES RECREATION SITES RECREATION SITES RECREATION SITES RECREATION SITES EXAMPLESOFTYPICALRECREATIONFACILI-TY DESIGN- .S'l'AN-DARDS--FOR--'I'HE--SUSI-T-NA--RROJECl'----.. x \ ) J J 1 .1 .1 \ 1 J .\ ] ] j l j \ \ Number E6.7.1 E6.7.2 E6.7.3 E6.7.4 E6.7.5 E6.7.6 E6.7.7 E6.7.8 E6.7.9 E6.7.10 E6.7.11 E6.7.12 E6.7 .13 E6.7.14 851016 EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Title MIDDLE FORK OF CHULITNA RIVER;VIEW TO THE SOUTH THROUGH CARIBOU PASS ALONG PROPOSED TRAIL SUSITNA BRIDGE ON THE SUSITNA RIVER;IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF PROPOSED BOAT RAMP WATANA TOWNSITE BRUSHKANA CAMP;EXISTING CAMPSITE ADJACENT TO PROPOSED CAMPSITE TSUSENA CREEK;VIEW WEST INTO THE TSUSENA CREEK DRAINAGE FROM THE CHULITNA MOUNTAINS,FROM THE PROPOSED MOUNTAINEERING TRAIL TSUSENA CREEK;VIEW NORTH INTO THE CHULITNA MOUNTAINS FROM ABOVE THE PROPOSED TRAIL MID-CHULITNA MOUNTAINS;LOOKING SOUTH AT LAKE FROM PROPOSED TRAIL MID-CHULITNA MOUNTAINS;LOOKING NORTH FROM PROPOSED UNDESIGNATED CAMPSITES MID-CHULITNA MOUNTAINS TSUSENA BUTTE;LOOKING SOUTH TOWARD TSUSENA LAKES FROM PROPOSED TSUSENA CREEK TRAIL DEADMAN LAKE/BIG LAKE;VIEW NORTH BETWEEN THE LAKES FROM PROPOSED TRAIL AND UNDESIGNATED CAMPSITES DEADMAN LAKE;VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM ABOVE THE PROPOSED TRAIL BIG LAKE;VIEW TOWARD THE SOUTH END OF THE LAKE FROM THE PROPOSED UNDESIGNATED CAMPSITES CLARENCE LAKE;GILBERT CREEK VIEW WEST TOWARD PROPOSED TRAIL AND UND~SIGNATED CAMPSITES Number E6.7.15 E6.7.16 E6.7.17 E6.7.18 E6.7.19 E6.7.20 E6.7.21 E6.7 .22 E6.7.23 E6.7.24 E6.7.25 E6.7.26 E6.7.27 E6.7.28 E6.7.29 16 EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS(cont'd) Title KOSINA CREEK;VIEW NORTH ALONG CREEK FROM ABOVE PROPOSED TRAIL WATANA LAKE;VIEW TOWARD THE NORTH FOG LAKES;VIEW TOWARD THE EAST FOG LAKES;VIEW SOUTH TOWARD THE TALKEETNA RANGE FROM ABOVE PROPOSED TRAIL STEPHAN LAKE;VIEW TOWARD THE SOUTH DEVIL CREEK;VIEW ALONG DEVIL CREEK;AT ITS CONFLUENCE WITH THE SUSITNA RIVER DEVIL CREEK;DEVIL CREEK FALLS EAST,AS VIEWED FROM NEAR PROPOSED VIEWPOINT DEVIL GREEK;DEVIL CREEK FALLS WEST,AS VIEWED FROM NEAR EROPOBED VIEWPOINT DEVIL CREEK;VICINITY OF PROPOSED SCENIC TRAIL AND VIEWPOINTS MERMAID LAKE;SOUTH END OF'LAKE FROM ABOVE PROPOSED CAMPGROUND MERMAID LAKE;NORTH END OF LAKE,FROM ABOVE PROPOSED DEVIL CANYON DAMSITE;VIEW OF SUSITNA RIVER FROM THE PORTAGE CREEK CONFLUENCE SOULE CREEK;VIEW TOWARD THE WEST OF SOULE LAKE FROM ABOVE THE PROPOSED TRAIL SOULE CREEKfUPPER'SOULECREEKCANYON VIEWING TOWARD THE"EAST ALONG THE PROPOSED MOUNTAINEERING TRAIL' SOUTHERN CHULITNA MOUNTAINS;VIEWING SOUTHEAST OVER LAKE,FROM ABOVE THE PROPOSED TRAIL xii 1 ] ] ,~l ] l j "'\ I I 1 I J j 1 j 1 I ,] ",1 ,'j Number E6.7.30 851016 EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS (cont'd) Title SOUTHERN CHULITNA MOUNTAINS;VIEWING EASTWARD INTO THE CHULITNA MOUNTAINS ALONG THE PROPOSED TRAIL FROM THE PROPOSED UNDESIGNATED CAMPSITES X111 Number El.7 E2.7 E3.7 E4.7 ES.7 E6.7 EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES LIST OF APPENDICES Title DATA ON REGIONAL RECREATION FACILITIES ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA RECREATION SITE,INVENTORY AND OPPORTUNITY EVALUATION PROJECT RECREATIONAL DEMAND ASSESSMENT EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL RECREATION FACILITY DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE SUSITNA PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS OF SITES WITHIN THE PROJECT RECREATION STUDY AREA 'I ] 'j "J 'I ] iil ] J j ] ] ] } ,] {~1 ] ,J } il I EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES 1 -INTRODUCTION (**) 1.1 -Purpose (**) The purpose of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project recreation plan is to provide organized recreational development for project waters and adjacent lands.The plan has been designed to meet four primary objectives: o To offset recreational resources lost by construction of the proposed Project. o To estimate and provide for the recreation user potential for the project area; o To accommodate project-induced recreation demand;and o To control public access on project lands and waters,consistent with the planned construction and operation of the Project and compatible with the scenic,public recreational,cultural,and other environmental values of the project area; 1.2 -Relationships to Other Reports (*) The recreation plan is based in part on physical aspects of the Project as described in Exhibit A,project operations as described in Exhibit B,and the proposed construction schedule as described in Exhibit C. While the recreation plan constitutes mitigation,it would become part of the project features,and has impacts of it own.Recreation planning has been coordinated with development of other sections of Exhibit E,primarily Chapter 3,Fish,Wildlife,and Botanical Resources;Chapter 4,Historic and Archeological Resources;Chapter 5, Socioeconomic Impacts;and Chapter 9,Land Use,so that impacts can be assessed and mitigation measures determined. 1.3 -Study Approach and Methodology (**) 1.3.1 -Approach (**) Recreation planning was guided by the framework provided by FERC regulations regarding recreation resources.These factors included:the design and operational characteristics of the Project,management objectives of resource agencies and Native landowners,inherent natural resource opportunities and constraints,and recreation use patterns and demand.These factors were considered throughout the six steps of the planning approach discussed below. 851016 E-7-1-1 The general approach to the planning effort involved review of pertinent recreation literature,discussions regarding recreation-related plans and concerns of state and federal agencies and Native corporations,the completion of recreation and resource use surveys to support demand evaluation efforts, and field reconnaissance to evaluate and verify locations of proposed recreation sites.The results of the study effort are documented in this chapter. The results of past studies and agency plans both for the Project and those of a more general nature were used.Particular emphasis was given to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Subtask 7.08 Report,(TES 1982b).Results of more recent resource user surveys (ISER 1985)and a recreation use survey along the Denali Highway (Harza-Ebasco 1985c)were also considered in the development of the recreation plan. 1.3.2 -Methodology (**) Figure E.7.1.l illustrates the study methodology employed in developing the project's recreation plan. Step 1 -determined study objectives and developed a detailed work plan.This activity included review of all relevant agency documents and their objectives and interviews with key agency personnel. Step 2 -included the parallel activities of inventorying existing recreatIon facIlities .and plans andes ETlllating'future recreation demand with and without the Project. Step 3 -consisted of an inventory of potential recreation sites-within the project area.This activity involved-a review of relevant project documents and previous studies and extensive onsite investigations. ·-···-··-------Step·4----evaluated-recreationopportunities-at--the-potenti-al ---·--s·i-t;-es-i-d-en-t-i-f-i-ed·--i-n-St;-e-p---J-.-~he--s·i-&es-we-r,.e-e-va-lua.&ed-by-de-~i-n.i-n-g-----_· the qualitative and quantitative aspects of their recreation potential based on information from Steps 2 and 3. Step 5 -consisted of a further refinement of the opportunity evaluation and constituted the recommended recreation plan and alternatives for the Project. ----SEep--6..,deveT6pedanirripieriierita tion ..pIa n,inc ltidingplan phasing,demand monitoring,and estimated costs. A detailed discussion of specific methodologies employed 1S found in the introduction to each section. ,,I ,I ] ,,] 851016 E-7-1-2 u II-~ II~.~ 1.4 -Project Description (**) The Susitna Project is comprised of two major dams constructed in three stages as described in Exhibit A.Facilities in addition to the dams would include storage reservoirs,penstocks and underground powerhouse,transmission lines,a railroad,access roads,two temporary single-status construction camps,two temporary married-status construction camps,a permanent village and a landing strip (Figure E.7.1.2).The project transmission lines would connect to the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie,a separate project completed in 1984. Project construction and operational features considered relevant to recreation are discussed below for each stage. 1.4.1 -Construction (**) (a)Watana Dam and Reservoir -Stage I (**) The completed Watana Stage I reservoir would be 44 river miles long,with a typical width of 1 mile and widening at Watana Creek to approximately 3 miles.The surface area would range from 21,000 acres at normal maximum pool to 12,000 acres at minimum pool.Construction of the Project would require a 41.6-mi1e access road and an airstrip near the site.A temporary single-status construction camp, (ultimately housing 2,315 workers during the peak construction period)and a construction village (ultimately housing 310 families or 1,023 people)would be developed. (b)Devil Canyon Dam and Reservoir -Stage II (**) The Devil Canyon Stage II phase of the Project would consist of a 645-foot high thin arch concrete dam,a 600-MW powerhouse,and a reservoir with a surface area of 7,800 acres.The reservoir would be 32 river miles long and confined in a narrow canyon generally 0.25 to 0.5 mile wide. It would extend to the toe of the Watana Dam at normal maximum pool level. A 37-mi1e access road would be developed between Watana and Devil Canyon,including construction of a high-level bridge across Devil Canyon.A 12.2 mile railroad would be constructed from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon for transporting construction materials.A single-status camp for 1,412 workers and a married-status village for 160 workers (528 people)would be constructed.Final reservoir filling would occur over a two-month period in the year 2004.The construction camp and village would be removed once construction is completed. 851016 E-7-1-3 (c)Watana Dam and Reservoir-Stage III (***) During Stage III,the Watana Dam would be raised 180 feet from el.2,025 toel.2,205 and the Watana Reservoir would be raised from its normal maximum water level of el.2,000 to el.2,185.The Stage III reservoir would have a surface area of 38,000 acres during normal maximum pool level with an average width of approximately 1 mile and a maximum width of approximately 5 miles.The reservoir would be 48 river miles long.The access road north from the Denali Highway, already in place to serve Stages I and II would be utilized for Stage III.Access from the w.est would be provided by utilization of the existing railroad from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon and the existing access road between Devil Canyon and Watana.The construction work force for implementing Stage III would peak at about 1,383 workers in the year 2009.Reservoi r fi 11 ing would begin in 2011. 1.4.2 -Operational Characteristics of the Project (**) (a)WataIl.aSl:ag~LDaII!and Reservoir (**) The Watana Stage I Dam and power plant would begin operating in 1999.Exhibit B and Exhibit E,Chapter 2,Section 3.6 provide detailed information on operation of the Project. Through the months of May,June,July,and August,under normal maximum operating conditions,the Watana reservoir ~al:~rl~Yla~wotllc!increase from a l()wOf el•..1,850 ft.in April and May to the~p-eak -eievat{onin ea.rTY~September (el.2,000).At maximum drawdown in April,9,000 acres or 14 square miles normally covered by the reservoir would be exposed.The size of the areas may range from a few hundred feet in canyon areas to a few square miles in flatter areas such as Watana Creek. During operation of Watana Dam,the fluctuations in flows that occur under natural·conditions would be both moderated and-redi-stri-buted.--~Under-na~t~ura-l-cond-i-t-ions-,-ave~Fage-------­ monthly flows in the Susitna River range from a minimum of 1,100 cfs in March to a high of 28,000 cfs.in June (Gold Creek Station).Flows with the Stage I project would be increased during the winter over natural conditions and decreased during the summer.Flows would be increased over natural conditions during eight months~(September through April),and<~wouldbe decreased during the remaining months. ~~~Downstreamof·Talkeetna,-,t-he--same-~general--patternswould pertain,although the effects would be proportionately much less as the Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers.join the Susitna River.Exhibit E,Chapter 2 provides a detailed discussion of project flows. I 1 ,J ! .) 851016 E-7-1-4 r (b)Devil Canyon Dam and Reservoir -Stage II (**) The Devil Canyon Dam and power plant would begin operating in the year 2005.The reservoir drawdown at Devil Canyon would be less than that of Watana Reservoir.The pool would normally remain at el.1,455 between September and May.At project completion (year 2005)a 20-foot drawdown to el.1,435 would occur in average years.In later years,the maximum drawdown would be ten feet during average years.In dry years,the pool may be drawn down 50 feet to el.1,405 in July and remain there through October. Susitna River flows downstream of the Project during Stage II would be more stable than during Stage I.The minimum average flows in April would be near 6,000 cfs as compared to 4,000 cfs in Stage I and 1,100 cfs under natural conditions.The maximum monthly average discharge would be similar to Stage I. (c)Watana Dam and Reservoir -Stage III (***) The Stage III Watana Dam would begin operating in the year 2012.Stage III drawdowns during average years would be approximately 100 feet.The reservoir water level would normally be at its maximum level of el.2,185 in September and October and would normally draw down throughout the winter to approximately el.2,080 in May.In dry years, the reservoir level would range from a maximum level of el.2,150 to a minimum of el.2,065.The surface area at el.2,065 would be 26,000 acres.At minimum pool,the exposed areas of the reservoir shoreline would total 12,000 acres or 19 square miles.The size of these areas would range from a few hundred feet in canyon areas to a few square miles near Watana Creek. During Stage III,Susitna River flows downstream of Devil Canyon would be more stable than during Stages I and II. Minimum average monthly April flows would be increased from 1,100 cfs under natural conditions to 4,000 cfs in Stage I, 6,000 cfs in Stage II,6,600 cfs in the early years of Stage III operation and to 9,000 cfs when the Project is operating near full capacity.Maximum average monthly flows (occurring in a wet year)would be decreased from 51,000 cfs under natural conditions to 35,000 cfs in Stage I, 37,000 cfs in Stage II,37,000 cfs in the early years of Stage III,and to 22,000 cfs as the Project nears full capacity. 851016 E-7-1-5 ] ·j ""I 1\.& ·) ) J.' ~ I J ·I \ ,j J .I I j J .l ·) 1 851016 I ;_.J 2 -DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING AND FUTURE RECREATION WITHOUT THE SUSITNA PROJECT (**) 2.1 -Statewide and Regional Setting (**) 2.1.1 -Background (*) Recreational environments and the people who recreate in Alaska are different in many ways from those in the lower 48 states. Therefore,to understand the recreation issues of the Susitna Project,it is necessary to identify the recreation issues and needs facing the state and to understand the attitudes of Alaska residents and tourists. The open spaces of Alaska contain some of the most spectacular scenery in the nation.Less than a decade ago,Alaskans enjoyed virtually unlimited potential for outdoor recreational opportunities.However,as land status changes take place, available public recreation land and opportunities are being reduced. The 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will transfer 44 million acres of public lands to private ownership with in the next few years.While the conveyance is still in progress,many selected lands include established recreation areas.In addition,the state legislature has directed the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)to make state lands available to the public for settlement or agriculture.This ongoing process has removed 20,000-100,000 acres each year from public ownership. The federal government set aside another 100 million acres through the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA),adding 43.6 million acres to the National Parks System and 53.7 million acres to the National Wildlife Refuge System. Two million acres were placed in Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conservation and recreation areas.Fifty-six million acres of the National Park refuges and National Forest land were given wilderness protection.These lands represent many beautiful and sensitive areas of Alaska and expand the area of protected status lands available for outdoor recreation.However,for the most part,these lands are remote and not easily accessible by either out-of-state visitors or residents. The Alaska Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division (APORD)of the ADNR,which was formed in 1971,currently controls three million acres of state land and water.ADNR's policies and programs reflect the recent lancrstatus changes.In 1979,ADNR began the Public Interest Land Identification Project to evaluate surface E-7-2-1 use values of state lands.This ongoing project identifies areas for wildlife habitat,agriculture,recreation,forestry,and settlement and locates sites for future state parks and recreation areas.A statewide inventory of local,state and federal recreation facilities done in 1977 shows that approximately 157 million acres of Alaska's 367.7 million acres are now classified as public recreation.This inventory is presented in Table E.7.2.1. 2.1.2 -The Southcentral Region (*) The project's study area lies within the southcentral region of Alaska.Since recreational planning for the Project must fit within the framework of existing and future regional recreation, it is important to understand the regional recreational patterns and trends as well as the APORD plans for the region. The southcentral region extends from the hydrographic divide of the Alaska Range on the north to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough boundary on the west,Kodiak Island on the south,and the Alaska/Canada border on the east.It abounds with ocean shorelines,freshwater lakes,free-flowing rivers,massive mountains,wildlife,and glaciers the size of states.The diversity of landscapes and resources offer a wide variety of outdoor recreational opportunities,making it an attractive recreational environment.Figure E.7.2.1 shows existing and proposed regional recreational facilities. -More-Eliailna IT--of--Alaska I s-pop-tila-fiOilTiveswItlifil-tfi e --regi On of southcentral Alaska.The Municipality of Anchorage,the largest city,has an estimated 1985 population of 247,237.The region's economy is based on commercial fishing,mining,forestry, petroleum,tourism"support services,and other private business. In addition,this region contains a more developed transportation system than other portions of the state.Although there are relatively few roads in the region compared to most of the lower 48-s tate s ,--pave d--hi ghway-sand--g-ravelseconda-Fy-Foad-s-pFovide-------- --------------------------------------access-to-many-of-the-ci-ties-and-v.LUag-es-wi-thin--the-r-egi-on.--------- These roads provide access to many of the recreation lands in the region.Because of the limited number of roads,use of planes to reach areas not accessible by road is prevalent.The region has an extensive airport system ranging from the international level to gravel strips and water bodies.The Alaska Railroad and ferry systems also servia portions of the region.All of these transportation systems,combined with the population cotlc~ntrations~;_lllak~_th~~~sotithc~nt_ral_r_egi on_'_s~~re~c~r_eati 0 na 1 opportunities more accessible and consequently more heavily used than in other portions -of Alaska. .J 'I I .J 1 ,1 851016 E-7-2-2 851016 2.1.3 -Existing Regional Facilities (*) The Alaska state parks system includes 82 park units.Of these, 53 are in the southcentral region.Table E.7.2.2 describes the distribution of facilities throughout the state by region. Outdoor recreation development in the southcentral region is primarily located to serve the population centers of Fairbanks and Anchorage and the Railbelt area connecting them. Figure E.7.2.l indicates the location and extent of public recreation lands in the region. The largest and most popular attraction in the southcentral region,for both out-of-state tourists and state residents,is the Denali National Park and Preserve.It is located about 220 miles north of Anchorage and 125 miles south of Fairbanks on the Parks Highway.It offers visitors views of Mt.McKinley and other major peaks in addition to the abundant wildlife.The park attracted over 250,000 recreational visitors in 1981.Facilities and'services in and adjacent to the park include several lodges, visitor centers,campgrounds,trails,raft trips,horseback riding,general store,cabins,convention facilities,gas and bus service.The adjacent Denali State Park,accessed by the Parks Highway,abuts the project's study area.It contains over 324,000 acres and offers a major roadside campground,trails, picnic grounds,and canoeing and fishing areas. Seventy miles from Anchorage,Nancy Lake State Park has 23,000 acres and 130 lakes and ponds.It is heavily used by Anchorage residents for water-related recreation as well as hiking, picnicking and camping (100 units).Chugach State Park,adjacent to Anchorage,provides extensive hiking and cross-country skiing opportunities.The park covers 494,000 acres and provides for camping (91 units),hiking,picnicking,hunting,boating,and fishing. Lake Louise,located northeast of Anchorage and reached from the Glenn Highway,is a popular fishing,boating,and hunting area. The state operates a campground at Lake Louise.The lake is a destination point for boaters and provides access into the upper Susitna and Tyone Rivers.Boaters also float down the Susitna River from the Denali Highway bridge and motor up the Tyone River into Lake Louise. North of the Susitna Project area,the BLM manages the 4.4-million acre Denali Planning Block.This area encompasses much of the Denali Highway and includes several archeological districts listed in the National Register of Historic Places. BLM maintains three developed campgrounds,picnic areas and boat launches along the highway and canoe portages in the Tangle Lakes area.Two of the developed campgrounds are at Tangle Lakes.The E-7-2-3 other campground is at Brushkana Creek.In addition,people use pullouts and borrow areas along the highway for camping, including one near the Clearwater Creek crossing. The Chugach State Park to the east of Anchorage and the Chugach National Forest to the southeast absorb a large portion of recreation demand in the southcentral region.Many southcentral region residents also use the Kenai Peninsula,southwest of Anchorage,for recreation.The Kenai Peninsula contains much public land including the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and the Kenai Fjords National Park.The peninsula offers world-famous king salmon and halibut fishing,big game huntingi scenic driving,skiing,and lake and saltwater recreation. Numerous private facilities in the region provide additional for- mal and informal recreational opportunities.These include re- mote lodges,cabins,restaurants,airstrips and flying services, guide services,whitewater rafting,and other boat trips. Talkeetna,located on the confluence of the Susitna and Talkeetna Rivers,serves as.the world-wide operations center for Mt. McKinley mountaineering expeditions.In addition to mountain climbing,other recreational activities which serve as Talkeetna's economic base include hunting,fishing,guiding, flightseeing,tours,and sightseeing. 1 ) A listing of other existing rea tiona I rtuni ties is relevant regional rec- Aooelldix E1.7• --------------------------- 2.1.4 -Existing Regional Recreation Use (*) Outdoor recreation is a way of life in Alaska.According to a survey conducted in 1981 regarding recreation demand in Alaska (Clark and Johnson 1981),the wide variety of recreation opportunities available is a major reason for people moving to and staying in Alaska.Only self-reliance is considered more -----important---than--recreation;---Proximity-tothewilderness was the t;-h-i-r-d-mo·s-t;-i-mporc-t;-a-n-t-r-ea-son-A-l-a-skans-g-a-ve-f-o-r-mo-v-i-ng-to A-l-a-ska-.--------- The percentage of Alaska's population that participates 1n outdoor recreational activities is among the highest in the nation.Table E.7.2.3.ranks the percentage of participation 1n various inland activities within the region.Southcentral residents ranked their favorite_recreation as fishing,tent camping,hunting,trail-related activities,baseball and -bicycli-ng-i-ri th.3.t ..•·order{ADNR-1981).-I-ri contrast-,:tourists in the area have indicated driving for pleasure as their favorite activity followed by cgmping,hiking,and sport fishing (ADT 1981). ) 851016 E-7-2-4 851016 I I I I Table E.7.2.4 outlines the total visitor count summary for Alaska State Parks from 1978 to 1980.Data for the Susitna River basin is inc!uded in the Mat-Su and Copper Basin State Park di stricts. Over 389,000 visitors from outside the state came to Alaska for pleasure trips in 1977.This represents a 13 to 15 percent annual growth rate since 1964.Recreational growth rates are difficult to predict with confidence,since they rely on many variables,including world economic conditions.However,the State Division of Tourism projects that in 1985 up to 1 million tourists would visit Alaska.The reasons tourists give for being interested in Alaska were studied in a poll by GMA Research Corporation in 1980 (ADT 1981).Their study concluded that the main reasons for tourists'interest in Alaska were as follows: o Scenery,mountains,forest,outdoors (40 percent), o Unique,different from other places (25 percent), o People,Native cultures,Eskimos (10 percent), o Unspoiled wilderness (10 percent),and o Other responses:curiosity,adventure,vastness,wildlife, fishing,hunting (15 percent). In terms of numbers of visitors,the most important areas ~n Alaska for out-of-state tourists are the Gulf of Alaska, Anchorage,and the Denali National Park and Preserve. 2.1.5 -Regional Recreation Trends (*) Southcentral Alaska has experienced overcrowding in many or most existing recreational areas near Anchorage as a result of increasing population growth and limited access to other portions of the state.Assuming that the present recreational participation rate remains constant,this region would continue to experience a substantial annual increase in demand equal to the rise in population.However,recreation participation in the United States and Alaska may increase faster than the population if current trends continue,which may result in longer trips at greater distances from urban centers.In recreational areas which receive up to 50 percent of their users from Anchorage and Fairbanks,intensity of use had increased three-fold in the late 1970s and the recreational season lengthened by several weeks (ADNR 1982a). According to the state's Southcentral Regional Plan,sports fishing license sales increased 40 percent from 1975 to 1980 (ADNR 1982a).Increased use of accessible streams has caused overcrowding in popular fishing areas throughout the region and in particular in streams nearest urban centers.Interest in boating is also rising.Sales of motorized boating equipment E-7-2-5 increased substantially in the late 1970s.The Knik Kanoers and Kayakers Club of Anchorage has reported rapid growth in the number of members in recent years.In addition,there is also evidence,as well,of a rapid increase in winter recreation,as indicated by surveys of winter recreation equipment sales over the last seven years (Clark and Johnson 1981). ~~---~----~~-------~---~---~-~-----~------------~----~----~----- A statewide 1981 public survey (Clark and JohnsonT981)poTled---····- southcentral residents to determine the recreational needs and priorities of the region.Twenty-five percent of the residents responded that they would most like to do more fishing,12 per- cent·said more tent camping,·7 percent said more hunting,and 8 percent said more motorboating.They indicated that bad weather, lack of free time,closed seasons,overcrowding,and high transportation costs were the most common reasons that prevented increased participation in those activities.When asked what priorities the State Parks Department should have for future development,residents stated that the department should acquire more campgrounds and hiking trails;should develop more recreation trails,backpacking campsites and boat trails;and should maintain,but not expand,the size of existing wilderness areas. Also in the 1981 survey,61 percent of the southcentral residents reported that they would like more recreational opportunities at weekend travel distances,and 62 percent would like more community recreational development.When asked how many hours they would travel f()r weekend recreation each way,17 percent ;~id ~~er 4 h~{its,-11percent said'ov'e'r:-Sh'ours ~an~r20 percent were willing to go over 6 hours from home for a weekend trip. The features that Alaskan residents most desired in out-of-town recreational areas included (ADNR 1981):II o Fishing areas (95 percent), o Water access (91 percent), ,-"'----------.-..-----~--'..-..--~--·---------O----DEfV~+td-p-t:rd--·c-~~rtfrsi-n-g---a-ncl--'---p·i-c"n'i-c----s i-t-e-s'·--'-(91---p-e-rce-n't-)'; "----.--."-'---'--o-Undrsturbed-na-tur'a-l-area-s-E-88-percent;-)-,---------. o Hunting areas (87 percent),and o ORV trails (7 percent). 2.1.6 -Future Facilities in the Region (**) In 1982,the APORDpublished an aggressive plan to expand recreational opportunities within the southcentralregion (ADNR i 982a)..The plan'aEtemp te a rio~respondt 0 .all~exisE--ing 11 The percentages represent the percent of the survey population ~n favor of features. .'\ ) l 1 851016 E-7-2-6 851016 I I .J \ unsatisfied demands and projected needs of the region (see Figure E.7.2.l and Appendix El.7).Existing recreation facilities along the George Parks Highway are considered by the state to be inadequate to handle the current recreation demand. APORD development prior1t1es include several recreation sites that affect the Susitna Project's recreation plan.They are included in Appendix El.7 and are described below. Denali State Park has been studied as the site of the Tokositna Resort which would offer first-class hotel facilities,cultural attractions,commercial developments,indoor recreation,alpine skiing and other winter sports,in addition to the outdoor recreation already offered in the park.While this project is no longer under active consideration due to uncertain feasibility, preliminary studies estimated a potential for over 2 million visitor nights and 300,000 visitor days by 1985. The state has recently entered into an agreement with the National Park Service (NPS)to propose the joint development of a visitor center in Denali State Park.A hotel has also been proposed to be financed by the private sector.This project would accommodate additional regional recreation demand. Recreation use would be expected to increase within the Denali State Park boundary as well as to the south side of Denali National Park and Preserve. In other areas of Denali State Park,additional picnic areas, campgrounds,boating facilities,and trails are being developed. Along the eastern portions of the park,trailheads have been designated in conjunction with railroad stops;these trails would connect into the westernmost portion of the Susitna study area. In the Lake Louise Recreational Area,state expansion plans propose to add 300 acres to the existing 50 and include several campgrounds,boating facilities and canoe portage trails.This development is a high priority item,since the lake area and existing improvements are experiencing heavy use.Construction of additional campsites was initiated in 1985.The adjoining Susitna Lake and Tyone Rivers have been identified as boating recreation areas for possible campground development at a later time. The APORD has proposed legislation to designate the Talkeetna River as a State Recreation River.The proposed recreation area would extend from the river mouth at Talkeetna up to the confluence of the Talkeetna River and Prairie Creek.This designation would provine for publicly owned buffers between 1/4 and 1/2 mile on either side of the Talkeetna River for the protection of recreational and natural values and opportunities associated with the river corridor.Amendments uiri E-7-2-7 multiple use of the buffer are being considered as part of the legislation (Wiles 1985 Pers.Comm.).The Talkeetna River forms part of a float trip that begins in the study area on the Susitna River at the Denali Highway and continues through Stephan Lake and Prairie Creek to the Talkeetna River.The Talkeetna River 1S also reached by boaters originating on the Tyone River or Lake Louise area by flights directly into Stephan Lake. Recreation developments recently committed for construction include the Montana Creek State Recreation Site.Plans for Montana Creek,located at Mile 96 off the Parks Highway,include the construction of trails,a railroad underpass and parking to support the heavy fishing demand.The APORD has also proposed development of the Willow State Recreation Area,located approximately 27 miles north of Wasilla.This development would include trails,campgrounds,parking and a boat launch on the Susitna River. Several other proposed new parks and park expansions given a high priority by ADNR are listed in Appendix E2.7. The NPS is proposing improvements to existing Denali National Park facilities to accommodate the substantial increased demand experienced in the past several years.As outlined in their draft general management plan (NPS 1985),the NPS is planning to construct a new hotel,visitor access center and youth hostel. Some of the existing campgrounds within the park,however,would be eliminated if the management option preferred by the Park Service-is selectecr(NPS 1985)~-Thisb-p"tibn .~:rts-o prop-os-esact iv e promotion of recreation use of the south side of the park with its base of operations at a visitor center located in Denali State Park.These plans,if developed,are expected to accommodate portions of the regional recreation demand, particularly by tourists.Demand for developed camping,however, is expected to increase as a result of the reduction in campgrounds. I J ,I 1 I ------------------------------- 2.2.1 -Background (*) During the past decade,the middle Susitna River basin has been studied and evaluated by numerous state and federal agencies. It has not met the criteria required for inclusion in any of the following recreation ._and cons~:rv?ti()n programs: o National Park -Preserve System; o National or Historic Landmark Status; o Wilderness Preservation System; o National Trail System; J J J 851016 E-7-2-8 o National Forest System;or o State Park System. The area has not been studied for inclusion in the National and Scenic River System.No further studies are known to be under consideration.Both the state and Native corporations have selected lands-in anticipation of development and use. 2.2.2 -Existing Facilities and Activities In the Study Area(**) The middle Susitna River Basin encompasses over 39,000 square miles.For purposes of the recreation plan,the area studied 1S defined by the Alaska Railroad and the Parks Highway on the west,the Denali Highway to the north,the Susitna River to the east,and a line approximately 20 miles from the Susitna River on the south.This area covers approximately 3,600 square miles. This portion of the middle Susitna River Basin is not a developed recreational resource.The level of use is presently restricted primarily by the difficult access and distance to population centers.Small planes which are the most common form of recreational access,use the few gravel airstrips which exist 1n the area.Floatplanes also land on larger lakes and rivers. Vehicular access consists of a few all-terrain vehicular (ATV) trails and rough roads used for mining activities and access to scattered homesteads.Boat access also occurs to a limited extent,since water craft can put in at the Denali Highway and float or motor along the Susitna River primarily above Vee Canyon.Boaters can also motor the Susitna River upstream from Talkeetna to Devil Canyon.Some boaters also use the Tyone River for access into the area. As a result of these limitations,people primarily utilize the area on weekends or on other overnight visits.Most of the relatively few trails and structures that exist within the area are associated with the small local population located primarily along the Alaska Railroad.Existing facilities are very dispersed,and activity occurs at a low level of intensity (see Figure E.7.2.2 for existing recreation patterns). (a)Facilities (**) (i)Public Facilities (***) The only public recreational facilities that presently exist within the study area are the roadside facilities on the Denali and George Parks Highways.''Along the Denali Highway,the BLM maintains a small roadside campground and several picnic areas.The facilities most relevant to the 851016 E-7-2-9 851016 Susitna Hydroelectric Project's recreation plan are the l6-site campground at Brushkana Creek and the boat launch at the Denali Highway bridge over the Susitna River.A boat launch,canoe portages,and two campgrounds also exist at Tangle Lakes. (ii)Private Facilities (***) Existing private recreational developments within the study area include clusters of small seasonal cabins and lodges.Most of the private facilities are surrounded by privately owned Native land. Chapter 9,Land Use,includes a table that identifies all structures within the area and lists their use, mode of access,location,and condition.The major concentrations of seasonal residences,cabins,and other structures are near Portage Creek,High Lake, Gold Creek,Chunilna Creek,Stephan Lake,Clarence Lake,and Big Lake.Most are used in association with hunting and fishing.Some of these locations are accessible by ATV trails,but most are located near dirt airstrips and large water bodies accessible by plane.Those structures being .utilized for recreational activities are identified in Figure E.7.2.2. The Portage Creek drainage has a number of mining claims with some summer cabins.The area contains approxImatel.Y12cabInsand severalothersEructures including cabin platforms.Other developments at Chunilna and Gold Creek are primarily mining establishments.There are three small cabins along the Susitna River banks which are maintained for seasonal hunting,trapping,and fishing use. Three lodges are located in the study area.They are ..·-High,.Tsusena,....and Stephan-Lakes--Lod ges.-Ste phan ·-··~--:&ak:e-bodge-,-1-0 c·a-t;-ed-sout;-h-of-t;-he'-Su-s-i-t;-na-R-i-ver·,.--i-s------. the largest of the three lodges.It includes ten main structures and seven additional outlying cabins. Serving a predominantly European clientele,it offers a variety of outdoor recreation activities in a remote setting including hunting,fishing,and float trips down the Talkeetna and upper Susitna Rivers and Prairie Creek.None of these lodges are located wi th inthe~irapoundrnent at'ea. High Lake 'Lodge is the second largest lodge complex with nine structures (see Chapter 9,Land Use - Existing Structures).It is located northeast of the E-7-2-10 1 ,1 'I \ '1 ) ,] 851016 proposed Devil Canyon damsite at High Lake. Historically,this lodge has provided guests with services that are similar to Stephan Lake Lodge for hunting and fishing activities in a wilderness area. Several small outlying cabins located along Portage Creek and the Susitna River have been utilized by visitors to High Lake Lodge while on hunting and fishing trips.The lodge is currently utilized by Susitna Project personnel doing field research. Tsusena Lake Lodge is located north of the proposed Watana damsite and Tsusena Butte and adjacent to Tsusena Lake.This lodge,with three structures,1S used primarily by the lodge owners and members of their families and friends.The majority of use occurs during the summer and fall months with little or no use during the winter months. (iii)Trails (**) Existing trail systems in the project area were built for access by prospectors,hunters,trappers,and fishermen (see Table E.7.2.5 and Figure E.7.2.2 for a listing and a location of major trail locations,condition,and use.)At present,these trails accommodate horses,tracked vehicles, rolligons,dogsleds,and hikers.They connect the few scattered recreational developments and mining settlements in the area and the camp used for researching the area's hydroelectric potential. Trails radiate from these scattered structur-es out to airstrips,lakes,and adjacent fishing streams. The BLM is currently developing regulations for the management of the public trails and access sites located on easements within lands selected by Native corporations.A total of six easements have been identified within the study area.These include an access trail 50 feet wide from the Chulitna wayside on the Alaska Railroad to public lands immediately east of Portage Creek;a state one-acre access site and trail easements on Stephan Lake;and an access trail running east from Gold Creek. The following trail information was reported in the unpublished Area Notes (ADNR 1980)prepared as part of the Upper Susitna Basin Recreation Atlas. E-7-2-l1 The Snodgrass Lake trail begins at the Denali Highway near the Susitna bridge and proceeds south to the lake.The trail reportedly receives use during the summer,autumn,and winter.Recreational activities include:moose,brown bear,and caribou hunting; fishing;camping;off-road vehicular use;picnicking; wildlife observation;berry picking;snowmobiling; overnight camping;and cross-country skiing. The Portage Creek trail follows a sled road from Chulitna to Portage Creek.Hikers access the trail at the Alaska Railroad stop near Chulitna.The trail is used in the autumn,summer,and winter months and is popular with hunters of moose,caribou,brown bear and black bear,as well as hikers,campers, fishermen,photographers,and berry pickers.Portage Creek also receives a light level of fishing effort. Most of this trail traverses CIRI-selected lands. The Butte Lake area is used during summer,winter, and autumn months.There is a trail,also identified by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists (TES 1982a) in its Susitna Land Use Report,that connects the Denali Highway and Butte Lake.This trail is used by skiers,snowmobilers,hikers,fishermen,berry pickers,and campers.Some grayling and lake trout fishing occurs on Butte Lake.Duck,geese,and swan are in the Butte area. Recent mining activity near the abandoned community of Denali,located north of the Susitna River/Denali Highway bridge,has required upgrading of an ATV trail from the townsite to the Denali Highway.The ATV trail continues from the highway south to the confluence of the Susitna and Maclaren Rivers where it then continues east up to the Maclaren River and then···turns··south·;-Thi-s·trail···connectsto 0 t her· .....__~_-~·---t--r-a-i-l-s-l·ead-i-ng-t-o-Lake-Loui-se-o.r-Gr:-os.sw-i.nd.··Lakeand ~-. ultimately to the Glenn Highway.It is used by off-road vehicle drivers;snowmobilers;hunters of caribou,moose,and brown bear;fishermen;and possibly dog sledders. (b)Activities (*) Aside.-f'r6m.the.use.ofis()la.tedlodges,cabins and trails, the predominant recreational pattern in the study area is dispersed and non-site-specific.Activities include: hunting,fishing,food gathering,rock hounding,camping, .j 'j .J 851016 E-7-2-12 'J 1 .!J 851016 hiking,cross-country skiing,photography,bird watching, and power and non-powered boating.Total use of the 3,600- square-mile project area for recreation in 1980 was estimated at 6,700 user days (Table E.7.3.1).Assumptions and methodology for estimating recreation use are presented in Appendix E4.7. (i)Sports and Trophy Hunting (*) The most popular big game in the study area include Dall sheep,moose,caribou,black bear,and brown bear.Hunting levels in the study area in 1980 were estimated at 800 user days'(Table E.7.3.l).Many hunters fly into the area's larger lakes and utilize the small lakeside cabins for hunting trips.Hunters use ATV vehicles and horses to gain access to more remote areas.One of the three lodges in the area, the Stephan Lake Lodge,serves as a base for hunting groups that fly in for guided trophy hunts.The lodge typically has 80-90 guests per season (Harza-Ebasco 1985d). (ii)Fishing (*) Fishing frequently occurs in association with other activities such as hunting,boating,and camping. Fishing in the study area was estimated as 1,500 user days in 1980 (Table E.7.3.1).Anglers have long enjoyed high-quality fishing in area lakes,streams and rivers.Fishermen commonly fly into the larger lakes for all-day or weekend trips.Lake fishing is concentrated at Fog,Clarence,Butte,Watana, Tsusena,Deadman,Big,and High Lakes.Stream fishing occurs mostly along the Susitna River, tributaries downstream of Devil Canyon,such as Portage Creek,and creeks accessible by road such as Brushkana Creek at the Denali Highway.The Tyone River is also fished,with access provided by Lake Louise or the Susitna River from the Denali Highway bridge. Salmon migrate up the Susitna River to Portage Creek just below Devil Canyon.Both guided and non-guided fishing trips are popular here.Considerable salmon fishing also occurs in Stephan Lake and Prairie Creek as boaters travel downstream to the Talkeetna River from Prairie Creek.Other popular salmon fishing spots include Chunilna Creek and Indian River.Lack of road access is an important limiting factor on fishing,and little stream fishing occurs in the acent lands. E-7-2-13 851016 There are many popular salmon fishing areas farther downstream on the Susitna River and its tributaries. The Deshka and Yentna Rivers are popular fishing areas as are the Alexander Slough,Willow Creek, Sheep Creek,and the Talkeetna River (R&M 1985). (iii)Food Gathering (**) Many of the residents of towns near the project study area go berry picking according to an ADF&G survey conducted in 1984.Of the 405 households surveyed, 65,percent engaged in berry picking.This includes berry picking in all locations including the study area.The survey included residents of Cantwell, Paxson,Sourdough,Glennallen,Lake Louise and residents along the east Glenn Highway (Stratton and Georgette 1984).Most of the berry picking in the project area occurs along the Denali Highway. Results of a survey of recreational activities of Railbelt residents indicate that an estimated 92 percent of the residents that participate in berry picking,day hiking,and picnicking limit the extent of their activity to areas within approximately ten miles of the Denali highway (ISER 1985).Data on the amount of berry picking occurring within the study area are not currently available. (iv)Boat (**) Summer boating occurs on the Susitna River upstream and downstream of Devil Canyon and on many of the area's larger lakes.River boat and guide services from Talkeetna and from lodges provide boat access to the Susitna River and plane service to area lakes. The Susitna River is used primarily for sport fishing.Other uses include sightseeing, transportation,--whit-ewater--boating;-and-access -to I'emet.e-pa-I'ce-l-s-and-hunt-i-ng-a-reas o------__ The Susitna River downstream of Devil Canyon is used by a variety of craft including airboats,jetboats, rafts,kayaks,canoes,and propeller-driven boats. Most of the boating activity on the river occurs on the portioTI of the riv~r below Talkeetna (ADF&G 1985)..The portion-between Gold Creek and Talkeetna OT-mi les }hasbeeILa.:..popul ar whitewater route _ because it is more remote than the'downstream reaches,provides a relatively short trip for weekend use,and has been accessible by train.The Alaska Railroad,however,has recently limited bringing E-7-2-14 1 !1 :-1 ;/ .( 1 boats on the train to collapsible kayaks only. Boating activity on the portion between Devil Canyon and Gold Creek is relatively light because it is only accessible by air,by boat from downstream reaches, or by boating through Devil Canyon Rapids,which is only done by expert kayakers.Riverboat tours travel up to this portion of the river for fishing and viewing Devil Canyon. Most boaters on the Susitna access the riv'er from boat launches at Talkeetna,Sunshine Bridge,Willow Creek,and Susitna Landing located on the Kashwitna River.The only other road access to the river is at the Denali Highway,approximately 200 river miles upstream of Talkeetna.Susitna Landing is the most heavily used boat launch because of its proximity to popular fishing destinations such as the Deshka and Yentna Rivers (ADF&G 1985).Navigation use of the river downstream of Devil Canyon is discussed in greater detail in Exhibit E,Chapter 2. The portion of the Susitna R~ver above Devil Canyon (130 miles)provides a remote boating and canoe route.This portion is classified as easy to medium difficulty or Class I to lIon the international whitewater scale because of its fast current (Harza-Ebasco 1985b).Although use is relatively light,this portion is attractive to boaters because of the limited access,the abundant wildlife,and the river canyon scenery.Some boaters float the river from the boat launch on the Denali Highway to the Tyone River and motor up to Lake Louise at the Tyone River's source.Other boaters continue down the river to the gaging station above Vee Canyon where they pullout and portage to Clarence Lake for fishing.An estimated two to three expeditions of two to four whitewater boaters per year continue on through the Vee Canyon Rapids to the Stephan Lake Portage for access to Prairie Creek and the Talkeetna River.Vee Canyon rapids consist of Class III to IV rapids within a narrow double-curved canyon (Harza-Ebasco 1985b).Vee Canyon is approximately 2 miles long and 40 miles upstream of the Watana damsite. The upper Talkeetna River in the southern portion of the study area is a popular Class III and IV rafting and whitewater kayaking trip.The Talkeetna River is not easily accessible by land.In addition to the 851016 E-7-2-15 boaters portaging in from the Susitna River,it is reported that four to five parties per year, consisting of three to six persons,are air-lifted into Stephan Lake.They float Prairie Creek to the Talkeetna River and down to the town of Talkeetna where they enter the Susitna River or pullout.The trip usually takes two to three days from Stephan Lake (Harza-Ebasco 1985b). A few individuals continue down the Susitna River through the rapids of Devil Canyon each year.This stretch of river,which passes through 11 miles of a narrow vertical canyon,is considered world class whitewater.Devil Canyon contains four sets of rapids which are generally considered by kayakers to be a Class VI rapids on the international whitewater scale.The Canyon provides approximately five miles of Class VI rapids,defined as the "limit of navigability,life-threatening to skilled boatsmen with good equipment."According to an experienced kayaker,Devil Canyon is one of approximately six known stretches of river iri the world that maintain the outer limits of navigability for at least four miles (Harza-Ebasco 1985b).The first successful recorded running of the rapids occurred in 1978.An estimated 27 kayakers from various parts of the world have attempted it since that time,and at least one person has died in their attempt (Harza-Ebasco (v)Winter Sports (**) Cross,.-country skiing takes place in the area, particularly near the Denali Highway.Occasional tour packages have been offered by local private lodges.Cross-country skiing in the study area was -·--··est-imated-a.t-·lO O-use.r-.days.-in.1981..(TabIe E •.7.3 •.1J . ....----...---.-...-.-.--_---_--.._._.Sno:w:.sho.eing....is_als.o---,do.ne_f.ox_r.e.c.r.e.a.t_Lo.lLiJL.t:.be area "____... A limited amount of recreational trapping takes place on the south side of the Susitna River near Stephan and Fog Lakes as well as on the north side near Tsusena Creek and Clarence and High Lakes.In the winter,dogsleds and snowmobiles travel through the area.Their activities are reportedly centered around Trapper Creek and Talkeetna to the south. .j l;i;.~.~.~) 851016 E-7-2-16 2.2.3 -Future Activities and Facilities In the Study Area (**) Should the Susitna Project not be developed,major constraints which have limited recreational activities in the past would continue to exist,although Native corporations may seek to develop their lands for recreational uses.Unless vehicular access is developed into the study area,no major shift in the existing recreational patterns is anticipated.Some increase in use is expected,however,as there is a rising population and additional per capita participation in most ~ctivities. Recreational use of the study area is anticipated to increase from an estimated 6,700 user days in 1980 to an estimated 12,500 recreation user days each year by the year 2000 (Table 7.3.1). Projected use levels in the year 2000 for hunting,fishing, camping,kayaking,and cross-country skiing are 1,300,2,500, 8,000,370,and 220 user days,respectively.Appendix E4.7 provides the methodology and assumptions used in developing use estimates. The parties that would control future recreational activities and development in the study area include the state,theBLM,several Native corporations,and private landholders.The policies of these groups concerning the land parcels they control,along with overall increased pressures for recreational opportunities from Alaska residents,would largely determine future land use patterns.The exact nature of specific activities and developments is difficult to predict. (a)Private Landowners (**) The Native corporations have selected much of the land adja- cent to the Susitna River and along Portage Creek and the Talkeetna River.Development possibilities which have been discussed include mineral extraction and recreation-home land development (Bedard 1984).Access appears to be the prime determinant for development decisions.At present, two small,improved vehicular trails provide access to both the northern and southern sides of the Susitna River. The CIRI Native Village corporations are the largest private landowners in the project area and have the greatest poten- tial to impact the area.In the absence of the Project, Natives may develop their mineral and timber resources, lease cabin sites on lakes and rivers,and open up the Stephan and Fog Lakes region by bringing a road east from the Parks Highway (Bedard 1984). With the Project~however,Tyonek Village Corporation proposes that there may be specific opportunities to develop recreation resources,thus creating corporate income without 851016 E-7-2-17 having to heavily impact the land.Suggested developments include a lodge and cabins at Fog Lakes,with associated trails and water-based recreation;a lodge at Stephan Lake with a brown bear viewing site established along Prairie Creek;a network of canoe and hiking trails from Stephan Lake to the Talkeetna and Susitna Rivers;and primitive trail access from the proposed bridge at Devi 1 Canyon to Portage Creek,Chulitna Pass,and the Alaska Railroad,with a lodge at Otter Lake (Bedard 1984).Realization of these plans would complement the proposed project recreation plan and would increase the number of people using the Susitna area for recreation. The demand for recreation-horne lots within the region has been analyzed by the ADNR.They have projected a demand for 29,000 acres of new lots by the year 1990 within the Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga study area,which includes the project area.This is an exceptionally high demand level relative to resident population figures and reflects the region's popularity for recreation-homesites with Alaskans from other areas.The.lal1ds selected by Native corporations near the Susitna River meet all of the aesthetic criteria for prime lots according to the study (ADNR 1982b). However,without improved road access and considering the land's building limitations,the property was given a rating of moderate capability,and sales are unlikely to be significant.Presently,the majority of homesite parcels being sold iIltheproject study area al"e in the India.n River ;l"ld~Ch~iitna Butte area.s-locatedapproxImat:eli 12 miles northwest of the Devil Canyon damsite. The existing use of private lodge owners in the area are small and are not expected to increase substantially without the Pro jec t. (b)BLM Plans (**) "--~----~-----~"~-----~-'--------The-BbM-ma-nages-subs-t-an-t-i-a-l-h0-ld~i-ng-s-,-gene-t"-a-l-l-y--n0t"-l;;h0f-t-he­ Susitna River and along the Denali Highway (shown in Figure E.7.2.1).The BLM plans for this area, called the Denali Planning Block,reflect its goal of increasing recreational use.Plans include road improvements to the Denali Highway and additional roadside improvements such as new campgrounds ,_picnic areas ,and __pull-outs.The BLM is projecting an increase of-the average annual daily traffic (AADT)a16rig-thehighway-t-o-1-30in the-yeal"2000;the existing AADT is 50 cars. None of BLM's recreation objectives stated in their 1980 Lapd Use Plan for Southcentral Alaska (BLM 1980)have been j 'j ,J 851016 E-7-2-18 substantially modified.However,difficulties imposed by limited budgets continue to delay implementation.Proposed BLM recreation plans within the project area and their status are as follows: o Wayside camping areas (2-3 within the project area between Cantwell and the Susitna Bridge)on the Denali Highway are still planned,but no imple- mentation is expected within three years. o Brushkana Campground is scheduled for maintenance only,with no plans for immediate rehabilitation. o The Maclaren River water trail would consist brochure,trailhead and boat launch/access. scheduled within the next six years. of a It is j 851016 o Interpretive signs along the Denali Highway are still planned.Interpretive signs in wayside camping areas would be implemented as the campgrounds are installed. o Studies of outdoor recreation vehicle (ORV)use are to continue,but evaluation of the work at the Tangle Lakes ORV area needs more field input before it is completed.There are no immediate plans to establish an ORV area within the project area. BLM lands have recently been opened to mineral exploration and mining entry which would attract additional people to the ~rea.If significant deposits are discovered,access to the area would increase,which would greatly affect future recreational patterns. E-7-2-l9 J 3 -PROJECT IMPACTS ON EXISTING RECREATION (**) The Susitna Project would have both direct and indirect impacts on existing recreational patterns.Direct impacts are those which result from physical changes to the existing recreation settings.Impacts to these settings might either increase or decrease the desirability and probability of continued recreational use.They may also make new types of activity possible.Indirect impacts are those resulting from changes in recreational use of the project area,including increased demand due to construction workers and the general public.Section 3.1 deals with direct impacts and discusses each major project development separately.Construction and operational impacts are also identified in each case. 3.1 -Direct Impacts of Project Features (**) Construction and operation of the Project would impact recreational resources by increasing activity,altering portions of the Susitna River and adjacent land,and restricting or increasing access.These activities would result in the following types of impacts:(1)changes in the nature of the recreation experience,(2)changes in hunting opportunities,(3)changes in fishing opportunities,(4)and changes in other recreation opportunities. Changes in recreation opportunities within the project area are likely to occur without the Project because of the on-going process of land conveyance to Native corporations.The Native landowners have stated that access to their lands will be limited in the future.The Native corporations have selected much of the northwest and southern portions of the study area. Increased activity in the area would affect fishing and hunting activities by disturbing fish and wildlife and would change the perceived image of the area from a pristine setting to a more disturbed and developed setting.Increased activity from project construction and operation would include the presence of workers and their families, the transportation of personnel and materials to and from the site,and the disruption caused by operating heavy equipment in the area.The effects of such activities on fish and wildlife are discus~ed in more detail in Exhibit E,Chapter 3. The impoundments would alter the river,changing its image from a wild, river with challenging rapids to large reservoirs.The impoundments would change the river's recreational use from a floatable river to a reservoir requiring power for access. Improved access would benefit recreation by increasing hunting, fishing,hiking,camping,and'other recreation opportunities of the project recreation area.The anticipated increase in use from improved 851016 E-7-3-l access and the resulting potential adverse impacts on resources are discussed in Section 3.2 under indirect impacts. Direct impacts that are unmitigatable are the loss of the remote character in portions of the project area and inundation of Class IV whitewater rapids at Vee Canyon and the Class VI whitewater rapids at Devil Canyon. Detailed discussions of resource impacts are in Exhibit E in Chapter 3, Fish,Wildlife and Botanical Resources,and Chapter 8,Aesthetic Resources. 3.1.1 -Watana Stage I Development (**) (a)Construction (**) Development of the Watana Stage I would require construction of two cofferdams and diversion of the river.It would include clearing forests,dredging the river,excavating borrow sites for damfill material,and blasting and other heavy construction activities at the damsite.The reservoir area would be cleared of trees prior to inundation.It is anticipated that it would take one year to fill the Stage I impoundment area. The direct impacts of construction activities extend beyond the area~being physically disturbed.A substantial change in image would result as the remote character of the area changes~toon-e-oC1ieavy-cons t rue-Hon.·-Tl:1fsTs-anunavoia..;;; able impact of development and can only be partially miti- gated by careful management of remaining lands. During construction ofWatana Stage I,the project work areas would be closed to the public.Thus,the small amount of public hunting and fishing that occurs in the construction area would be displaced.Boaters travelling -_.-down-theSus-itna-would have-to-por-tage-a·r-ound--the·· --_._--cons-t:r:uc.t.io.n-ar-ea.__Wi.thouLt.he-.Er_oj_e.c_t.,_h.oJol_eY_e_r_,_t_h.~Ls_e__._...~_.. activities would most likely be restricted by the Native landowners. It is likely that all recreational access by project personnel to surrounding areas would be minimized during construction by an air/bus worker transportation policy and by limited free time while on-site.Potential impacts of project workers is discussed in Section 3.2.2 under Indirect Impacts. The impoundment would inundate moose,brown and black bear habitat.Winter browse and carrying capacity for between r ,j lI 851016 E-7-3-2 lJ 851016 300 and 600 moose,habitat for approximately 30 to 50 black bear,and spring forage for brown bear would be eliminated (Harza-Ebasco 1985a).While no direct correlation can be drawn between these losses and a reduction of hunter days, it can be expected that,in the long term,hunter success rates would decline due to decreases in the numbers of big game and increased competition among hunters. Da11 sheep and caribou populations are not expected to be affected by construction of project facilities.Impacts on Dall sheep using the Jay Creek mineral lick are not expected to be significant since peak sheep use of the lick is in May and June,not during the August and September sheep hunting seasons (ADF&G 1984).Specific impacts and mitigation for these losses are discussed in Exhibit E,Chapter 3.In addition,the 21,000-acre reservoir would inundate approximately 6 structures,3 of which are used seasonally by hunters,fishermen,and other recreationists who arrive by boat or plane. Impacts on fishing would result from creation of the reservoirs (see Exhibit E,Chapter 3).Inundation of the lower reaches of clear-water tributaries in the impoundment zone would eliminate existing grayling habitat.Affected tributaries include Deadman,Watana,Kosina,and Jay Creeks. Salmon and rainbow trout would not be affected by the impoundment since their natural range ends at Devil Canyon rapids,which block upstream salmon and trout movements. The existing level of boating activity both downstream from Devil Canyon to Talkeetna and upstream from the Watana Dam would be largely unaffected during construction until vege- tation clearing,gravel removal,and burning begin.When Watana reservoir filling begins,water levels downstream would decrease during summer recreation months.Based on river navigation studies completed in 1985 (R&M 1985),this reduction is not expected to appreciably affect river boating downstream of the dams. The Stage I Watana Dam and Reservoir would change existing boating patterns on the stretch of the Susitna River within the reservoir boundary.The reservoir would inundate 40 miles of the 125 mile route along the Susitna River between the Denali Highway and the Stephan Lake Portage.During much of the year,the Vee Canyon rapids would be inundated (see following discussion under operations). The inundated port-ion of the Susitna River (40 miles)would change in character from a remote and undisturbed river environment with occasional rapids to a flatwater condition. E-7-3-3 With a loss of current,boaters would need manual or mechanical propulsion to navigate the reservoir.Devil Canyon rapids,located downstream (see description in Section 2.2.2),would remain runnable through most of the Stage I construction period since flows would be similar to those under without-project conditions.The rapids would remain runnable until filling of the Stage I reservoir begins sometime in 1998.Boaters desiring to kayak these rapids during the construction period would either need to fly in and hike to the river below the damsite or,if floating the river,be allowed to portage.the dam on project property or obtain portage through private lands. (b)Operations (**) After Stage I construction,portions of the land areas asso- ciated with the Watana Stage I Dam would be utilized for operation facilities and a permanent townsite.Land not required for operation would be rehabilitated.Rehabilita- ted areas may return to use as recreational areas.Opera- tions areas may be permanently unavailable for public recre- ation except for the temporary visitor center proposed at the Watana damsite.Guided tours of the project facilities would be provided.Although the presence of operations workers and their families would continue to impact recreational resources,the recreational facilities proposed for the permanent village would minimize recreational use of the area by workers.There would be an estimated 87 workers_.andt'fiefrIam:i:Iie-s-a:i:the -permanent··village;--A<fdi ETonaT- information on recreation of project workers is discussed in Section 5.4.6. Once operation of theWatana Stage I begins,the public would gain access to the area via the Denali Highway to Watana Dam access road.This would increase recreational opportunities for residents of the region.The expected --_.increasein--use--and-resul-ting--impacts -are-discussed in -------------------Sec-t--iou--3-.-2-unde-r-I-nd-i-I."eG-t-ImpaG-G-s-.--------..- During Stage I operation,the reservoir drawdown would reach its low point in April and May.The reservoir would fill from June through August,reaching its highest point 1n early September.L&ke shorelines exposed during low water would have large mudflats,steep banks,treE!StUlTIPS,and slumping soils.This situation limits the development of the reservoir as a:major=recteational opportunity.AI&tk of fish population,silty waters,and cold water temperatures in the reservoir reinforce this limitation. Moreover,safety would also be a concern for reservoir : 1 :.j !J !J 851016 E-7-3-4 IJ The of boaters since the reservoir's size may lead to hazardous boating conditions during periods of high wind. Vee Canyon,a notable natural feature located 38 miles upstream of the dam,would have its Class III rapids (international whitewater classification)inundated seasonally by the Stage I reservoir.During typical or average water years,the canyon rapids,located approximately at el.1,950 feet,would be exposed from January through June,approximately 1 month longer than dryer years.As a result,Vee Canyon rapids may still be runnable during Stage I by boaters in June. The effects of project flow on boating downstream of Devil Canyon are discussed in Exhibit E,Chapter 2.After construction of the Stage I dam,flows would be too low except during high flow years to safely run the Devil Canyon rapids.Construction of Devil Canyon Dam would begin during Stage I operation,which would also limit access to the rapids. 3.1.2 -Devil Canyon Stage II Development (**) (a)Construction (**) ,Construction of Devil Canyon Dam and related features would require cofferdams,diversion of the river,iand clearing, blasting,and a major concrete mix plant at the damsite. The Devil Canyon reservoir,unlike Watana,would be relatively narrow,and largely confined within the canyon walls,particularly in the downstream reaches.Devil Canyon would require less clearing of vegetation than the Watana reservoir.The major impacts resulting from its creation would be the loss of 11 miles of Class VI river rapids.An additional 32 miles of river canyon upstream from Devil Canyon would also be inundated. With the exception of temporary impacts on water quality during cofferdam construction,no water quality-related recreational impacts are foreseen.Filling would take about two months and,depending on season and rainfall,would not appreciably affect flow rates. No impacts of the Devil Canyon Dam construction are anticipated on downstream fishing and boating activity. Devil Canyon Reservoir would inundate the lower reaches clearwater tributaries which would eliminate existing grayling habitat.Affected tributaries include Tsusena, Devil,Fog,Chinook and Cheechako Creeks. 851016 E-7-3-5 The primary impacts of Devil Canyon construction on adjacent land-based recreation would be the conversion of a remote area to a construction area.The impoundment area currently supports numerous game animals whose habitat would be eliminated (see Watana Stage I construction impacts for specific impacts on wildlife habitat).In addition, construction noise and dust and the disruption caused by heavy equipment operations,along with the presence of large numbers of construction workers,would disturb wildlife habitats and recreation environment. (b)Operations (**) Operation of Devil Canyon would cause only minor changes in flows from Watana operation flows below the dam,and it is not expected to further affect river recreation. The Devil Canyon reservoir may be more attractive for recre- ation than the Watana reservoir,because of the smaller drawdowns and steeper sides which would result in a minimum amount of mudflats.The presently proposed operating schedule would lower the reservoir on the average less than 10 vertical feet.During average water years this would occur in July and August.The maximum drawdown would be approximately 50 feet,which would occur between August and October of extremely dry years (see Exhibit E,Chapter 2). After construction,the temporary village and camp would beosedancfresTdenl:opera tors ··wouTdbeI6catedat--watana .. V1llage,thus eliminating the continued impacts of the workforce at the Devil Canyon site .. 3.1.3 -WatanaStage III Development (***) (a)Const~uction (***) Directimpac ts--of--Watana--St-age I-I-I-co nst-ruction-onfish i ng, ---------hun-t-in-g-,-and-bea-t-in-g--have-be-en-d-i-sG-us-sed-pt'-ev-i-0us-1-y-£01."-----·---_·- Stage I construction.The Stage III impoundment would inundate a total of 48 miles,or 8 miles in addition to the 40 miles discussed under Stage I.Additional tributary creeks would also be inundated,thereby affecting fishing. These include Oshetna and Goose Creeks. An additional impact 'of-Stage III would be the reduced --access~by:the-~closill.g-o.f-~Watall.aaalllsiteateato thepubl ie. The closed area would include the Watana access road from the Devil Canyon'access road intersection to the damsite. 1 .] i} I l 1) 851016 E-7-3-6 This would curtail use of the temporary visitor center that was constructed and opened after Stage I construction.It is expected that the visitor center would remain open on a permit basis to interested groups.Boat launches developed above and below the damsite after Stage I construction would also be closed for the Stage III construction duration, since the haul roads and borrow areas they use would be needed for construction. Stage III construction would consist of a peak work force and dependents population of 2,007 in the year 2009.These workers and dependents would reside in the camps and village developed for Stage I construction.Since the access roads would be open to the public after Stage I construction,the present assumption is that no Applicant-provided transportation program would exist during Stages II or III to limit workers from using personal vehicles.As a result, competition with the public for use of recreation sites developed along the access roads during Stages I and II may exist.This may cause overcrowding of some facilities,such as trailheads.Pressure on area fishing streams along the access roads is also likely to increase as a result of workers driving out after work or on their day off. Without a transportation program limiting personal vehicle use,competition for recreation sites off-site may increase as well.This is most likely to affect recreation sites out of the camp/village day-use zone such as the Tangle and Paxson Lakes campgrounds located off the Denali Highway approximately 150 miles from the Watana damsite. (b)Operations (***) After construction,the Watana reservoir would be raised to el.2,185 from el.2,000.This is estimated to occur over an approximately 5-year period starting in the year 2011. Raising the reservoir to this elevation would permanently inundate Vee Canyon rapids as well as the Goose Creek and Oshetna River tributary mouths used for grayling fishing by people floating or flying into the area. Reservoir vertical drawdown,while less than 1n Stage I, would expose more mudflats due to the raised water elevation inundating flatter slopes near the crest of the canyon. These mudflats would be particularly extensive in the Watana Creek drainage and would impede access to and from the reservoir until they are inundated in September each year. 851016 E-7-3-7 After construction,the public would be provided access across the dam to a permanent visitor center overlooking the damsite. 3.1.4 -Watana Access Road (*) (a)Construction (*) Access improvements to be made for the Watana dam construction include upgrading 21.3 miles of the existing Denali Highway from Cantwell to the access road intersection,and 41.6 miles of new road from the Denali Highway to the damsite. During Stage I construction,approximately 96 large construction vehicle trips per day and 10 bus trips for construction workers per day are anticipated on the new road.An additional 96 trips are anticipated from resident construction workers and dependent excursions during the work week.AADT on the project access road is projected to be 202 vehicle trips during Stage I.During Stage II there would be an estimated 161 AADT,including 24 construction vehicle trips and 137 worker and dependent trips.During Stage III there would be an estimated 235 AADT,including 70 construction vehicle trips and 165 worker and dependent trips (see Exhibit E,Chapter 3,Section 4.3.3). The new access road would provide vehicular access into afarg;e-area-p rev[ousTy--open~-oiiI y~too:rr=roaa veliTe-les··a ncr hikers.The entire route would be open year-round,allowing access along the Denali Highway segment which is currently closed each winter by snow. These road improvements and access into new areas would impact the existing recreational patterns and recreational resources in several ways.First,winter snowplowing along .~----_.._,-_._~--~----~--------~-~---t-hEf----De'na-li---Hi-g hwa'Y-"wou~l'd~-cau-s-e-'-a n·~··-i-n·cr ea-s-e'~--in""win-t'e-r-"~ --------rec-rea-t-i-oni-s-l;-s-u-s-i-ng--the-a-r-ea-.E-e-r--e-r:-e-ss-e-0un-t-t'-y-sk-i~i-n-g-~--_.-------~~-. snowmobiling,dogsledding,and other winter sports.The Denali Highway improvements may also make the areas adjacent to the highway more attractive to recreationists during the summer months.The increased Denali Highway traffic (276 AADT during peak years)of commuters,truck drivers,and new local residents 'Would .introduce other potential users to the recreationa l"opportuni ties'adjacent to ..the'highway. _.---------IncI:'eased--t'ec-reatiouaT-act-i-vitycan-beexpected to.follow existing recreational patterns and would take the form of increased roadside-·camping in old gravel pits along the road,as well as hunting,fishing,and hiking. J l I ] 851016 E-7-3-8 'f' i J The new Watana access road passes through an area which presently has a very low level of recreational activity. The effects of increased recreational activity resulting from the access road is discussed in Section 3.2. Construction activities would not directly affect any major recreation,since the hunting,fishing or hiking that might have occurred would easily be absorbed by the surrounding area.A more important concern is the alignment chosen for the new road.The final road location would avoid specific areas which are known to be sensitive environments and which would experience undesirable pressure from recreationists if made too easily accessible.These areas are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3 of Exhibit E. The final access road alignment would also avoid disrupting areas which are known to be popular recreation settings and those which are identified in this plan as important potential recreation settings.For example,Tsusena,Butte, Deadman,and Big lakes include several existing recreational structures. The present proposed alignment has been adjusted through consultation so that no known recreational settings would be negatively impacted by the access road. (b)Operations (*) The Watana access road would not be open to the public during Stage I construction.When work is completed on Watana in 1999,a decision would then be made regarding public access.Presently,it is assumed that the road would be officially opened for public use in the spring of the year 2000. Once the Watana road has been constructed and project personnel begin traveling back and forth,the road would attract the general public and off-duty construction workers and families.Unless some kind of control point and/or physical barrier are placed at the Denali/Watana road junction to limit access,recreational activities such as roadside camping,hunting,and fishing along Denali Highway would likely occur prior to the official year 2000 opening. While these activities would not be inconsistent with existing recreational patterns,if overused,they could result in degradation of recreational resources such as fishing streams,wildlife,and their habitats. 851016 E-7-3-9 to The road. 3.1.5 -Devil Canyon Access Road (*) (a)Construction (*) This 37-mile road connecting the Devil Canyon damsite the Watana damsite would be built beginning in 1995. road traverses steeper terrain than the Watana access The selected road corridor would affect the private recreation lodge at High Lake.Passing within one mile of the lodge,the new road would improve access to the lodge, but also change the character of the facility from a remote fly-in facility to an auto-oriented f~cility.Construction would also have an important impact on game which is a prime visitor attraction for the lodge.No other recreational activities presently occur in this area. Several borrow sites would be required to construct this road.Impacts that these excavations and the road path itself would have on the existing recreational resources are primarily visual and are discussed in Chapter 8, Aesthetics. (b)Operations (*) After Devil Canyon dam construction 1S complete in the year 2005,the Devil Canyon road would b~opened to the public. Operations personnel would also travel to the Devil Canyon dam from the permanent townsite at Watana.Devil Canyon dam ,...is expected'fo-Demore of 'al:ourn-c-attract-tonEhan \VataITa because of its concrete-arch design and impressive setting. The road would function ,as an important recreational facility in that regard.Impacts of the public in this road corridor are similar to those in theWatana road;i.e., increased use of a previously remote area.Portions of the Devil Canyon access road corridor are adjacent to lands selected for Native ownership.These lands may be closed to .--.-publ-ic.use--by'-th e-Na tives.---·The -effe c ts-of-increas ed .,access .,------.---,---------ar.e-.c.onsid.er.eLindirec,t...-imp.ac.ts_and_a.r:..e_dLs,c_us_s_ed_in._gr_e_a_t_ex _ detail in Section 3.2. 3.1.6 -Gold Creek -Devil Canyon Railroad (*) (a)Construction (*) Construction of a railroad,..spur ..to th.eDevil Canyon damsite ",'.:wouLd,=have,little.e ffecton.,exis.ting,rec.reational patt~rn$ since the areas which it would cross are largely unused.As with the case of'road construction,care must be taken not to degrade the recreational setting.The major sources of j .1 .1 ,.1 851016 E-7-3-l0 ,~\ impact include cut-and-fill operations,vegetation clearing, borrow excavations,and stream crossings. (b)Operations (*) After construction at the Devil Canyon damsite is completed, the rail spur would be used for occasional supply transportation to the damsite. If access similar to the existing whistle stops along the Alaska Railroad were to be provided,a substantial number of recreationists could be expected to utilize the railspur. The existing state rail line to which the project railroad would be linked is currently used by recreationists to gain access to Denali State Park and surrounding lands to camp, hike,fish,hunt,and boat.Rail access to the Devil Canyon damsite would take two hours less time than would be required by car. 3.1.7 -Project Transmission Lines (**) (a)Project Area (*) The east-west connection from the two powerhouses to the existing Intertie transmission line would be constructed near the Devil Canyon access road.Construction and maintenance access would not be c9ntinuous along the transmission line.Short construction trails would connect towers to the Devil Canyon roa~. The presence of lOO-foot tall Itowers and cleared corridors would reduce the area's appeal as a l remote area.The impacts of the transmission corridors on existing recreation patterns are primarily visual and are discussed in Chapter 8 of Exhibit E. (b)Intertie and North-South Stubs (**) Project transmission lines paralleling the existing Intertie transmission line between Willow and Healy are not anticipated to disrupt existing recreational patterns during construction or operation.The transmission lines would visually impact recreationists in certain locations along the Parks Highway and from boats on the Nenana River near Denali National Park.The north transmission line stub from Healy to Fairbanks would be similar in the impacts on existing recreation. The south stub (Willow to Anchorage)transmission line would also have few impacts on existing recreation patterns.It 851016 E-7-3-11 would,however,cross the proposed Willow State Recreation Area and the historic Iditarod Trail.During detailed design,ADNR personnel would be consulted to refine tower locations through the Willow Recreation Area to avoid impacts to campsites and other developed facilities.Proper setbacks would be maintained for the Iditarod Trail crossing. positive impacts would also result,since cleared transmission corridors are commonly used by hunters and hikers.To the extent that these activities take place, recreation would be positively impacted. 3.2 -Project Recreational Demand Assessment (Moved to Appendix E4.7) 3.2.1 -Increased Access and Use (***) Indirect impacts would result from the Project as access to and recreational use of the study area increase.Recreational use of the study area would begin rising once the project access roads are opened to the public.Once the Stage I reservoir is filled in 1998,obstacles to boat access such as the Vee Canyon rapids would be inundated,which would facilitate boat access from the Denali Highway.Currently,most boaters travel only to the Tyone River or to Goose Creek above Vee Canyon,with the exception of the occasional whitewater boaters that continue on through theVee·Canyo-n-rapicfS:····With'com-pretion~oftheDeviICanyon-:"'SEage- II in the year 2005,an additional 37 miles of access road would be opened to the public.Stage III construction would not substantially increase access over Stages I and II. The recreation demand analysis presented in Appendix E4.7 estimates that with the Project there would be approximately 43,000 to 50,000 recreation user days each year by the year 2000 .tsee-Tahle--7-;3-;-1);----Wi'thout'construc.tion-o f···-t'he-Proj ect,- --..-,~--------..-------·------rec-rea't-ion~use-in~t;_he~s-E_udy~a-t'ea~w0u-ld~be~an-es,t;..ima-t;.ed-12-,-500----,·-·-­ recreation user days each year by the year 2000.Thus the Project would result in an additional 30,500 to 37,500 user days each year,representing a 245 to 300 percent increase over without-project conditions.Most of the expected increase in use would occur with the opening of the Denali Highway to Watana Dam access foad~Openingbfthe Wa'taha to Devil Canyona.ccess roaci and visitor center would further increase access'and thus .recreatiorialuse..The~operiirig'=()f-the""'-peririanent:~Watana .••damsite visitor center after completion of Stage III would account for a relatively small portion of the expected increase in visitors. J I i] I 851016 E-7-3-12 .J Another factor that would influence future recreational activities in the project area is the conveyance of lands in the project area to Native corporations.It is expected that once conveyed,these lands would be either closed to public use,or subject to acquisition of entry permits from the Native corporations,with or without the Susitna Project. 3.2.2 -Impacts of Increased Use (***) Indirect project impacts resulting from the increased use would consist of two types,one being the change in the general character and image of the study area and the second being the impacts from fishing,hunting,and other recreation activities. (a)Image of the Study Area (***) The influx of hunters,fishermen,hikers,campers and sightseers would change the character and image of the study area from a primitive,remote area to one of a more accessible,well-used area,especially near the access roads and damsites.Entry patterns near project facilities would change from primarily fly-in trips to trips dominated by road and vehicular access.The Project would enhance the experience for the user group that accesses fishing and hunting sites via roads.The experience would be adversely affected for the user group that desires a remote fly-in experience.The enhancement of opportunities to users by opening a new area to vehicular access would be greater in magnitude than the adverse impact of the Project to the few existing remote fly-in users. (b)Fishing Impacts (***) The increased fishing activity in the study area resulting from improved access would increase pressure on some existing fish populations.Fishing pressure is currently very light in the project area due to its remote location. Fishing use is expected to increase from 1,500 user days in 1980 to 4,800-5,200 user days with the Project by the year 2000,as compared to an estimated 2,500 user days in the year 2000 without the Project.After Stage I completion, fishing pressure on Deadman and Brushkana Creeks would increase substantially since the Wat~na access road parallels portions of these streams.The trophy-sized grayling found in Deadman Creek are likely to be depleted ln the absence of more stringent fishing regulations.The access road would~lso provide easier access to and increase fishing pressure in area lakes,such as Big and Deadman Lakes.These lakes are currently accessed by plane.After 851016 E-7-3-13 ~----~--- Stage II completion,Tsusena,Jack Long,and Portage Creeks would be accessible from the Watana to Devil Canyon access road or the rail spur.Opening up access to these streams would increase fishing pressure on the salmon and arctic grayling populations found in Jack Long and Portage Creeks. The primary sport fish in Tsusena Creek are Arctic grayling and Do lly Varden. Backcountry trails proposed in the recreation plan (Section 5.4)are not expected to create substantial fishing pressure on area streams and lakes bec~use of the dispersed use expected.Access across the Watana Dam could increase fishing use in the Fog Lakes area,depending on the plans of Native landowners.The Project is not expected to substantially increase access to fishing locations downstream from Devil Canyon Dam.Primary access would continue to be by boat to tributary mouths. Streams near the construction camps and permanent village would receive increased fishing pressure from construction workers and their families.During Stages I and III construction (1991 to 1999,and 2006 to 2012),streams such as Deadman Creek could be overfished unless additional management restrictions are instituted.During Stage II construction (1996 to 2005),streams near the Devil Canyon camp and village,such as Portage and Jack Long Creeks,may be over fished.Access to and fishing of these streams, however,is likely to be subject to Native landownerap-provaT.··~DurI ng-StagesjTand t:ti-~T996-to20T2Tworker s may have access to private vehicles and therefore are likely to fish at other locations near the access road such as Deadman Lake and Brushkana Creek. (c)Hunting Impacts (***) Indirect impacts froIIlproject-related access would have ~----~-s~ubstant fa-I-effects ..~..on--hunting.~---Roadacces s would ---------i-nc~rea~s~e-hunt:_i_n~g-i-n-au-a-t'ea-t;.ha-t-p't'e-v-i-ous-1-y-yla-s-aG-G-es-s-i-bl-e-,----~-­ for the most part,only by air.Big game hunting is expected to increase from 800 user days in 1980 to 2,200 to 2,400 user days in the year 2000.Without-project hunting projections are 1,300 user days for 1980 (Table E.7.3.1).This would substantially increase hunting pressure on unpermitted big game species such as moose and bear.Harvest of Dall-sheepandcaribou'are strictly controllEidiu-fhestudy--area arid-thus increased hunting pres.sure is not expected.In the long term,bear and moose populations are likely to be reduced by overharvesting,if not actively regulated.This is particularly true for brown bear,since the proposed access road passes through prime 'J ] ] ] 851016 E-7-3-14 brown bear habitat.Unregulated ATV use off the access road could result in considerable impact on game populations near the road.Access into the project area is likely to disperse existing heavy use that occurs along the Denali Highway,thereby reducing crowding and related use impacts that now occur in areas such as Butte Lake. The project reservoirs are also expected to increase access for hunting,particularly in drainages above Watana Dam such as Watana and Kosina Creeks.When public access to the .reservoir is provided at the dam,hunting via boat is expected to increase in the project area.Float planes may use the reservoirs to gain access to adjacent areas for hunting.Impacts on Dall sheep at the Jay Creek mineral lick from hunters using the reservoir are not expected to be significant,since peak sheep use of the mineral lick is in May and June while the hunting season for sheep is in August and September,and since the numbers of sheep taken is regulated by individual permit. During Stage I,most project workers would not have access to private vehicles for hunting because of the worker transportation plan currently proposed.Firearms would not be allowed within the project boundaries,including the camps.Consequently,hunting by project workers would be limited to those who return to the area with firearms during their out rotation cycle.During Stages II and III,workers may have private vehicles and,thus,would be more likely to hunt in the area,although the prohibition of firearms would still limit hunting to those who can obtain firearms off-si te. (d)Other Activities (***) Access provided by the Project may also increase trapping of the beaver population in the Deadman Creek and Deadman Lakes area and the fox population that inhabits the area near the proposed access road.However,due to low beaver prices,increases in harvest of beaver may not be extensive. Trapping which does occur would likely result from recreational trapping.The remoteness of the region and general winter conditions that prevail in the area,however, would probably discourage much use by the weekend trapper. Trapping of fox may not be substantially increased since populations are very low and few fox are trapped presently (Harza-Ebasco 1985a).Access related to the project area may be beneficial to existing trappers as the project's access roads would-allow easier access to existing traplines. 851016 E-7-3-l5 851016 Non-consumptive activities expected to occur as a result of the Project,such as camping,hiking,and sightseeing,would result in minor disruptions to wildlife populations. Disturbances would be greatest within the "recreation development zone"(see Section 5.l)along the access road and near the damsites.Over time,it is expected that wildlife would avoid these areas.Since no recreation facilities are proposed near critical habitats,such as eagle nests,disturbances to wildlife from non-consumptive activities would not have significant adverse effects. Collisions between wildlife and the increased traffic along the access road are not expected to be a significant problem (see Exhibit E,Chapter 4.3.3). During Stage I,workers would be limited to areas within walking distance,since private vehicles would not be allowed.Deadman Creek would probably be the most frequent destination for workers leaving the camp for recreation. During Stages II arid III,workers would have access to vehicles and may choose to leave the camps during their free time.This may result in minor disturbances to existing resources,especially alortg the access road. E-7-3-l6 -j \1 J ] 4 -FACTORS INFLUENCING THE RECREATION PLAN (**) Development of the Project's recreation plan was influenced by the following major considerations: o Characteristics of project design and construction, o Characteristics of the study area, o Recreational use patterns and demand, o Land ownership status, o Management objectives of interested agencies and Native groups, o Public interest, o Financial obligation and responsibility of the Applicant,and o Mitigating adverse impacts of recreational use. Section 4.1 lists the key implications of project design and operation that would influence recreational use of the project area.The primary aspects of the study area and the region's recreation trends that influenced development of the plan are also summarized below (Sections 4.2 and 4.3).Section 2 provides a more detailed discussion of the project setting and recreation trends.Sections 4.4 through 4.7 describe the land ownership status in the study area,objectives and policies of the landowners and resource management agencies,public interest in the recreation plan and the Applicant's financial obligations and responsibility for providing project-related recreation. Since increased use of the project area for recreation would impact fish and wildlife resources,minimizing these impacts was a major consideration during plan development.This consideration overlaps with some of the agency policies and objectives listed under Section 4.5.The approach used for mitigating impacts of the recreation plan is described Section 4.6. 4.1 -Characteristics of the Project Design and Operation (***) The Watana and Devil Canyon Reservoirs would change the fast-flowing Susitna River to a flatwater condition between Vee Canyon and Devil Canyon. Watana reservoir would not be very attractive for development of shoreline facilities because of the large drawdowns expected (over 125 feet during average years of Stages I and II operation).The drawdowns would create mudflats which would be unattractive and difficult to cross.Drawdowns at Devil Canyon would be 10 feet during July of average water years.Water levels in both reservoirs would be relatively high during the hunting season in September,which is expected to be the highest use period on the reservoirs.Where canyon sides are steep,unstable banks would be a greater problem than drawdown.Large bank slumps,landslides,and scales would be unattractive and potentially dangerous.Both reservoirs would be cold 851016 E-7-4-1 and silty.Watana,in particular,would be large enough that wind and choppy conditions could constitute potential hazards for small boat recreationists. Both Watana and Devil Canyon dams would have an inherent curiosity value which would attract one-time visitors.Watana,in particular, would not be regarded as a major,sustained attraction for repeat visitors.Devil Canyon Dam,the high-level canyon bridge,and the railroad spur would have more inherent long-term potential as a recreation attraction. The Denali Highway to Watana Dam access road would be open to the public following completion of Stage I construction.The dead-end nature of the access road would discourage casual drive-through tourism and sightseeing.Tourists would,however,be attracted to both dams and powerhouse facilities.Therefore,planning includes considerations for public observation of operations and interpretive information. 4.2 -Characteristics of the Study Area (***) The Susitna Proje~t area,compared with many other places in the United States,is an outstanding recreation resource.However,in comparison with other resources in Alaska,most of the project area is not exceptional.Recreation facilities in the study area would not constitute a major national or international tourist attraction such as Denali National Park.There are many lakes and streams in the project area which would be used for recreation if road access were provided aIle!~h!~Jl_~2uJc!~ost li.lcI2!JY~12!more attractive for recreation than the proposed reservoirs. The image of-the project area would continue to be one ofa relatively distant location from population centers since road access to the dams would be over five hours one way from both Fairbanks and Anchorage. Travelling this distance for weekend recreation trips,however,is not uncommon for Alaska residents (See Section 2.1.5).Climate,distance from population centers,and sunlight-shortened days would limit the '-a rea"ttY preubll1inantly'··summer-·rec re·ati-on-·(mid....june-t 0-mid-Sept ember);; .._..-..._---.._-'---- 4.3 -Recreation Use Patterns and Demand (***) As discussed in Section 2,recreation trends in Alaska have unique characteristics due to the size of the state,the sparse population, the lack of roads,and long distances between facilities.The large areas with untouched wilderness condi tionsand abundant wildlife have attr:actednew state residents who enjoy the primi'tive recreational Future recreational use in the study area with the Project was estimated to be 43,000 to 50,000 recreation users annually by the year ) -.) l/ I 1 851016 E-7-4-2 2000 (Table E.7.3.l).Individual activity levels were projected to be 2,200 to 2,400 hunting user days;4,800 to 5,200 fishing days;12,000 to 14,000 camping days;12,000 to 14,000 hiking days;and 350 cross-country skiing days.The with-project demand estimates were based on factors listed in Sections 4.1 and 4.2,recreation trends discussed in Section 2,and additional assumptions listed in Appendix E4.7.Since the Project would open access to the study area and constitute an attraction in itself,the with-project demand projections ensured that the plan would accommodate the increased use. Demand estimates are based on the assumption that the recreation facilities in the study area and the Project would primarily be an in-state attraction and would not be a major national or international tourist attraction such as Denali National Park.Howev~r,if the state and private companies actively promote the Project for tourism and include it on tour circuits,then use could substantially increase over present estimates. 4.4 -Agency,Landowner and Applicant Plans and Policies (***) Existing and future policies of the Applicant,the study area landowners,and the government agencies involved with recreation and resource management were important considerations in developing the recreation plan.Ultimately over 250,000 acres within the project area would be in private ownership.The following list provides a summary of assumptions on future policies specific to the study area that guided development of the plan.This list is followed by a more comprehensive list of the individual agencies'and landowner goals and objectives regarding resource protection and recreation development in the region. 4.4.1 -Assumptions Regarding Future Management Policies (***) The Applicant would allow public use of the project access roads as follows: o The Denali Highway to Watana Dam access road would be open after completion of Watana Stage I (1999). o The Watana Dam to Devil Canyon Dam access road would be open after completion of Devil Canyon Dam (2005). o The Watana damsite would be closed to the public during Stage III construction (2006-2012)and open along with access across the dam after completion (2012). The Applicant would allow use of the Watana Stage I reservoir ln 1996 after Stage I completion and the Devil Canyon Stage II reservoir after Stage II completion in the year 2005.During Stage III construction (2006-2012),the reservoir wou}d be open 851016 E-7-4-3 to the public except for the damsite and immediate v1c1n1ty.In addition,the Applicant would not propose facilities or provide money for development of facilities on private land,unless free public access and use is assured. Native corporations would pursue a course of paced development of their lands,including selected mineral development,recreation home development,and commercial recreational development.These uses are assumed to be complementary to this recreation plan and are not anticipated to cause conflicts. Existing private lodge-s would continue to operate in a manner and scale similar to current operations.While some changes undoubtedly would occur,they would not be of sufficient scale to substantially influence demand projections. Harvest limits of fish and wi ldlife resources within the study area would not be controlled by the Applicant,but would continue to be regulated by the ADF&G Boards of Game and Fish.Access would be by consent of landowners.ADF&G may modify regulations to protect resources within the project area approPt:'iate to the general levels of projected demand. Post-construction public use of the railroad for recreational use is likely,but is contingent on plans of the Alaska Railroad. The Denali Highway would be upgraded as currently proposed by the Al<'!!?J~g D~p.J:iK.1:tn_~n t 9I__l'r<'!11 §PQ"('t Cil:i-Q!l {~~_~~~!.t()I1~.~,,_~(g)2.The road would be kept open in the winter from the intersection with the Watana Dam access road west to the Parks Highway at Cantwell. 4.4.2 -Management Objectives (**) (5.1 in 1983 License Application) .--------------Tif ·addiEion--E6tlie .Appl-t-cant-a-n-umber ···o-f--feder;~rland-state --··a-gerrchrs-and--seveTa-I-Nat"ive-corpora-t-i-ons-h-ave-i-n-terestsi-n--t-hi-s---···- plan.Their stated goals and objectives for recreation development and resource protection are presented below. (a)The Applicant (**) The following is a list of the-Applicant_'s general recreation·objectives: o The plan should attempt to meet the demands of project-induced recreation with facilities that are appropriate to the project area. J .j ./ J ,1 16 E-7-4-4 o The plan should respond to the identified site opportunities and constraints. o The plan should make use of roads,materials and facilities developed during construction or already existing.This would require coordination with the construction plan and schedule.Such construction roads and facilities should,wherever possible,be designed to conform with recreation requirements. o The plan should be compatible with acceptable public safety and environmental health requirements. o Recreation should be designed and operated in such a manner so not to create unreasonable demands on construction or operation resources for the Project or other public services. o An area-wide systems approach should be taken in programming recreational activities and facilities which complements existing regional facilities and provides a balance of recreational opportunity. (b)Alaska Department of Natural Resources (**) The following statewide goals are stated in ADNR's Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan (1981): o Provide for and enhance Alaska's outdoor recreation land base to meet the needs of present and future generations of Alaskans and visitors to the state. o Establish state and local recreation programs and respond to a diversity of outdoor recreational needs as expressed through an assessment process and based on full public participation. o Integrate outdoor recreational values and diversity of recreational opportunities and programs into coordinated interagency programs,community programs, and private sector developments. o Promote and balance the development of outdoor recreational opportunities in proximity to,or within, urban and rural communities. o Recognize and provide for the needs of special populations~· 851016 E-7-4-5 o Strengthen the capabilities of public agencies to establish)operate and maintain outdoor recreation programs through technical and financial assistance programs. o Support the development and expansion of tourism 1n Alaska and its role in outdoor recreation. o Preserve)maintain,or enhance Alaska's scenic resources,environmental quality)natural areas and cultural and historic identity. o Foster the growth and development of a strong)central role of the state in meeting outdoor recreational needs through a system of park and recreational units and historic and recreational trails and waterways. Discussions with ADNR staff have identified the following project-specific objectives: o Selected sites should be intrinsically suitable and the best sites available for recreation)not merely areas available by virtue of project development. o The Susitna Project recreation plan should become an integral)logical extension of an overall state recreational network. '1 ,j o Construction and operations costs would contributions by the Applicant. o ADNR welcomes the provision of recreational oj;fpotturtities in -the state by private entities such as Native corporations. The Susitna Area Plan is a comprehensive land use plan developedoy theADNR)the ADF&G;-~rtd theMat~nuska'""Susitna- .-.--..----------···------------------Bo-r-ou-gh-f-or-l:h-e-s-outhcen-tra-l---re-gion--of--A-laska-(ADNR--·198-51-.------~---· The 15.8 million acre southcentral region extends from the Cook Inlet north to Denali National Park and includes the entire project area.The Susitna Area Plan provided the regional goals concerning recreation.Listed below are portions of the Susitna Area plan goals relevant to the project recreation plan: (i)Recreation Recreation Opportunities.Provide well-designed) maintained ana conveniently located recreation facilities for Alaskans and out-of-state visitors by: 1)developing a state park system of recreation ') '.\ 851016 E-7-4-6 i i I ) 851016 (ii) areas,trails,historic parks,rivers and sites 1n close proximity to population centers and major travel routes;2)providing multiple purpose recreation opportunities on land and water areas;3) assisting communities to establish parks and trails within population centers;and 4)encouraging commercial development of recreation facilities and services where public recreation needs can most effectively be provided by private enterprise.In addition to developed recreation areas and multiple-use lands,the state will attempt to provide some minimally developed or undeveloped recreation opportunities if suitable areas are identified. Resource Protection.Encourage long-term public appreciation of Alaska's natural and human history and perpetuation of Alaska's distinctive identity by: 1)protecting significant natural and cultural features,and 2)assisting other land managing agencies to perpetuate natural and historic features. Economic Development.Increase recreation industry employment by:1)rehabilitating and maintaining recreation facilities,2)increasing the number of attractions through additions to the Alaska State Park system,and 3)developing cooperative interagency visitor information centers. Management Guidelines Public Use Cabins.The Department will develop administrative procedures for managing a state public use cabin program,set priorities for cabin sites, and seek a budget for construction and maintenance and for program management. Private Recreational Facilities on Public Land. Lodges,tent camps,or other private facilities designed to be run as private,profit-making recreation facilities will be permitted or leased under certain conditions.Final approval of a permit or lease for the facility will be given only after consultation with ADF&G and the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. Promotion of Under-Utilized Areas.Promote use of under-utilized recreation areas to take pressure off overcrowded recreation areas. E-7-4-7 Maximum Use of Sites.Achieve maximum use of recreation sites consistent with maintaining high quality recreation experiences,environmental quality,and safety. (iii)Land Allocation Summary Rivers or streams that provide public recreational opportunities generally will be protected through retention of publicly owned buffers extending at least 200 feet each side of the stream.On rivers where a larger buffer is desired to allow a wider variety of recreational opportunities,a publicly owned buffer of between 200 feet and 1/4 mile on each side of the stream is retained in public ownership. Rivers in this category include portions of the Upper Susitna and Tyone Rivers.Some rivers are deemed to have such exceptional recreational values that wider corridors are desired to protect the~e values. Rivers in this category are proposed for legislative or administrative designation.to protect their recreational uses.There are seven rivers within the Susitna basin proposed for such designation along all or part of their length:Kroto/Moose Creek,Lake Creek,the Talachulitna River,Alexander Creek,Lower Yentna and Susitna Rivers,Sheep Creek,and the Talkeetna and Kashwitna Rivers. Lakes with important publ c recreat be protected through retaining in public ownership at least 50 percent of the land within 500 feet of the lake,a significant portion of which should be suitable fOr recreational activities. The Susitna Area Plan designates large areas to support dispersed recreation activities such as ·crosEf;;;;c6untryski ing;hiki ng ;tent camping, ._~----,----~~--~---~----'-s'n'owrnob±-l-in~g-,----a-n'd~d'o"g-'-mu-s~hi-n'g~.--·---·--!fh-i-s--··-is----do·ne~in-·pa-r-f=. through retention in public ownership of the majority of state-owned land in the study area.The plan also designates land to support developed recreation facilities such as campgrounds and picnic areas at sites throughout the Susitna Basin.Additionally, the·plan.recommends purchase.of land presently in private ownership in several areas where public recreation demand is particularly heavy. To ensure'continued opportunities for public use of trails,those recreation and historic trails of regional and statewide significance generally will be 1 J I .-1 I! .! .J 851016 E-7-4-8 .}- protected through public ownership of trail corridors.Trails with statewide or regional significance;i.e.the Iditarod Trail,will be protected through publicly owned corridors of at least 50 feet each side of the centerline.Among the many trails identified and protected by the plan are those in a proposed trail system through the Talkeetna Mountains.This trail system would link many trails used for recreation and mining in the Talkeetna Mountains to trails in the Hatcher Pass area and to others in"the west along the Susitna River. In addition to protecting a system of trails in public ownership,the plan attempts to improve road access to a number of areas with potential for expanded public recreation.In very few instances do recreational benefits by themselves justify road construction.Therefore,the plan generally proposes roads that serve a variety of uses,including settlement. (c)Alaska Department of Fish and Game (**) (4.1.3 in 1983 License Application) While ADF&G has not issued a specific formal statement of objectives regarding project-related recreation,discussions in consultation meetings have identified the following ob jec tives: o Protect the trophy-class grayling.population ~n Deadman Creek from over-fishing; o Protect the Nelchina caribou herd from highway traffic-related impact; o Maintain important fishing resources downstream from Devi 1 Canyon; o Protect the back country from unregulated access along project access roads;and o Regulate hunting and fishing activities of the construction work force. 851016 E-7-4-9 (d)u.s.Buregu of Land Management (*) (4.1.4 in 1983 License Application) Statements of BLM objectives are found in the agency's BLM Land Use Plan for South-central Alaska:A Summary (1980). This plan acknowledges development of the Susitna Project and the access corridor from the Denali Highway which can serve to "•••facilitate public access to the back country." Specific policy statements relevant to the project recreation plan include: o Protect the shelter cabins built along the Cantwell-Valdez Creek Trail by the Alaska Road Commission during the 1920s.(Three are located near the junction of the project access road and the Denali Highway); o Protect caribou migration routes from adverse effects of human activity; o Create protective buffer strips around lakes and water bodies used by waterfowl; o Protect the portions of the caribou range that have a strong lichen component from fire; .0 Protect Dall_sheecpwinterrange and lambing.axe.as from all activities not consistent with maintaining the population; o Identify and protect salmon spawning areas;and o Allow saddle-and pack-horse grazing in the Brushkana Creek-Denali Highway and the Susitna River-Denali Highway areas upon lease application and determination .of'carrying capaci t:y 'I::obenefil::localguicles: Two off-road vehicle (ORV)study areas are designated in the project vicinity,comprising most of the BLM land between the Susitna River and the Denali Highway.These areas are presently open to ORV use,as are all BLM lands in the area, except Tangle Lakes.The Clearwater Creek drainage has been closed by the State Board 'of Game to mechanized hunting.In addition,recent federal .aGtionnas opened major portions of Denali Planning Block to mineral exploratic)tl.atrd mining entry. 1 .) .i I I \ 851016 E-7-4-10 (e)Cook Inlet Region Inc.(CIRI)and Village Corporations (**) (4.1.5 in 1983 License Application) Major portions of the Susitna Project area have been selected by CIRI under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)of 1971.Portions of that area will be reconveyed to CIRI village corporations.When the process of reconveyance and patenting is complete,the village corporations will own surface estate to significant portions of the lands;GIRl will own subsurface estate to those lands and also surface and subsurface estate to the lands in their master selection which the villages did not select for themselves.These lands will be in private ownership,not public. Discussions with the village corporations and CIRI have led to the following understanding of their objectives: a CIRI will defer to the village corporations regarding the deve~opment of recreational facilities; a Native corporations must find and develop economic uses of their lands,including recreational uses,to meet future tax liabilities; a Native corporations wa~t to actively partlclpate ln the recreational planning,decision-making,and management process; a Native corporations do not necessarily want to lose landownership in order to provide public recreation; a Public use must be carefully managed to avoid over-use and environmental degradation; a Trespass must be regulated; a The state must assume liability responsiblity for any project-related recreational use of Native lands;and a The Native corporations would benefit from provls10n of technical recreational planning assistance subsidized by the Applicant. The Native corporations have expressed a willingness to participate in a cooperative recreational planning process to assure provision of recreational opportunities while meeting Native objectives. 851016 E-7-4-11 (f)Matanuska-Susitna Borough (*) (4.1.6 in 1983 License Application) The project area is located in the Talkeetna Mountains Special Use Dis tric t of the Matanuska-Susi tna Borough.As such,any development is subject to a permit from the borough. In 1982,the borough also published a draft Trails System report designed to identify trails that should be preserved or established in the borough.None are identified in the immediate vicinity of the project area.The borough does not manage any recreation areas,but rather participates in joint planning with the ADNR.In some instances,they have provided lands and monies to the state for park development. (g)Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (*) (4.1.7 in 1983 License AppTicati6Il) The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADTPF)is currently proposing to upgrade the Denali Highway between the Richardson and the George Parks Highways.A need for improvements has been identified on the basis of a traveler survey,numerous interviews,and ~p'red'ic~ted'fut:ure~Eraffi~~~Upg'raQ::i:fi~g-13ij;mil-e·s-~o-fro·adway would correct roadway structure deterioration and substandard elements and would accommodate recreational use demand along the highway according to the Denali Highway Environmental Assessment (1981).Proposed project activities include minor road realignment and widening, paving and pavement repair,bridge and culvert replacement, and turnout and stream access improvements.No relocation -wasconside-r-ednecessar.yin the DenaLLHighway.Location Study_Re.poI..t_(19.8lt._~.__._.~.._.____~_~_~.__ 4.5 -Public Interest (***) During earlier studies of r.ecreational needs for the Susitna Project, the University of Alaska distributed a Concept plan Survey to the public to solicit public inputintotherecreational planning process.Questionnaires pertairiIng-topublic preferences.for ac tiviti.es.and __ley.e_l.s_of __de.y.e~1~QPmEUJ!::,..i:lJ!._"?~11.i:ls.l:l:1~iJ:"p~rc~p.tions of recreational potential in the project area,were mailed to potential users in Anchorage,Fairbanks-;and other areas of the Rai lbel t.An abbrev1ated form was also used at public workshops to gain additional information regarding public interests and desires regarding 851016 E-7-4-12 i ! ! recreational development.Tqe survey and its results were published in The Recreation Plan for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project (University of Alaska 1981).Early concept plans incorporated into these questionnaires do not reflect later engineering and schedule planning decisions and project modifications;however,those survey portions which identify public opportunity spectrum preferences continue to be valid. Respondents to the survey were given a choice of five alternative recreation development approaches,ranging from minimal development to highly developed and managed.Results of 549 responses favored the minimal development end of the spectrum. Other surveys not as specific to the Project as the one above,but still of interest and considered in the recreation planning process, included: o Alaska Public Sector Survey (Clark 1981), o Denali Highway ORV Study (Johnson 1976), o Denali Highway Recreation Survey (Harza-Ebasco 1985c), o Department of Transportation Public Comment on the Denali Highway Improvement Plan (ADOTPF 1981a),and o Susitna Hydroelectric Project Resource User Survey (ISER 1985). 4.6 Mitigation of Recreation Use Impacts (***) There were several considerations made during the recreation planning process to mitigate the impacts of the proposed recreation sites. Avoidance of sensitive natural habitats and cultural resource sites was a major consideration in the final siting of proposed recreation plan facilities.Each potential recreation site was examined during initial studies by an interdisciplinary group to define the suitability of potential recreation sites.Sensitive habitats,environments,or cultural resources identified at the time were avoided if possible. Some sensitive sites could not be avoided because of their accessibility as a result of the project design.The approach in these cases was to use recreation development to direct use to the most durable locations within the area being impacted.Areas considered sensitive included fisheries or spawning grounds,critical wildlife habitats such as eagle nests,and animal dens,and identified cultural resources sites.Environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, steep slopes,and poor soils were also avoided. As discussed in Section 6.4,the recreation plan provides for monitoring of recreational use and modification of the plan if necessary.If unanticipated impacts to area resources should occur, the existing or planned facilities can be modified to mitigate the impacts as agreed upon by the Applicant and landowners. 851016 E-7-4-13 ') ,1 1 ,1 l J J 1 ,) ,I ,-I 1 J j ,J ,J l ! ,'1 :\ I . 5 -RECREATION PLAN (**) The intent of the Susitna Project's recreation plan is to satisfy the recreational demands created by hydroelectric development and to accommodate public use of the project area.The plan is intended to fit within the framework of existing regional recreational plans.The Susitna Project's recreation plan was developed after evaluation of the recreational opportunities and constraints within the study area,the regional recreational needs,and the identified management objectives of landowners and resource management agencies.It accommodates these diverse concerns in a manner that protects the study area's scenic, cultural,and environmental qualities. 5.1 -Recreation Plan Management Concept (***) The large scale typical of the Susitna Project and the general unsuitability of the reservoirs for recreation required that an area-wide management concept be developed as a basis for the detailed programming of recreational activities and facilities.The recommended management concept described below has been designed to be compatible with economic goals of adjacent landowners as well as with resource protection goals of state and federal agencies.The proposed recreation management concept is shown in Figure E.7.5.1.The concept was based on the factors and assumptions discussed in Section 4. Three management zones have been identified for the project area. These zones,derived from the Alaska Division of Parks Management Framework Report (ADNR 1982c)are:recreational development,natural, and back country/wilderness. The recreational development zone is the zone in which the majority of developed facilities and intensive activity would occur.This zone includes an area 1/4 to 1/2 mile on each side of the access road and areas surrounding the damsites.Impacts on the existing resources would be greatest in this zone.The natural zone is a transitional area adjacent to the development zone and along existing trail corridors.It would serve as a buffer between the development and backcountry zones and would be subject to some use impact as visitors spread throughout the project area.The back country zone is the remainder of the project area where management effort would focus on maintaining the remote recreation experience.This zone would be less accessible than the other zones and thus would incur the least impacts. The development guideline for these three zones is listed in Table 7.5.1. This recreation plan management concept is only a recommendation to guide future recreation development.Because it goes beyond project boundaries,the management concept would need to be agreed upon among various agencies and landowners.Such agreements would allow identification of management objectives,major issues,and management 851016 E-7-5-1 851016 constraints of the Applicant,agencies and landowner groups so that the plan can be implemented. 5.2 -Recreation Plan Guidelines (***) Policies and development guidelines for use of the project area have been developed as part of the recreation planning process.The plan's policies and guidelines were based on the agency objectives and other factors discussed in Section 4 and the overall management concept described in Section 5.1.Listed below are the general policies regarding future use and development of the recreation plan and detailed guidelines regarding the types of facilities to be provided. 5.2.1 -Reservoirs (***) Other than boat access,the reservoir edge would not be developed for recreation due to fluctuating water levels and the availability of numerous other lakes and streams in the project area suitable for recreation.Public access to the reservoirs would be provided to both the reservoirs upstream of the dams and to the river downstream of each dam for use ~yboaters travelling down the Susitna and for boaters desiring·access to the reservoirs. 5.2.2 -Rail Spur and Airfield (***) Since post-construction public use of the railroad and airfield a.rl:c()I1t~tlgE!Il.t:()tll:l~~_t:_E!()r .pJ:"iv~.t:~management,.these facilities are not actively considered in the :LnTtTiC-recre-a-tIori·pia-i:i,-but could playa more prominent role at a later period if tourism is actively promoted. 5.2.3 -Trail Development (***) A principal objective of the recreation plan would be to establish trails in appropriate portions of the project area, ..-.---'-.---.---.---~s-inc·e·--l:fikt~ng'-·-t-;,e~._il--'·-~de\re-l-o-pnren-t'-"-i's'--a-"--re'c-rea-tio na-I-----'p"rio-ri-ty---o-f -th-e" ...._.._--....·····------s·ta·te-.-.--.---..-.-..---- Except for interpretive trails,the recreation plan would follow a policy of no developed trails.Use impacts would be monitored and if they become too great,trail routes and routine maintenance would then be instituted. Within the areas designated as natural zones,trail development would consist 6f clearing and bridge Construction across major streams. E-7-5-2 ·1 I:I,.. 851016 ·I Information pamphlets would be developed describing trails and access points in the backcountry zones and notes of interest such as waterfalls,good camping locations and fishing spots. Developed trails would be added within the recreation development zone to support interpretive programs near the damsites or for relatively short,heavy-use trails,such as to Tsusena Butte or Devil Creek Falls.Bridges would be provided across major streams. All trailheads would contain a trail entry sign,trail information sign,and a trail register. Trail designations would be subject to finalization of land ownership and public easements. 5.2.4 -Interpretive Programs (***) Interpretive programs would be established for both damsites to accommodate public interest in the project facilities as well as the Alaskan environment. Interpretive programs could consist of displays and diagrams of conditions before the Project and of the construction process. The Devil Canyon interpretive program would include a movie of the former Devil Canyon whitewater experience. Interpretive trails would be located near visitor centers and would stress native flora and fauna. Interpretive programming for the visitor centers would begin at the beginning of the Stage I construction period. 5.2.5 -Scenic Viewpoints (***) An important part of the Susitna recreation experience would be related to scenic viewing while traveling the access roads. Attractions would include views of the immediate mountains; vistas of the Wrangell Mountains,the Alaska Range and Mt. McKinley;and views of wildlife.Trailheads and viewpoint pull-outs would be coordinated with access road designs and would be built when the roads are constructed. 5.2.6 -Campgrounds (***) Developed campsites would consist of recreational vehicle (RV) spurs,tent pads,grills,tables,and benches;semi-primitive campsites would include-'tent pads,grills,and tables. E-7-5-3 The operating budget would include stocking firewood at developed campgrounds. 5.2.7 -Fishing Lakes The operating budget would provide for stocking identified lakes with native fish species. 5.2.8 -Concession Potential Concessionaire arrangements that may exist with the pian incl ude: o Visitor center souvenir shops and food serv~ce o Airport management and storage o Railroad spur public transit in support of tourism o Boat rental o Powerhouse tours 5.3 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation (Moved to Appendix E3.7) ] .) 1 ",,'J.J 5.4 The Recreation Plan (**) The recreation plan focuses on the concept of providing developed rec- reational facilities adjacent to the access roads and damsites and minimalfacilities away from them.The f,acilities are phased to coin.... Cide;-ithconstructionand-operaUonof the three=staged Projec-f.--The plan also considers the recreational needs of the temporary construction camp workers and ultimately the needs of permanent village residents. The recreation plan includes the following sites and proposed facilities.Figure E.7.5.2 displays the entire plan and indicates general locations of the recreational facilities.All sites are shown ····-witlra key letterand-phase-number-relat-ing--to text--and-maps .-There- --a-r e-t-en-add-i-t-i-ona-l-ma-ps-wh-i-ch-de'E-a-i-l-l0 Ga-t-io·ns-o-f-indi-v-i-d-ua-l--t:-ect:-ea-tion- sites (Figures E.7.5.3 through E.7.5.l0).Table E.7.7.1 lists recreation facilities by site according to the phase of development. Appendix E6.7 provides photographs of some of the recreation sites. The four phases of the recreation plan and the proposed recreation sites within each are described below.The timing_of the phases relative to the three stages of construction is discussed in Section ..··-6.l-.,-:fhesit-e:1-ecat:.·ion,-:piOpOsedfaci-li,ties,expected-l1searidpreserit land ownership status are described briefly for each site.Appendix E3.7 summarizes the inventory-'and recreation opportunity evaluation for each site. 851016 E-7-5-4 ] 5.4.1 -Phase One:Watana Stage I Construction (**) Phase one consists of recreational features intended to mitigate the impacts of recreational opportunities lost because of construction activities and associated land closures; to provide recreational opportunities for project construction workers;and to provide the general public with some early recreational benefits derived from the public investment in Watana.Development of phase one would begin with the start of project construction. Recreation sites proposed for phase one would include the follow- ing: (a)Site A -Susitna River/Denali Highway Bridge Boat Launch (***) An existing boat launch site,located at the Denali Highway crossing of the Susitna River would be upgraded according to state standards (Figure E.7.5.10).The site is presently used by people boating the Susitna River for a backcountry float trip or for access to areas for hunting.Parking for 10 vehicles and trailers would be provided.Two signs explaining the Susitna Project construction and the potential boating hazard at Watana and Devil Canyon due to construction activity would also be included. Construction of this facility may need to be coordinated with the adjacent Native landowners since much of the area surrounding the Denali Highway bridge has been selected for Native ownership. (b)Site B -Watana Construction Camp and Townsite Worker Recreation Plan (***) This plan is discussed in detail in Section 5.4.6.Some of the outdoor recreation developed for the workers would be available for public use after construction.These would include trails,such as the one proposed to Deadman Creek Falls (Figure E.7.5.6).Development of the Deadman Creek Falls trail would be dependent on final landownership selection.Presently the location is on land selected by the state but suspended due to the land selection process. (c)Site C -Middle Fork Chulitna River/Caribou Pass Trail (***) A trailhead with-six vehicle parking spaces would be constructed on an existing public easement off the Parks Highway near Broad Pass (Figure E.7.S.9).A trailhead sign 851016 E-7-5-S and trail register describing the 17...,.mile primitive trail to Caribou Pass would be placed at the trailhead.This trail would accommodate hunters and hikers that presently access the Chulitna Mountains.The trail would also eventually connect with other trails constructed in later phases, linking the Parks Highway to project access roads. The middle fork of the Chulitna River is located primarily within lands that have been selected by or conveyed to the Native corporations.Development of this trail would depend on final disposition of the land. (d)Site D -Project Entry Sign (***) A project entry sign and five vehicle parking spaces would be constructed at the intersection of the Watana access road and Denali Highway (Figure E.7.5.8).The project entry sign would serve as a roadside interpretive display for motorists.The sign would consist of a three-panel display explaining the Watana Dam,Devil Canyon Dam,and general infonn(itioll(ib()\1tthe S it~_an<il?l"ojt:~~.Jtl:forma tion regarding public access and recreation would be noted.The entry sign would be constructed within the access road right-of-way. 5.4.2 -Phase Two:Watana Operation/Devil Canyon Construction (**) Phase two consists o-frecreatlon feat-ures-Intended tom:i.E:i.gate the impacts of recreation lost due to the operation of Watana Dam and construction of Devil Canyon Dam.Additionally,the phase would provide for the recreational use potential of the Project,accommodate project-induced recreational demand,allow public access to project lands and waters,and protect the environmental values of the project area.Recreation sites proposed for phase two would include the following: -----E-a-)---Si-te-E---Wa-t-ana-Damsite-Tempora-ry-V-i-s-i-t;-or-Gen-t;-e-r-a-nd-------------- Boat Access (***) A temporary visitors center with 10 vehicle parking spaces would be constructed on the north side of Watana Dam (Figure E.7.5.6).This visitor center would consist of an 800-square foot wooden structure housing displays of the Watana-constructionprocess and area setting.The center wou 1.<1 ·alsobe-Elle-:-li-ea.dqua~Fers--~for:pOwerliOuse ..tour s.Thi s visitor center would function until the permanent visitor center is bui 1t after Stage III COilS true tion.A developed interpretive trail 1/2 mile long and picnic site constructed near the dam would complement the visitor center.The 1 [ 1 I 851016 E-7-5-6 ,-{ J iIl J Ii I.,,I i I visitor center 1S expected to rece1ve use by the general public. Boat access to the Watana Reservoir and to the Susitna River downstream of the dam would be provided via construction haul roads and construction of two boat lanuches.Parking for 10 vehicles and trailers would be provided at each loca- tion.Signs placed at the downstream boat access would warn boaters of Devil Canyon construction downstream.These facilities would be used by boaters accessing the Watana reservoir,boaters floating the Susitna River to Stephan Lake/Prairie Creek,and hunters accessing the upper reaches of Watana reservoir. Since these facilities would be constructed within project boundaries,landowner approval would not be required. (b)Site F -Tsusena Creek/Caribou Pass Trail (***) A trailhead off the Watana access road with parking spaces for 5 vehicles would have an information sign describing this 26-mile primitive trail up the Tsusena Creek valley to Caribou Pass (Figure E.7.5.7).Total trail length from trailhead to trailhead would be approximately 43 miles. Once completed,users could drive to the trailhead off the project access road and then hike to the Parks Highway. Most of the trail would be on land owned by the state Or the BLM.The 8-mile portion of the trail located within federal lands selected by the Native corporations would require designation as a public easement. (c)Site G -Susitna Entrance Campground (***) This developed campground would be adjacent to the Watana access road (see Figure E.7.5.8).The campground road would provide access to 10 developed campsites located adjacent to a lake.The lake would be stocked with native fish species,if feasible,as an added recreation attraction to the site.This campground would accommodate part of the demand for vehicular camping within the project area created by the Project and new access into a previously remote area.Development of this facility would need to be coordinated with BLM recreation plans since they are the land manager for the site. (d)Site H -Deadman/Big Lakes Trail (***) Access to Deadman and Big Lakes,which together are approximately 1,800 acres in size,would be provided V1a 851016 E-7-5-7 a trailhead with parking spaces for 6 vehicles off the Watana access road and a primitive trail 4 miles in length. The trail would provide a day hike from the access road trailhead for visitor's hiking or desiring to fish for grayling in Deadman Creek or in the lakes (Figure E.7.5.7). Since these facilities are located on federal lands selected by the state,landowner appro'valwould not be required. (e)Site I -Stephan Lake Portage Campsite (***) The Stephan Lake portage campsite would consist of eight semi-primitive campsites adjacent to the Watana reservoir for boaters to overnight before they portage to Stephan Lake.There is currently a trail public easement that starts at the Susitna River and connects with two small lakes before ending at Stephan Lake.The campsites would be constructed within the project boundary.Campsite construction would include brushing and leveling campsites and providing grills (Figure E.7.5~5). (d)Site J "'Devil CanyonConstttiction Camp aria Village Worker Recreation Plan (***) This plan is discussed in detail in Section 5.4.6.Unless agreements are made with Native landowners to retain certain camp or village facilities,recreation facilities constructed for the Devil Canyon construction work force --would be~di~smcalttl~e-d-aCfte-r-c-o-n~sTrucTi~on--tFigute-E.7.5~3)~ 5.4.3 -Phase Three:Devil CanyonOperation/Watana Stage III Construction (***) Phase three consists of recreational features intended to miti- gate the impacts of recreation lost because of the operation of Devil Canyon and construction of Watana Stage III.Phase three wou ldals,o""accommodateinduced-demand-o f-the--Devi rCany on project _____and Q!:9vide_publ~acces_~l;Q__projec~lands and wa_t_e_u_.D_ux_ing __ phase three,'the Watana damsite area (including interpretive trails and boat launches near theWatana damsite)would be closed to the public.' Recreation sites proposed for phase three include the following. (a)Sitek -Devil Canyon ])anlsite-VisitorCellter and Boat Access C**"k) The Devil Canyon,setting and dam would be a major recrea.tional aftractionof the Project.A 5,000-square- foot concrete visitor center with parking spaces for 15 ""I]it ) ',i\",,} :\] ',~)i"'~ i -J \J \,'1 ", .,-:' '\ :.J 851016 E-7-5-8 vehicles would be located at the canyon's edge on the south side of the river (Figure E.7.5.3).This location would allow visitors to cross the canyon over the high level bridge and view the dam,bridge and canyon together.The visitor center would include displays of the Project and the setting,including movies of the Devil Canyon whitewater experience.The center would also include a souvenir shop, audio visual room and possibly food service.Picnic sites and a 0.75-mile developed interpretive trail would be located near the center. Boat access to Devil Canyon reservoir and to the Susitna River downstream of the dam would be provided via construction haul roads and construction of two boat launches.Parking for 10 vehicles and trailers would be provided at each location.The boat access would allow boaters to float from the dam downstream to Talkeetna,would allow boating in the reservoir,and would provide boat access to hunting areas and fishing locations along the reservoir. Since the boat access,visitor center and trails would be located within the project boundary,landowner approval would not be required. (b)Site L -Devil Creek Falls Trail (***) A seven-mile developed trail would lead from a trailhead with six vehicle parking spaces off the Devil Canyon access road to overlooks of Devil Creek Falls and Devil Canyon reservoir (Figure E.7.5.4).This trail is expected to receive moderate levels of use because of the scenic attractions of the falls and rock outcrops (See Appendix E3.7)and relatively short trail length. Presently the location is on federal land selected by the state and Native corporations.The development of this trail would depend on the final disposition of the land. (c)Site M -Tsusena Butte and Tsusena Creek Falls Trails (***) As with Devil Creek Falls trail,these two trails are also expected to receive moderate levels of use because of their short lengths and attractions.Both trails would be accessed from one trailhead with parking spaces for eight vehicles off the Devil Canyon access road.In addition,a four-mile primitive spur trail would be constructed connecting the trailhead with the Tsusena Creek/Caribou Pass Trail (Site F)(Figures E.7.5.6 and E.7.5.7). 851016 E-7-5-9 The Tsusena But te Trail would be a 2.5-mile developed trail, with a 1,600-foot rise in elevation.Once on top,hikers would have a 360-degree panorama of the surrounding region. A photographic interpretive display would be constructed orienting hikers to points of interest.The trail south from the trailhead would consist of a five-mile primitive trail following Tsusena Creek to Tsusena Creek Falls. The trail north to Tsusena Butte would be located on state land.The trail south to Tsusena Falls is presently located on federal lands selected by the state and Native corporations.Development of this trail would be dependent on final disposition of the land. (d)Site N -Mermaid Lake Campground (***) Mermaid Lake Campground would be a developed campground near the Devil Canyon access road approximately five miles from the Devil Canyon damsite (Figure E.7.5.4).Its 12 campsites would be located adjacent to Mermaid Lake and would accommodate vehicular campers.A.fish stocking program would be initiated in the take,if feasible,as an added recreation attraction.Presently the site is located on federal land selected by the state and Native corporations. Development of this site would depend on final disposition of the land. A 3/4 mile developed trail would lead from a trailhead with parking spaces for 5 vehic1esto a.prorilitory approximately 1 mile northwest of the damsite.The overlook would be aboui::700 feet::above the dam crest atidwotlld provide an excellent overview of the Devil Canyon setting,as well as vistas of Mt.McKinley.An interpretive display and benches would be provided at the overlook.During Watana Stage I----cons t-ruct-IOn;'the-l ocatIOiiof-fheoverrooK-woU:l,r-nee-d'fO"oe- -----coordinateawitll-locat ions otEhe-waEana Eransmiss-i-o-tc-ti-n-e-s-- (Figure E.7.5.3). Since the trail and overlook site are within the project boundary,landowner approval would not be required. 5.4.4 ....Phase Four:Watana Stage III Operation (***) 1 ! 1 J -"..---.-.,¥ _~"--'-'------"--"Pna's-'e'---f'c)"ur'---'c'o"ifs'i'g"ts"---(j'f----re'c-r-elftio'tial'-'~f·Efa-tures··~--t·o~-ac-commo-da-t-e creased recreation demand in the vicinity of the Watana damsite,and to provide"additional linkages to recreation facilities established in phases one,two,and three.The damsite boat launches would be reopened during this phase. ~n- Watana In 851016 .J addition,the temporary visitor center would be dismantled and its contents relocated in the permanent visitor center. Recreation sites proposed for phase four include the following: (a)Site P -Watana Permanent Visitor Center (***) Public access would be provided across the dam to a visitor center located on a promitory above the Watana quarry site with parking spaces for 15 vehicles (Figure E.7.5.6). Integration of the design of the visitor center with the quarry site would be an important aspect of the interpretive program. The 3,000-square foot visitor center would include displays of the Watana construction and project setting and area wildlife.A souveriir shop and food service may be provided depending on concessionaire arrangements.Also,depending on agreements with Native landowners,the visitor center may provide a museum of selected cultural resource materials found in the project area.A one-mile developed interpre- tive trail and picnic areas would be located near the visitor center.Since,these facilities are presently located within the proposed project boundary,landowner approval would not be required. 5.4.5 -Recreation Plan for Construction Camps,Villages,and Permanent Townsite (**) (a)Housing Facilities (***) During construction of the Project,personnel would be housed in temporary camps for single status workers and temporary villages for workers with dependents living on-site.Camps and villages would be constructed at both the Watana and Devil Canyon damsites.A permanent town is planned to be constructed near the Watana damsite at the end of the Stage I construction period for operations personnel and dependents.Resident populations of single-status workers and families for the above housing facilities are shown in Table E.7.5.2. Current construction plans call for five separate communities:two single-status camps,two family-status villages and the permanent town.The temporary camps and villages are designed to be largely self-contained. Recreation programs sponsored by the camp management would occur largely within these areas. 851016 E-7-5-ll During Watana Stage III construe tion,the camp and vi llage would be in the same location as Stage I,and may utilize some of the same buildings and support facilities,depending on their condition. (b)Workers and Resident Activities (**) operation of the camps and the length of work days and work weeks would influence the amount of leisure time available and also the amount and types of recreation required. Presently,the work pattern is planned to be 2 or more weeks on and I or 2 weeks off,with 2 IO-hour shifts each day and 6 or 7 days each week,subject to final contract negotiations. During Stage I,workers would be taken to and from the site by some combination of air and bus transportation.During their weeks on rotation,they would live in the construction camp or village.At the end of each rotation,workers would be transported off-site.During Stages II and III,when the acces sroadis.open.to the public,there.WQuld be no worker transportation provided. Without a worker transportation plan,some workers may choose to live in Cantwell or elsewhere during Stages II and III and commute to the site on a daily basis.It is assumed,however,that the majority would live at the camp .and__c.Qmmut_e_..tQtJH~.ir_fami lies '...Rlac.e_tt.o:t.I'~13ic:i~I!~~O_!lly periodically.This recreation plan is intended to meet the needs of construction and operation workers in residence at the construction camps.It is not intended to address the recreational needs of workers while not at the site. Because of the relatively long work schedules and work shifts,leisure activities of workers are expected to focus on the recreational facilities at the camps and villages • ...__························_·····"'·········s·····u·r e ··fime·woura·oe Tirol Eedprlroa:rily ··t6-tne··hour s after tlie work-et'El'-dai-ly-shift-.-.------.--...-....-~.--...__. Hiking and fishing are outdoor activities that are expected to occur during the summer months.During Stage I these activities would be limited to locations within walking distance since use of private vehicles would be limited during that period.Workers may.hunt from the access roads open t6the PUblit during Stages II and III if the road is --··not··closed·to·public-huntingi'However,.firearms or hunting would not be allowed on project property during construction. 1 ) ..J I] ~51016 11 (c)Recreation Programming (**) The type,number and quality of recreation facilities and available opportunities are important factors in determining the ability of the Project to attract and keep construction and operation workers.Other considerations which are managerial in nature includes food quality and management styles. Construction camp support facilities are typically programmed for less than peak work force because of the peak's relatively short duration.In addition,a percentage of the work force would always be off duty and therefore offsite,and the number of facilities available tends to avoid overuse of anyone facility.Sizing of camp and village recreation facilities for Susitna would follow this concept.During detailed design,the facilities would be sized according to the average annual population for the each construction period (See Table E.7.5.2). (d)Proposed Recreation Plan for Workers and Residents (**) The proposed worker recreation plan would be designed for the average resident population during the Watana Stage I construction period and the Devil Canyon Stage II construction period.Stage III construction personnel would utilize recreation facilities constructed during Stage I, depending on condition of the facilities. Current construction plans call for five separate communities.The recreation plan,therefore,proposes equivalent facilities at each community.The proposed facilities are listed in Table E.7.5.3. Many of the proposed recreation activities can be accommodated in multipurpose spaces.For example,the gymnasium would be a multipurpose space suitable for activities such as jogging,basketball,volleyball,tennis, and badminton.Such spaces do not necessarily require a separate building,but may be developed by clustering residential modules with flooring and erecting roofing across intervening spaces.Many outdoor activities likewise do not require separate spaces but could utilize single fields for multipurpose sports.Further recreation planning for the camps,villages,and the townsite would be required as the Applicant progresses with policy decisions regarding details of the construction program and as actual facility design is undertaken. 851016 E-7-5-13 'J ,J :1 1 1 1 r·l 1 ] 1 j J J J 1 j J J ] 6 -PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (**) 6.1 -Phasing (**) Phased implementation of the recreation plan provides the opportunity to adjust to changes in recreation demand,project design, landownership,environmental impacts,or other factors that are difficult to predict 15 or 20 years into the future. The four phases of the Susitna Project recreation plan are proposed to be constructed as follows: o Phase One -Watana Stage I Construction:Phase one recreation facilities are generally planned to be developed simultaneously with the start of Stage I construction. o Phase Two -Devil Canyon Construction/Watana Operation:Phase two recreation facilities are intended to be developed within three years of the operational date of Watana Stage I. o Phase Three - Construction: planned to be date of Devil Devil Canyon Operation/Watana -Stage III Phase three recreation facilities are generally developed within three years of the operational Canyon Stage II. o Phase Four -Watana -Stage III Operation:Phase four recreation facilities are intended to be developed within three years of the operational date of Watana Stage III. 6.2 -Detailed Recreation Desi (***) Detailed and site-specific recreation designs for the proposed recreation plan would begin after the Project License is issued. Facility locations would be identified in detail through field investigation.The field investigations would be coordinated with other program disciplines such as cultural resources,socioeconomic, and wildlife.After field investigation,construction drawings and specifications would be prepared.The master planning for each phase should begin at least one year before anticipated phase construction. Recreation facility design standards of the APORD would be used where appropriate since the APORD is expected to be the major managing agency for the recreation facilities.Examples of APORD design standards are shown in Appendix E3.7. 851016 E-7-6-1 6.3 -Operation and Maintenance (***) 6.3.1 Personnel (***) The Applicant would operate and maintain recreation facilities within the project boundary.The APORD would operate and maintain,with the financial support of the Applicant,the recreation facilities proposed in this plan that are located on state lands and,through cooperative agreement,on BLM lands. (Should the parties deem it desirable,separate agreements could be drafted with the BLM.) Recreation program personnel required for operating facilities within the project boundary would include a recreation manager, park ranger and park technicians.Maintenance is assumed to be handled by project operation and management staff or to be contracted out under the supervision of the recreation manager. A recreation manager is needed early in phase two of the recreation plan.The manager would be responsible for management and operation of the recreation plan,supervising visitor center programming,maintenance,and regulation enforcement. A full time park ranger would be hired during phase four construction to staff the permanent Watana visitor center.The park ranger should be experienced in interpretive programming and also be knowledgable in the fields of safety,'rescue operations, wildlife management,and park and recreation administration. Through completion of phase four construction,three temporary park technicians would be on staff.Their duties would include aiding permanent staff,providing information to the public on recreation facilities and interpretive aspects,and conducting powerhouse tours.The totalrecreatibn staff after completion of phase four facilities would be two permanent and three temporary employees.This is considered the minimum staff necessary.The number could increase if demand rises noticeably or if tourism of s promo e. 6.3.2 -Interpretive Program (***) A key component of the recreation program is the interpretation of the Project and its setting.The general goal of the program would be to inform and educate the public with regard to the purpose and concept of the Project and--the -cultural ,na tural,and scenic features of t1:l~l:lt"ea.__1'hEiJ?t<.?ject visitor centers would the focus Of the -interpretive-prbgram. The visitor centers WOULd also function as the primary orientation sites for the public.Information on trails, campsites,and backcountry conditions would be available as well I 1 1 :01 -) I _j I ~ 851016 as information regarding regulations and outdoor safety. Interpretive displays would include exhibits dealing with hydroelectric power,wildlife,water resources,and tundra ecology,as well as slide/tape programs emphasizing the project setting both before and after construction of the Project. Project interpretive themes and media suggestions are identified in the matrix in Table E.7.6.1.The matrix is intended to serve as a guide for program development. Design and construction of the visitor center interpretive displays would be accomplished through contract.Estimated costs for the interpretive program development are discussed in Section 7.1. 6.4 -Monitoring (**) The recreation plan consists of four phases and all the components identified therein.In general,the Applicant's commitment beyond phase one is to acquire and develop the facilities listed in phases two,three,and four or their equivalent.Modifications to the plan may be made based on the ongoing monitoring and evaluations. The APORD,with financial support of the Applicant,would be responsible for maintaining facility use records and surveying use of phase one recreation facilities according to standards consistent with APORD practice.At the time Watana Stage I begins operation or six years after the completion of phase one recreation facilities (whichever is earlier),APORD and the Applicant would evaluate the plans for phase two of the recreation plan. Plans for phase two would be verified or modified as required.Any modifications would be consistent with established management guide- lines established in this plan and the recreation opportunity prefer- ence classification appropriate for each proposed facility (see Appen- dix E3.7).Need would be determined both by use levels of phase one facilities and demand generated by the completion of Watana Stage I. Construction of phase two recreation facilities would be completed within three years of determination of need by the Applicant and APORD. The plans for phase three of the recreation plan would be similarly evaluated when operation of Devil Canyon begins.The facilities recommended in phase three would be verified or modified as required, based on experience for phase one and two and demand generated be completion of Devil Canyon Dam.Phase three would be constructed within three years of the joint determination of need by the parties. When Watana Stage III begins operation,or six years after the completion of phase three construction (whichever is earlier),APORD 851016 E-7-6-3 and the Applicant would meet to evaluate the phase four plan.and similarly verify or modify it as required.Phase four would be constructed within three years of the joint determination of need. Monitoring would begin upon completion of phase four facilities. Monitoring would consist of the APORD maintaining facility use records as discussed above.In addition.monitoring would include two to three surveys of recreation use in the project area conducted approximately every five years after completion of phase four.The monitoring commitment would continue for 15 years after the phase four construction period. } "j ,.J I .\ 851016 E-7-6-4 .1 7 -COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED RECREATION FACILITIES (**) It is anticipated that the Applicant and APORD would enter into an agreement whereby APORD performs design,construction,monitoring,and operation and maintenance functions of the recreation facilities on public lands with the costs to be borne by the Applicant.If any recreation phase should be modified under the terms of the proposed monitoring plan,budgeted monies would be transferred from proposed element to element and from phase to phase.This would be done with the provision that total development costs for the 4 phases do not exceed the currently anticipated total cost,as measured in constant 1985 dollars. 7.1 -Construction (**) Estimated capital costs for each phase of the recreation plan are as follows: Capital Costs ($1985) Phase One Phase Two Phase Three Phase Four Total Facilities $120,650 563,650 1,481,650 621,550 $2,787,500 IJ Breakdowns for these costs by facility are shown in Table E.7.7.1. Construction costs have been prepared based on APORD and NPS data. Costs of recreation facilities for construction camps and villages and the permanent village are included under project development costs identified in Exhibit D. 7.2 -Operations and Maintenance (**) Table E.7.7.2 summarizes estimated average annual costs for supplies, equipment,and personnel to operate and maintain the facilities.No additional staff or operation and maintenance costs are anticipated for phase one.Annual operation and maintenance costs for phase two are estimated at $56,350.Annual operation and maintenance costs for phase three,including the cost of maintaining the phase two facilities,are $71,100.Annual costs for phase four are estimated at $125,650, including maintenance of phases two and three facilities. Table E.7.7.3 provides estimates of equipment necessary to operate the proposed facilities.Costs·for such equipment are estimated at $63,150. 851016 E-7-7-1 7.3 -Monitoring (***) Monitoring costs assume that annual monitoring efforts would be part of the recreation staff responsibilities included in the operation and management costs (Table E.7.7.2).However it was assumed that demand evaluations requiring surveys and additional effort would be needed approximately every 5 years for 10 to 15 years after phase four construction.This cost is estimated to be approximately $100,000 over the life of the Project and is also included in Table E.7.7.2. .1 J J } J ! J 851016 E-7-7-2 J 8 -AGENCY COORDINATION (**) 8.1 -Agencies and Persons Consulted (**) The Susitna Project recreation report and plan were prepared in consultation with various representatives of state,federal and local agencies and private entities.Discussions were held in the form of meetings or phone conversations with representatives of the ADNR,ADFG, ADTPF,BLM,NPS,Chugach National Forest,Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and area Native corporations. 8.2 -Agency Comments(**) In response to the Draft Exhibit E provided to the agencies on November 15,1982,review comments were received from the following agencies: ADNR,ADF&G,NPS,and USFWS. The NPS and ADNR expressed concern that the recreation plan presented in Section 6 did not include sufficient facilities south of the Susitna River in the Fog Lakes and Stephan Lake areas.Since these areas are primariliy private land or selected for Native ownership,limited recreational development has been proposed as part of the Susitna Project recreation plan.Development in these areas could be expanded by Native corporations as a private venture. The ADNR expressed the desire to also provide recreational opportun- ities downstream from Devil Canyon.Presently,recreation sites have not been proposed in this area,since the project access road ends at Devil Canyon,and the area is private property.Recreation demand in this area would be monitored,and additional sites would be considered if demand is determined to be sufficient. The USFWS and ADF&G have expressed concern with the increased access the Susitna Project would provide to fish and wildlife resources.The development of the recreation plan has,to the extent possible,taken this concern into consideration when siting the proposed recreational facilities.An effort has been made to avoid particularly sensitive fish and wildlife habitat areas while maintaining maximum plan flexibility to the advantage of project recreational opportunities. Responses to the specific comments raised by these four agencies are contained ~n Chapter 11 of Exhibit E. 8.3 -Native Corporation Comments (***) Tyonek Native Corporation submitted a position paper to FERC (Bedard 1984),which discussed some of their development possibilities if the Susitna Project is constructed.These included: o Using and connecting other roads to the proposed access road; 851016 E-7-8-1 o Developing a single lodge and some rental cabins at the Fog Lakes with hiking trails to the other lakes and canoe routes throughout the five lake area. o Developing a single lodge with some rental cabins at Stephan Lake.Establishing a 2,500 acre brown/grizzly bear viewing site for tourist and scientific studies iri the Prairie Creek area and a network of canoe and hiking trails to Talkeetna River and to the Susitna River on the north side of Stephan Lake. o Establishing a primitive trail on the north side of the Susitna River from the Devil Canyon proposed bridge to Portage Creek. o Developing a lodge at Otter Lake using the existing trails from Chulitna to Portage Creek. The Susitna Project's proposed recreation plan would complement rather than compete with these development intentions.Further consideration would be given to the development intentions of the Native corporations as agreements are made regarding construction,operation and maintenance of the Project's recreation plan.. 8.4 -Consultation Meetings (***) Additional specific input on recreation has been received from agencies and private organizations through consultation meetings (see Chapter 11,Section 2.2.3,Exhibit E). i ] ,.1 J ] ] \] I )J 9 -REFERENCES Alaska Department of Fish and Game.1981.Annual Performance Report for Alaska Statewide Sport Fish Harvest Studies -1981 Data,Vol.23. Juneau,Alaska. •1984.Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Big Game Studies,Vol.---VIII:Dall Sheep.Draft Final Report.Anchorage,Alaska.90 pp. •1985.A Survey of Boaters Exiting at the Susitna Landing,---Talkeetna Boat Launch and Airstrip and Willow Creek During 1984. Division of Sport Fish.March 1985.Anchorage,Alaska. Alaska Department of Natural Resources.1980.Susitna River Basin Land Use/Recreation Atlas.Division of Research and Development. •1981.Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan.Division of Parks.--- ) •1982a.Alaska State Park System:South-central Region Plan. ---Division of Parks. •1982b.Matanuska-Susitna-Beluga Cooperative Planning Program ----Land Use Issues and Preliminary Resource Inventory.Volume 1. Division of Research and Development. •1982c.Alaska State Park System:Statewide Framework.Park---Planning Section,Division of Parks.June,1982.39 pp. •1985.Susitna Area Plan -Summary.April 1985.494 pp.--- •Undated.Statewide Natural Resources Plan -FY 81 Appendices.---Division of Research and Development. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.1981a. Denali Highway Environmental Assessment. •1981b.Denali Highway Location Study Report,RS-0750(I).--- Alaska Division of Tourism.1981.Alaska Travel Directory.June,1981. Alaska Power Authority.1983.Susitna Hydroelectric Project,FERC License Application,Vol.6A,Exhibit E,Chapter 3:Fish,wildlife and Botanical Resources.FERC Project No.7114.Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska State Parks.No date.Denali State Park Trail Brochure. Bedard,B.R.1984.Land Inspector/Planner,Tyonek Native Corporation position Paper Development Non-Susitna Program Plan.FERC No.7114 Alaska.November,1984.3 pp. 851016 E-7-9-1 Clark,R.N.and D.R.Johnson.1981.Survey - A Summary of Responses from Southeast and Southcentral Alaska.Joint report of USDA Forest Service and University of Washington,College of Forest Resources. Economic Research Associates.1980.Market Analysis/Economic Feasibility Study -Technical Report for Talkositna Study Area. Frank Orth &Associates.1985.Socioeconomic Effects Projections, Staged.Construction for Susitna Hydroelectric Project,FY85 Car Transportation Scenario.Report.Prepared for Alaska Power Authority,A~chorage,Alaska. Harza/Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture.1985a.Susitna Hydroelectric Project position Paper,Recreation R-2.April 1,1985.Prepared for Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska. •1985b.Susitna Hydroelectric Project position Paper,Recreation---R-3.April 1,1984.Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,Alaska. •1985c.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Recreation Survey.Draft -'---Report. •1985d.Lodge Operator Survey.Prepared for Alaska Power---Authority,Anchorage,Alaska. Institute of Social and Economic Research.1985.Susitna Hydroelectric -Proje-ct;-Re-source-Us-erSurvey~--Prepared ·for-Al-aska-Power Authority. Johnson,L.1976.Off-Road Vehicle Use and Its Impact on Soils and Vegetation on Bureau of Land Management Land Along the Denali Highway,Alaska:A Report on the 1975 Outdoor Recreation Survey. University of Alaska,Agricultural Experimental Station, Fairbanks,Alaska. I.", ] ] ______Mills,M.J.1981.Statewide Harye.tl.....Study Fish Restoration and Anadromous Fish -June 30,1982.Prepared for Alaska 115 pp. -1981 Data.Federal Aid in ~--~_..._~_.__..•- Studies.Vol 23.July 1,1981 Department of Fish and Game. J R &M Consultants Inc.1985.Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Effects on Navigation.Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.108 pp. Stratton,L.and S.Georgette,1984.Use of Fish and Game by Communities in the Copper River Basin Alaska:A Report on a 1983 Household Survey.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Division of Subsistence,Anchorage,Alaska. :J 851016 E-7-9-2 ,) I'_-.J Terrestrial Environmental Specialists Inc.1982a.Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Subtask 7.07 Land Use Analysis,Phase I Report.Prepared for Acres American Inc • •1982b.Phase I.Environmental Studies Report Subtask 7.08,---Recreation Planning,Analysis of Participation Survey Results. Prepared for Acres American Inc. U.S.Bureau of Land Management.1980.BLM Land Use Plan for South-Central Alaska - A Summary.September 22,1980. U.s.Department of Agriculture 1974.Recreation Opportunity Inventory and Evaluation.Forest Service. U.s.Department of the Interior.1985.Denali National Park and Preserve.Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Assessment Land Protection Plan Wilderness Suitability Review.National Park Service.March,1985.188 pp. u.S.Soil Conservation Service.1978.Susitna River Basin Cooperative Study -Talkeetna Subarea.Unpublished.John O'Neill,November, 1978. University of Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station.April 1982. The Recreation Plan for the Proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Wiles,J.1985.Personal communication.Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.Telephone conversation with R.Suttle,Harza/Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture, August 5,1985. 851016 E-7-9-3 J J , 1 ,) 'J j ,J J ,J ) \1 ,I, ,I ,I ,r "I ~'j ') \' I I ) J 10 -GLOSSARY Accessibility -the kind of roads,four-wheel-drive trails,foot trails,etc.,which are in or surround the study area. Attractiveness - a measure of a landscape's unique or special settings and features.These can be both cultural and natural. Carrying Capacity (recreation)-the inherent capability of a landscape to support recreation use.The primary purpose is to achieve fitness between the number of people using a site and the preferred recreation type (experience).The goal is not to reduce the experiential potential of a site through over-use or partici pation. Encounter space -that cover (in acres)within which an encounter with another individual can be anticipated.It not only includes physical contact (passing on a trail)but visual proximity as well. Inherent Durability - a general measure of the physical ability of a site to absorb the impact of recreation development.The evalu- ation is based upon known physical data and field observation of each recreation resource site. Natural Rarity - a measure of the inventoried landscape features and settings based upon the frequency of occurrence and overall quality.Natural rarity also defines the physical characteristic's relationship to the regional and local scales. Recreation Opportunity Quality Factor -based upon the natural rarity of a proposed recreation setting,this is used to determine the probability of capturing recreation users by simply saying the higher the rating for natural rarity,the greater the potential for attracting recreation users. Recreation Preference Type - a principal objective of the recreation plan is to provide a variety of recreation activities within a spectrum of recreation "preference types".The preference types relate to the character and quality of the existing land base. The recreation activities also relate in terms of their appro- priateness to a particular setting.The four recreation prefer- ence types are:pristine,primitive,semiprimitive,and developed. 851016 E-7-10-1 Rehabilitation Site -in addition to those recreation opportunities which are intrinsic to the natural environment,there are other areas under consideration such as borrow areas,construction and maintenance roads,and transmission corridors.These elements which are created to serve temporary purposes or as a by-product of construction commonly attract recreationists who find them con- venient for campsites;hiking trails,offroad tracks,and other activities.Additional recreation improvements and activities could be developed in such locations if unfore~een recreation demand occurs. Visitor Day Conversion Factor - a factor in determining the visitation capacity of a recreation setting which defines average use days by recreation preference type activities. Visitation Estimates -this method utilized two visitation estimates for each recreation site:(1)yearly visitation capacity;and (2) yearly visitation potential.Visitation capacity is an estimate of how many visitors can annually experience and use a particular r~cre~tion setti.ng,based upon the designated recreation prefer- ence type. Visual Quality - a measure of the scenic quality and importance of the site.The relative availability of significant landscape features and settings contained in each potential recreation site can be measured by;rarity,level~of quality,manageability (r:~tr~K()};s:i "l1g:.-t_h~_Al ~s k~J and.!?~E.pe s _im~.Kc;t,_~n(L viJ:Lu53.1.q,ua Li t-Y'. '1 .] 851016 E-7-10-2 --' TABLES --.,----"--,~.--------:--,~~--~------._.~--------~~-v~+--~-~O_~'----.~--',---'-- TABLE E.7.2.1:STATEWIDE RECREATION INVENTORY -BY LAND OWNERSHIP Federal Military State Local School Sites Acrea ge 153 mi 11 ion N/A 4.7 million 7,883 2,000 Facil 'ties if PAO'I*if PAOT if PAOT if PAOT if PAOT Campi fig Units 1270 6299 229 824 1218 4384 477 1717 - - Remot ~Cabins 221 1135 30 180 2 8 3 6 -- Picni f.Tables 270 1368 34 161 1747 8735 323 1583 -- picni Shelters 22 220 1 10 32 320 - --- Clam ~eaches ----28 miles --- - Boat ,-,aunches 34 34 4 4 26 26 12 12 -- Boat ~oorages --25 25 - - 4378 4378 - - Canoe Tra i Is (mi)332 1932 - -47 280 26 160 -- Horse Trails(mi)214 1070 49 240 8 40 - -- - Wa1k/Run Tra i Is (mO 973 9730 --443 4430 23 230 -- Bicyc e Trails(mi)--1 10 --76 760 - - ATV/O V Tra Us (mi)535 2130 70 280 142 670 14 104 -- x-c S i Tra its (mi)101 1010 132 1320 256 2510 80 800 - - Dog-m shing Trails(mi)-- - -750 3000 ---- Ski L fts/Tows 6 -15 ---4 --- Golf I ourses - -1 -- -4Loc/--- (Pvt) Tenni Courts --23 -- -59 -40 - Baske ball Courts - -14 ---20 -223 - Volle ba 11 Courts - - 11 -- -9 -72 - Swimm ng Pools --2 -10 -7 -11 - Softb.II/Baseball Fields --41 ---75 -69 - Socce /Football Fields --14 -- -12 -20 - Track &Field - -4 ---5 -13 - Targe Shooting Ranges - -4 -3 -1 -4 - Ice S a ting Rinks --12 -- -20 -81 - Sourc :ADNR 1981 *PAOT =Persons At One Time TABLE E.7.2.2:STATEWIDE INVENTORY OF EXISTING RECREATION FACILITIES BY REGION Region: Facilities: Southcentral*Southeast Southwest Interior Northwest Total j ) ,I Camping Units 2328 Remote Cabins 70 Picnic Tables 1185 picnic Shelters 16 Boat Launches 79 Boat Moorages 1723 Canoe Trails(mi)339 Horse Trails(mi)271 Walk/Run Trails(mi)944 Bicycle Trails(mi)76 ATV/ORV Trails(mi)702 X-C Ski Trails(mi)523 Dog-mushing Trails(mi)450 Ski Lifts/Tows 11 Golf Courses 5 Tennis Courts 89 Basketball Courts 183 Volleyball Courts 62 Swimming Pools 13 ··SoItbaITlsaseball F1elcfs 134 Soccer/Football Fields 32 Track &Field 14 Target Shooting Ranges 9 Ice Skating Rinks 106 Playgrounds 215 *Location of proposed Susitna Project 351 149 332 30 38 2759 34 409 2 7 20 35 19 2 21 8 4 2 2 20 484 33 767 9 44 22 84 1 59 44 300 7 13 38 11 15 fa 6 2 1 5 11 31 20 1 1 2 2 3194 252 2304 55 162 4483 395 271 1439 77 761 569 750 25 5 122 256 92 30 185 46 22 12 113 246 ') 1 ,I 1 1 ,j J I j I '1' :--0 . I '!I TABLE E.7.2.3:PERCENTAGE OF ADULT POPULATION PARTICIPATION IN INLAND OUTDOOR RECREATION:SOUTHCENTRAL REGION Activities Percentage of Participation Driving for Pleasure 59% Walking/Running for Pleasure 53% Fishing (freshwater)42% Attending Sports Events 37% Tent Camping 31% Motor Boating 30% Cross Country Skiing 26% RV Camping 24% Hiking w/Pack 22% Baseball/Softball 19% Flying for Pleasure 19% Kayaking/Canoeing 17% Sledding/Tobogganing 17% Winter ORVIS 17% Alpine Skiing 17% Outdoor Tennis 17% Swimming (freshwater)17% Summer ORV/Motorcycles 14% Other 11% Football/Soccer 7% Outdoor Basketball 7% Horseback Riding 7% Sailing (freshwater)5% Water Skiing (freshwater)5% Golfing 4% Outdoor Hockey 2% Hang Gliding 0% Source:ADNR 1981 and Clark et ale 1981 TABLE IE.,7.2.4:ALASKA S'L'ATE PARK SYSTEM VISITOR COUNT SUMMARY 1 19 ,18*1979*1980* Park District Residentj Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Mat-Su 343,5J2 69,513 372,212 61,958 580,829 94,523 Copper Basin 85,394 59,071 167,014 82,682 66,615 32,148 : Chugach 490,8~3 .76,869 1,456,556 234,671 516,976 108,507 Kenai 116,lf 29,118 418,986 84,470 615,542 146,132 Interior 39,5~0 ,18,312 197,300 41,866 19,702 Southeast 367,25,6 I 630,883 126,841 59,729 119,026 89,747 i Total ;1,442,6~2 883,766 2,738,909 523,510 1,940,854 490,760 Combined Total 2,326,448 3,262,429 2,431,614 I 'Note:*1978 and 1979 fie~d idata are based u~on non-standardized format. *1980 field data arle ~ased upon a comButer stratified sampling system with incidental c~u~ts. 1980 data do not indlude the months of October,November,and December. ! Source:ADNR 1981 .~'---'..........---------""---"""~-_.."\-"--~~',--.--'---- TABLE E.7.2.5:EXISTING TRAILS IN THE STUDY AREA Trail Type 1 Cat,ORV 2 Cat,ORV 3 Cat 4 Packhorse,Old Sled Road 5 ATV Trail Type 6 Snodgrass Lake Trail 7 Portage Creek Trail 8 Susitna River Trail Beginning Gold Creek Gold Creek Alaska Railroad mile 232 Chunilna Denali Highway Beginning Denali Highway Chunilna Near Cantwell Middle Ridge top west of VABM Clear Portage Creek Butte Lake Middle End Devil Canyon Confluence of John &Chunilna Creeks Chunilna Creek Mermaid Lake Tsusena Lake End Snodgrass Lake Portage Creek to Maclaren River Years Used 1950s -present 1961 -present 1957 -present 1920s -present 1950s -present Use Foot,snowmobile skis Sled road, foot use Dry,snowmobiles and foot 9 Talkeetna Trails Random throughout the southern portion of the study area Unknown Curry Ridge Hiking Parks Highway at Hiking Troublesome Creek Crossing 10 Stephan Lake Trail 11 Big Lake Trail 12 Butte Creek Trail 13 Byers Lake Trail 14 Little Coal Creek 15 Curry Ridge Trail Susitna River Denali Highway Near Butte Lake Denali Highway near the Susitna Bridge Byers Lake Parks Highway Park Highway at Little Coal Creek Stephan Lake Big and Deadman Lakes Butte Creek drainage Byers Lake Best portaging Biking &off road vehicles Off road vehicles &hiking Hiking Note:Existing trails are shown in Figure E.7.4 Sources:TES 1982;ADNR 1980,and undated;Alaska State Parks undated. , TABLE E.7.3.1:ESTIMATED RECREATION DEMAND, 6,700 Big Game Hunting Assumed 1980 Use of Project Recreation Area User Daysl1 800 Waterfowl,f ~UIiting !lod Freshwater Fishing 1,500 Developed Camping 4,000 Canoeingl Kayaking Hiking 200 Picnicking X-Country Skiing 100 Total Estimated Year 2000 Use of Project Recreation Area Without Susitna Project, User Days l1 1,300 +2,500 8,00011 370 220 12,540 Estimated Year 2000 Use of Project Recreation Area With Susitna Project Recreation Plan, User Days!:il 2,200- 2,400 , i 170 I I 4,800- 5,200 12,000- 14,000 1002/ 12,000-12,000.... 14,00021 14,000QI 350 43,520 I Project Recreation Area;is the area enclosed by the Parks Highway,Nenana River,the Susitna River to the east,and about rO Imiles south of the Susitna River. Derived by applying regional population Assumed doubling of EDAW estimate. Notes:II II ]../ !:il il f!1 Decreases due to Same as developed ~s~umed percentage increases in annual-per-capital participation days and projected increase to 1980 use., I ~9~0 capacity only.Demand as calculated in Note 2 would be 9,700. I !• impacts on resource.i ! i ! :.I camp~ng. ---"---'.-...:...--....,;-.....-----''-----.-.:....--:.',-------- TABLE E.7.5.1:RECOMMENDED PROJECT RECREATION AREA MANAGEMENT ZONE DESCRIPTIONS (Page 1 of 2) Management Zone RECREA TI ONAl DEVELOPMENT ZONE NATURAL ZONE Purpose and Characteristics Recreational development zones are estab- lished within State Park System units to meet the more intensive recreational needs of the public with convenient and well-defined access via roads,railroads,boating anchorages,airstrips,and high standard trails;with more intensively-developed recreational facilities such as campgrounds or picnic areas;with gUided activities;and with information centers to orient visitors to the unit's special features. The landscape wi thin this zone can be modified to support educational and recreational activities and/or to enhance wildlife habitat and scenic qualities. These zones are established where soils, slope,drainages and vegetation can support more intensive recreational activities. Fire suppression and insect and disease control may be used,where appropriate, wi th this zone to maintain or enhance recreational use.A recreational development zone may already have been influenced by prior developments and is intended to provide a transition area to absorb heavy human impacts. Natural zones are established to provide for moderate-to low-impact and dispersed forms of recreation and to act as buffers between recreational development and wilderness zones. These zones are relatively undeveloped and undisturbed,and are managed to maintain high scenic qualities and to provide visitors with opportunities for significant natural outdoor experiences.An area's natural landscape character is the dominant feature within this zone.landscape modiFication may be within this zone. landscape modification may be allowed to enhance,maintain,or protect the natural setting according to the unit management plan.Use of Fire suppression,insect or disease control,or wildiife habitat enhancement as management techniques in natural zones would be defined in the unit Development and Activity Guidelines The highest level of developments and activities is meant to occur in this zone within park units.The developments allowed in this zone include (but are not limited to) roads and trails,private vehicle and public transportation routes or access,campgrounds, picnic areas,visitor and interpretive centers,high-standard trails for all ages and abilities,park management facilities and commercial lodges or resorts as provided for wi thin the uni t manngement or si te development plan.High intensity activities related to the use of these developed facilities are generally encouraged.Summer and winter off-road vehicles (ORV's)and other motorized recreational vehicles may be allowed in the zone within specifically designated areas or through management techniques such as time and/or space allocations. Developments in a natural zone are intended to provide for the safety of park visitors and to provide for a moderate level of convenience in a high-quali ty natural setting.Allowable developments include (but are not limited to)backcountry shelters,public-use cabins,high standard hiking and bicycle trails (paved or gravel), bridges and roads where necessary to access development zones and as provided For in an approved management plan.A medium level of activity is encouraged in this zone. Activities include (but are not limited to) hang-gliding,bicycling,backpacking, fishing,hunting,cross-country skiing, camping,sledding,tobogganning,berry picking and rock climbing.Snowmobiles may be allowed in this zone (within speci fically designated areas)depending on resource sensitivities and potential conflicts with other park uses.Other private,motorized off-road vehicle use is ted zone. Source:ADNR 1982c TABLE E.7.5.1 (Page 2 of 2) I 1 Management Zone BACK COUNTRY/ WILDERNESS ZONE Purpose and Characteristics Wilderness zones are established to promote, to perpetuate and,where necessary,to restore the wilderness character of the land and its specific values of solitude, physical and mental challenge,scientific study,inspiration and primitive recreational opportunities. Wilderness zones are of such size as to maintain the area's wilderness character,are tailored to protect the associated values and,if possible,are defined by watershed boundaries.These zones are characterized by the natural landscape,its vegetation and its geologic forms.Resource modi fication can occur-in this zone only.to restore areas to a natural state.Natural processes would be allowed to operate freely to the extent that human safety and pUblic and private property are protected.The use of fire suppression and insect and disease control as management techniques may occur only through the implementation of a plan approved by the .director_of._the.Division ..of .E'arks_.~_WildlHe habitat enhancement activities,such as vegetation manipulation,may not occur in this zone. Development and Activity Guidelines A wilderness zone should have no man-made conveniences within its boundaries except for the most primitive of trails with minimum trail maintenance,bridges,and signing. Developments or other improvements will be undertaken only if it has been determined by the Director of the Division of Parks that significant threats to public safety exist or in order to reduce adverse impacts on the area's resources and values.Access to and within this zone,for other than rescue or management purposes,would be by foot or other non-motorized means except for 1)use of designated aircraft-landing access sites where alternative means of access do not exist,_2)authorized research projects,or 3) situations specifically allowed by law. Aircraft landing for recreational access or research purposes may be restricted by the director as to daily time or season of use. The dropping of people or objects from aircraft is prohibited except by special permit issued by the director.Acti vi ties ___.wh i G.b..t h l'as!t e n_t he_9tH!]:'a ct~l'.--.ClJ tl!e wilderness zone would be restricted.If overuse or misuse occurs,the director may restrict entry and use of the area.Methods of restriction may include separation and control of use activities through time and space alloction,use/area rotation schemes, and/or a permit system. .J ,j .._'j .1 ..1 ,f .J 1 '~. TABLE E.7.5.2:CONSTRUCTION WORK FORCE ESTIMATES Workers in Camp Married Workers and*Total Population Peak Single Status Dependents in Village On-Site Stage Work force (Average Annual (Average Annual)(Average Annual Stage Years Year (Peak)for Stage)(Peak)for Stage**)(Peak)for Stage) Watana I 1991-1999 1997 2,315 880 1,023 396 3,338 1,276 Devil Canyon II 1996-2005 2003 1,412 414 528 152 1,940 566 Watana III 2006-2012 2009 1,383 596 624 294 2,007 890 OPERATION WORK FORCE ESTIMATES AT WATANA Years 1999-2004 2005-2017 2017- O&M Workers 87 92 60 Dependents * 200 212 138 Population 1n Permanent Town 287 304 198 *Each Iworker is assumed to be accompanied by 2.3 dependents. **Aver~ges assume 10 to 13 percent of the work force are married with dependents on site. iTABLEE.7.5.3:PROPOSED RECREATION PLAN fOR CONSTRUCTION CAMPS,VILLAGES,AND PERMANENT TOWNSITE (Page 1 of 2) I !Stage I Stage II Stage III Proposed facilities And Activities Indoor Activities a Gymnasium Basketball/Volleyball Track Weight/Exercise Room Tennis Swimming Pool Sauna/Steam Room/Jacuzzi Shower/Locker Rooms a Recreation Hall Movie/Multi-purpose Space Lounge/Video Tape Viewing, Game Room-Darts/Video Games/Cards Hobby Room/Workshop ,Community Greenhouse Rest Rooms 'Darkroom Wa~ana Single- status Camp 2,315 Workers Peak 1997 x X X X X X X X X X X X Watana family- st~tU!3 Village 310 families 1,023i Population Peak 1997 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Watana Permanent Townsitei 92 families 304 Popu~ation After 1998 ®school ®school ®school ®scrool ®school ®scrool ! ®sC,hool Devil Canyon Single-status Camp 1,412 Workers Peak 2003 Devil Canyon family-Status Village 160 families 528 Population Watana Single- status Camp 1383 Workers Peak 2009 Watana family- status Village 189 families 624 Population Peak 2009 o ,Clubhouse 'Library/Reading Room Snack Bar/Vending Machines Convenience/Sundry Store Post Office Bank Rest Rooms '---' X X X X X X X X X X X X ®sqhool IX X iXIx ! ·__1 '__"-"l TABLE E.7.5.31(Page 2 of 2) Stage I Stage II Stage III Watana family-Watana Permanent Devil Canyon Watana Family- Watana Single-status Village Townsite Devil Canyon Family-status Watana Single-status Village status Camp 310 Families 92 Families Single-status Camp Village status Camp 189 Families Proposed Faci ities 2,315 Workers 1,023 Population 304 Population 1,412 Workers 160 families 1,383 Workers 624 Population And Activitie Peak 1997 Peak 1997 After 1998 Peak 2003 528 PODulation Peak 2009 Peak 2009 Outdoor Activ ties o Developed F cilities Softball X X ®school X X Football/50 cer/Lacro3se X X ®school X X Basketball/olley ball X X ®school X X Same Facilities as Tennis X X ®school X X Stage I -Rehabili- Picnic/Barb cue Area X X tated. Playground/oUot X ®school X o Non-Structu al Activities Ice Skating Hockey ®Lakes ®Lakes ®Lakes Boating ®Lakes ®Lakes ®Lakes Hiking/Jogg ng Trails X X X X X Regulated F shing X X X X X Cross Count y Ski Trails X X X X X Snowshoeing X X X X X Sledding X X X X X TABLE E.7.6.l:SUGGESTED INTERPRETIVE PROGRAM THEMES FOR VISITOR CENTERS AND SURROUNDINGS (Page 1 of 2) Personal or INTERPRETIVE Attended Non-Personal or THEME AND MEDIA MATRIX Services Unattended Services I c 0 -.-I ..u Ul al o-i ..u .:;,{.Ul -.-I Ul ..... P Primary Ul Ul Ul ..u al o-i .....=ID Ul Ul -0 ..u •.-1 r-.ID al S Secondary o-i -0 c::e r-.'.-1 .c Ul ..u .c Ul ..u=0 Ul 0 al al .c '.-1 o-i Ul al ID Ul r-.§~r-.'.-1 ~0 Ul -.-I .J::-.-I -0 C o-i Ul ..u ::I ..u .c 3:.J::X al ID 0 al C C '.-1 ::I 0 al 0 0 X ID r-.-0 '.-1 -0 ID 0 0 ..u -0 ..u r-.r-.c .J::ID ..u -.-I ..u c o-i -.-I CJ al ..u 0.•.-1 Ul r-.'::1 -al .al ID Ul~g -0 Ul ..u r-.o c ~CJ r-.Ul~Ul Ul ID C ID ID Ul ID 0 o C -.-I Ul 0 ID 0 -.-I .:;,{..:;,{.-0 0 -0 o-i e -0 0 -0 -.-I .....o-i C -.-I .Ul CJ THEME ..u .....>o-i o-i -.-I e -.-I o-i o-i -.-I -0 ..u .:;,{.o-i .c c -0 >3:C C C 0 al al ::I ID o-i ::I -.-I o-i C ::I -.-I ID ::I -.-I al . ID!0U.J .....c:::....3:t.:J 0 trlCO u..trI .....0 :J:trI c..trI c:::....zu ~roJect Purposes S S P S S P P .--''_..•-~-I~-~--._.._-~..~1-·--1---_....-1-"....~ Project Benefits and Impacts S S S P S P P Recreation Opportunities P P P P S S P S P S S S S Recreation Facilities, .Services and Safe ty --_.•..•...•.•...._..-P P ,...-I·P P Sop S .-.....P-p.S S·S .-. _.. .-I~ Points of Interest P P S P S P P S S Wildlife Habitat and Food .S P S S P P ,'c .......,.. Energy Cycles in Natural .,." Communities -S -,.S S S P .. The Aquatic Environment S S P Tundra Ecology S P S S S P S P 1 \ J .I .1 J J 'I TABLE E.7.6.l (Page 2 of 2) !PersonalI or !INTERPRETIVE Attended Non-Personal or THEME AND MEDIA MATRIX Services Unattended Services ( ! ! 'I I c: 0 'M...,(fl t1l ...-t I ...,~(fl 'M (fl .... 1 P Primary (fl (fl (fl ...,t1l ...-t ....I =OJ (fl (fl "1:l ...,'M ""'OJ t1l S =Secondary ...-t "1:l c:e ""''M ..0 (fl ...,..0 (fl ..., 0 (fl 0 t1l t1l ..0 'M ...-t (fl t1l OJ (fl ""'c::>""''M ""'0 (fl 'M .c 'M "1:l c:...-t (fl I ...,0 ...,:::l ...,g ..0 3:.c x t1l OJ 0 t1l c:c:'M :::l 0 t1l 0 X OJ ""'"1:l 'M "1:l OJ 0!0 ...,"1:l ..., ""'""'c:.c OJ ...,'M ...,c:...-t 'M )CJ t1l ...,0-'M (fl ""':::l t1l t1l OJ (fl e g "1:l (fl ..., ""'o 0 0 CJ ""'(fl :>""'(fl (fl OJ c:OJ Ql (fl Ql 0 0 c:I 'M (fl 0 Ql ""'0 'M ~~"1:l o "1:l ...-t e "1:l 0 "1:l 'M .......-t c:'M .(fl CJ THEME ...,....:>...-t ...-t 'M e 'M ...-t ...-t 'M "1:l ...,~...-t ..0 0 "1:l >3:c:c:c:0 t1l t1l :::l Ql ...-t :::l 'M ...-t c::::l 'M OJ :::l 'M t1l .OJ 0 UJ .....a::I-3:t!J 0 U'l a:l u..U'l .....0 :I:U'l 0..U'l a::I-z u I Historical and I Cultural Resources S S S S S P S Si Rules and Regulations P P P S P P P S Watersheds and Water Quality S S S S Resource Protection S S S S S S P P S S P S S S S Wildlife and Fisheries Management S S S P S P S S S Glaciers and Their Actions S S P S S P Early Man and the Environment S S S S S P S S S Archaeology at the Project S S S S P S S Development of Regional Native Cultures S S S P TABLE E.7.7.1:ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF PROJECT RECREA nON PLAN (Page 1 of 5) Recreation Setting PHASE ONE 198s21 1985 Unit Cost Total Cost Facilities SiteY Total Phase Total J A -Susitna River/Denali Highway Bridge Boatlaunch B -Watana Construction Camp and Townsite worker Recreation Plan 1 Boatlaunch(upgraded) 10 Vehicle/trailer parking spaces 2 Signs 1 Trash receptable Recreation facilities for project workers ~.5=M~lepl'irn~t~ye trailY 1 Sign,3 trail markers 2 Scenic pulloffs (4 parking spaces 1 interpretive sign) $40,000 2,000 350 250 1,300/mi 950 8,500 $40,000 20,000 700 250 l! 1,950 950 17,000 $60,950 19,900 C -Middle Fork Chulitna River/ caribou Pass Trail D -Project Entry Sign 17-Mile primitive trailY 2 Bridges -_._.~-_....•....•._•.•...._._._..__.._-_._._....._._----------_........• 4 Trail markers 1 TrailheacJ!!/ 6 Trailhead parking spaces 1 Interpretive sign 5 Parking spaces 1,300/mi 6,50o.V J 2,100 4,200 200 ~-800 11,300 1,300 2,000 12.000 24,800 1 5,000 5,000 2,000 10,000 .~l......15,000 $120,650} TABLE E.7.7.1 (Page 2 of 5) 198sV 1985 SiteY Phase Unit Cost Total Cost Total Total Recreation Setting Facilities PHASE TWO E -Watana Damsite T~mporary 1 Temporary (800 sq ft)$lOO/sq ft $80,000 Visitor Center and Boat visitor exhibit building Access 10 Parking spaces 2,000 20,000 Interpretive Exhibits 12,000 12,000 0.5-Mile Interpretive Developed 6,500/mi 3,250 Trail 1 Single vault toilet 12,000 12,000 2 Picnic units 2J 3,500 7,000 1 Watana reservoir boat access 21,050 21,050 (10 vehicle/trailer parking spaces,2 signs,trash can) 1 Downstream boat access 21,050 21,050 (10 Vehicle/trailer parking spaces,2 signs,trash can) $176,350 F - Tsusena Creek/Caribou 26-Mile primitive trailll 1,300/mi 33,800 Pass Trail 4 Trail markers 200 800 1 Trailheac#/1,300 1,300 5 Trailhead parking spaces 2,000 10,000 45,900 G-Susitna Entrance 10 Developed campsitesEI 8,000 80,000 Campground 1 Double vault toilet 16,000 16,000 1 Trash dumpster 500 500 1 Bulletin board 500 500 2 Signs 350 700 1 Water well 22,000 22,000 0.5-Mile road (14 ft Width)380,000/mi 190,000 309,700 H -Deadman/Big Lake Trail 4-Mile primitive trailll 1,300/mi 5,200 1 Trailheac#/1,300 1,300 6 Trailhead parking spaces 2,000 12,000 18,500 TABLE E.7.7.1 (Page 3 of 5) 198~1985 Unit Cost Total Cost SiteY Phase Total Total Recreation Setting Facilities I -Stephan Lake Portage Campsite 8 Semi-primitive campsites 2 Signs $500 350 $4,000 700 I J .\ $563,650 j 8,500 $4,700 12,000 10,500 10,000 30,000 1,750 800 21,050 750,000 75,000 4,875 1J 8,500 ......... 8,500 150/sq.ft 75,000 6,500/mi ..12,tro-O 3,500 10,000 2,000 350 200 21,05011 Recreation facilities for Project workers 1 Scenic pull off (4 parking spaces,1 interpretive sign) PHASE THREE J -Devil Canyon Construction Camp and Village Worker Recreation Plan K-Devil Canyon Damsite Visitor 1 Visitor center (5,000 sq ft) Center and Boat Access Interpretive program development 0.75-Mile developed Interpretive trail ......I·sIngle vault·toilet 3 Picnic units21 1 Picnic shelter· 15 Parking spaces 5 Signs 4 Benches 1 Reservoir boat·access (10 Vehicle/trailer parking, .--......'..····'·····2-Signs,.··trash·can )11_____'--- ..-.-.------------..---l-·Downstl'eam-boat..access-.-'-__-~r~21,05.0_._~21,050 ... (10,Parking spaces,2 signs, 1 Trash can) 937,025 L -Devil Creek Falls Trail 7-Mile developed trail 2 Trail markers 1 Bridge ..._1 Trailhead#!...::..:...:_ 6 Parking spaces 6,500/mi 200 2,100 1,3.00 2,000 45,500 400 2,100 1,300 12,000 63,300 I ) TABLE E.7.7.l (Page 4 of 5) 198521 1985 SiteY Phase Unit Cost Total Cost Total Total Recreation Setting Facilities M-Tsusena Butte and Tsusena 2.5-Mile developed trail $6,500/mi $16,250 Creek Falls Trails 9-Mile primitive trails 1,300/mi 5,200 5-Mile develop~d trail 1,300/mi 6,500 1 Trailhead 1,300 1,300 1 Interpretive sign 500 500 8 Parking spaces 2,000 16,000 $45,750 N -Mermaid Lake Campground 12 Developed campsites 8,000 96,000 1 Double vault toilet 6,000 16,000 1 Trash dumpster 500 SOO 1 Bulletin board 500 SOD 2 Signs 3S0 700 1 Water well 22,000 22,000 0.75 Road (14 ft width)380,000/mi 28S,000 420,700 °-Devil Canyon Dam Overlook 0.7S-Mile developed trail 6,SOO/mi 4,87S 1 Interpretive sign SOO SOD 1 Bench 200 200 1 Trailhea~1,300 1,300 S Parking spaces 2,000 10,000 16,875 PHASE FOUR $1,48l,6S0 P -Watana Permanent 1 Visitor center (3,000 sq.ft)l50/sq ft 450,000 Visitor Center Interpretive program development 100,000 100,000 I-Mile developed interpretive trail 6,SOO/mi 6,500 3 Picnic units21 3,SOO 10,500 1 Picnic shelter 10,000 10,000 1 Single vault toilet 12,000 12,000 15 Parking spaces 2,000 30,000 5 Signs 350 1,750 4 Benches 200 800 621,550 $621,550 TABLE E.7.7.1 (Page 5 of 5) -Total Construction Cost (1985 $)Phases 1-4 $Z,787,50ail Notes: .l/Costs for worker recreation facilities are included in camp village construction cost. l!Primitive trail development cost assumes minor brushing out in areas. 2/Includes trail construction through public land only.Does not include construction within designated trail easements..,' AI Trailhead includes one sign,trail register,and trash receptacle. 21 Picnic unit includes four tables,two grills,one trash receptacle. ~Developed campsite includes parking space,bumper log,bench,tent pad,table and grill. 11 Cost for boat access and ramp are included under project cost for haul roads. -~~-~----~-~-------------------------------~~----------~~---------~-- J TABLE E.7.7.2:ADDITIONAL STAFF REQUIRED AND STAFF EXPENSES TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN SUSITNA PROJECT RECREATION FACILITIES -1985 DOLLARS Phase ONE TWO 1998-2008 THREE 2008-2014 Job Class No staff ,1/ 1 Recreation Mgr./ranger,12 mos. 1 Park Technician,6 mos. Uniform Allowance Plus 25%Administration Costs 1 Park Technician,6 mos. Uniform Allowance Plus 25%Administration Costs Annual Phase Three Staff Annual Cost $33,000 11,500 650 45,150 11,200 56,350 11,500 325 11,825 2,925 14,750 56,350 71,100 Phase Duration 6 years 6 years Total Cost.1./ $338,100 426,600 FOUR 2015- 1 Ranger,12 mos. 1 Park Technician,6 mos. Uniform Allowance Plus 25%Administration Costs Annual Phase Four Staff Cost TOTAL 31,500 11,500 650 43,650 10,900 $54,550 +71,100~/ 125,650 35 years5../4,397,750 5,162,450Ji / .1./Does not consider cost of inflation 1/Assumes ADNR and/or BLM staff. 1/Annual cost for Phase Two. ~/Annual cost for Phase Three. 5../Assumes a project life of 50 years §tarting in 1999. Q/Does not include $100,000 for sur~ey monitoring. TABLE E.7.7.3:ADDITIONAL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT TO BE PURCHASED FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AS PART OF THE SUSITNAPROJECT'S RECREATIONPLAN*-1985 DOLLARS Phase ONE TWO THREE Fad li ties and Equipment No additional needed 1 pickup Tools Supplies 2 pickups Tools Supplies Total Cost Unit Cost $12,000 $12,000 550 550 4,500 4,500 17,050 12,000 24,000 1,100 1,100 4,500 4,500 1.) j J ·l j 1 1,·,1 •,.1,~ *Approximately 5,000 sq.ft.of management center,shop,and storage space would be provided by the Applicant in project buildings. FOUR TOTAL 1 pickup ----.-------suppl-ies 12,000 ---4-,--'500- 29,600 12,000 --.----..--.--~c4",--'500--­ 16,500 $63,150 J J ) j FIGURES -~. STUDY k I EXISTING 2 RECREATION 4 DESIGNATE 5 OBJECTIV S RECREATION OPPORTUNITY RECREATION EVALUATION SITES -MAN1EMENT -LOCATION 6 OBJE TIVES -ACCESS -QUALITY OF SITES -PRIORITY -AGEN Y -TYPE -DURABILITY -CONTENT a USE WPHASING OBJE TIVES -USE -VARIETY -OBJECTIVES IMPLEMENTATION -RECR ATION -NEED AND DEMAND -DEMAND COSTS GOAL -SITE CAPACITY -SITE DETAILS -MANAGEMENT -CAPACITY OBJECTIVES (THE PLAN) 21ri -OPERATIONAL RECREATION CHARACTERISTICS USER NEEDS -DEMAND NUMBERS -USER PROFILE INTRINSIC RECREATION POTENTIAL -QUALITY -ATTRACTIONS -ACCESS -FEATURES (SITE INVENTORY) 3 ALTERNATIVE RECREATION PLANS MONITORING STUDY METHODOLOGY FIGURE E.7.1.1 ') :J J 1 1 j 'J :} iJt iJ . 11 )~ 1/1 /,1 )j' \" 'il ; \" \1 "1, LEGEND: +t+f+l+o RAILROAD EXTENSION ----PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD ---PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE ----INTERTIE r~~~1IMPOUNDMENT AREA T.1Iot. T.III. T.'N. T.lOII. T.lIl!. T.l~IS. T.20 5. '1.10 W. ....j'.. ..r/" ..~..- \) 8 MILES J o 4 SCALE f!'m , R.OE. 'UUt. R.B[. ft.IW. PROPOSED PROJECT FEATURES 11.14. T.l!lIlt T.1l11i. j J T.ns. T.14N. I T.IlIN. U T.1211. FIGURE E.7.1.2 I I l .1 I i[ .~ j I, , I 1 1 ,] I ] 1 ] i ] : J i I ] j -I II j J I 1 ] SYMBOL ._.._-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 * r?illiliJill &CD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS SHOWN ON REGIONAL RECREATION MAP (FIGURE E.7.2.1) SITE DEVELOPMENT SUSITNA RECREATION STUDY AREA NATIONAL PARKS,RECREATIONAL AREAS,FORESTS,WILDLIFE REFUGES,MONUMENTS,PRESERVES,AND CONSERVATION AREAS Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge White Mts.National Recreation Area Steese National Conservation Areas Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve Denali National Park Denali National Monument and Preserve Lake Clark.National Park and Preserve Katmai National Park and Preserve Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Kenai Fjords National Park Chugach National Forest Wrangell -St.Elias National Park and.Preserve NATIONAL ~£~D AND SCENIC RIVERS BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RECREATION AREAS· DENALI PLANNING BLOCK BRUSHKANA RIVER CAMPGROUND STATE RECREATION AREAS,RECREATION SITES,HISTORIC PARKS PROPOSED & EXISTING Tokositna Resort (Proposed) Denali State Park (Existing) Willow Creek SRA (Existing) Natcher Pass SRA (Proposed) Independence Mine SHP (Existing) Nancy Lake SRA (Existing) Kel per-Bradl ey SRA (Exi sting) Moose Creek SRS (Existing) Matanuslea Glacier SRS (Existing) Susitna Lake -Tyone Riyer SRA (Proposed) /. I J :.1 j J J .? .J 1 l 1 \ 1 1 ~j ;} j : J l \ SYMBOL SITE DEVELOPMENT 11 Lake Louise SRA (Existing) 12 Little Ne1china SRS (Existing) 13 Worthington Glacier SRS (Existing)-,14 Chugach State Park (Existing)I 15 Izaak -Walton SRS (Existing) 16 Bings Landing SRS (Existing) 17 Ninunqa SHP (Existing) 18 ftlrgans Landing SRA/Funny River SRS (Ex i st i ng) 19 Lower Kenai River SRS (Existing) 20 Slikuk SRS (Existing) 21 Cohoe Beach SRS (proposed) 22 Ninilchik SRA (Existing) 23 Deep Creek SRA (Existing) 24 Anchor River SRA (Existing) 25 Homer Spit (Proposed) 26 Kachemak Bay State Park (Existing) 27 Caines Head SRA {Existing} ------STATE RECREATION RIVERS 28 Tu1 acu1 utna 29 Lake Cr.eek 30 A1 exander Creek 31 Litt1 e Susitna ·32 Kroto Creek 33 Talkeetna 34 Ne1china -Taz1 ina A PRIVATE RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1 North Face Lodge 2 f'tKi n1 ey Vi 11 age Motel 3 Grizzly Bear Camper Park 4 Ca r1 0 Creek Lodge 5 Gracious House Cabins 6 Adventures Unlimited 7 Summit Lake Lodge 8 Tsusena Creek Lodge 9 Stephan Lake Lodge· 10 High lake Lodge 11 Chu1 itna River Lodge 12 Mt.f'tKin1ey View Lodge 13 Montana Creek Lodge I --i / 1 ,J j '!I) ,j .J J J J 1 ( ] J I"J \J 1 1 :J 1 1 r I J L ...~ . SOUTHCENTRAL REG ION o 20 40 MILES SCALE i ! EXISTING AND PROPOSED REGIONAL RECREATION MAP FIGURE E.7.2.1 ] ] ] ] >1 .J J ] j J ] ] J ] j ,j I 1 '] RECREATION ACTIVITIES: g HIKING Ei CROSS COUNTRY SKIING {!DOG SLEDDING e BOATING ~ROCK HUNTING ~BERRY PICKING ~CAMPING =SNOW MACHINING ~TAKE -OUT POINT HUNTING ~SNOWSHOEING ~PUT-IN POINT.~.... ==FISHING ~MOUNTAINEERING m PHOTOGRAPHY a FLYING II OFF-ROAD DRIVING fit SHELTER t:i BIRD WATCHING c;HORSEBACK RIDING WILDLIFE CONCENTRATIONS:o MOOSE 0 SHEEP o CARIBOU o WATER FOWL o BROWN BEAR o BLACK BEAR. LANDSCAPE FEATURES:_...-WATERWAYS ...~...PORTAGE TRAIL III II RAILROADS •TOWNS EXISTING ROADS •STRUCTURES PROPOSED ROADS .,.BUILDING CLUSTERS ---TRAILS *HIGH POINTS_.-SUSITNA WATERSHED BOUNDARY -e MINOR VIEWS ---PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINES ......MAJOR VIEWS 8liliiii111111111.LIMITS OF RECREATION STUDY 11111111111 SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE SETTINGS liliiii11-PARK BOUNDARIES RECREATION LEGEND FIGURE E.7.2.2 ] .J ] ] } 1 J 'J J j ] " J 'J J ] J 1 ] j T.29N. R.4 'N. R.6W.R.SW. EXISTING.RECREATION R.4E. T.225. T.llN. T.e". T.1N. R.IO If/. o 4 8 MILES SCALE ~"""""~~"'_G&_.I I FIG URE E.Z 2.2. ) I ····1 'i " 1 . \ j i ,I :.> ] .] 1 ] ] ] '1 , I J I 1 ] I ] ,j 1 ,1 ] ] RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ZONE ,.PROJECT RECREATION "-STUDY AREA BOUNDARY l~ifffji(}:~1 BACKCOUNTRY ;:;:;:::;:;:;::::::::::{;WILDERNESS ZONE "'---PROPOSED ACCESS ~ROAD •:~:~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::NATURAt ZONE...............:.:.:.:.:. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSlTNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT \\L..__L[\,!"'-, ~>H1L1l:.1OE. I ______________-'-~S:C~A~LE~O~i::::4liiii.::~~~M:I~LE:S_~~===~C~O~NC~E~P~T~~~~~LIFIGUREE.7.5.1 I I 1 I " 1:2911. I I i J ,\ J Ij i I -~----~\_." 1 ] 1 ] I ] ] ) -,],.-J '1 1 j ) I j ) I I j- 1 i j I i1•!L~~'~~~'<''~·lO_""'~"~"'.~_;»t:I~,>I',»(""'~I"'_Io>''~'_._._._._._._""""'I"I'_.~._--~~,.---,_.._----------- ,1 , j ,1 j 1 1 ?~j ] J ) ] l I i 1 .j I .) J .... RECREATION SITES E'-:7-.-5.-'-'3-11 j 7/19/85 APPROVED O"'-TE iXlL1l00Z<£0 filrn&~Q) ~I.JSIT"'",.,:11,..1 "["'TV"*' ANCHORAGE,ALASKA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY I l-------~._=_=__=_=_--------I SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SJ..----=-=.:..:..:-:.:....:...:...:..=.:.:..==---.--:-=---------1 ~~ .5mi.l''~"'~'~k~~~ j l.J I J 0\~c U -------- ] , 1 ,] J -1 ] :1 j I J l ,I ,) ,} J SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY E.7.5.4 MAWING NO.7/19/85DATEANCHORAG~ALASKA ;] 1 ] ·] ] :] :] :j 1 1 ·I ·I .! · 1 , j , 1 I ] :1 l~~ --rl DRAWING NO:E.i .5.6. BACK COUNTRY CABIN a CAMPGROUND PARKING /ENTRANCE SIGN APPROvED SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ...VISITOR CENTER •••••••••RECREATION TRAILS • •...PROJECT ACCESS ROADS____PROJECT HAUL ROADS ~BOAT LAUNCH' *'VIEWPOINT LEGEND ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY c: ANCHORAGE,ALASKA DATE 7/19/85 1XILi\OO2UiI.§~ "-'StTM4 JOIIofT 'o'fHl't.i•• Ij IJ --- ;j,. ,-J } ] 1 :0] .~].• •0 1 OJ 1 1 ] 1 1 J .1 :1 1 r ....., .,.- e _....\ SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT RECREATION SITES FIGURE E.7.5.5 E i I )J II SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT E.7.5.7 MAWING NO. "7/19/85 DATE RECREATION SITES ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 1JM\.OO2Z&-1!l!lLM\©@ SUSITHA .IOIIof1''-"NTU".AP'PRWEO '., 3J36 To Tsusena Creek Falls 1 ] ] J ] i ] ~J , J -j 1 ] :\ 1 1 ] J ] ] r u LEGEND •••••••••RECREATION TRAILS WMWM M PROJECT ACCESS ROADS ....-..PROJECT HAU~ROADS ~BOAT LAUNCH '*VIEWPOINTaCAMPGROUND PARKING/ENTRANCE SIGN BACK COUNTRY CABIN ..VISITOR CENTER NOTES LETTERS AND PHASE NUMBERS REFER TO LIST OF RECREATION FACILITIES ON TABLE E.7.7.1. 0,..; RECREATION SITES FIGURE E.7.5.9 RECREATION SITES SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 23 10 '/i-~----------~--------I I I I I ! ! t··," --4:,-----'-.~·-i~- , I 1 I I \ I j I. ..L I .J .} 1 J 1 .~j 1 .j l j ] j ] j :J ] J j '.....·".f FIGURE E.7.5.10 RECREA TION SITES SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY (~,~.-.-t1f'-~''''~'_.~.__... \ /-<~'~i~\··..' ....~;':lt~:!l'i,;;~lf\ ,, i I.',I:;!;,I·:,\: I .~;\~ "\ .......'\:.<':,.'\\\' ;.:t".,I,.....•.. I J \\1 I ( ! 1 J ] J ] J ] 'j .J ] ] 1 J J J .. ",'., \ "\ I ~~ ![ APPENDICES l 1 I , 1 1, APPENDIX E 1.7 DATA ON REGIONAL RECREATION FACILITIES J 1 EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 APPENDIX El.7 DATA ON REGIONAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ] ,1 , 1 .1 I j I ,) .;.~ I 1 } ,1 1 'l 1 ,1 j J TABLE El.7.1:DATA ON REGIONAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (Page 1 of 7) E~isting Site Development ~sitna Area Recreation Developments Managing Agency Area Accommodations H~gh Lake Lodge and Airstrip Stiephan Lake Lodge and A~rstrip T$usena Lake Lddge and Airstrip D Denali Planning Block Brushkana River Campground Clearwater Creek Camping Area Tangle Lakes Campgrounds and Boat Launch Upper Tangle Lakes Campground and Boat Launch Adventures Unlimited Lodge &Cafe Gracious House Cabins, Cafe,Guide Services P+rks Highway Recreation Areas 5 kilometers (3 miles) N.E.of Devil Canyon damsite at High Lake 16 km (10 miles)S.W. of Watana damsite at Stephan Lake 16 km (10 miles)N.W. of Watana damsite at Tsusena Lake ment Denali Highway,Mile 105 Denali Highway,Mile 55.9 Denali Highway,Mile 21.5 Denali Highway,Mile 21.7 Denali Highway,Mile 100 Denali Highway,Mile 82 Private Private Private Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management Private(b) Private III acres 42 acres 49 acres 4,500,000 acres 47 acres 25 acres 47 acres 25 acres Unknown Unknown 8 units or 15 people 24 units or 45 people 8 units or 15 people 33 campsites No development 13 campsites 7 campsites Unknown Unknown Mt.11cKinley View Lodge Md:Kinley KOA D~nali National Park amd Preserve Parks Highway,Mile 325.8 Parks Highway,Mile 248 Parks Highway,Mile 237.7 Private Private National Park Service Unknown Unknown 5.7 m.acres Unknown ·70 campsites 228 campsites TABLE E1.7.1 (Page 2 of 7) Existing Site Deve~opment II i (a) Location Managing Agency Area Accommodations A Riley Cr~ek Campground B Morino Campground C Savage River iCampground D Sanctuary River Campground E Teklanika,River F Igloo Creek Campground G Wonder Lake Campground McKinley Village Motel, Restaurant ' Parks Highway Recreation Areas North Face Lodge Grizzly Bear Camper Park Campground,Raft Trips Carlo Creek Lodge East Fork Rest Area Denali State Park Tokositna Resort Byers Lake Rest Area Byers Lake iWayside Chulitna River Lodge &Cafe Cabins,Fly-in Fishing, Glacier Trips,Raft Trips Mt.McKinley View Lodge Montana CreekLodg~ Campground,Cabins' Willow Creek Recreation Area Willow Creek Wayside ! (Crnt d) P~rks Highway,Mile 231.]Private Unknown Unknown ! i Mf.iMCKinley Park Road Private Unknown 15 campsites P~rks Highway,Mile 231.1 Private Unknown Unknown Ii, Private Unknown UnknownP~rks Highway,Mile 223.9 P~r~s Highway,Mile 185.7 Alaska Division of Parks Unknown Unknown ! :p~rks Highway,Mile 132 Alaska Division of Parks 421,120 acres Unknown to 169 pjarJs Highway,West of Alaska Division of Parks 43,240 acres Unknown Mile 135 1aris Highway,Mile 147.2 Alaska Division of Parks Unknown Unknown Plarks Highway,Mile 147 Alaska Division of Parks Unknown 61 campsites 1aris Highway,Mile 156.2 15 picnic sites Private Unknown Unknown I [ ~ar~s Highway,Mile 134.5 Private Unknown Unknown I ,aris Highway,Mile 96.5 Private Unknown Unknown I ~ar~s Highway,Mile 71.2 Alaska Division of Parks 97 hectares Unknown i i (240 acres) I '~ar~s Highway,Mile 71.2 Alaska Division of Parks 90 acres 17 campsites ''----'~'---''---.'------'-- TAIBLE E1.7.1 (Page 3 of 7) (a) Exasting Site Development Location Managing Agency Area Accommodations Pa~ks HiQhway Recreation Areas (Cont'd) cy Lake Recreation Area Parks Highway,Mile 67.2 Alaska Division of Parks 22,685 acres 136 campsites cy Lake Wayside Parks Highway,Mile 66.6 Alaska Division of Parks 35 acres 30 campsites 30 picnic sites th Rolly Lake Campground Parks Highway,Mile 67 Alaska Division of Parks Unknown 106 campsites 20 picnic sites ston Campground Parks Highway,Mile 57.3 Community of Houston 80 acres 42 campsites Lake,South and Parks Highway,Mile 52.3 Alaska Division of Parks 35 acres 28 campsites t Waysides 8 picnic sites ger Lake Wayside Parks Highway,North of Alaska Division of Parks 47 acres 14 campsites taurant Wasilla Rocky Lake Wayside Parks Highway,Mile 52.3 Alaska Division of Parks 48 acres 10 campsites reation Areas Along the Glenn Highway Louise Recreation Area Glenn Highway,Mile 157 Alaska Division of Parks 90 acres Unknown Louise Wayside Glenn Highway,West of Alaska Division of Parks 50 acres 6 campsites Glennallen Tollsona Creek Wayside Glenn Highway,Mile 172.5 -Alaska Division of Parks 600 acres 5 campsites Lilttle Nelchina Wayside Glenn Highway,Mile 137.4 Alaska Division of Parks 22 acres 6 campsites Matanuska Glacier Wayside Glenn Highway,Mile 101 Alaska Division of Parks 231 acres 6 campsites Ldnq Lake Recreation Area Glenn Highway,Mile 85 Alaska Division of Parks 480 acres Unknown Ldng Lake Wayside Glenn Highway,East of Alaska Division of Parks 372 acres 8 campsites Palmer TABLE E1.7.1 (Page 4 of 7) Existing Site Development !.(a) Lobation Managing Agency Area Accommodations i ' Peters Creek Wa~bide GI~nnl Highway,Mile 21.5 I ! I Recreation Areas Along the Glenn Highway (Cont'd) Bonnie Lake Recr~at±on Area GI~nnl Highway,Mile 82.5 Bonnie Lake Way~ide King Mountain W~yside Moose Creek Wayside Mirror Lake Wayside i iGlennl Highway, oflpa~mer Glbnni Highway, I : I li H• hGjnnl~g way, GIbnn1 Highway, f ' Northeast Mile 76.1 Mile 54.7 Mile 23.5 Alaska Division of Parks 129 acres Unknown Alaska Division of Parks 31 acres 8 campsites Alaska Division of Parks 20 acres 22 campsites 2 picnic sites Alaska Division of Parks 40 acres 8 campsites Alaska Division of Parks 90 acres 30 campsites Alaska Divisio~of Parks 52 acres 32 campsites Alaska Department of Unknown Unknown Transportation Private Unknown Unknown Bureau of Land Management 4 acres 4 campsites Bureau of Land Management 40 acres 20 campsites Alaska Division of Parks 372 acres Unknown Alaska Division of Parks 128 acres 58 campsites 4 picnic sites Alaska Division of Parks 160 acres 20 campsites Highway, Rillch~rdson Highway, Mile J117.5 Rilch~rdson Highway, Northeast of GlennallenI ' R~chJrdson Highway, Mille '147.4 Riphardson Highway, Miile ]79.4 I Ri~h~rdson Highway, Mille 1175 I Richardson Highway Recreation Areasl Black Rapids Picnic Area Ri~h~rdson Highway, Miile 1225.4 I RibhJrdson Mi!I.e 195 i Sourdough Creek Campground Paxson Lake Wayside Paxson Lake Campground and Boat Cavern! Dry Creek Recr~cipol"lArea Summit Lake Lodge -Motel, Restaurant,Airstrip, Guide Service Dry Creek Wayside '----.....~""~ TABLE EI.7.1 (Page 5 of 7) ~isting Site Development (a) Location Managing Agency Area Accommodations ~her Existing Recreation in the Region CHugach State Park East of Anchorage Alaska Division of Parks 495,000 acres Unknown KrHk Wayside Approx.64 km (40 miles)Unknown 40 acres Unknown North of Anchorage 'l"keetna Riverside Talkeetna U.S.Coast Guard 2 acres Unknown B at Launch I dependence Mine Hatcher Pass Road Alaska Division of Parks 271 acres Undeveloped H storic Area O~f ~he Glenn Highway A~aska Division of Parks O~f ihe Glenn Highway Alaska Division of Parks Offf the Parks Highway Alaska Division of Parks Gien~Highway Alaska Division of Parks G~en~Highway near Palmer Alaska Division of Parks G~en~Highway Alaska Division of Parks I I IWillow Creek Road Alaska Division of ParksII TABLE E1.7.1 (Page 6 of 7) Site Location or Existing Site Development Denali State Park Tokositna Resort Lake Louise Susitna Lake and Tyone River Talkeetna River Moose Creek State Recreation Site (existing) Matanuska Glacier State Recreation Site (existing) Kepler-Bradley 'State Recreation Area'(existing) Independence Mine State Historic Park (existing) Hatcher Pass State Recreation Area (proposed) Nancy Lake state Recreation Area (existing) Willow Creek St~te Recreation Area (existing and proposed) Iditarod Trail (ekisting) I i (a) Location P~rks Highway I ' i I ! O~f ~he Parks Highway I IH~tcher Pass Road ! j ! P~rks Highway !iII P~rk~Highway i : Ataska Range west of Al[lch«;Jrage Managing Agency Alaska Division of Parks Alaska Division of Parks Alaska Division of Parks Alaska Division of Parks Alaska Division of Parks Alaska Division of Parks Proposed Action Implemented Site Plan Expand trail system further studies Implemented Site Plan Expand trail system further studies Expand 350 acres,implement master plan Designate river corridor and develop plan Designate river corridor and develop plan Implemented site plan Implemented site plan Acquire 330 acres and develop Develop existing 271 acres, acquire and develop additional area Acquire land and develop Acquire additional 150 acres, and trail 12 O.W.expand devel- opment particularly winter recreation opportunities Upgrade existing site Acquire property and implement plans / .....--...-.~''.. ~~----' TABLE E1.7.1 (Page 7 of 7) Si e Location or Ex stin Site Deve10 ment La~e Creek State Recreation RiVer (proposed) Al~xander Creek State Re~reation River (proposed) Tallachu1utna La~e Creek State Recreation River (proposed) Krpto Creek State Recreation River (proposed) Wo~thington Glacier State Re~reation Site (existing) Little Nelchina State Re~reation Site (existing) Ne~china Tazlina State Reheation River (a) Location Managing Agency Near Cook Inlet Alaska Division of Parks A tributary to the lower Alaska Division of Parks Susitna River A tributary to the lower Alaska Division of Parks Susitna River A tributary to the lower Alaska Division of Parks Susitna River A tributary to the lower Alaska Division of Parks Sus it na River Richardson Highway Alaska Division of Parks Glenn Highway Alaska Division of Parks Glenn Highway Alaska Division of Parks Proposed Action Designate river corridor and develop plan Designate river corridor and prepare management plan. Designate river corridor and prepare management plan Designate river corridor and prepare management plan Designate river corridor and prepare management plan Acquire additional 480 acres adjoining glacier terminals develop funded projects Acquire 620 acres plan and implement Designate river corridor, prepare river plan (a~Locations of site developments taken from the 1980 Milepost. (b~This list is not an all inclusive list of privately-run facilities,but only a representation of most types of recreational opportunities offered by the private sector. Sources:ADNR 1982a Susitna Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Report,Volume 2 Environmental Report, Section 7 Recreational Resources. 1 I 1 "j 1 11 J J 1 J I ] 1" '.1 ...J'!......:,.. 1 ] :] APPENDIX E2.7 ATTRACTIVE FeATURES -INVENTORY DATA } 1 EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 APPENDIX E2.7 ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA J .I .I J.> J ) j J J 1 ) I .1 J J i ] 1 j TABLE E2.7.l:ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA (Page 1 of 17) FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM NOTATIONS Glacial features -valleys,etc. Soule Cr.-nearby Brushkana Cr.-Jack R. Soule Creek Drainage Tundra with some mixed forest Long linear lake -source of Soule Cr. Caribou,bear and Dall sheep Soule Cr.and its lake source L X M x x X X X X X X H OPPORTUNITY SETTING CANCE RATINGS Mountajn Peaks Glade s Geolog'cal Interest Sites Gorges Cliffs/Bluffs Talus lope/Rock Environment Cirque ROCk/M1neral Collection Sites Big Ga e Hunting Habitats Fishin Habitats Wildli e Observation Areas Lakes Waterf41ls/White Water Rivers Bogs Vegeta~ion Patterns Botani¢al Interest Sites Dams/R Campgr Boatin Resort Trails Access Float Visito Histor Winter servoirs unds Fad lities /Lodges Tra ilhead lane Facilities Information Service cal/Archeological Sites Sports Proposed walk-in camp at Soule Cr.Lake Canoeing on lake Trail from North Access Road along Soule Cr.to Jack R.and Caribou Pass to Cantwell or Tsusena Cr. Trailheads north and south along access road and from Cantwell Potential at Soule Cr.Lake Ice fishing and x-country skiing TABLE E2.7.1 (Page 2 of 17) ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DA~A FORM i RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS Mountain Peaks Glaciers Geological Interest Sites Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs Talus Slope/Rock Environment Cirques Rock/Mineral CoHection Sites Big Game Hunting Habitats Fishing Habitats Wildlife Observation Areas Lakes Waterfalls/White Wate~ Rivers/Streams Bogs Vegetation Patterns Botanical Intere~t Sites Dams/Reservoirs Campgrounds Boating Faciliti~s Resorts/Lodges Trails/Trailhead Access** Float Plane Facilities Visitor Information Service Historical/Archeological Sites Winter Sports i I HI M L i ii I Xi xl xi I \ xl xi xl x xl xl xi J~ck River Drainiage to Cantwell NdTATIONS I S~ectacular mountains Gl~cial features -carved valleys Mobse,caribou,bear and Dall sheep Jack R.and tributaries and lakes Potential Sereral large lakes Tuhdra -mostly and some mixed forest Potential Recommend primitive camping only i.•May be poss~ble to kayak down r~ver from confluence with Soule Cr. Proposed trail along Soule Cr.and through Caribou Pass tolCantwell or to Tsusena Cr. Tr~ilhead from 2 points along the North/South Access IRoad at Cantwell X-country skiing for experienced people I II ; **Caribou Pass is an existing route for people traveling through this area • .~'---''-----'----------------'~,.~'------'...~ TABLEIE2.7.1 (Page 3 of 17) ATTRA(tTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM TION OPPORTUNITY SETTING SIGNIEICANCE RATINGS Mount in Peaks Glaci rs Geolo ical Interest Sites Gorge /Cliffs/Bluffs Talus Slope/Rock Environment Cirqu s Rock/ineral Collection Sites Big G me Hunting Habitats Fishi g Habitats Wildl fe Observation Areas Lakes Water aIls/White Water River /Streams Bogs Vegetation Patterns Botanical Interest Sites H x X X X X X X X X X M x X X X L x Tsusena Creek Drainage NOTATIONS Elevations range from 2600'to 5800' Glacier in mountains North of Tsusena Cr. Valley -floor is approximately 1 mile wide Moose and bear -Dall sheep in mountains Grayling and trout Potential East side of Tsusena Butte Some white water Tsusena Cr.and tributaries Along water course Tundra -on mountain slopes and mixed forest on valley floor Diverse vegetation types Acces FloatlPlane Facilities Dams/leservo1rs Campg ounds Boati g Facilities Resor s/Lodges Trail/Trailhead Visit Histo Winte r Information Service ical/Archeological Sites Sports x X ** Drains into Susitna below Watana Dam site Non-developed -primitive Canoeing on lake Proposed trail through valley and countinuing along Jack R.and Caribou Pass North Access Road near Tsusena Butte At lake side of Tsusena Butte and from Cantwell and the North-North Access Road near Brushkana Cr. At an additional trailhead site* X-country skiing,ice fishing and snowmobiling *prtposed trail follows Soule Cr.to Caribou Pass. **Th re a~e existing non-defined routes through Tsusena Cr.drainage an into or from Caribou Pass and to or from Cantwell TABLE E2.7.1 (Page 4 of 17) ATTRACTIVE FEATUREp -INVENTORY IDA~A FORM RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS Mountain Peaks Glaciers Geological Interest Sites Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs Talus Slope/Rock Environment Cirques Rock/Mineral Collection Sites Big Game Hunting Habitats Fishing Habitats Wildlife Observation Areas Lakes Waterfalls/White Water Rivers/Streams Bogs Vegetation Patterns Botanical Interest Sites Dams/Reservoirs Campgrounds , Boating ~acilities Resorts/Lodges Trails/Trailhead Access I Float Plane~aciliti~s Visitor Information Service Historicai/Arche610gicai Sites Winter Sports H X, X X X M X X X X X X X X X L X X Md,untain Area West of Proposed North/South Access Route Mildway!West of Deadman Mountain NqTATIONS IExcellent mountain views I Caribou,Dall sheep and bear I •Lakes w1th outlets I on~y one of any significant size -good number of small on~s -scenic Nearby Brushkana Cr. Ne~rby BrushkanaCr.and tributaries Vapey floors Tundra Pr~posed walk-in camp at larger lake I Fram North Access Road to lake and overlooks* Trialhead at about midway North Access Road I X-qountry skiing I*Overlook areas/points should be ~ttempted only bylthose with good hiking skills -knowledge"I " of terrain in this area or similar.Potentially 4angerous. ,---------------.;---------''-------'.----L ~'--~ TABLE IE2.7.1 (Page 5 of 17) ATTRAdTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM RECRE~TION OPPORTUNITY SETTING SIGNImICANCE RATINGS Mount in Peaks Glaci rs Geolo ical Interest Sites Gorge /Cliffs/Bluffs Talus Slope/Rock Environment Cirqu s Rock/ineral Collection Sites Big G me Hunting Habitats Fishi g Habitats Wildl fe Observation Areas Lakes Water aIls/White Water River /Streams Bogs Veget~tion Patterns Botanical Interest Sites H x X X X X X X X X X X M X X X X L X Mountain Area Immediately North of Tsusena Butte and West of the Proposed North Access Road NOTATIONS Very high scenic quality Caribou and Dall sheep Large lakes with outlets Potential Northeast of Tsusena Lake toward Deadman Lake Tundra and Willow Dams/ Campg Boati Resor Trail Acces Float Visit Histo Winte eservoirs ounds g Facilities s/Lodges /Trailhead Plane Facilities r Information Service ical/Archeological Sites Sports Proposed walk-in camp at lake Potential for lake boat launch .Proposed trail west from North Access Road* North Access Road trailhead or by float plane Potential if not existing Ice fishing and x-country skiing *pottntiallY dangerous hiking to overlook points.Good skills (hiking) and knowledge of similar terrain traversing are recommended. TABLE E2.7.1 (Page 6 of 17) ATTRACTIVE FEATURES i-INVENTORY bATA FORM RECREATION OPPOR~U~ITY SETTING SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS Mountain Peaks Glaciers Geological Interest Sites Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs Talus Slope/Rock Env.ironment Cirques Rock/Mineral Collection Sites Big Game Hunting Habitats Fishing Habitats Wildlife Observation Areas Lakes Waterfalls/White Water Rivers/Streams Bogs Vegetation Patterns Botanical Interest Sites Darns/Reservoirs Campgrounds Boating Facilities Resorts/Lodges Trails/TrailHead Access Float Plane Facilities Visitor Information Service Historical/Arche6iogical Sites W,inter Sports IH M L X X X !X X X X X X X X X X X X X Ts~sena Butte Area INOrATIONS I i I View to mountains I Ts~sena Butte -landmark Be~r and moose -Tsusena Cr. Grayling and lake trout IEast side of Tsusena Butte I I Tsosena Cr. Nekr lakes Miked forest -Tsusena Cr. ! •IPotentla I IPraposed campground at lake Existing boat launch Hu*ting/fishing cabin Praposed trail to lake and along creek INorth Access Road -float plane FIt-in float pla~e -existingr", I f·h·ICli!lS lng I '------''--~'--~-------..;'--~,PiL -....:--....;~~ TABLEIE2.7.1 (Page 7 of 17) ATTRA~TIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Big Lake and Deadman Lake Area SIGNISICANCE RATINGS Mount in Peaks Glaci rs Geolo ical Interest Sites Gorge /Cliffs/Bluffs Talus Slope/Rock Environment Cirqu s Rock/ineral Collection Sites Big G me Hunting Habitats Fishi g Habitats Wildl"fe Observation Areas Lakes Water aIls/White Water River /Streams Bogs Veget~tion Patterns Botan~cal Interest Sites Dams/ Campg Boati g Facilities Resorts/Lodges Trails/Trailhead Access Float Plane Facilities Visit r Information Service Histo ical/Archeological Sites Winte Sports H X X X M X X X X X X L x X X X X NOTATIONS View to mountains Better known for fishing -caribou Grayling and lake trout Potential -big game,waterfowl and raptors -eagles Big Lake -largest in study area Deadman Cr. Near lakes and streams Tundra -marshland Potential Big Lake -proposed Walk-in canoe Trail from North Access Road Good access -North Access Road possible to land on both lakes Ice fishing and x-country skiing TABLE E2.7.1 (Page 8 of 17) ATTRACTIVE FEATUR~S-INVENTORY I DATA FORMI. RECREATION OPPOR~UNITY SETTING I SIGNIFICANCE RAT[NGS Mountain Peaks Glaciers Geological Interest Sites Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs Talus Slope/Rock Environment Cirques Rock/Mineral Collection Sites Big Game HuntingiHabitats Fishing Habitats Wildlife Observation Areas Lakes Waterfalls/White Water Rivers/Streams Bogs Vegetation Patterns Botanical Interest Sites H M x X X X X X L x X X X X Bu~te Creek Drainage I NOTATIONS ! Im~ediate area is not spectacular -views are fair to good Broad,flat valley primarily Moose,bear and caribou Grayling -lake trout at Butte Lake Butte Lake -large number of small lakes -Snodgrass Lake I Insignificant Tributaries/Butte Cr.-close to Watana Cr. Mo~t of the drainage is in a flat,poorly drained area - large percentage of bogs Mixed forest and tundra (upland slopes) Dams/Reservoirs Campgrounds Boating Facilities Resorts/Lodges Trails/Trailhead Access Float Plane Facilities Historical/Archeological Sites Winter Sports X ** Recommend primitive Butte Lake Existing sport lodges at Butte Lake Potential for trail from Big Lake to Susitna River bridge I onlDenali Highway North Access Road or Susitna River bridge on Denali Highway I .Big Lake -Deadman Lake or Visitor Information Service X-country skiing,snowmobiling ** !Comparatively,area is not very iscenic -linear land-scape wi th few areas of significant interest.Might ~es!t be developed for hunting access. ._-~.~~ .... '-..-------.------.; TABLEIE2.7.1 (Page 9 of 17) ATTRA(tTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Clarence Lake Area SIGNIEICANCE RATINGS Mount in Peaks Glad rs Geolo ical Interest Sites Gorge /Cliffs/Bluffs Talus Slope/Rock Environment Cirqu s Rock/ineral Collection Sites Big G me Hunting Habitats Fishi g Habitats Wildl fe Observation Areas Lakes Water aIls/White Water River /Streams Bogs Veget4tion Patterns Botanical Interest Sites Dams/eservoirs Campg ounds Boati g Facilities Resor s/Lodges Trail/Trailhead Acces Float!Plane Facilities H~sto ical/Archeological Sites Wl.nte Sports H x M x x x L x x x x NOTATIONS Distance views to mountains Caribou Lake trout and grayling at lake Clarence Lake -long and linear Gilbert Cr.&nearby Kosina Cr. Most of the area is very wet Primarily tundra and willow Tundra South of proposed Watana Reservoir Existing launch at lake Existing sport lodge ,None recommended Float plane -one could walk in along Clarence Lake drainage outlet to Susitna-Watana Reservoir;however, it is very wet Existing at lake TABLE E2.7.1 (Page 10 of 17) ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY IDA~A FORM RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING W~tana Lake Area I X X X X X XI, I X X SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS Mountain Peaks Glaciers Geological Interest Sites Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs Talus Slope/Rock Environment Cirques Rock/Mineral Collection Sites Big Game Hunting Habitats Fishing Habitats Wildlife Observation Areas Lakes Waterfalls/White Water Rivers/Streams Bogs Vegetation Patterns Botanical Interest Sites Dams/Reservoirs Campgrounds Boating Facilities Resorts/Lodges Trails/Trailhead Access Float Plane Fac~lities Visitor Information Service Historical/Archeological Sites Winter Sports H M X xi L X NQTATIONS I Mti.Watana 6255 I ! Md,ose,bear and caribou Wa!tana Lake and its oulet -lake trout,etc. P1tential -spotted waterfowl and eagles Wa:tana N~arby Susitna R.,Kosina and Tsisi Creeks I T~ndra and willow -small amount of mixed forest -marsh Sd,uth of proposed Watana Reservoir E~isting boat launch at lake E~isting sport lodge Pdtential for trail around south side of Mt.Watana tol~nk with proposed trail through mountains to Fog LakesF~?at.plane or trail from Fog Lakes E:xi1st1ng at lake ! I ~~ TABLE B2.7.1 (Page 11 of 17) IVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM ION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Talkeetna Mountains (Immediately south and east of Fog Lakes) SIGNIFIICANCE RATINGS Mountain Peaks Glacie s Geological Interest Sites Gorges Cliffs/Bluffs Talus lope/Rock Environment Cirques Rock/Mineral Collection Sites Big Gane Hunting Habitats Fishing Habitats wildlife Observation Areas Lakes Waterfalls/White Water Rivers/Streams Bogs Veget~tion Patterns Botanilcal Interest Sites H M L X X X X X X X X X X X X X X NOTATIONS Spectacular peaks -rugged mtns. Permanent snow Glacier-formed valleys,etc. A number of crystal-clear cirque lakes Caribou,bear and Dall sheep Small waterfalls Lower valley areas Tundra Tundra Views to proposed reservoir sites Primitive -recommended None None Proposed loop trail from Fog Lakes -also from Watana Lake Float plane to Fog Lakes or from proposed trailhead at Watana Dam If not existing -recommendedPlaneFacilities r Information Service ical/Archeological Sites Sports Dams/ Campg Boati~g Facilities Resorts/Lodges Trails/Trailhead Access Float Visit Histo Winte ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY hATA FORM\.,'" i x X X X X X X X X TABLE E2.7.l (Page 12 of 17) RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS Mountain Peaks Glaciers Geological Interest Sites Gorges/Cliffs/Blurfs Talus Slope/Rock'Environment Cirques Rock/Mineral Collection Sites Big Game Hunting Habitats Fishing Habitats Wildlife Observation Areas Lakes Waterfalls/White Water Rivers/Streams Bogs Vegetation Patterns Botanical Interest Sites Dams/Reservoirs Campgrounds Boating Facilities Resorts/Lodges Trails/Trailhead Access Float Plane Facilities Visitor Information Service Historical/Archeological Sites Winter Sports IH M L X IFog Lakes Area INOTATIONS I I 11..Exee ent v~ews to mounta~ns!! Moese,bear and caribou IFog Lakes -lake trout,etc. FO~Creek Area is very wet I ••Moderately dense m~xed forest -w~llows and tundra Diverse vegetation types So~th of proposed Watana Dam &Reservoir J • •Prlm~tlveI. ! Prqposed trail head at Watana Dam Flqat plane -see above -also proposed trail from Stephan Lake and Devil Canyon Reservoir I .__._~. _._~'------'~ '----- TABLE IE2.7.1 (Page 13 of 17) ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM TION OPPORTUNITY SETTING SIGNInICANCE RATINGS Mount in Peaks Glaci rs Geolo ical Interest Sites Gorge /Cliffs/Bluffs Talus Slope/Rock Environment Cirqu s Rock/ineral Collection Sites Big G me Hunting Habitats Fishi g Habitats Wildl fe Observation Areas Lakes Water aIls/White Water River /Streams Bogs Veget$tion Patterns Botanical Interest Sites H x x M x x x x X X L x Stephan Lake Area NOTATIONS Views Moose,bear and caribou Fog Lakes and Prairie Cr.-salmon,lake trout,etc. Second largest in study area Prairie Cr.** Prairie Cr.and lake outlets Low areas Mixed forest Dams/ Campg Boati Resor Trail Acces Float Visit Histo Winte eservoirs ounds g Facilities s/Lodges /Trailhead Plane Facilities r Information Service ical/Archeological Sites Sports X X X South of proposed Devil Canyon Reservoir Recommended primitive Existing boat launch Existing high use sport lodge Proposed trail through area to or from Devil Canyon Dam and Fog Lakes Float plane -trail head at Devil Canyon Dam,trail access from Devil Canyon Reservoir northeast of lake and from trailhead at Watana Dam Existing** **Ac~ording to Alaska Dept.of Natural Resources Susitna Basin Land use/Rec.Atlas,there is an existing float pl~ne-use lake southwest of Stephan Lake.Prair1e Cr.is also identified as a canoeing/rafting resource. TABLE E2.7.1 (Page 14 of 17) i ; ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORMi RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS Mountain Peaks Glaciers Geological Interest Sites Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs Talus Slope/Rock Environment Cirques Rock/Mineral Collection Sites Big Game Hunting Haqitats Fishing Habitats . Wildlife Observation Areas Lakes Waterfalls White water Rivers/Streams Bogs Vegetation Patterns Botanical Interest Sites Dams/Reservoirs Campgrounds Boating Facilities Resorts/Lodges Trails/Trailhead Access Float Plane Faci ities Visitor Informat on Service Historical/Archeological Sites Winter Sports H x M x x L x x De~il Canyon Damsite to Watana Dam Site along South Side ofi Susitna River INOTATIONS I I d ·"'1 . h hGOpV1ewspr1mar1ytomounta1nstot e nort Su~itna River valley -Devil Canyon, Mopse,bear and caribou Tr~butaries of Susitna,Stephan and Fog Lakes 1Large number -Stephan Lake and Fog Lakes are the most .1 •f-•s1gn1 1cant Tributaries to Susitna River; Tributaries to Susitna River Tributaries to Susitna River 1 Dehse mixed forest -tundra on uplands Potential Views to both proposed dams and reservoirs Pr9Posed walk-in camp directly south of Devil Creek at lakes I IExisting abandoned structure at campsite lake Along the south side of reservoir staying up high above th~reservoir a proposed trail from Devil Canyon Dam to Stephan Lake to Fog Lakes and to Watana Dam Tr1ilhead at both damsites or float plane to a number of lakes in the area Potential Both damsites Ice fishing and x-country skiing ---------------=-----------,-----,-----.,...---,---,.-----------------~-- ---'"--~'~-~.'------' TABLE IE2.7.1 (Page 15 of 17) INVENTORY DATA FORM RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Lakes Area Northeast of Devil Canyon Dam SIGNIEICANCE RATINGS Mount Peaks Glaci rs Geolo ical Interest Sites Gorge /Cliffs/Bluffs Talus Slope/Rock Environment Cirqu s Rock/ineral Collection Sites Big G me Hunting Habitats Fishi g Habitats Wildl"fe Observation Areas Lakes Water aIls/White water River /Streams Bogs Veget~tion Patterns Botan~cal Interest Sites H X X X X M x x x x X X L X NOTATIONS Views to mountains Moose,caribou and bear Lakes Potential High scenic quality -large to small Close to Devil Canyon and Portage Cr. Primarily tundra and willow -some mixed forest Tundra and other alpine species Dams/ Campg Boati Resor Trail Acces Float Visit Histo Winte eservoirs ounds g Facilities s/Lodges /Trailhead Plane Facilities r Information Service ical/Archeological Sites Sports X X Just north of Devil Canyon Dam and Reservoir Proposed campground near East-West Access Road Walk-in canoe use at lakes Close to High Lakes Lodge Proposed loop trail through lakes East-West Access Road near Devil Canyon Dam Ice fishing and x-country skiing TABLE E2.7.l (Page 16 of 17) !I ,ATTRACTIVE FEATURES -INVENTORY pATA FORM RECREATION OPPO~TUNITY SETTING Deyil Creek Drainage SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS H:M L INO['ATIONS: Mountain Peaks Glaciers Geological Interest Sites Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs Talus Slope/Rock Environment Cirques Rock/Mineral Col~e~tion Sites Big Game Hunting Habitats Fishing Habitats Wildlife Observation Areas Lakes Waterfalls/White!water Rivers/Streams Bogs Vegetation Patte1rns Botanical Interest Sites Dams/Reservoirs Campgrounds Boating Facilities Resorts/Lodges Trails/Trailhead Access Float Plane Facilities Visitor Informat':i!on Service Historical/Archeological Sites Winter Sports '-----..' x X X X X X X X X ~-_. Ve~tical canyon in areas Sa[mon,grayling below falls Mo~t spectacular falls 1n area I 01De[V1 Cr. I Prpposed overlook trail from High Lakes De~il Canyon Dam Road ~ TABLE ~2.7.1 (Page 17 of 17) IVE FEATURES -INVENTORY DATA FORM RECREN!ION OPPORTUNITY SETTING Portage Creek Drainage SIGNIFIICANCE RATINGS H M L NOTATIONS Mountain Peaks Glaciers Geolo ical Interest Sites Gorges/Cliffs/Bluffs Talus Slope/Rock Environment Cirques Rock/ineral Collection Sites Big G me Hunting Habitats Fishi g Habitats Wildl"fe Observation Areas Lakes Water aIls/White water River /Streams Bogs Veget~tion Patterns Botan~cal Interest Sites x Steep,narrow r1ver canyon X Potential X X Salmon,trout and grayling X X X Fast -white water X Very scenic X Mixed forest -spruce and aspen X Dams/ Campg Boati Resor Trail Acces Float Visit Histo Winte eservoirs ounds g Facilities s/Lodges /Trailhead Plane Facilities r Information Service ical/Archeological Sites Sports Proposed put-in kayak Trail down to Portage Cr. Devil Canyon Dam Road East and West APPENDIX E3.7 RECREATION SITE INVENTORY AND OPPORTUNITYEV ALUATION EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 APPENDIX E3.7 RECREATION SITE INVENTORY AND OPPORTUNITY EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 1 -INTRODUCTION (***) The procedure for the inventory of the land base and the analysis of the intrinsic recreation potential of the sites was as follows: o Review all planimetric information,USGS quadrangles,previous inventories and aerial photographs. o Locate the occurrence of all attractive features as understood from above and including local knowledge and previous work. o Field check all sites located in the previous step plus new potential sites,using the inventory shown in Appendix E2.7 Define the quality and extent of the various landscape features. o Map all features and settings depicting the distribution and location of the recreational resources and include indications of special or significant views and vistas.Recreational opportunities,hunting,fishing,and collecting sites are not specifically located or symbolized.Many opportunities exist to view wildlife through the project area. 851016 E3-7-1-1 2 -INVENTORY METHODOLOGY (**) The purpose of the site inventory is to inventory the land recreational base of landscapes that support the most diverse range of possibilities.It includes three steps to define recreational resources inherent to the site: o Attractiveness (physical description); o Recreation preference type;and o Accessibility. 2.1 -Attractiveness (0) Attractiveness is a measure of a landscape's unique or special settings and features.These can be both cultural and natural. However,they are almost exclusively natural within this study area.The landscape was inventoried for features (their frequency and significance)which bear on the potential for recreation.The natural features and their typical characteristics which were determined to be important in the study area are as follows: o Mountaintops:rocky,craggy,often snow-capped,usually above timberline,glaciated or glacier forms most unique and impressive; o Tundra landscapea:tundra landscapes,both wet and dry,with close-up beauty and photographic resources; o Lakes:naturally occuI'rcing,deg-rcee of enclosure-,habi-tat, formation,glaciated lakes and beaver ponds most unique; o Rivers:glaciated,ruggedness and enclosure,quality expressive of Alaska,size,edges; o Streams:character,clarity,size,edge; o W5l.l:fa'[':l:faCit:1.l'['es:WCit:e '['fa,J)'i),_<;-9.:I3<;a,<lfa 13 ,J.)E!_§!YE!1"PQ'Il,~:ti),stlc>Wfi eJ<iI3,___ ice o Hunting area:locations of big game animals and birds; o Fishing sites:location of fish species; o Botanical interest sites:unusual plants,or systems;and o Special aesthetic features:unique exploratory vistas,features and settings. J ·1 851016 E3-7-2-1 2.2 -Recreation Preference Type (**) A principal objective of the recreation plan is to provide a variety of recreational activities within a spectrum of recreation "preference types"(USDA 1974).The preference types relate to the character and quality of the existing land base.The recreational activities also relate in terms of their appropriateness to a particular setting. Patterned after the USFS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) approach,the four recreation preference types used in this report are: o Pristine:A intellectual stimulation. people,with access. natural,unmodified environment,a source of or physical challenge;seeking solitude;aesthetic The landscape setting should be remote,devoid of a stimulating natural environment and difficult to o Primitive:A natural environment,a source of enjoyment of settings which provide fish or game species,rocks,edible plants,etc.The landscape setting should be natural,removed from human influences. o Semiprimitive:Sparsely developed locations,natural surroundings,a source of relaxation.The appropriate physical settings are natural-semiprimitive sites with relatively easy access. o Developed:Developed sites with easy access. settings are developments that can accommodate site-specific interests. The appropriate many people with Recreation opportunity activities have been identified ~n relationship to the above reference types as follows: o Pristine:Mountaineering,kayaking,canoeing,backpacking, hiking,snow-shoeing,ski touring,nature study,and photography; o Primitive:Backpacking,hiking,photography,nature study,big game hunting,fishing,rock hounding,berry picking,and plant gathering; o Semiprimitive:Car camping,pleasure driving,boating,lodges, snowmobiling,hiking/walking,and picnicking;and o Developed:Sports,snowmobiling,tours,picnicking,and pleasure driving. 851016 E3-7-2-2 Another major consideration is accessibility.The study area is remote and must be considered as such in evaluating demand.A related consideration is the competition for the recreational user within the same framework for "remoteness"from such places as Denali National Park,the Wrangell Mountains,the Chugach Mountains,the Alaska Range, and the Kenai Peninsula. 2.3 -Accessibility (*) Accessibility refers to the kind of roads,including four-wheel-drive trails and foot trails that are in or surround the study area.Access to the landscape occurs in four modes:foot,auto-ORV,boat,and plane.After the Susitna Project is constructed,the damsite access roads would allow automobile access to new areas previously inaccessible except by less convenient modes.Appropriate access to the various settings is important in maintaining the setting preferences,e.g.,pristine activity preferences must have difficult access.This relationship is determined during the onsite field review. .) 851016 E3-7-2-3 ] I I 3 -RECREATION OPPORTUNITY EVALUATION (*) (Moved from Section 5.3 in main text.) The major considerations for the evaluation of the recreation resources a~: o Natural value; o Inherent durability; o Visual quality; o Carrying capacity;and o Present land status. 3.1 -Natural Value (*) Natural value is a measure of the inventoried landscape features settings based upon the frequency of occurrence and overall quality. Natural value establishes the physical characteristic's relationship to regional and local scales.The sites were evaluated on an onsite basis in a three-level rating: o High:valuable local or state resources,symbolic of Alaska landscapes or carrying unique recreation potential--0.8 recreation opportunity quality factor (a factor defining the potential for attracting recreation users to a particular site); o Medium:moderately uncommon,expressive of local characteristic landscapes,provides exposure to abundant recreational resources--0.5 recreation opportunity quality factor;and o Low:commonly occurring landscapes with few features with recreation potential--0.2 recreation opportunity quality factor. 3.2 -Inherent Durability (0) Durability is a general measure of the physical ability of a site to absorb the impact of recreational development.The evaluation is based upon known physical data and field observation of each recreational resource site.There are four aspects to determining durability for each site as described in the following matrix: 851016 E3-7-3-l Durable Moderately durable Fragile Encroach- Abiotic Vegetation.Wildlife ment rock formations,upland and waterfowl rural well,drained lowland soils,low-slope forest gradient poorly drained moist caribou country- soil,moderate-tundra wintering side slope gradient poorly drained alpine waterfowl pristine soil,steep-tundra beaver slope gradient wetlands endangered species ) ·-1 I l ! .J 3.3 -Visual Quality (0) Visual quality is a measure of the scenic .quality and importance site.The relative availability of important landscape features quality settings contained in each potential -recreation-site can measured by: of the and be o Uniqueness based upon frequency and scale; o Levels of quality of the resource;and o Imageability (reinforcing the Alaska landscape image)and visual quality of each setting. Unique settings and features are important to describe in terms of their quality and imageability,and are related as indicated in the following matrix:'.. ... Unique Alaskan Landscapes Rare or Unusual Landscapes Common or Extensive Landscapes Several special features and settings Encroachment and·created landscapes 851016 High Medium E3-7-3-2 Medium MediuIIl Low Low 3.4 -Carrying Capacity (*) Carrying capacity is the inherent capability of a landscape to support recreation use.The primary purpose is to match the number of people using a site and the preferred recreation type (experience).The goal is not to reduce the experiential potential of the site through over-use or participation.The USFS approach (USDA 1974)has been used in a modified version to define the carrying capacity of each site. 3.4.1 -Visitation Estimates (0) This method utilized two visitation estimates for each rec- reation site:yearly visitation capacity and yearly visitation potential.Visitation capacity is an estimate of how many visitors can annually experience and use a particular recreational setting,based upon the designated recreation preference type.This estimate is described by the following formula: 1/feak ~apacitl fays il ~~f.Yea1 ~isitor.daJ-est~mate year lut~l~zed convers~on = -- - - - - -factor recreation site acres visitation capaci ty Visitation potential estimates the probable actual use of the same recreational setting.This estimate is described by the following formula: visitation capacity recreation opportunity *1/ quality factor =visitation potential Recreation opportunity quality factor is based upon the natural value of the recreation site. 3.4.2 -Peak Capacity Estimates (*) Integral to the two visitation estimate formulas is the peak capacity estimates (PCE)of visitor use.The major criteria for these estimates are:(1)acreage of recreation settings;(2) encounter space (that area in acres of physical and visual potential for encounter);and (3)miles of trails and roads. Groups at one time (GAOT)is the unit for describing visitor groups (4 persons).For each recreation preference type various formulas were used to generate the estimated PCE as follows: 1/Constant (USDA 1974). 851016 E3-7-3-3 Pristine: Irecreation l r %acres ll/~etting .cre~rncounter sP.c~- (250 acreslvisitor group) PCE OJ Primi tive:G:~~~~:t~~~eJ~nco~n~:~e:p.c~lJ= (100 acres/visitor gioup) PCE Semiprimitive:(GAOT/mi trai1)(mi trail)+(GAOT/mi 4WD road)(mi 4WD road)+(GAOT/mi 2WD road)(mi 2WD road)=PCE Developed:(GAOT/mi 2WD road)(mi 2WD road)+(GAOT/mi MTR) (mi MTR)+(GAOT of existing recreation facilities)=PCE These estimated capacities can be compared to the estimated recreation demand to verify satisfaction of estimated recreation needs. 1/Encounter space along trails is 0.5 miles wide. .1 1 j 851016 E3-7-3-4 4 -INVENTORY AND OPPORTUNITY EVALUATION RESULTS (**) The above inventory and evaluation methodology were applied to the sites identified below.Most of these sites are included within the first four phases of the proposed recreation plan.Others,not included,may be added under phase five,future additions depending on recreation demand. 4.1 -Brushkana Camp (0) 4.1.1 -Physical Characteristics (0) An existing developed campground with 33 campsites,including picnic,fire,and toilet facilities on the Denali Highway,Road Mile 105.Although surrounded by wonderful views of the Alaska Range and its glaciers,the campground is set in a nondescript brushy environment along Brushkana Creek. 4.1.2 -Recreation Preference Type (*) Developed environment with easy access in a seminatural state. 4.1.3 -Recreation Opportunity Summary (0) o Car camping o Picnicking o Fishing o Big game hunting o Photography o Berry picking 4.1.4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summavy (0) Natural Value:Low Inherent Durability:abiotic: vegetation: wildlife: encroachment: Medium Medium Durable Durable Visual Quality:Low,a commonly occurring brushy gravelly environment.Brushkana Creek tumbles past the campground,and there are expansive views of the Alaska Range. Carrying Capacity:Developed Visitation Capacity:3,200 851016 E3-7-4-1 Visitation Potential:1,600 Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management 4.1.5 -Accessibility (0) The Denali Highway,approximately at Road Mile 100,is immediately adjacent and intersects the Parks Highway approximately 30 miles to the west. 4.2 -Tyone and Susitna Rivers Confluence (*) 4.2.1 -Physical Characteristics (*) The site is located at the confluence of the Tyone and Susitna· Rivers at River Mile 24.6 where the Susitna River becomes a fixed-channel river just beyond the eastern limits of the Watana Reservoir site within a rolling open landscape of the Gulkana uplands. 4.2.2 -Recreation Preference Type (*) Primitive:a natural environment with enjoyable settings,which offer game species;difficult access. 4.2.3 ~Recreation Opportunity Summary (*) o Boating o ~Ka:Yl:lkj:-ng··c,~rnoeing o Camping o Big game hunting o Fishing 4.2.4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary (0) Natural Value:Medium Inherent.Durability..;......Abiotic: Vegetation: Wildlife: Encroachment: Moderate Moderate Moderate Fragile Visual Quality: 851016 Moderate;this is an extensive river channel environment,dotted with lakes and rolling hills.Panoramic views are p(J~~ibletowardtheglearwater·Mountains, but primarily restrictedw{thin the river basin foreground. E3-7-4-2 ) I I Carrying Capacity:Primitive Visitation Capacity:160 Visitation Potential:28 Present Land Status:Selected for Native ownership 4.2.5 -Accessibility (0) Boat,put into Susitna River from Denali Highway and the Tyone River/Lake Susitna/Lake Louise route from the Glenn Highway. 4.3 -Butte Creek/Susitna River/Denali Highway Bridge (*) 4.3.1 -Physical Characteristics (*) This is a broad valley in which Butte Creek meanders from the tundra uplands and the headwaters of Watana Creek to its confluence with the Susitna River.A wide and boggy valley with tiny ponds,lakes,and wetlands in contrast to the rocky Talkeetna Mountains immediately south.In the area of the confluence with the Susitna River,downstream from the Denali River crossing,the river is broad,braided and shallow (see Appendix E6.7,Photograph E6.7.2). 4.3.2 -Recreation Preference Type (*) Butte Creek:Pristine;a natural unmodified environment with aesthetic stimulation. Butte Lake:Primitive;a semiprimitive experience with a natural setting. Susitna River:Semiprimitive;highly developed natural surroundings with relatively easy access. 4.3.3 -Recreation Opportunity Summary (0) (a)Butte Creek (0) o Wildlife observation o Botanical interest sites o Fishing o Big game hunting o Photography (b)Butte Lake (0) o Fishing o Big game hunting 851016 E3-7-4-3 (c)Susitna River o Fishing o Photography o Boating o Ski touring o Snowshoeing 4.3.4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary (0) J Natural Value: Inherent Durability: Medium Abiotic: Vegetation: wi ldlife: Enc roachment: Fragile Fragile Moderate Fragile Visual Quality:Moderate,cohesive,a very we.t valley bottom,typical of Alaska lowlands in this region;set among moderately sloped mountains,Butte Creek is a pristine environment. Butte Lake receives ATV pressure and extensive fishing.There are several cabins on the lake.The Denali Highway crosses the Susitna River with many inhabitants living nearby. .j Carrying Capacity:Semi-primitive Visitation Capacity:720 Visitation Potential:360 Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management 4.3.5 -ProRosed Re.cr~al::io!l-Fa<::ilit:i~s (see Figure E.7.5.10tJo)_ Butte Creek: Butte Lake: Susitna River: 851016 No additional recreational developments. No additional recreational developments; consider removing ATV access to this area. Boat ramp developIIH:~nt.at Denali Highway bridge across the·Susitna,including storage for 6 toTOvehiCie"'trailers. E3-7-4-4 4.3.6 -Accessibility (0) Butte Creek: Butte Lake: Susitna River: None except via cross-country on foot from Deadman Lake or by boat on river ATVs and airplanes currently access the lake. The Denali Highway and boats. 4.4 -Middle Fork Chulitna River (0) 4.4.1 -Physical Characteristics (0) Extending from the town.of Summi t through the Summit Lake chain,this corridor runs 27 miles east into the Chulitna Mountains.It follows along the Middle Fork of the Chulitna River,the upper reach of the Jack River,and the headwaters of Tsusena Creek.The corridor includes the lakes of Caribou Pass and begins in a broad river valley,eventually leading into a narrower V-shaped valley where intersections of other drainages form a visually complex mountainous and glaciated landscape.At the southern boundary (el.3,900),it crosses a pass and leads to Tsusena Creek.The background views of the Alaska Range are dramatic from the Middle Fork Chulitna drainage basin (see Appendix E6.7,Photograph E6.7.1). 4.4.2 -Recreation Preference Type (0) Pristine:a natural unmodified environment which offers solitude,aesthetic stimulation,and a source of intellectual or physical challenge. 4.4.3 -Recreation Opportunity Summary (0) o Hiking o Backpacking o Camping o Collection sites o Botanical interest sites o Wildlife observation o Ski touring (Broad Valley only) o Snowshoeing o Big game hunting o Fishing o Meets state priority for trail development 851016 E3-7-4-5 4.4.4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary (*) Natural Value:High Inherent Durability:Abiotic: Vegetation: Wildlife: Enc roachment: Moderate Moderate Moderate Fragile 851016 Visual Quality:High;much of the corridor consists of lake environments.Opportunities for panoramic views of the Alaska Range exist throughout the corridor.Many areas of foreground interest and waterforms which offer a high level.of visual interest and landscape unity. Carrying Capacity:Pristine Visitation Capacity:4,645 Visitation Potential:3,857 Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management and Ahtna Village Corporation selec~ion. 4.4.5 -Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.l.5.9)(0) -·o-17milesofprimit ive-trait o Trailhead and parking for 6 cars 4.4.6 -Accessibility (0) o Railroad stop at Summit o Parks Highway o Foot trails proposed in Tsusena Creek,Site H 0.··Gross.".country.accessto .JackCreek.and.Soul.e ..Creek drainages 4.5 -Watana Damsite (*) 4.5.1 -Physical Characteristics (*) Located above the Watana damsite on the south side of the Susitna River (River Mile 184)within the Fog Lakes recreation setting, this site has views both up and.down the Susitna.R.iver and Eoward tb.e .Cb.1.11:i;tIla •M9t1Il ta.iIls ..·· E3-7-4-6 -J I 4.5.2 -Recreation Preference Types (*) Developed environment with easy access. 4.5.3 -Recreation Opportunity Summary (0) o Viewpoint o Visitor information o Photography o Picnicking o Walking 4.5.4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary (0) Natural Value:Moderate Inherent Durability:Abiotic: Vegetation: Wildlife: Encroachment: Low Low Moderate Low 851016 Visual Quality:Moderate;high potential exists here for exploratory viewing of the Watana damsite In addition,views northward as well as along the river provide excellent contextual settings for the dam. Carrying Capacity:Developed Present Land Status:Private (CIRI Village Section)within designated project boundary 4.5.5 -Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.5.6)(0) Access road,0.15 mile Parking,15 cars Exhibit building: o Souvenir shop o Museum o Restrooms o Food service Indigenous plants on botanical trail Three picnic sites Boat ramp to reservoir Note:Powerhouse tour headquarters to be located on north side of dam at operations headquarters. E3-7-4-7 4.5.6 -Accessibility (0) Access road across Watana Dam 4.6 -Tsusena Creek (*) 4.6.1 -Physical Characteristics (*) Adjoining the Middle Fork of the Chulitna River recreation setting and descending from the headwaters of Tsusena Creek,the valley runs southward toward the Tsusena Lakes which are almost 250 acres in size.Many unusual and interesting rock formations, waterfalls,and glacial deposits are.evidence of its glacial history.The valley floor is covered with wetlands,ponds,and brush,with an overs tory of mixed woods,and scattered stands of spruce (see Appendix E6.7,Photographs E6.7.5 and E6.7.6). 4.6.2 -Recreation Preference Type (0) Pristine;a natural umnodifiedenviromnent,a source of physical and intellectual challenge,solitude,and aesthetic stimulation. 4.6.3 -Recreation Opportunity Summary (*) o Hiking o Backpacking o Botanical interest sites o Rock hounding -0 Wildlife-obse't'-va-tiou o Photography o Snowshoeing o Ski touring o Mountaineering o Fishing o Meets state priority of trail development ..if.!§...4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary (*) J 1 J Inherent Durability:Abiotic: Vegetation: Wildlife: Encroachment: Fragile Fragile Fragile Fragile Vi sual Quali ty: 851016 High,with a great natural diversity of mourit:~irioiis iidgeliries,wat:erfalls,rock formations,and streamside and wetland environments;area has unique fore- foreground and middleground views in E3-7-4-8 every direction.The potential for wildlife observation occurs everywhere. Carrying Capacity:Pristine Visitation Capacity:2,657 Potential Capacity:2,206 Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management 4.6.5 -Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.5.7)(0) Three shelters 26 miles of primitive trail development 4.6.6 -Accessibility (*) o Foot trail from the proposed Middle Fork of the Chulitna River o Airplane at Tsusena Lakes o Foot trail from the Watana access road within the Tsusena Butte recreation setting 4.7 -Tsusena Butte (*) 4.7.1 -Physical Characteristics (*) The southern extent of the Tsusena Valley divides around Tsusena Butte,which is a prominant solitary mountain.The Tsusena Lakes lie between the butte and the foothills of the Chulitna Mountains and are over one mile in length.The Tsusena Valley ends here and becomes part of the upland terrace above the Susitna River where Deadman Creek meanders through alpine tundra (see Appendix E6.7,Photograph E6.7.l0). 4.7.2 -Recreation Preference Type (0) Primitive area with lightly developed facilities and natural surroundings,which has easy access. 4.7.3 -Recreation Opportunity Summary (0) o Hiking o Backpacking o Photography o Wildlife observation 851016 E3-7-4-9 o Ski touring o Snowshoeing o Fishing 4.7.4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary (0) .'J Natural Value:High Inherent Durability:Abiotic: Vegetation: Wi ldlife: Encroachment: Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Visual Quality: Carrying Capacity: High;this area has background views south to the Talkeetna Mountains and north into the Tsusena Creek Basin as well as foreground views of Tsusena Lakes.The sportsman's lodge at the lake adds a cultural feature in this otherwise pristine environment. Primitive 851016 Visitation Capacity:1,274 Visitation Potential:1,019 Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management 4.7.5 -Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.5.7)(0) Primitive trail development,9 mites Deyeloped trail,5~ile~ Trailhead,with 10 parking spaces Two to four undesignated campsites 4.8 -Deadman Lake/Big Lake (0) 4.8.1 -Physical Characteristics (0) Two lakes ()f approximatelyl;800 acres lie at the southern base of Deadman Mountain among a compLex set of rolling,rocky hins.Above the s1.1rrol.lndil1gWiifiinii·iind Buffe Creek dra:iriages, Deadman Creek meanders through the lake basin on its way to its confluence with the Susitna River (see Appendix E6.7,Photographs E6.7.11 and E6.7.l2). E3-7-4-10 4.8.2 -Recreation Preference Type (0) Pristine;a natural,stimulating,unmodified environment, offering solitude and possessing great aesthetic appeal. 4.8.3 -Recreation Opportunity Summary (0) o Hiking o Backpacking o Photography o Wildlife observation o Fishing 4.8.4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary (0) Natural Value:High Inherent Durability:Abiotic: Vegetation: Wildlife: Encroachment: Durable Moderate Fragile Fragile Visual Quality:High;with panoramic views across the Susitna Basin to the Talkeetna Mountains, the foreground lakeside settings are subtly complex rock,tundras,and are brushy in character with spectacular fall color variety. Carrying Capacity:Pristine Visitation Capacity:1,292 Visitation Potential:1,034 Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management,State Suspended/Native Selection 4.8.5 -Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.5.7)(0) o Primitive trail development,4 miles o Trailhead,with 6 parking spaces 4.8.6 -Accessibility (0) o Airplane at Big Lake o Foot trail to the Watana access road (Mile 28). 851016 E3-7-4-11 4.9 -Clarence Lake (*) 4.9.1 -Physical Characteristics (*) This popular fly-in fishing lake is set ~n a rolling upland terrace above the SusitnaRiver.The lake's outflow,Gilbert Creek,flows westward to its confluence with Kosina Creek,which flows northward to the Susitna River Valley.Alpine tundra covers the large undulating terrace,with mixed woodlands occurring only at Kosina Creek (see Appendix E6.7,Photograph E6.7.l4). 4.9.2 -Recreation Preference Type (0) Primitive;a natural or semiprimitive environment for the enjoyment of game species and removed from human influences that is difficult to reach. 4.9.3 -Recreation Opportunity Summary (*) o Hiking o Backpacking o Photography o Wildlife observation o Fishing o Big game hunting 4.9.4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary (0) -.l Natural Value: Inherent Durability: Low Abiotic: Vegetation: Wildlife: Encroachment: Low Medium .Medium Medium ..........VisuaLQualitY:·.·----·-Medium;---the site has many-opportunities ......_......_...__...._._.__f.ox_v.Lew.s.-o.f-t.he-s.u.rx.o.un.di.ng-mP.u.o.t.a.to_s_._ in all directions.The primary views and experiences relate to the streamside, where small canyons,woodlands,and streams create a pleasant and interesting micro-environment. Carrying Capacity:Prim{tive Visitation Capacity:3,243 J 1 851016 E3-7-4-12 Visitation Potential:648 Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management,State suspended/ Native selected 4.9.5 -Accessibility (0) o Airplane on Clarence Lake o Primitive trail from Watana reservoir,2 or 3 miles (3-5 miles)south of River Mile 207 (boat-only access). 4.10 -Watana Lake (0) 4.10.1 -Physical Characteristics (0) Mt.Watana and Watana Lake are set at the northern extent of the Talkeetna Mountains,rising above the Susitna River Valley. Alpine tundra covers a gently undulating uplands which extends to the Talkeetna Mountains (see Appendix E6.7,Photograph E6.7.16). 4.10.2 -Recreation Preference Types (0) Primitive;a natural or semiprimitive environment,enjoyment of game species;difficult to access. 4.10.3 -Recreation Opportunity Summary (0) o Hiking o Backpacking o Photography o Wildlife observation o Fishing o Big game hunting 4.10.4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary (0) Natural Value:Low Inherent Durability:Abiotic: Vegetation: Wildlife: Encroachment: Low Medium Medium Medium Visual Quality: 851016 Moderate;the extensive broadness of the upland terrace plus the lack of foreground variety reduces the potential for interest, even considering the pristine nature of the setting.Cultural interest exists because of the sportsman's cabins on the lake edge. E3-7-4-13 Carrying Capacity:Primitive Visitation Capacity:1,045 Visitation Potential:209 Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management,State suspended/Native selected 4.10.5 -Accessibility (0) o Airplane on Watana Lake o Hiking trail from Kosina Creek (boat-only access) 4.11 -Mid-Chulitna Mountains,Deadman Mountain (0) 4.11.1 -Physical Characteristics (0) A complex environment of spectacular sawtooth ridges and high, wet tundra landscapes.The western half of the setting is a unique combination of multicolored mountaintops,snow,glaciers, and turidra.The headwaters of Deadmari Creekorigiriate here, twisting through a broad,flat tundra muskeg,then abruptly descending toward the east at Deadman Mountain (see Appendix E6.7 Photographs E6.7.7,E6.7.8 and E6.7.9). 4.11.2 -Recreation Preference Type (0) ..prt·stin-e-;a:-nattrralunm·odifie·d envi ronme rrt-.-Thi-s·are·a is .a source of intellectual and physical challenge,solitude,and a highly aesthetic experience. 4.11.3 -Recreation Opportunity Summary (0) ,j o Hiking o Backpacking .......__._o W.i1.d.LLf_e_o_b_s_e_r_v..a.t io_n .._..__ o Botanical interest sites o Meets state priority for trail development. .j 4.11.4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary (0) Natural Value:High j 1I1h~r~I1t,:Dt1r~1:>il:ity:A1:>igtic:: Vegetation: Wildlife: Encroachment: Mgc:l~r~t,:~ Fragile Moderate Fragile 851016 E3-7-4-14 ] Visual Quality:High;this area has spectacular panoramic views north to the Alaska Range and views into the highly complex,colorful and interesting Chulitna Mountains only a few miles away.The high,wet tundra offers fall color and interesting foreground wetlands and waterforms.Unique possibilities exist to experience a wide variety and scale of interesting landscapes. Carrying Capacity:Pristine Visitation Capacity:2,743 Visitation Potential:2,195 Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management 4.11.5 -Accessibility (*) Auto,via the Watana access road.Mountaineer route to Tsusena Creek drainage. 4.12 -Devil Creek (*) 4.12.1 -Physical Characteristics (*) Set in an upland tundra landscape of great complexity,Devil Creek cascades down into the Susitna River gorge at River Mile 161.Within a very narrow enclosed series of canyons and tight valleys,the creek twists through a brushy and partially wooded valley.Devil Falls passes through a narrow slot in the cliffs and joins another small tributary which also has a spectacular waterfall in the same small gorge.This setting is highly scenic and a major resource of the study area (see Appendix E6.7, Photographs E6.7.20,E6.7.21,and E6.7.22). 4.12.2 -Recreation Preference Types (0) Pristine;a natural unmodified environment for seeking solitude with great aesthetic stimulation. 4.12.3 -Recreation Opportunity Summary (0) o Hiking o Nature observation o Photography 851016 E3-7-4-15 4.12.4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary (0) ] J Inherent Durability:Abiotic: Vegetation: Wildlife: Encroachment: Natural Value:High Moderate Moderate Moderate Fragile ) J Visual Quality: Carrying Capacity: High;this is a dynamic enclosed small-scale environment with great experiential potential.Unusually spectacular series of falls and roaring streams provide an exciting and unique recreation resource. Pristine Visitation Capacity:1,257 Visitation Potential:1,006 Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Mangement,State suspended/Native selected 4.12.5 -Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.5.4)(*) 4.12.6 -Accessibility (0) o Gravel road,the Devil Canyon access road. 4.13 -Devil Canyon Damsite (*) 4.13.1 -Physical Characteristics (*) ---~-~-~----~--~--Above--t;-he-De-v-i~1--Ga-nyon---Dam-,--pe-~ched~h-i-gh~above-~the-SusLtna__Ri31er_~~ at River Mile 152,are open forested uplands.Expansive views exist to the west and north,but of particular note is the very deep canyon below (see Appendix E6.7,Photograph E6.7.26). 4.13.2 -Recreation Preference Type (*) Developed site with easy access within a natural setting. 4.13.3 -Recreation Opportunity Summary (0) o Visitor information service o Walking J I) I 851016 E3-7-4-16 o Picnicking o Nature observation o Photography o Ski touring o Snowshoeing 4.13.4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary (0) Natural Value:High Inherent Durability:Abiotic: Vegetation: wi ldlife: Encroachment: Moderate Moderate Moderate Fragile Visual Quality:High;the site is located above the deep gorge of the Susitna River and reveals an awesome scale of the natural forces below. Panoramic views also exist toward the west and the lower Susitna valley. Carrying Capacity:Developed Present Land Status:Private (CIRI Village Selection)within designated project boundary. 4.13.5 -Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.5.3)(0) One visitor center: o Interpretive program o Exhibit building o Food service o Souvenirs shop o Restrooms Three picnic sites 15 parking sites Boat access and ramp at reservoir downstream of dam Developed trail 75 miles,and overlook Note:The auto-oriented campground at Mermaid Lake about 4 miles northeast,is the destination comapground associated with Devil .Canyon Visitors'Center. 4.13.6 -Accessibility (0) o Devil Canyon access road 851016 E3-7-4-17 4.14 -Mermaid Lake (*) 4.14.1 -Physical Characteristics (0) This is an undulating upland tundra landscape dotted with many medium-to-large lakes set in shallow wet basins.The physiography has great diversity in its topographic character. The Chulitna Mountains rise to the north of these uplands,and Devil Canyon forms the southern edge (see Photographs E6.7.24 and E6.7.25). 4.14.2 -Recreation Preference Type (0) Semiprimitive;a semiprimitive location in a natural surrounding, with relatively easy access. 4.14.3 -Recreation Opportunity Summary (0) o Car camping o Snowshoeing o Ski touring o Nature observation o wildlife observation o Fishing o Big game hunting 4.14.4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary (0) J ) i j Inherent Durability:Abiotic: Vegetation: Wildlife: Ene roachment: Moderate Fragile Moderate Moderate ,] Visual Quali ty:High,a scenic visual environment,this area ha sgreat_foreground_ap pea 1 ,and "vLs_t_as toward the colorful Chulitna Mountains.Tremendous fall color potential in this setting. Visitation Capacity:3,329 Carrying Capacity:Semi primitive "j 851016 VisitatiC>I1 P9teI1tial:?,66~ Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Mangement,State suspended/ Native selected E3-7-4-18 4.14.5 -Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.5.4)(*) o 12 campsites,tables,tent pads,parking o Access road,0.25 mile o Two toilet facilities ~.14.6 -Accessibility (0) o Airplane;Mermaid Lake,and High Lake,auto; o Devil Canyon access road,Mile 29. 4.15 -Soule Creek (0) 4.15.1 -Physical Characteristics (0) The site extends westward from the Watana access road within the Brushkana drainage.The proposed trail hugs the north side of the drainage,affording vistas of the Alaska Range to the east. To the west the narrow enclosed Soule Creek valley ends in a complex array of mountaintops and ridges.Often snow-covered and comprised of muliticolored rock with a large hidden lake basin of 5 miles containing a long (2-mile)linear lake,this valley is a strikingly complex,natural environment (see Appendix E6.7, Photographs E6.7.27 and E6.7.28). 4.15.2 -Recreation Preference Type (0) Pristine;a natural stimulating environment offering solitude and possessing great aesthetic appeal. 4.15.3 -Recreation Opportunity Summary (0) a Hiking a Backpacking o Wildlife viewing a Primitive camping o Photography a Fishing a Big game hunting a Meet state priority of trail development 4.15.4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary (0) Natural Value:High Inherent Durability:Abiotic: Vegetation: Wildlife: Moderate Moderate Fragi Ie 851016 E3-7-4-l9 Visual Quality: Encroachment:Fragile High;this is a symbolic mountainous landscape,offering exploratory vistas of the Alaska Range.A high degree of natural diversity of landforms,rock and snow landscapes,and waterforms exists here. J Carry Capacity:Pristine Visitation Capacity:2,361 Visitation Potential:1,888 Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management 4.15.5 -Accessibility (0) o Proposed Watana access road;and o Existing airplane access upon lake. 4.16 -Southern Chulitna Mountains (*) 4.16.1 -Physical Characteristics (*) Set within the southwestern foothills of the Chulitna Mountains this small valley is surrounded by a rugged skyline.The valley is covered ~by an alpine tunara witli a rocky15ase-Wl:1icn~-is .... very wet in places.A small lake created by an old moraine lies at the lower end of the valley,opening to views toward the Susitna basin below (see Appendix E6.7,Photographs E6.7.29 and E6.7.30). 4.16.2 -Recreation Preference Type (0) ..........~Pri stine;·a·naturaT unmo dif.ie·d···enviro nment-,-a-·s ourc e~·o f· ..----~--·~-·-------~~i_n.te_l-lec.tua-l~or--ph-y.sica-l-.chaUenge,~sol-Ltu.de~,~and_ae.s~the~tLc_~~.~... stimulation. 4.16.3 -Recreation Opportunity Summary (0) o Backpacking o Hi1<.ing o Nature observation o SnowshOeing o Ski touring .~~.J j .~1 851016 E3-7-4-20 4.16.4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary (*) Natural Value:High Inherent Durability:Abiotic: Vegetation: Wildlife: Encroachment: Fragile Fragile Moderate Fragile Visual Quality:High;this small-scale mountain valley has jutting mountainous edges surrounding a tundra-covered valley floor.A pristine hidden lake is the foreground setting to distant panoramic views of the Susitna basin and beyond to the Talkeetna Range. Carrying Capacity:Pristine Visitation Capacity:456 Visitation Potential:365 Present Land Status:Bureau of Land Management 4.16.5 -Acccessibility (0) The Watana darn access road. 4.17 -Fog Lakes (0) 4.17.1 -Physical Characteristics (0) This cluster of long,linear lakes paralleling.each other,each over 15 miles long,are within a partially wooded upland above the Susitna River.The Talkeetna Mountains form a dissected, glaciated complex landscape to the south.Fog Creek originates here and cascades through its small canyons to the Susitna River at River Mile 177.(See Appendix E6.7,Photograph E6.7.l7). 4.17.2 -Recreation Preference Type (0) Primitive;the area is semiprimitive,lightly developed with natural surroundings and relatively easy access. 4.17.3 -Recreation Opportunity Summary (0) o Hiking o Car camping 851016 E3-7-4-21 o Nature observation o Wildlife observation o Photography o Fishing 4.17.4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary (0) Natural Value:Moderate Inherent Durability:Abiotic: Vegetation: Wildlife: Encroachment: Moderate Fragile Moderate Moderate 851016 Visual Quality:Moderate;these are very visually interesting large lakes with background views toward the Chulitna and Talkeetna Mountains.Fog Creek possesses a wonderful small-scale series of cascades, cliffs,and small enclosures providing an interesting and pleasurable environment. Carrying Capacity:Primitive Visitation Capacity:7,144 Visitation Potential:3,572 4.17.5 -Accessibility (0) o Airplane_to Fog Lakes o Road access across Watana Dam 4.18 -Stephan Lake (0) __--=g._._LR._l -Phy:sical Characteristics (0) Stephan Lake is a 3.5-mile-long lake set in a wooded valley in the uplands south of the Susitna River.The area contains Prairie Creek which winds its way south to the Talkeetna River. The Talkeetna Mountains form the southern boundary to the va 11ey setting and evidence the glaciated history of the area (see A.ppendIx E6.7 ,pho tographE:6.7.19). E3-7-4-22 J .J ..•~ 4.18.2 -Recreation Preference Types (0) Primitive;a semiprimitive environment of settings which provides a variety of game species,in a natural setting difficult to access. 4.18.3 -Recreation Opportunity Summary (0) o Hiking o Backpacking o Kayaking-canoeing ,0 Wi ldlife observation o Photography o Fishing o Big game hunting 4.18.4 -Recreation Opportunity Evaluation Summary (0) Natural Value:.Moderate Inherent Durability:Abiotic: Vegetation: Wildlife: Enc.roach,ment: Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Visual Quality:Moderate;the area has a relatively common forested upland and lake character. Many opportunities exist for viewing the Talkeetna Mountains in the distance. Carrying Capacity:Primitive Visitation Capacity:1,956 Visitation Potential:978 Present Land Status:Private land. 4.18.5 -Proposed Recreation Facilities (see Figure E.7.5.5)(0) o Primitive trail development,5 miles o Five campsites o Canoe launch 4.18.6 -Accessibility (0) o Airplane,on Stephan Lake o By foot trail from the Susitna River 851016 E3-7-4-23 t J I 1 J I 1 APPENDIX E4.7 PROJECT RECREATIONAL DEMAND ASSESSMENT 1 J ;,1 1 ,.,,,-,.,., ,I J i I ) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 APPENDIX E4.7 PROJECT RECREATIONAL DEMAND ASSESSMENT 1 -BACKGROUND (*) (Moved from Section 3.2 of main text of 1983 License Application) Estimation of recreation demand related to the Susitna Project is a complex task due to project location,project characteristics,and long construction schedule.Added complexities result from a historically unpredictable regional growth pattern in Alaska and lack of consistent and verifiable data concerning regional recreational patterns.Some of the planning considerations unique to Alaska are listed below. 1.1 -Alaskan Recreational Environment (0) As discussed in Section 2 of this chapter,recreation in Alaska has unique characteristics due to the size of the state,the sparse population,the lack of roads,and long distances between facilities. The untouched wilderness conditions and abundance of wildlife have attracted new state residents who enjoy the primitive recreational experience.Usual recreational standards used in the Lower 48 states are not,for the most part,applicable in Alaska. 1.2 -Lack of Recreational History (*) Alaska became a state in 1959 and the Alaska Department or Natural Resources,Division of Parks was formed in 1971.There consequently is not the long history and background of user data,public preferences, and demand data which are usually available in most other states. 1.3 -Uncertainty of Population Growth (This section deleted.) 1.4 -Population Changes (*) As energy,mineral development,and construction projects begin and end,and as the large proportion of military and governmental personnel change assignments,the population composition changes.As a result, public opinion and preference surveys can become quickly outdated. 1.5 -Climate (0) Winters in the project area are long and severe.The Denali Highway, the only road penetrating the area,is not maintained in winter. Smaller trails require special off-road vehicles for travel year round. Landing strips and lakes used for airplane access are also hazardous 851016 E4-7-1-l during the winter season.In addition,the short winter daylight period decreases available time for outdoor work,recreation,and travel. 1.6 -Setting (0) The Susitna project area,compared with many other places in the United States,appears to be an outstanding recreation resource. However,in comparison with other resources in Alaska (with exceptions such as Devil Canyon Rapids),it is not unique. 1.7 -Changing Land Ownership (*) Major portions of Alaska have historically been owned by the federal and,more recently,the state governments.Large portions of land are currently in the process of being conveyed to Native corporations (see also Section 4).While the exact impact of this action is yet unknown, it appears that the historical pattern of open recreational access to most lands within the state will change to one of more restricted access. 1.8 -International Travel (*) Recent years have seen wide fluctuations in international travel patterns as currencies change in value.As a remote and somewhat exotic tourist destination,tourist recreational levels in Alaska may fluctuate greatly according to a variety of influences such as currency values. ] .1 .\ -1 ! .] 851016 E4-7-1-2 .1 I 2 -ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING PROJECT RECREATION DEMAND PROJECTIONS (**) (Moved from Section 3.2) In projecting demand,a number of simplifying assumptions were made to account for the uncertainties in Alaska's recreational future.The phased recreation plan and monitoring program proposed as part of the plan would allow periodic adjustments to be made in the plan as assumptions and recreational conditions change.The following discussion specifies assumptions used in the demand projections. The Denali Highway to Watana Dam access road would be open to the public following completion of the Stage I construction.The Watana Dam to Devil Canyon access road would be open to the public following completion of Stage II.During Stage III the access road would be open to the public from the Denali Highway to the intersection of the Devil Canyon access road and from the intersection to Devil Canyon Dam. Both Watana and Devil Canyon dams would have an inherent curiosity value which would attract one-time visitors.Watana,in particular, would not be regarded as a major sustained attraction for repeat visitors.Devil Canyon Dam,the high-level canyon bridge,and the railroad spur would have more inherent attraction as potential recreation. Both reservoirs would be characterized by slumping side walls,scales, and landscapes on steep banks.Watana,in particular,would have large mudflats in many locations when drawn down.Neither reservoir would be an attractive recreational resource for sport fishing or boating. Watana,in particular,and Devil Canyon,to a lesser extent,would not be attractive resources to kayakers,canoers,rafters,and other small boat recreationists due to wind,chop,and temperature conditions. The Denali Highway would be upgraded as currently proposed by the Alaska Department of Transportation.The road would be kept open in the winter from the intersection with the Watana Dam access road west to the Parks Highway at Cantwell. The Alaska Department of Parks,the BLM,the USFS,the Municipality of Anchorage,Fairbanks,and other appropriate governmental units would continue to pursue plans for increased recreational facilities elsewhere to serve increased demand.(Many of the facilities documented in Section 2 would be closer to population centers than the Susitna Project and would accommodate a portion of future demand by city dwellers.) The Native corporations would pursue a course of paced development of their lands,including selected mineral development,recreation home development,and commercial recreational development.These uses are 851016 E4-7-2-1 assumed to be complementary to this recreation plan and are not anticipated to cause conflicts. Existing private lodges would continue to operate in a manner and scale similar to 1985 operations.While some changes undoubtedly would occur,they would not be .of sufficient scale to influence demand projections substantially. The Alaska Railroad would continue to provide passenger service with scheduled whistle-stop service between.Anchorage and Fairbanks. The Project would primarily be an in-state recrea.tional attraction and would not be a major national or international tourist attraction such as Denali National Park. Because of climate,winter darkness,and distance from population centers,the Project would be primarily a summer (mid~June to mid-September)recreational resource. ,1 t] ,1 ,1 '~l ,.' ] 851016 E4-7-2-2 851016 3 -ESTIMATED RECREATIONAL DEMAND (**) (Moved from Section 3.2) Available studies were surveyed and evaluated for applicability to the Susitna Project.The methodolgy and assumptions used in the Susitna River Basin Cooperative Study -Talkeetna Subarea (USCS 1978) were used as a basis for the recreation plan methodology.The base data and methodology employed in the USCS study used in the project recreation plan are referred to as the '~er capita participation method."The projections were modified by updated population data. Allocations of regional recreational demand derived from the projections were assigned to the Susitna Project's recreation area through a series of assumptions.The results of this estimation were then compared wi-th four estimates,which were prepared by other methods.The other four estimates include: o Willingness to drive comparison; o Denali National Park comparison; o Denali Highway travel comparison;and o Opinion survey comparison. 3.1 -Per Capita Participation Method (**) 3.1.1 -Recreation Demand Without the Project (**) This method was developed by the U.S.Soil Conservation Service (USCS 1978)and applied to the 13 million-acre Talkeetna Subarea in 1978 as part of a series of Susitna River Basin cooperative studies which were joint efforts with the ADNR,the ADF&G,and other cooperating agencies.The method utilized empirical participation rates for eight major outdoor recreational activities and applied them to existing population figures. Demand projections presented in this report use the general methodology and recreational data developed by USCS.The actual calculations were developed specifically for this study.The year 2000 was chosen for convenience and comparability as the future demand project time.Assumed percentage increases in annual participation days were utilized,as well as the year 2000 population projections.The following formula was utilized to estimate 1980 recreational demand:Total 1980 Population multiplied by Average Annual Participation Days equals Total Demand in User Days. To estimate recreational demand in the year 2000,the following formula was used:Total Year 2000 Population multiplied by Average Annual Participation Days times Assumed Percentage Increase in Participation equals Total Demand in User Days. E4-7-3-1 This procedure is followed for ,eight separate activities. Populations used are shown in Table E4.7.1.Recreational participation is shown in Table E4.7.2. Both participation days and assumed increases in participation were from the 1970 Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan.While more recent participation and preference data were published in the 1976 and 1981 Alaska Outdoor Recreation plans,average annual participation days per capita were not provided in those reports. It is assumed that ,the projected increases in participation published in the 1970 plan are sufficiently representative for the purpose at hand.Comparisons of the activity participation rates which appear in all three plans support this assumption. The SCS (1978)utilized the travel cost method,which is based on the premise that other things being equal,per capita use of recreational sites would decrease as travel time and cost increases.This appears to be generally true in Alaska.The data base employed distributes the sum total of trips within given hourly driving times.For the Susitna Project,driving times,distances,and percentage of trips are shown in Table E4.7.3.The total demand previously calculated is multiplied by these percentages for each trip origin.Note that for this study (unlike the River Basin Study which uses actual mileage distances in the Willow subbasin),Mat-Su Borough figures are used to represent population between Anchorage and Fairbanks,and an assumed centroid of Mat-Su population was chosen for calculation purposes.While the potential market area for project ---rec-reational-demandundoubtedly exceeds--these"'areas',-i-t,is-' anticipated that population growth rates and demand percentages are sufficient to adequa,tely representID.aximum deID.Clnd. The centroid ()f theproj~ct's r~creational area,is <'issumed to be 10 miles north of the Watana damsite.Table E4.7.4 gives estimations of total recreational demand in user days for all recreationaL sites within 250 miles (or 5-6 hours)of Anchorage _.<'l_nd---.fQ~LID.t:L~JLJQJ'__~:"_5.---lLQl1.:r§)__Q.LJi·<'iiJ:'J:~<'i.nk I:l ,:[Q.r_ArH:;ltQJ::.agst,__ Fairbanks,and Matanuska-Susitna Borough residents.It is _ important to note that these demands are for all sites within the given time-distance,not specifically for the Susitna site •.For example,other sites within a 5-to 6-hour drive from Anchorage c.ould incl ude those south on the Kenai Peninsula or east in the Wrangell Mountains.Time~distance factors are based on empirical evidence as developed by the SCS,whereby the number of trips in each hourly travel band isestil1late,d,.asaproporti()tl.of the whole.These estimates were calculated separately for each type of'rec:reatfonal acd"ltyuslng the populatIon gIven in Table E4.7.1,the factors in Table E4.7.4,and the distances in Table E4.7.3.Table E4.7.4 summarizes these Q~~ands. 1 .) I.I ,'1 !1 .1 851016 E4-7-3-2 .1 1 To apply total demand to the project's study area,a number of additional assumptions were made.The recreation plan area was generally defined as the area extending from the Parks Highway on the west,the Denali Highway-Nenana River on the north,the Susitna River on the east,and about 20 miles south of the Susitna River on the south.This area was based on knowledge of areas directly affected by project development,known recreational resources,and recreational opportunity settings determined in the field.It also takes into consideration ADF&G management subunits. ADF&G hunting statistics for moose,caribou and Dall sheep indicate that in 1981,fewer than 700 hunter days were spent within the study area.It was assumed that there were 800 hunter days in the study area in 1982.Table E4.7.5 and Table E4.7.6 show assumed use of the area in numbers of recreation days and in percentages of the total days given in Table E4.7.4. Based on observation and personal conversations with informed local sources,it was assumed that there are currently 100 waterfowl hunting days in the area.This activity is generally limited to lakes along the east side of the Parks Highway,an area only peripherally connected with the project area. Assumptions of current sport fishing were made based on the ADF&G Statewide Harvest Study (ADF&G 1981).This report lists angler days for 1977 through 1981 (Table E4.7.8 and Table E4.7.9). While these data do not directly correspond to the project area, in combination with personal conversations with knowledgeable local sources,1,500 angler days/year were estimated to be in the area.Fishing activity was assumed to be quite low in the study area because it is inaccessible by auto and has no salmon runs except on the Susitna River below Portage Creek and on Prairie Creek. Number of user days was assumed to be 4,000 at the only developed campsite in the area.The BLM camp at Brushkana Creek on the Denali Highway has 33 campsites and is reportedly at capacity during hunting seasons.The assumed current numbers represent a capacity use,with three persons per campsite,during a month-long hunting season.Two additional months of capacity use,with two persons per campsite,were calculated for the weekends of the other two summer recreation months.It is assumed that there is essentially no hiking or picnicking 1n the area that is not associated with.other activities such as hunting,fishing or camping. Cross-country skiing is known to occur in the Chulitna Mountains south of Cantwell.One hundred user days were assumed for the study area. 851016 E4-7-3-3 As indicated in Table E4.7~6 approximately 6,700 recreation days per year were estimated to occur in the area.To project future user days for the area without the Susitna Project,population growth rates from 1980 to the year 2000 (Table E4.7.1)and increased participation rates (Table E4.7.2)were applied to the 1980 usage.That is,usage in the year 2000 would increase as would population and the propensity to recreate,given no other actions such as construction of access roads into the area.This simplification does not take into consideration the changing att.raction values of other recreational opportunities in the state •.As other recreation areas are developed,projected demand would be redistributed.It is assumed that this would cause a decrease of demand at Susitna recreational facilities and therefore reinforce a conservative estimation. in the case of the future camping estimate at developed campgrounds,a different procedure was followed.While demand as calculated above shows an increase to 9,700 user days,it is typical for campground supply to lag behind demand and for the unaccommodated increment to go.to.undeveloped sites.The BLM Denali Block Management Plan (BLM 1980)calls for three ~-unit puH-offsinthe area,and it-is understood that an expansion of the Brushkana Campground is under consideration.Therefore,a 'doubling of developed campground space has been assumed for the year 2000. In summary,without the Project,about 12,500 recreation days are estimated to occur in the year 2000.This is almost a 90 percent ---~-·-.-i-nc-rease-~over -19 80---f--igureso--------------.-~--_.------._--------.- 3.1.2 -Recreation Demand with the Project (**) To estimat~the year?OOO recreational demand with the Project, the baseline (without Project)recreational growth rates shown in Table E4.7.5 were examined and compared with project impacts as described in Section 2. _..For big game hunting,increased road access lead to increased activity.Because the game resource is limited and regulated,a maximum increase of 0.2 p~rcent is assumed.Today's capture rate is 0.3 percent of total.demand.The year 2000 is assumed to have a capture rate of 0.5 percent of total demand (see Tables E4.7.5 and E4.7.6). No waterfowl hunting iI1c:re;l~~o".er ba~~lineUgtlres.is anticipated as the proposed project features would not affect the al:tractiveness or accessioiliEy of anywaEerfowf hun tirig lakes • Presently,freshwater fishing is very limited due to lack of automobile access.Existing fishing sites are used principally I .! 851016 E4-7-3-4 .J by fly-in fishermen.It is assumed that this demand,like hunting,would increase 0.2 percent,attracting approximately double the number of fishermen as in the base case and triple the current use. Developed campground demand is a function of both the demand for other resources (e.g.,hunting and fishing)and the opportunities available to meet theoretical demand.Because of the remote nature of the area and the stated objective of protecting the natural resources (see Section 4.5),demand is expected to be directed toward small,primitive campgrounds.Demand is anticipated to be an additional 4,000 to 6,000 visitor days per year. Demand for hiking and picnicking is anticipated to be equal to that for camping. Demand for cross-country skiing is assumed to increase about 50 percent over the base case due to increased accessibility and interest in the area. A total of about 43,500 to projected for post-project recreational uses,such as in this estimate. 50,200 visitor days per year conditions in the year 2000. driving and sightseeing,are are Other included 3.2 -Willingness to Drive Comparison (*) Clark and Johnson (1981)indicate that 20 percent of the population is willing to drive five hours to a weekend recreational area,and an additional 11 percent would drive six or more hours.Applying these data to the projected year 2000 population (0.31 x 450,570),it can be estimated that approximately 140,000 persons from the Railbelt, Anchorage,and Fairbanks could be attracted to a site the distance of the study area in one year.Assuming a capture rate of 33 percent, approximately 46,000 persons could be attracted to the project area each year. 3.3 -Denali National Park Comparison (*) The entrance to Denali National Park and Preserve is about 80 highway miles from the Watana site.With Mt.McKinley,the park is a world-renowned recreational attraction.In 1981,the area attracted 256,500 recreational visitors and has shown generally a high rate of increase since the Parks Highway was opened in 1971 (see Table E4.7.7). While the NPS has not projected visitation to the year 2000,the Denali State Park Visitor Facility Market Analysis and Economic Feasibility Study (ERA 1980)projects total recreational visitors to Alaska to increase from about 550,000 in 1982 to 1,100,000 in the year 2000 (high range).If Denali National Park and Preserve visitation increases at 851016 E4-7-3-5 the same rate as the state as a whole,visitation in the year 2000 would be approximately 513,000. The Susitna Project area has a very different character and appeal than Denali National Park and Preserve and offers only a small portion of the park's attractions.Currently,the study area appears to draw about 2.5 percent of the number of visitors drawn to the national park. If,after project development it were to draw 10 percent of the visitation of the park,that would be 51,000 in the y~ar 2000. 3.4 -Denali Highway Travel Comparison (This Section deleted.) 3.5 -Recreation Participation Survey Method (This Section deleted.) 3.6 -Conclusion (This Section deleted.) .} 851016 E4-7-3-6 .; TABLES TABLE E4.7.l:POPULATION ESTIMATES OF SELECTED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE REGION 1980 1 2000 2 % Anchorage 174,400 263,000 +51% Fairbanks-North Star 57,300 83,000 +45% Mat-Su Borough 17,800 58,500 +229% Total 249,500 404,500 +62% NOTE:Estimates are rounded to the nearest 100. Sources:1 Alaska Department of Labor,Administrative Service Division,1985. 2 Frank Orth and Associates,1985 T!ABlJE E4.7.2:AVERAGE R~GIONAl RECREATION PARTICIPATION i Big Ga~Waterfowl Fresh~ater Developed Canoeing/X-Country Hunting Hunting Fishing Camping K~y~k!og Hikingficnigki~Ski~n~ Average Annual Per Capita Participation Days ,1980 2.9 0.9 7.7 3.0 0.7 3.0 11.7 0.6 Assumed Percentage Increase in Annual-Per-Capita Participation Days 1980-2000 8%8%6%i 57%20%27%12%40% Source:ADNR 1970 '~.'---'~~''--~' .\;-----..lIi-..,...;'~--J '--------' TABLE £4.7.3:DISTANCES TO CENTROID OF RECREATION AREA 01 of Demand Type at10 Trip Origin Miles l Hrs.®45 mph Hourly Interval Hourly Interva1 3 Anchorage 250 5.5 5-6 35% Fairbanks 200 4.5 4-5 30% Mat-Su 3-42 30% NOTE:Centroid of project recreation assumed to be 10 miles north of Watana Dam on access road (40 miles from Cantwell via Denali Highway and Access Road). Sources:1 Rand McNally Inc. 2 Centroid of Recreation Population in Borough assumed to be at this distance 3 U.S.Soil Conservation Service 1978. TABLE E4.7.4:~ST~MATED TOTAL ANNUAL R~CREATION DAYS FOR RESIDENTS OF SELECTED LOCATIONS, TO WATANA AND ALL OTHER LOCATIONS EQUIDISTANT FROM THEIR ORIGIN I ' Big Gam~Waterfowl Fre,shwater Developed Canoeing/X-Country Hunting;Hunting Fishing Camping Kayaking Hiking Picnicking Skiing Anchorage Residents 1980 126,900 :39,000 33p,000 131,000 31,000 131,000 510,000 26,000 Anchorage Residents 2000 157,0.00'61,000 51;6,000 298,000 53,000 241,000 829,000 53,000 Fairbanks-North Star I Residents 1980 47,000 15,000 1215,000 49,000 11 ,000 49,000 189,000 10,000 Fairbanks-North Star Residents 2000 112,000i 35,000 29~,000 169,000 30,000 75,000 257,000 30,000 Matanuska-Susitna Residents 1980 41,000 5,000 41,000 16,000 4,000 16,000 63,000 3,000 Matanuska-Susitna 196,pOOResidents2000 23,000 19,2,000 111,000 20,000 90,000 309,000 20,000 Estimated Total Recreation User Days -1980 214,(JOO 120,000 502,000 196,000 46,000 196,000 762,000 39,000 Estimated Total Recreation User Days -2000 465,000 119,000 1,OQO,000 578,000 103,000 406,000 1,395,000 103,000 NOTES:Rounded ,to nearest 1,000. EDAW calculations based on S1Jsitna River Cooperative Study methodology/ Source:U.S.Soil Conservation Servipe 11978 ~------------::J ~:j~(.-~''~''------ TABLE E4.7.5:ASSUMED PROJECT RECREATION CAPTURE RATES Big Game Waterfowl Freshwater Developed Canoeing/X-Country I Hunting Huntina Fishina Camoina Kavakina Hikina Picnickina Skiin Assumed Capture Rates of th Project Recteation Area,1980 1 0.3%0.1%0.3%2%0.4%--0.3% As,"""CT"Rates of th Project Recreation rea, 2000,Witho t Susitna Hydroelectr c 1.4%3Project20.3%0.1%0.3%0.4%--0.2% Estimated C pture Rate of the Project Recreation rea, 2000,with usitna Hydroelectr c Project Proposed Re reation Plan,User ays .±0.5%+0.1%+0.5%+2.3%+0.1%+3%+1%.±CJ.3% NOTES:1.I For big game hunting,derived from Alaska Fish &:Game Geowonderland Data for 1981.For fishing,assumed from Alaska Fish &: Game Statewide Harvest Study,1981 data.Others assumed based on personal interviews. 2.I Derived by applying assumed percentage increase in annual-per-capita participation days and year 2000 projected regional population to 1980 use. 3.I Assumed doubling of 1980 capacity only.Capture rates as calculated in Note 2 would be 1.7%. i TABLE E4.7.6:~STIMATED RECREATION DEMAND iBigGameWaterfowl Freshwater Developed Canoeing/X-Country Hunting Huhtihg Fishing I Camping Kayaking Hiking ....Picnicki.ng__SkHl1g Total Assumed 1980 Use of the Project Recrea- tion Area,User i Daysl 800 ~ooi 1,500 4,000 200 --100 6,700 Estimated 2000 Use of the Project Recreation Area Without Susitna Hydroelectric Pro- 8,000 3ject,User Days 2 1,300 !l.70'2,500 370 --220 12,540 Estimated 2000 Use of the Project Recreation Area With Susitna Hydroelectric Project Proposed Recreation Plan,2,200-4,800-12,000-12,000- 12,000- User Days 4 2,400 :170 5,200 14,000 100 5 14,0006 14,0006 350 43,520 EDAW estimate. NOTES:1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I I Project Recreation Area is ~he area enclosed by th~Parks Highway,Nenana River,the Susitna River to the east, and about 20 miles south 01 the Susitna ,River. Derived,,bY applying assumed 1 i percentage increases in annual-per-capita participation days and projected regional popu labion increase to 1980 use. , Assumed doubling of 1980 capacity only.Demand as Icalculated in Note 2 would be 9,700. I [i : Decreases due to impacts 01 resource. Same as developed camping.I --~'~.I!'X.:;~ '.... '---------'~,--~. TABLE E4.7.7:ANNUAL RECREATION VISITOR DAYS -DENALI NATIONAL PARK Recreation %Annual Increase Year Visits Since 1971 1971 44,528 1972 88,615 99%(Parks Hwy.Completed) 1973 137,418 55% 1974 161,427 17% 1975 160,600 -.5% 1976 157,612 -2% 1977 170,031 8% 1978 222,993 31% 1979 251,105 13% 1980 216,361 -14% 1981 256,493 18% 1982 321,868 25% 1983 346,082 7% 1984 394,426 14% Source:u.S.Department of the Interior/National Park Service 1985 TABLE E4.7.8:NUMBER OF ANGLERS WHO SPORT FISHED IN ALASKA BY AREA OF RESIDENCE,1977 -1981 Number of Anglers 119771978197919801981 Alaska Southeast 20,387 21,799 20,740 24,534 26,923 } Upper Copper- JSusitnaRiver1,885 1,377 1,255 1,302 1,195 Prince William Sound 2,802 2,788 2,675 3,018 3,064 ,.1 Kenai Peninsula 14,690 13,939 15,429 13,514 15,229 West Cook Inlet-Lower/~lSusitnaDrainage85,062 85,844 86,210 89,370 94,707 'I Kodiak 2,955 3,182 3,418 3,160 4,265 J Bristol Bay 933 1,113 1,260 1,666 1,667 ] Arctic=Yukon~Ku$koW_~~,2~±-25,866 29,624 30,163 32,822- Total 150,975 155,908 160,611 166,727 179,872 Other Than Alaska Other United States 38,717 41,604 46,622 51,473 62,923 11,366 8,673 6,076 .6,213 ..6,~3~ Total 50,083 50,277 53,698 57,686 69,357 TOTAL 20l,058 206,185 213,309 224,413 249,229 i Source:Mills,1981 t :J --~----- TABLE E4.7.9:NUMBER OF ANGLER DAYS FISHED IN ALASKA AND PERCENTAGE BY REGION AND AREA,1977 -1981 ANGLER-DAYS 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 AREA FISHED NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT South l entral Glen allen 51,485 4.3 44,566 3.5 57,266 4.2 50,518 3.4 53,499 3.8 Prinl e William Sound 48,369 4.0 35,046 2.7 46,594 3.4 46,468 3.1 42,734 3.0 Knik Arm Drainage 81,949 6.8 75,540 5.9 78,411 5.7 102,530 6.9 105,052 7.4 Anchl rage 55,060 4.6 31,147 2.4 65,425 4.8 79,665 5.4 67,618 4.8 *East Susitna Drainage 56,651 4.7 86,010 6.7 78,222 5.7 91,304 6.1 59,854 4.2 *West Cook Inlet- We~t Susitna Drainage 32,842 2.7 38,771 3.0 52,747 3.9 49,924 3.4 40,658 2.9 Kenai Peninsula 422,954 35.3 521,498 40.6 525,327 39.2 530,493 35.6 519,662 36.6 Ko:Ii k 41,563 3.5 44,502 3.5 59,045 4.3 64,907 4.4 66,439 4.7 Alaska Total 1,198,486 100.0 1,285,863 100.0 1,364,729 100.0 1,488,962 100.0 1,420,172 100.0 Susitn Drainage Total 89,493 7.4 124,781 9.7 130,969 9.6 141,228 9.5 100,512 7.1 Source Mills,1981 1 ] I 1 1 l j j -1 1 ( APPENDIX E5.7 EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL RECREATION FACILITY DESIGN·STANDARDS FOR THE SUSITNA PROJECT ) 1.1 EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 7 APPENDIX ES.7 EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL RECREATION FACILITY DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE SUSITNA PROJECT ] ,J J ] J 1 "j 1 l I ] l 1 OJ j I } L- JQlU l Q.W 5FllC(S AS OO£Ct[O ..,Tt€1..........([... z SU 'ROlf 01 FtAfPl.ACt A.Y 'R()I,I PRt1AUHG wHOS. 1I'f1l)r,'UTtHT"'O'CKHSNCtlSAALAlJ..[ 4 0lJ1RO POSTI OfPfNDOfT UPON ytO~T"'"01t .....IU..UY HU ..an INDlCUlo "GRAOf TO OUlH AWAY fROY OfVf,LCPMtH'f W5JlIl §PCNC TAISL[ =Of"'" ~fU,lPfflLOG ()"DUNO 'Ut[PIf !"-,'-I "_____l •ONE WA'TRAFfeJ....~lZJ I t~;r\------ SUSITNA DEVELOPED CAMPSITES RTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CU,_"', ,1I1\l'IUO IT,(or JllltP'l' I REl.C'JEO flt.M>(R LOGS,GUARD posts,fTC. INn REVISION !:!.!:!! 11-11-1' DAiT I APPVD I .H ....=~JJffI C-7 (PAGE 1 OF 7)FIGURE E5.7.1 BACK IN SPUR CAMPSITESCAllJ~.10'DESIGN a CONSTRUCTION SECTION STATE Of ALASKAOfPARKS G(HfAAL HOru I.STAHQiRa PICNIC UOL£S WJU.BE INSULUO "$lTE I'SUCH THAT IoIA1HTEkAHCE COlA.O BE ACCOUPUSHCO. Z.UltlllolOlo&tl.URHG TO OE DONE TO UTAIlUSH SITE D[V£LoPw£Nr. .1 ALL OOU:NSJOHS AAt l&lNUIlJI.I -FaCl.ITl[S ro BE COOSrRUCTEO TO CON'ORU ro SIT[. SUSITNA SEMI-PRIMITIVE CAMPSITES GROI.P UNT ARt... :0 1"("lUll 1TP(0".~:~~~::&~;ltr~!L DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL DIVISION Of PARKS RESOURCES !SlATE OF ALAS DESIGN a CONSTRUCTION SECTlON CONCEPT REMOTE CAMPING AREA 0'I4_tlH'" O*OBl ;Jf{S. -""'lisP'C-II '---..;. ---'-~' FIGURE E5.7.1 ~--' (PAGE 2 OF 7J ~'--' 1_- 211/4~ 10 ~o"-:'10 :518- ~;=[!3',.Ii'.J.~'T \•~'-..!" ~i171/2.' I USE [POKY nUE TO SECURE PHOTO PLATE SIGN TO STEn :tACK PLATE 2 FASTEN AtU\hNUU ANGLE FR......E TO eAse:.PLA'E AFTER GLUI'H'SIGH TO BASE '1 lFfILl a TAP HOLES iN BACK PLATE T~RI!:C£rv£ FRAME SCR£~ ,SIGN SHAl"-BE ADEQUATELY BRACED FOR 24 HRS. AFTER PtAcma CONCRETE. :.PAINT ElCPOS(O SECTION OF APE a PLAtE WlTH qUSTDLEUU BROWN PAiNT. ~ ·,··I/··~l.,g h ,'~r.-:lIt•I 1 ~ I I r;-------~l r;------n-;- I I I 1 I I I 1 I --I"1ef)c!,c{}ol 1'--''--I I '1 I::r~;crt-----'!~---~-kJi'-t,,,,.•.,.,,~i H '6'i . NOTESGEr~ERAL DETAIL A lIe--3/4-.'liZ- ALtJI,IIHUM -ANGLE lIlt·X 1I~M.CHINE SCREW (ROLHD HDJ ~ 5[[D[TA...a.~/'1 r-------, I ~..~: I I-~I I I I I~--r _/-_J r------l I 1:c:,IL_~-~--~ ~ IS liS"' I i2.' I i13118· :m:.j L'l"x '''-.21-STEfl Pl.. ATTACH PLATES USING &.I/~ C~(It'LATHEAO ".laiIHE SCREWS Fe"'""eH POST Q, I .-OIA)(,'O· STEEL POST b,:, us(fWD SINGU ,"on b ~ ....S(S 'all DQueu:POSt ~ SIDE VIEW za.. P~:.:~jof._"t: ~·:.i ~i~~~...... ELEVATION ~I~!.~Ii ~~. DOUBLE POST INSTALLAtiON 2eo."'"'1)4 X 6'STEEL POST 2.0 v-."x I4"X2r STEEL PLATE 110 114'"X 3&;':~"·STEEL PLATE 15(1 ~YOIUZ"ALUMINU,",AHGlf IZIO tl4"x IJ'L "'.CHINE SCREw (F'U,THD,CSK.) IGIll II('XV~MACHINE SCREW tROUNO\iO) 3d.CONCRnf. _. !~' .I:': ~.;. ~;; :;'. ~;: ,~~, ~~~ ::.~, !:!ATERIAL LIST SINGLE POST INSTALLATION "0 4~OIA X 6'STEEL POST '0 1/4"X 14"X 21"'S1EE:..PLATE 6f!IIS-.1.","'(1\1'1"AI UloUNUM ANGLE 10to l/4"l('f •MrtCHIN[o;CREW (ROUND HD.,ST SIll n/J ,.,"n :;RtTE zoo:;· .~. t·:~ I:;j,J"!:..l ~~~~, ....:,;'•... r~f~···;' f.4J r;.; :,'il; ~),I';~!i z i SIDE VIEW RTMENT OF NATURAL RE~0lIR'-<:' DIVISldN OF PARKS ,TAT:t.,\1.: P/"f'I<(,:':t:.J Vr )tENT NO SCALE STANDARD INTERPRETIVE SIGN INSTALLATION FIGURE E5.7.1 /'.t; ...."'f,$:t ~K>'1t!I ~~o.',Jp ...a--0 0411 J'rnl.JIt!i (PAGE 3 OF 7) .. b! 'ki uJA !sxv,J;r- sre"'.4W·L.AG1IClU"S 4",4"v.900 POST -1 SIGN PLATE ~ \:I GENERAL NOTES o' -'........, LOG POST NO.5 NO.10 HANDICAPPEO * b NO.9 NO.4 • * MEN'S RE··rpOOM WlDIRECTIONA_Afro{< 00 13 NO.3 ~o.t\ •f PICNIC :."EA -fir l'\'D"'cN'S RESTROO~' - i\. 002 NO.12 CAMPFIRE NO.T ~.l,- '11 *t HIKING TRAIL NO.6 • NO.I NO.II CROSS COUNmV SKI TRAIL SNOWMOBILING tft 4 MATERIALS LIST .'&~----I-a"',It',It' 1-1Z"'IAPPROJ(Dl....J.ro·p[[u:o l.OG.oa.4\"-.1"0- ~---1~3I1·'''tI2·UQII0l'' s- ~OttPIO",rN' --/ (PAGE 4 OF 7JFIGUREE5.7.1 STANDARD WOOD SIGNS SYM90LS ~~-"TIHlTC un'''o"IEHWfL f£D aT£RlCR Ena"EL t'fH:"'ROt118lnvE ACaSSORt FUll IS usml IJZ rwr-flDOO CWf a..OIt VoOOOflNSH ftlR EXTERICR WOOD.Qfl F'fV'1D)0l..!AS[aCt COlCR Sf...IfIJsSUT"-t~1 l AlL ~lJER StW!.£IE 00lll.A5 Ut,S-Ofn",54•. 1.AlL amlED POUIONS Of ~f'OST 5fW.L EJ(f'RC.;EfNlTrv£TR[A,ffD WlTH f'£HTJOt.CACf'tOQ.If(~ wmtAWE'tSrNa'lMD LP~HANJ A.WP".SfAtEWIJ P_1I WlTli ..UIU!uUUf£r fl[T[NTI:lHC#~LBS.P£.R 0.1 ft 3.fOJTID fOllTlOH rF $lC'H Pl.J.n TO t£INfTED WITH TWO COlTS wultf EXTERIOR [U.lMQ.. 4,Tlt('lCJMfY f'A()lJ8lfEO-.ecassOfIT $f-"lloL TO BE PAINTED WITH T'M,)C:BAB KO [XJ£fl1(Jl [HAMEL ~SJCiH PUll N()POSTS TO BE P.lJ.NTED WUH [ITHEA t¥O OOATS flOOD CWF nEAR VlQ(X)f».tStI RJI [UV!at 1IlXlO (R twa COAl'S f'REPKO ot.8lS£S::UD CQ..OO srA'URUS$En 6S-I34J !fll1..t;.RUSSETT STAff !lOJl.D BE USEO RIlsaGkS WHICH IJ'l(TO 6E ..,Ewt.'~..~...AIlt:Hl(l[ I .tU.HAflOWAA!S)W,.L Ilf G.IL\IlHIZEO AS NOTED SCALEI PARK DEyELOPMENT SECTION lNacAJES ;lC\'MTY IS PROHIBITED •V,J fit :JS£D wrPI AN}SYM£lCL.1 DEPARTMENT OF NATURh..RESOURCES DIVISION Of PARK~,iA 'E,O·ALASKA '-'-~ t 'HII' R-7 ....11 I '~o'a;:'I~ flU.,.f.D. o.an 4~15'1Z (PAGE 5 OF 7) ·,::~.~g:~i;:;;·::· '-\ ••..I.LOtUIJII.IO '.OI.ItID .....I.LH CO"",.CtlO '011.0.ICLUS Il.1 'ILL IIUtl'l'''L.1 fO:t 'ut III .-l""TO '$'ll,1;0""''''''011. '0,"':~{;M;:~~iJ.;:::~~ I IIJ,.our:o OOI ••'M' .('''Slntl ~;. ~ l ) ~e:~~~·B1-: ..!!.I;ML..llE;YAIION FIGURE E5.7.1 VAULTED TOILET ENCLOSED ATTIC FLOOR PLAN SINGLE WITH i(~)A::. SCALEI tJ2.··I·~O· ! I j illiI"'I :::;::>'--'-----L~------------~-~IIllTllultt_u.aT TO It OITlIIIIIIlIO ell 'It[.a,tM'I"nll COlitlltlt MO '0. L1vaL anll '''ClLPfO -ULV••un 1"11" _DOOII SPllllt. __.ul....I:UIIII'....lUI..L /:::,'~'if~UlilOU1 .. ::r ~r-L.' '. '. ..Ju.....---'OU"OAl'O~ 1fT") G"LV.SHU'tlUI.Louell,,'".'''C.l.STlllp\'''Cfllll ,.II(-U.COHCI'I(1f fOUIiDUION· S(C\JIl[11I1OL.l.U .ltH 11..••,.1,.1.0 "lIfa, 1,lIfO'O) DESIGN a CONSTRUCTION SECTION '.j )\(Ir~0""'"HOO".,,',....:.l~'LUIl IITUWlltOUS U"Wtl.N.tll' Il~~~:L:~IITr~,,~:::~L~~~ CUlf'"ca lQUAL.·· w .:............I SL"Pf '1,.0011 I INCH 'fll ,oaT.:" 'f.L a'lH MI..C COWC,,[I'•If.L[~1 THCllaSIA!,.SUl ''''.:'\\all fO",,!,..• .1 ~cl:7:~C':~·':-;'':J?':':-Ll~~~ ~IGHT SlOE ELEVATION o,~ '•••,.~'''.ClliIl STATE OF ALASKA ".'111'••IN 'OUIl00\t101t 1l'l'p.J FRO,!!.-E~Vfl.JI_9!i j ;;~ :;~ :~:: ~~::~~.~.7;.~-.:.~..j •/--E~~'I~~~~~i~:O.·I""">-,:;t-'--,,.(.J :;".~'.<. "l~!l';:'."'-I. I .......-.., I~.t 1-'0 ••••(1-10 !I .1 I'C- .~::.... :~".':' I. .~ t ---ll.-ua'./FOUNOAc'9-N__~~•"CUL'on,.C::'Li~-,':"~~.i.IIHI)==-ro,.IDU-Te;It COltC'U:l[. L~ OF PARKS RTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES .----- '.j " .~I ;" .LUWUi\JW LOUV(l'IS----+f-.I...U.l1 I U"llo i10,t I"'liD..,0'_,•.Wlll,I alliU COJlClln,NO, '011 loUJlDlt ,.tClU " BILL OF MATERIALS GENERAL NOTES '.,.,ll-IOtA tlUl '.·..0·•••..0·' 'IUIl::tIlI-S/.",.1l '11I0.'''I •'.CMII-II,"1.0 111011 "".,t I '.CHIS-S"'ll '11011 ....... 1-11.·••"1·.10·I'tll 10 'IIIC"I,-I1.-ItIIL 11(I0 •11I""11 -1"".1'111.100 II ,"eMl'-I"·"IIL"IIIOO •-II'".fllL ."WI•• Oil rt -Sit·III•••'.'1u.eu ,,0.-co"clIne 'Qt-lIuttO..ltlM •NO ,,,.c:'MilO'''''.,&...' ,0'-lIutrOUUIlI ••,.011 ..11 'A'''' I.SKIU 'UIU.ro at 10 .au..111,"1 IN'U. t...11'11.1 to _WU,O(O lAC"'101 ta 00011I 1",11I. l.ull 10nOlil 'LAt«cutout t ,'.,".II u.")....'lila'""..... ..tltAt'WILD .",UlIP fO OUtSIDI 01 IOHO."L.tt. •LIft".,un AlIII:","11I'1."'011I 1.I,fu,1 COllltIllUe.IL'"•"01.111.' Ol'lU...IN pl,aCI. ._DIIUII IIU.I.UI'""'TO (aflllet 'III",nave 'L"" •."'-loCI lO'O.O/lIl.u••_no H.IIlU:O U\llL. •,,'"..t ALL Ul'OUO liUAt.wn ...uUo u .._..0 I.e C...o ......",,:. "lin wn..IIlUIfOLluli ",nl QIU;I(GI ..A1.l WllOI to II Jt-.'ILl.'" RUA'''IIt'"• 1"-0· ,..•. II.·000'l """'OLI '\ \:';,:::)5.+..~~.~:. CONCRETE SLAB SCAlE:'-.1'-0· D89.~.JE~!L IOU-IUIL_ s·~.· :0........,.,••"·0· ~.~".!,.,.•-".,......~""r..o Wiloa '1"0 ~O fiT,..J-.,....LLOM altu......-1 ",ro.JIlIIfOVIO i I 1 i L1f""'IYII :~:;:~::;);'.__..}::;6~ J·1.0·,.., '. .. "~ , "'·~Ia.u"I--·"' .1 ,no- ./ .,.--" ....111'·0'....01.1 ./ ,'-".-ri,. A ~ ·3 '31 ------ '."~ V4",Ull....._l"-,..1111.·CUTour 'N FRONT !V'EW 1,,,.- SECTION A-A DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION Of PARKS ISTATE Of ALASKA DESIGN a.r.)NSTRUCTION SECTION I !iC.L!.II..··,· 8 NorED BEARPROOF GARBAGE CAN CMCIaD.lJ ,.C-17 FIGURE E5.7.1 (PAGE 6 OF 7) ','~.--.~"--- '--- I.0"I-".I LAMINATED BEAU AL1[RH"[ L ULU(fULL COHtAeT .....C[Of ADJOUUHO 80."01 I HAIL ADJOINING IOUO$U5lJla 10_"AILS 5.S'LIC!IO""l'1 At I"OICAf(O 111II OUAIL ~:.!!! S4S·SU[ct srRuc;t",UI.-,10lStS •,_11.10' 1 .-IZ_II' M4T ER !p.l'U!I END l.l!«& s.s-"5nLtT STfU:TUUl."-$1ll.Cn..R.tL lDit'f"fl,UMG I II ..... Z 1.41 It ACl.Oi-"sn!cr SfA..CTUW."-..osrs NlJ f'l.AN(S 1,11'1 ,. Z.~.J'IJolI" Z.II.T' ,.11,11'.....,. ••4.lA.4.l. :!:~~:.:R'P-I.-GIlfI'Yl'lllfHU..S Ill8 ZOd~NAt.5 ,H •4 w.ocr,£ea.,..NJ1'IHJ WASlV!S 16 !.'Ill •S yz IoUD_L seu 'W NJr In)w.1SIViS ..V2 •4 V2 101.IO-.(ea.r ...Nft lID ~£RS l n£BAOGL SK:U.O Sf AT LEast TlIlO fUr &8a>I[HIGH ....'£II 2 anACH fcu.DlTlQH AIQ.[S fO f(l,N).lfJOtoj PLA't PACR fa SUlWG 1.fa.tOlJCN PUtES SHOlLD Sll'ON GRA\I£L CIA ..PLACED AOCIC fQufD&tOH ..,T1i(rQU'l,l,TlON tS LH$'....8.E.lm..L ""0 DAlY£.TWO 3t<.4'sna BARS THROLGH ft£fOlUllTOI PLAtt 5 £AOl BRC~IS CCH£C:TfD ro nt:STRWG£R$W1fH fOl.,A f'l'P{C lflP·L·(;R1P .lH:HOR$ I WAll...".WE LOAD;100.'.14 It orsoa"",,,,h..s._t t .au""OJ)StW..LBf;cno...asf"'l~tRl .....l \loCO)SHIU E£fqSlRv"'M fAUnD 'lImt POltAOI.1n:Af.H:l....e.cc:ooua lIIUlt AWPt SU/IJIR)l.p~n IHJ AWPA.St.lHWQ 1"-'IIlIOi ...............J£J R!:TENTCH OF ~t.aS.fIER D.1 " I.AU.~5HIU.ll((;I,LvANUD UI t.IlJ,a,W lUnD STUl.. 10 MJ.£l:CXN;I Stw..t.8(NSt.\ULO "'"""...<a..LAfI SMCNO ..-. GENERAL NQIES ~-.........:::::-::::...-.-. '0 DETAIL-LAMINATED SEAM (ALTERNATE) f.OlI~PW2!J A~ SCALE·.--2- '0' I' BRIDGE PLAN :.. t--w ...·BCLTS ···~Z .....,,· ~ ,.4.tt ____ ..I;..ii l>-W.SllZ"eCll.rs it:I p ~1,;::; ELEVATION II.l' rJl- f(~'--------'---....ha S·ott ... \.'11".'-......... ORCCtG tt ~C ............ 2 ,tZ.'t I JI~ A ......' '---............~l--ff .....nn .'-- I'"""lJ'- I·-~·'''1.l G·./.......... .1..... I •IT \-----7---1 'lib 'Iltl f' FIGURE ·E5.7.1 (PAGE 7 OF 7) RTMENT OF DIVISIOIN Of PARKS NATURAL ~ESOURCES STATE )F ALASKA DESI'":~~8 Cor-'STRUCTION SECTION SCALE NOrtE 16'TRAIL BRIDGE DUo_ill "J CHliCItO .Jrs.,Ii_•.,.,.jJ.j.;.u '""t !.::.... ~ I 'H"" (:~======.........:::=:::::===---~.....~•....~..........~.~- I ] 'I ,J 'J j ~1 ] ] 'I 'J 'j I ,] ] .J ~] .] X APPENDIX E6.7 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SITES WITHIN THE PROJECT·RECREATION STUDY AREA 1 J ] ~.,. ..:~.':'•..,-:. .'.':-.::. PHOTO E6.i.1:.MIDDLE FORK OF CHULITNA RIVER;VIEW TO THE . _.'..--SOUTH THROUGH CARIBOU PASS ALONG PROPOSED......-.-_.._.---TRAIL PHOTO E6.7.2:SUSITNA BRIDGE ON THE SUSITNA RIVER; .IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF PROPOSED BOAT RAMP 'pHOTdE6~7~3~;WATANA TOWNSITE-.. PHOTOE6.7.4:BRUSHKANA CAMp·,EXISTING CAMPSITE .ADJACENT TO PROPOSED CAMPSITE J ') ,"j 1, J 1 ~l I~i .'~j , ') j 'j I I !1 J ,,1 , j ! I !I . ) '\,.. 'PHOTO 'E6.7.sJrsUsENA CREEK;VIEW WEST INTO THE TSUSENA "-:CREEK DRAINAGE FROM THE CHULITNA MOUNTAINS, .-.....,---._-FROM THE PROPOSED MOUNTAINEERING TRAIL PHOTO E6~7.6:TSUSENA CREEK j VIEW NORTH INTO THE CHULITNA MOUNTAINS FROM ABOVE THE PROPOSED TRAIL \.... ~..,-,:" PHOTO E6.1.1:.'MID -CHULITNA MOUNTAINS;LOOKING SOUTH .....,.AT LAKE FROM PROPOSED TRAIL PHOTO E6.7.8:-MID-CHULITNA MOUNTAINS;LOOKING NORTH ....-..FROM PROPOSED UNDESIGNATED CAMPSITES i j ·.' PHOTOE6~7~9:-MID-CHULITNA MOUNTAINS PHOTOE6.7.10:TSUSENA BUTTE;LOOKING SOUTH TOWARD . .TSUSENA LAKES FROM PROPOSED TSUSENA CREEK TRAIL PI-I()"''6Efi:7~11~~DEADMAN LAKEI BIG LAKE;VIEW NORTH ..-'BETWEEN THE LAKES.FROM PROPOSED TRAlL AND--_.__....._,.--..-.-.-UNDESIGNATED CAMPSITES ,•.:.;,,;._.~...~.~..:••.••1,•. PHOTO .EE>.7.12:DEADMAN LAKE;VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST .'FROM ABOVE THE PROPOSED TRAIL j .l .\ \ 1 1 r 1 .j 1 ) 'j I...-' I I j f f ) ), PHOTO E6.1:t3::BIG LAKE;'flEW TOWARD THE SOUTH END OF THE .r LAKE FROM THE PROPOSED UNDESIGNATED . ._-CAMPSITES PHOTO E6.?f4:CLARENCE LAKE.,GILBERT CREEK VIEW WEST ,TOWARD PROPOSED TRAIL AND UNDESIGNATED CAMPSITES PHOTO E6.7.15~KOSINA CREEK;VIEW NORTH ALONG CREEK FROM '.--'ABOVE PROPOSED TRAIL ,',i' .\ _._---~~~~------_.._._~---~-- PHOTO E6.7.16':WATANA LAKE"VIEW TOWARD THE NORTH 1 ) I I J 1 I ·1 "'j j' J I \ J I j ) 1 1 ·'.\.- .~~. .- PHOTO E6.7.17:.FOG LAKES;VIEW TOWARD THE EAST ...~._.I~....•.•!.'_-.'-.." '..,.,-.,' I .-......:....'._..,.,..~:...:_',. PHOTO E6.7.18:,FOG LAKES;VIEW SOUTH TOWARD THE TALKEETNA ,RANGE FROM ABOVE PROPOSED TRAIL .__.~ttQJ'QE§.1.J9:STEPHAN LAKE.;VIEW TOWARD THE SOUTH .,'.-":.....;..;;.:..--..~:...__.',""',"-"----..~_,.--,---.'.r··'-···-'-·-·'··~·-·'·-~-·-----·-·-·----":'-'-:.--"-:----.-.,.,.---,':"":--_.----'--.---------,.,--.-".~-. PHOTOE6.7.20:DEVIL CREEK;VIEW ALONG ,..DEVIL CREEK;AT ITS' .CONFLUENCE WITH THE SUSITNA RIVER } 1 ,1 1 1 } ',I I ~) I .J 1 I I J 1 I ] r -".,','·PHOTo"E6d.21:DEVIL,CREEK ,DEVIL CREEK ._--.'"FALLS EAST,AS VIEWED FROM---;_....,_.;--~".NEAR PROPOSED VI EWPOINT PHOTO E6.'7,.22:DEVIL CREEK;DEVIL CREEK ,FALLS WEST,AS VIEWED FROM NEAR PROPOSED VIEWPOINT PHOTO-E6.7.23:DEVIL.CREEK.i..~ICINITY.OF PROPOSED SCENIC TRAIL AND Vll:.wPOINTS 1 J 1 ] I PHOTO E6.7.24:'MERMAID LAKE;SOUTH END OF LAKE FROM --'ABOVE PROPOSED CAMPGROUND PHOTO E6.7.25:MERMAID LAKEj NORTH END OF LAKE,FROM ABOVE PROPOSED CAMPGROUND 1 J \ J 'I PHOTO E6.7.26:,DEVIL CANYON DAMSITE j VIEW OF SUSITNA './ ./"·RIVER FROM THE PORTAGE CREEK CONFLUENCE )------_..--_.__.--- '.1'I,'\ i j I .j ] 1 1 ~-----~-1~ PHOTO E6.7.27:SOULE CREEK;VIEW TOWARD THE WEST OF 1 SOULE LAKE FROM ABOVE THE PROPOSED TRAIL 1 PHOTO E6.7.28:SOULE CREEK·,UPPER SOULE -CREEK CANYON VIEWING TOWARD -----------~----THE EAST ALONG THE PROPOSED MOUNTAINEERING TRAIL PHOTO E6.7.29:SOUTHERN CHULITNA MOUNTAINS;VIEWING SOUTHEAST OVER LAKE)FROM ABOVE THE PROPOSED TRAIL 1.I 1 I 1 J J J J ) ., .'..j j ·1 .......___--.__..-_.-......_-.'1._----____._.____-_. ._-_~_-'-P'-'-'HOTb...::.E6•.7..3.0:~sOuIHEeN-cHuLI.:r:NA-MOUN:rAINSt-VI &WING --...----... EASTWARD INTO THE CHULITNA MOUNTAINS ALONG '.1 .'.-THE PROPOSED TRAIL FROM THE PROPOSED j UNDESIGNATED CAMPSITES 1 ] ( j J.. l ~l Il flLJ [1 U U IIu CHAPT_ER 8 AESTHETIC RESOURCES J.! SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 8 AESTHETIC RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page No. 1 -INTRODUCTION (**)• •••••.•0 •••E-8-1-1 1.1 -Purpose (*)•E-8-1-1 1.2 -Relationship to Other Analyses (*)E-8-1-1 1.3 -Environmental Setting (**)E-8-1-1 1.3.1 -Regional Setting (**) 1.3.2 -Project Setting (**) 1.3.3 -Summary ••••••• (This section deleted) 3 -STUDY OBJECTIVES (*) 4 -PROJECT FACILITIES (*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E-8-3-1 E-8-2-1 E-8-4-1· E-8-1-1 E-8-1-2 E-8-1-3 ... . . . . . . . . ... ....2 -PROCEDURE (*) 4.1 -Watana Project Area (*)E-8-4-1 4.2 -Devil Canyon Project Area (*)E-8-4-1 4.3 -Watana -Stage III Project Area (***)E-8-4-1 4.4 -Denali Highway to Watana Dam Access Road (*)E-8-4-1 4.5 -Watana Dam to Devil Canyon Dam Access Road (*)E-8-4-2 4.6 -Transmission Lines (*)E-8-4-2 4.7 -Intertie •••••••• (This section deleted) E-8-4-2 4.8 -Recreation Facilities and Features (*)E-8-4-2 5 -EXISTING LANDSCAPE (**)• •. . . . . . ....E-8-5-1 851016 i I 'J J 1 1 J ~~) J ..J 1 ] 1 j 1 l "I ,'j J J E-8-5-1 E-8-5-2 E-8-5-2 E-8-5-2 E-8-5-2 E-8-5-3 E-8-5-3 E-8-5-3 E-8-5-3 E-8-5-3 E-8-5-3 E-8-5-1 E-8-6-1 E-8-6-1 E-8-7-1 E-8-6-2 E-8-6-2 E-8-6-2 Page No. E-8-8-1 E-8-7-1 E-8-7-1 E-8-7-1 E-8-7-1 E-8-8-1 E-8-7-2 . . .. . .... . ... .... . . . . ... . . • • • •0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) 5.2.1 -Devil Canyon (**) 5.2.2 -Devil Creek Falls (*)••••••• 5.2.3 -Stephan Lake (*)• • • • 5.2.4 -Tsusena Creek Falls (*)• 5.2.5 -Tsusena Butte Lake (*) 5.2.6 -Deadman Creek Falls (*) 5.2.7 -Fog Lakes (*)• • • • 5.2.8 -Big and Deadman Lakes (*) 5.2.9 -Caribou Pass (*)•••• 5.2.10-Vee Canyon (**) 7.1.1 -Distinctiveness (*) 7.1.2 -Uniqueness (*) 7.1.3 -Harmony and Balance (*)•• 6.2.1 -Distance Zones (***) 6.2.2 -Viewsheds (***)• •••• 6.2.3 -Significant Views (***) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 8 AESTHETIC RESOURCES 5.2 -Notable Natural Features (**) 5.1 -Landscape Character Types (*) 6.1 -Viewers (***) 7.3 -Composite Ratings (**)•• 7.2 -Absorption Capability (*)• 8.1 -Mitigation Planning of Incompatible Aesthetic Impacts (Now addressed in Section 9) ---];1 ....AestheticValueRati-ng{*)--......·.....--..•.-.E-8-7-1 Title 7 -AESTHETIC EVALUATION RATINGS (**)• 6 -VIEWS (**) 8 -AESTHETIC IMPACTS (**) EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 8 AESTHETIC RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Title 8.2 -Watana Stage I (***) 8.3 -Devil Canyon Stage II (***) 8.4 -Watana Stage III (***) 8.5 -Access Routes (***).. 8.5.1 -Denali Highway-to-Watana Dam Access Route (***) 8.5.2 -Watana Dam-to-Devil Canyon Dam Access Route (***) 8.5.3 -Devil Canyon Rail Spur (***) 8.6 -Transmission Facilities (***). 8.6.1 Watana and Devil Canyon Dams- to-Gold Creek Segment (***)• • 8.6.2 -Gold Creek-to-Fairbanks Segment (***) 8.6.3 -Gold Creek-to-Anchorage Segment (***) Page No. E-8-8-2 E-8-8-3 E-8-8-4 E-8-8-5 E-8-8-5 E-8-8-6 E-8-8-6 E-8-8-6 E-8-8-7 E-8-8-7 E-8-8-8 9 -MITIGATION (**)• • • • • • • • • 9.1 -Mitigation Feasibility (**) 9.2 -Mitigation Plan (***). • • • ...E-8-9-1- E-8-9-1 E-8-9-2 9.2.1 -Watana Dam Site (***).. 9.2.2 -Devil Canyon Dam Site (***) 9.2.3 -Access Roads (***).••. 9.2.4 -Quarry/Borrow Areas (***) 9.2.5 -Railraod (***)••... 9.2.6 -Camps and Villages (***) 9.2.7 -Transmission Lines (***) 9.3 -Mitigation Costs (**).•• . ... E-8-9-2 E-8-9-3 E-8-9-4 E-8-9-5 E-8-9-7 E-8-9-8 E-8-9-9 E-8-9-11 9.3.1 -Mitigation Measures (***).•.• 9.3.2 -Monitoring Costs (***)••••.. 9.4 -Mitigation Monitoring (***)•.••. E-8-9-11 E-8-9-12 E-8-9-12 851016 iii EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 8 AESTHETIC.RESOURCES 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) 11.1 -Agencies and Persons Consulted (**)• 10 -AESTHETIC IMPACT EVALUATION OF THE INTERTIE (This Section Delected) 1 1 j ,j J -1 '~ 1 ] 'j ] 1 'j '] 1 1 ,] E-8-10-1 E-8-11-1 E-8-11-1 E-8-11-1 E-8-12-1 E-8-13-1 Page No. .. . o 0 ·0 •• ... ... • • • •o·• • .0. • • • • 0 • iv • • • • 0 • • • 0 • • • •~• • ..... .. .0.. 11.2 -Agency Comments (**)• 12 -REFERENCES • • 11 -AGENCY COORDINATION (**)• 13 -GLOSSARY • Title 851016 Number E.8.6.1 E.8.7.1 851016 EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 8 AESTHETIC RESOURCES LIST OF TABLES Title SIGNIFICANT VIEWS AESTHETIC IMPACT POTENTIAL COMPOSITE RATINGS v Number E.8.I.l E.8.4.l E.8.5.l E.8.5.2 E.8.5.3 E.8.6.l E.8.8.l E.8.8.2 E.8.9.l E.8.9.2 E7.8.l E7.8.2 851016 EXHIBIT E-CHAPTER 8 AESTHETIC RESOURCES LIST OF FIGURES Title REGIONAL MAP PROPOSED PROJECT FEATURES LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPES LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPES NORTHERN STUB LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPES SOUTHERN STUB SIGNIFICANT VIEWS WATANA BORROW'SITE MAP TRANSMISSION LINES PROPOSED AESTHETIC MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED AESTHETIC MITIGATION MEASURES TYPICAL TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR PLAN AND SECTION' TYPICAL ROAD SECTION ! J ,j OJ J 1 I ] J j ]. ,'j !1 J ,J Number El.8.1 El.8.2 El.8.3 El.8.4 El.8.5 El.8.6 El.8.7 El.8.8 El.8.9 El.8.10 El.8.11 El.8.12 El.8.13 El.8.14 E2.8.1 E2.8.2 I E2.8.3 E2.8.4 E3.8.l 851016 EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 8 AESTHETIC RESOURCES LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Title DEVIL CANYON RAPIDS LOOKING UPSTREAM TO DEVIL CANYON DEVIL CANYON RAPIDS DEVIL CREEK FALLS #1 DEVIL CREEK FALLS #2 STEPHAN LAKE LOOKING SOUTH TSUSENA CREEK FALLS TSUSENA BUTTE LAKE LOOKING NORTH NORTHWEST DEADMAN CREEK FALLS FOG LAKES BIG/DEADMAN LAKE BIG/DEADMAN LAKE CARIBOU LAKES LOOKING SOUTH TOWARDS THE CONFLUENCE OF SOULE CREEK AND JACK RIVER VEE CANYON AND VICINITY THE SOUTHERN WALLS OF VEE CANYON EXISTING SUSITNA RIVER AND PROPOSED WATANA STAGE III RESERVOIR AT MID-DRAWDOWN SITE OF PERMANENT TOWNSITE/CONSTRUCTION VILLAGE AND PERMANENT TOWNSITE -WATANA EXISTING CONDITIONS NEAR TSUSENA CREEK AND PROPOSED ROAD CROSSING PROPOSED HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE AT DEVIL CANYON PROPOSED DEVIL CANYON CONSTRUCTION VILLAGE/CAMPSITE vii EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 8 AESTHETIC RESOURCES ......~~..-.-...'---E4-;-8-;9--'--EX-rSTI-N~-BRUS'KA:NA-eAMPGR0UND-0F'F--])E-NA-hr:--H-:WHWA¥------· PROPOSED EXPANSION Number E3.8.2 E3.8.3 E3.8.4 E3.8.5 E4.8.1 E4.8.2 E4.8.3 E4.8.5 E4.8.6 E4.8.7 E4.8.8 E4.8.10 E4.8.11 E4~8 ~12 E5.8.1 851016 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS (cont'd) Title PROPOSED DEVIL CANYON CONSTRUCTION VILLAGE/CAMPSITE DEVIL CANYON DAMSITE LOOKING DOWNSTREAM AND RAPIDS AT DEVIL CANYON CREEK TO BE INUNDATED BY DEVIL CANYON RESERVOIR PROPqSED MAJOR BORROW AREA FOR WATANA DAM ON NORTH LOWER SUSITNA RIVER TERRACE PROPOSED MAJOR BORROW AREA FOR WATANA DAM ON NORTH LOWER SUSITNA RIVER TERRACE TYPICAL ROAD PULLOUT ON THE PARKS HIGHWAY BORROW AREAS NEAR THE DENALI HIGHWAY SHOW LACK OF NATURAL VEGETATION DENALI HIGHWAY NEAR PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD J,lll:.NAr..I HIGHWAY ~~!J:)g~__ JEEP ROAD/TRAIL OFF DENALI HIGHWAY ALL-TERRAIN-VEHICLE TRAIL TO BUTTE LAKE GOLD CREEK ORV TRAIL EXISTING WATANA CAMP EXISTING BORROW PIT ALONG DENALI HIGHWAY EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINES NORTH SIDE OF COOK INLET- .SUSITNA RIVER LOWLANDS EXISTING TRANSMISSION·LINES NORTHSIDE OF COOK INLET- SUSITNA RIVER LOWLANDS POTENTIAL RESERVOIR SLOPE/EDGE CONDITION viii J J 1 'J ] J .'J ] ] ] ] ] J J J ] l .1 .1 Number E5.8.2 E7.8.1 E7.8.2 E8.8.1 E8.8.2 E8.8.3 E8.8.4 E8.8.5 E8.8.6 E8.8.7 E8.8.8 E8.8.9 E8.8.10 E8.8.ll E8.8.12 E8.8.13 E8.8.14 E8.8.15 E8.8.16 E8.8.17 E8.8.18 851016 EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 8 AESTHETIC RESOURCES LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS (cont'd) Title POTENTIAL RESERVOIR SLOPE/EDGE CONDITION TYPICAL TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR PLAN AND SECTION TYPICAL ROAD SECTION MID SUSITNA RIVER VALLEY SUSITNA RIVER NEAR DEVIL CREEK SUSITNA RIVER VEE CANYON SUSITNA UPLAND WET TUNDRA BASIN PORTAGE LOWLANDS CHULITNA MOIST TUNDRA UPLANDS CHULITNA MOUNTAINS WET UPLAND TUNDRA TALKEETNA UPLANDS TALKEETNA MOUNTAINS SUSITNA UPLAND TERRACE SUSITNA UPLANDS ANCHORAGE,ALASKA SUSITNA RIVER LOWLANDS NENANA UPLANDS NENANA RIVER LOWLANDS TANANA RIDGE ix Number E1.8 E2.8 E3.8 E4.8 E5.8 E6.8 E7.8 E8.8 E9.8 851016 EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 8 AESTHETIC RESOURCES LIST OF APPENDICES Title EXCEPTIONAL NATURAL FEATURES SITE PHOTOS WITH SIMULATIONS OF PROJECT FACILITIES PHOTOS OF PROPOSED PROJECT FACILITIES SITES EXAMPLES OF EXISTING AESTHETIC IMPACTS EXAMPLES OF RESERVOIR EDGE CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE ANTICIPATED AT WATANA AND DEVIL CANYON DAMS PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS AND CHARTS GENERAL AESTHETIC MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPES OF THE PROJECT AREA AESTHETIC VALUE AND ABSORPTION CAPABILITY RATINGS x J J J 1 -1 .J J J j ] ] -J I ] I 1 EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 8 AESTHETIC RESOURCES 1 -INTRODUCTION (**) 1.1 -Purpose (*) The purpose of this chapter is to describe the aesthetic resources of the proposed project area,outline the anticipated impacts of project development on those resources,and describe proposed mitigation measures to prevent or minimize ·negative impacts to the visual environment.Mitigation measures which would enhance viewing opportunities of aesthetic resources in the project area are also identified. 1.2 -Relationship to Other Analyses (*) This chapter is based,in part,on the project description presented in Exhibit A and project operations described in Chapter 2 of Exhibit E. Important inputs to the aesthetics mitigation plan can also be found in Exhibit E:Chapter 3,Fish,Wildlife,and Botanical Resources; Chapter 4,Historic and Archeological Resources;and Chapter 7, Recreation Resources. 1.3 -Environmental Setting (**) 1.3.1 -Regional Setting (**) Susitna Hydroelectric Project facilities,including the transmission lines,would be located within two of Alaska's physiographic regions:the Southcentral Region and the Interior Region (see Figure E.8.1.1). The Southcentral Region is bounded by the Alaska Range to the north and west,the Wrangell Mountains to the east,and the Chugach Mountains and Gulf of Alaska to the south.This region, which encompasses all of the Susitna Project features except for the northern stub of the transmission line,is characterized by rugged mountainous terrain,plateaus and broad river valleys.In addition,the region contains approximately 55 percent of the state's population.This includes Anchorage,located 100 air .miles south of the project area. Mount McKinley,the highest mountain in North America,is on the Southcentral Region's northwest border.Spruce-hemlock and spruce-hardwood forests,wetlands,moist and wet tundra,plateau uplands and a number of active glacially-bedded mountain valleys are other important natural environments present.These diverse 851016 E-8-1-1 landscapes are complemented with a wide variety of wildlife and fishery resources. The Interior Region is bordered by the Brooks Range to the north, the Bering Sea to the west,Canada to the east,and the Alaska Range to the south.It is generally characterized as a broad open landscape of large,braided and meandering rivers and streams.River valleys are primarily vegetated with spruce-hardwood forests giving way to treeless tundra and brush-covered highlands and large wetland areas.The Yukon River,which bisects the Interior Region,is its single most important natural feature.Again,as in the Southcentral Region, wildlife and fishery resources are as diverse as the landscapes. Fairbanks,located 100 air miles north of the project area with approximately 65,000 residents,is Alaska's second largest urban center (Frank Orth &Associates 1985).Due to a harsh winter climate and general inaccessibility (other than by air),the Interior Region is still considered to be predominantly a wilderness area. 1.3.2 -Project Setting (**) The 39,000-square-mile middle Susitna River basin is located entirely in the Southcentral Region.The basin is bordered by the Alaska Range to the north,the Chulitna and Talkeetna Mountains to the west and south,and the northern Talkeetna Plateau and Gulkana Uplands to the east.Although the basin is -not-consldered-io -be unusually cCscenic-in comparison ~to·otFier natural resources in Alaska,it has distinct and diverse combinations of landforms,waterforms,vegetation and wildlife .species.The deep V-shaped canyons of the Susitna River,the Talkeetna Mountains,and the upland plateau to the east are the dominant topographic forms.Elevations in the basin range from approximately 700 feet to over 6,000 feet.Distinctive landforms include panoramic tundra highlands,active and post..,.glacial _._.__.--------val1eys-,and-numerous---l-akes.---The--mo st:--we-l-l-known-feat;ures-in-the ba-s-i-n-a-:t:'e-t-he-ve-rc-t-i-e-a-l-vla-l-led-De.:vi-l-and-Vee-Cau:yo.ns-on-the---- Susitna River. The project area is located within the middle Susitna River basin.The project area boundary is defined as the Alaska .Railroad to the southeast,the Parks Highway to the northeast, the Denali Highway to the north,the Susitna River to the east and aline twenty miles south .of the Susitna-River. The major drainages in the middle Susitna River basin are the Susitna,Maclaren,Tyone and Oshetna Rivers.The principal creeks in the basin are Portage,Devil,Fog,Tsusena,Watana, Kosina,Jay,and Butte Creeks.Scenic waterfalls occur ,I J ] -1 ·1 851016 E-8-1-2 on several creeks near their confluence with the Susitna River. The most notable falls occurs on Devil Creek. Spruce and mixed spruce-deciduous forests are located in river and tributary valleys below an elevation of 2,500 feet west of the confluence of the Oshetna and Susitna Rivers.Tundra and muskeg replace the mixed forests to the east and on the highlands.Mountain slopes are bare or lightly covered with vegetatio~ Wildlife species in the middle Susitna River basin include Dall sheep,moose,caribou,grizzly and black bears,bald and golden eagles,trumpeter swans,and numerous migratory waterfowl.All five Alaskan salmon species,grayling,burbot and rainbow and lake trout also occur in the basin. Existing access into the middle Susitna River basin is generally limited to hiking,float planes,all-terrain vehicles (ATV's), and watercraft.The Denali Highway,a scenic gravel road,passes through the northern portion of the basin linking the George Parks Highway to the west with the Richardson Highway 136 miles to the east.Several short roads and trails traverse the tundra to mining claims and fishing and hunting lodges.Primary human use of the basin includes recreational hunting and fishing. 1.3.3 -Summary (This section deleted) 851016 E-8-1-3 2 -PROCEDURE (*) The methodology followed in conducting the aesthetic impact and mitigation planning analyses is described below.These steps are summarized below and are described in more detail in the following sections. Step 1 -Analysis Objectives o Establish objectives of the aesthetic impact assessment and mitigation planning analyses through consultation with key agencies and project designers; o Prepare a detailed work program and study outline; o Review previous Susitna Project reports and other related visual studies; o Perform air and ground reconnaissance of the project area and proposed facility sites;and o Identify concerns of agencies and special interest groups. Step 2 -Project Facilities o Identify and analyze the siting and design of proposed project facilities. Step 3 -Landscape Character Types o Identify and describe existing landscape character types within the study area based on their land and water forms,and vegetation. Step 4 -Views o Identify major viewpoints within the study area. Step 5 -Aesthetic Value Rating o Assign aesthetic value ratings to each landscape character type based on the criteria of distinctiveness,uniqueness and harmony/balance. Step 6 -Absorption Capability o Rate the absorption capability of landscape character types according to their ability to absorb visual modification,with- out causing disharmony or degradation. 851016 E-8-2-1 Step 7 -Composite Rating o Determine the composite ratings of each landscape character type based on a synthesis of Steps 5 and 6. Step 8 -Facilities Rating o Analyze the relationship of proposed facilities to the existing landscape character types and determine potential impacts. Step 9 -Mitigation Measures o Develop mitigation measures which would avoid or reduce adverse aesthetic impacts and provide or enhance the positive aesthetic impacts of the Project on the landscape. r 851016 E-8-2-2 3 -STUDY OBJECTIVES (*) The major objectives for the aesthetic impact and mitigation planning analyses were to: o Identify the inherent quality of the aesthetic resources of the existing landscapes that would be directly or indirectly affected by development of the Susitna Project; o Protect the quality of existing landscapes by minimizing negative impacts caused by human activity and development; o Maximize opportunities to appreciate existing and new areas of high aesthetic quality;and o Maximize the positive relationships between proposed project facilities and existing landscapes. 851016 E-8-3-1 ,I J 1 } ,] ,'I 1 ') I 1 'r "! ,I ) \,j , ,I ] J '] 4 -PROJECT FACILITIES (*) The Susitna Project has a number of facilities which would potentially have aesthetic impacts on existing landscapes.The general location of these facilities is shown in Figure E.8.4.1.The facilities are described in the following sections. 4.1 -Watana -Stage I Project Area (*) o Earchfill dam and two temporary cofferdams o Reservoir o Main spillway o Borrow areas (material for dams) o Construction haul roads o Construction camp (single status) o Construction village (married status) o Two 345-kV transmission lines (Watana Dam to Intertie) o Temporary transmission line (power for Watana construction) 4.2 -Devil Canyon Project Area (*) o Concrete arch dam,saddle dam and two temporary cofferdams o Reservoir o Main spillway o Borrow areas (material for saddle and cofferdams) o Construction haul roads o Construction camp (single status) o Construction village (married status) o Two 345-kV transmission lines (Devil Canyon to Intertie) o Railroad (Gold Creek to Devil Canyon) 4.3 -Watana -Stage III Project Area (***) o Raised earthfill dam and two temporary cofferdams o Raised reservoir o Raised spillway o Borrow areas (material for cofferdams) o Construction haul roads o Construction camp (single status) o Construction village (married status) o Permanent town o Two 345 kV transmission lines (Devil Canyon to Intertie) 4.4 -Denali Highway to Watana Dam Access Road (*) o Gravel road from Denali Highway to Watana Dam o Borrow areas for road construction 851016 E-8-4-1 4.5 -Watana Dam to Devil Canyon Dam Access Road (*) o Gravel road from Watana Dam to Devil Canyon Dam o High level bridge (below Devil Canyon dam site) o Borrow areas for road construction 4.6 -Transmission Lines (*) o Two 345-kV transmission lines from Healy to Fairbanks (north stub) and one 345-kV transmission line parallel to the Intertie from Gold Creek to Healy o Three 345-kV transmission lines from Willow to Anchorage (south stub) and two 345-kV transmission lines parallel to the Intertie between Gold Creek and Willow 4.7 -Intertie ) J 4.8 -Recreation Facilities and Features (*) (This section deleted) Appendix E2.8 provides site photos with simulations of project facilities.Appendix E3.8 presents photos of proposed project facility sites. o o o o o o o Visitor centers at Watana and Devil Canyon Dams Road pulloffs and parking Semi-developed campgrounds Primitive camping Trailheads Developed and primitive trails Wa rming-snerfers-- oj ') I' i' j ) 851016 E-8-4-2 5 -EXISTING LANDSCAPE (**) 5.1 -Landscape Character Types (*) Landscape character types are a description and classification of coherent units of a landscape used as a frame of reference to classify physical features of an area.They are,for the most part,based on physiographic units and they represent land areas with common distinguishing visual characteristics.Using aerial photographs and USGS topographic quadrangles,physiographic units were identified. These were subsequently verified and inventoried in the field.The landscape character types for areas containing project features are shown in Figures E.8.5.l,E.8.5.2,and E.8.5.3.The inventory included evaluations of four major landscape characteristics: o Landforms:Physiographic units defined by their degree of enclosure,geologic history and composition,slope gradient and distinguishing landscape patterns,and notable na-tural features; o Waterforms: streams,and occurrence. The location of water bodies,lakes,rivers, wetlands,and the pattern and"character of their Rarity is also noted. o Vegetation:A description of the vegetation patterns which exist within the basin.Special or unusual vegetation occurrences are noted. o Views:A description of special visual characteristics within a landscape character type,panoramic views to regional landscape settings,and potential viewers. The charts shown in Appendix E8.8 identify and summarize the landscape character types and the notable natural features within each landscape character type.Numbered and asterisked items identify notable natural features which are described in Section 5.2. The landscape character types were then evaluated for their aesthetic value and absorption capability.Aesthetic value is a relative measure of overall importance of the visual landscape,including components such as distinctiveness,uniqueness,harmony and balance.Absorption capability is a measure of a landscape's sensitivity to alteration. The charts showing landscape character types and notable features have been moved to Appendix E8.8. 5.2 -Notable Natural Features (**) Identification of notable natural features within the project area is important in evaluating aesthetic impacts,because they may serve as 851016 E-8-5-l destinations for visitors and residents seeking recreation opportunities.The Project would improve access to the project area; thus increasing the likelihood of these features being viewed.Even when these features are not connected to formal road or trail systems, they may still serve as destinations for hikers,boaters or fliers. Therefore,project facilities located within view of a.notable natural feature are judged to have a greater potential aesthetic impact than those which are not visible.Ten notable natural features were identified with~n the project area.The location of these features is shown in Figure E.8.5.1.Appendix E1.8 provides photographs of the features.A brief description of each of these notable natural features is provided below: 5.2.1 -Devil Canyon (**) Devil Canyon,which surrounds an II-mile stretch of the Susitna River,begins just downstream of the mouth of Devil Creek and ends approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Portage~reek.The combination of high volumes of glacial water,steep inaccessible canyon walls and large boulders highlights this·turbulent and dynamic landscape.There are four sets of rapids,known as Devil Canyon rapids,tha.t encompass approximately five miles of the canyon.These rapids are rated as Class VI (the highest rating) on the International Whitewater Scale.Between the Class VI rapids,the fast-moving whitewater is rated as either Class II or Class III.Because of the extreme challenge that the rapids present,only 27 kayakers were known to have attempted the rapids between 1976 and 1982. 5.2.2 -Devil Creek Falls (*) Two large waterfalls fall through narrow gorges on Devil Creek which joins the SusitnaRiver above the proposed Devi L Canyon dam site.The setting is a combination of vertical rock walls, icy clear streams and colorful vegetation. 5.2 •.3 ~Stephan Lake .(:'!) Stephan Lake,a at the base of the Talkeetna Mountains,has one lodge and several cabins along its shore. WetlalJ-ds and gentle hills covered with mixed woods.and tundra comprise the lake's natural shoreline.Stephan Lake is used as a ,starting place for kayaking and rafting on the Talkeetna River. 5.2.4 -Tsusena Creek Falls (*) A spectacular rocky canyon covered with mixed woods and tundra and a series of rapids and cataracts provides the backdrop for Tsusena Creek Falls.The falls are located on Tsusena Creek approximately three miles above the confluence of Tsusena Creek and the Susitna River. 1 I 'I r .J 851016 E-8-5-2 5.2.5 -Tsusena Butte Lake (*) Located at the edge of the Chulitna Mountains,Tsusena Butte Lake was created by a glacial moraine.The Tsusena Creek valley shows evidence of its glacial history and includes a large variety of tundra landscapes and colorful rock formations. 5.2.6 -Deadman Creek Falls (*) Similar to other tributary falls that flow into the Susitna River,Deadman Creek Falls occurs in a steep;small-scale rocky canyon.The falls are located approximately one mile above the proposed Watana dam site. 5.2.7 -Fog Lakes (*) Fog Lakes consists of a series of large linear lakes on the south side of the Susitna River.They occur in a gently-rolling to flat landscape covered with wetlands,mixed forest and open tundra vegetation. 5.2.8 -Big and Deadman Lakes (*) Big and Deadman Lakes are picturesquely set between three large tundra-covered buttes.There are many outstanding views from the lakes into the Susitna basin. 5.2.9 -Caribou Pass (*) Two long lakes surrounded by glaciated mountains are located in a narrow valley referred to as Caribou Pass.Wetlands and tundra cover the valley floor where the middle fork of the Chulitna River has its headwaters. 5.2.10 -Vee Canyon (**) Vee Canyon is a narrow,vertical,rock-worn canyon which encloses the Susitna River for over one mile.The canyon is located east of the Watana damsite.The canyon includes a double hairpin bend,a deeply cut channel,and a stretch of whitewater rapids. The canyon's steep ridges,and varied coloration and rock formations make it a visually interesting natural resource. 851016 E-8-5-3 ] "J ] J .I I I .1 6 -VIEWS (**) An evaluation of existing landscape character types and their inherent aethetic quality is independent of visibility since aesthetic quality does not depend on visibility.However,the evaluation of aesthetic impacts is directly related to the potential for viewing a particular resource. Aesthetic sensitivity requires an understanding of who the viewers would be,when and where they would see resources,what they can see, and what preconceptions they bring with them about those views.These factors (viewers and visibility)are important because they form the basis for an evaluation of the importance of aesthetic impacts discussed in Section 8. 6.1 -Viewers (***) Existing viewers in the project area include hunters,fishermen, guides,flyers,boaters,and hikers.Concentrated at places such as High Lake,Tsusena Butte Lake and Stephan Lake,many of these viewers are attracted to the area because of its remote setting and recreation opportunities.In addition,there are'two other groups of project-area viewers:hikers (especially those who hike to the viewpoint at the top of Indian Mountain)and drivers and passengers in vehicles on portions of the Parks and Denali Highways adjacent to project facilities.Those viewers are typically in transit to some location outside the Susitna project area. As the Susitna Project is developed,access roads,a rail spur and developed recreation sites would be constructed.There would be an influx of new viewers:first,construction workers,then hunters and fishermen,people travelling for non-consumptive recreation opportunities (hiking,camping)and tourists (especially when the visitor centers are completed). 6.2 -Visibility (***) ~~7t-i-~i ~_:-:.re~le_~~£':ri t"~£~_!:.~_~~~_~__?n:'.~h.~,~l.! )JLOcG.a-s-~-Qna.ll..y-s.eenT-an-a-.-~ucfi-:r.es_s_c.r..l...t.Lcar-t.haJ.LQ!!.~".,,~~.~~!'t 1.._~_,,_.§'.~.~~ll . .frequeJJ..t.Ly--and--from·lllany-.d~.fJ~rent vantage points.Many of the Susi tna P~t facilities would not 'b~"-;r~Ib'i'a'f?om"Toca'tionsin the project area. The visibility of each project facility was determined through an examination of the following three parameters:distance zones, viewsheds,and significant views.This information was then used in conjunction with viewer data to determine the aesthetic impact of each project facility.A discussion of visibility parameters follows. 851016 E-8-6-1 6.2.1 -Distance Zones (***) In the distance zone analysis,three distance zones (foreground, middleground,and background)were mapped from major travelways (access roads and the rail spur)and frOm points of viewer concentration (remote viewpoints,campgrounds,the visitor centers,dams,construction camps and villages,"and the permanent village).Distance zones were not mapped from backcountry trails or remote campsites. 6.2.2 -Viewsheds (***) In the vie&shed analysis,individual viewsheds were composited and used in conjunction with distance zones to help determine aesthetic impacts of project facilities.The viewshed analysis demonstrated that viewers would potentially see the rail spur, Gold Creek switchyard,and the Devil Canyon construction camp from Indian Mountain.Travelers on the Parks Highway would see portions of the transmission lines,and travelers on the Denali Highway would see the·first few miles of the Denali Highway to Watana Dam acces s road •..Hunters,fishermen and flyers potentially would view all project facilities.While visitors to Stephan Lake Lodge would see little change,visitors to Tsusena Butte Lake Lodge may see a proposed campground and trail.In addition,persons visiting High Lake Lodge may see a portion of the Watana Dam to Devil Canyon Dam access road and transmission line. Significant views focus on the most important portion of the total view possible in each viewshed.A viewer at a designated viewpoint would usually look longer atone particular segment of the view,just as a passenger,travelling north along the Denali Highway to Watana Dam access road would first be attracted to the view of a prominent butte (Significant View #2,Table E.8;-6.1)and,-afew-minutes l-ater,··shift-theirvi ew--to-di stant;-._- ---v-i-s-t;-a-sc-of-the-Ala-s-ka-R-a-nge-and-Nenana-R-i-ve.r-Va-l-l-ey-(-Si.g-nif-icant----- Views 4f:1a and 4f:1b,Table E.8.6.1).The significant view analysis identifies viewers,their location,and the duration of their view.See Table E.8.6.l and Figure E.8.6.1 for a summary of this information. ~,]I iia... 1 j ] 851016 E-8-6-2 u 7 -AESTHETIC EVALUATION RATINGS (**) 7.1 -Aesthetic Value Rating (*) Each landscape character type was evaluated for its aesthetic value; i.e.,high,medium or low.Aesthetic value is defined as a relative measure of the visual landscape based on the following three characteristics. 7.1.1 -Distinctiveness (*) The visual impression of an area;i.e.,a landscape where land forms,water forms,rocks,vegetative or soil patterns are of outstanding and memorable aesthetic quality. 7.1.2 -Uniqueness (*) The relative scarcity or commonality of the landscape and natural features.Due to Alaska's varied and numerous high-quality landscapes and natural features,uniqueness has two levels of meaning for the purpose of this report: o Landscapes and natural features mayor may not be rare on a statewide scale;and o Landscapes and natural features mayor may not be rare on a project-area scale. 7.1.3 -Harmony and Balance (*) The degree to which all elements of the landscape form a unified composition.This includes how well man-made elements are integrated in a natural setting. These characteristics (distinctiveness,uniqueness,and harmony and balance)were evaluated by an on-site examination of each landscape character type.This on-site examination also considered visibility and the potential for views in generating aesthetic value rating. 7.2 -Absorption Capability (*) Each landscape character type was evaluated for its absorption capabil- ity,which is the relative ability of a landscape to absorb physical change.Each landscape character type was rated as high,medium or low based on aesthetic value,topographic enclosure,vegetation cover, ground plane color and visibility.Each landscape character type was also evaluated through an on-site examination with respect to potential project facilities. 851016 E-8-7-1 The ratings for aesthetic value and absorption capability evaluations are presented in Appendix E9.8. 7.3 -Composite Ratings (**) The aesthetic value rating and the absorption capability for each land- scape character type were combined to create a composite rating.The range of relationships can be stated as follows:the most durable and easily altered landscape character types are those with a high absorp- tion capability and a low aesthetic value rating;the most fragile and difficult to alter landscape character types are those with a low absorption capability and a high aesthetic value rating.This relationship is illustrated in the Table E.8.7.1.This table summarizes the inherent quality of the landscape that is used in assessing aesthetic impacts and in developing mitigation measures to reduce adverse aesthetic impacts. 'I .) ] ·I ·I 851016 E-8-7-2 ·I 8 -AESTHETIC IMPACTS (**) Adverse impacts to project area aesthetic resources have been avoided as much as practicable through siting and design of project facilities.Locating the Watana and Devil Canyon switchyards and powerhouses underground and eliminating emergency spillways and the temporary airstrip are design refinements that resulted in an important reduction of aesthetic impacts.Nonetheless,with a project of this magnitude,it is not possible to avoid all impacts to aesthetic resources. Construction of proposed project facilities would change the visual character of the area from an undeveloped,remote setting to an area characterized by development and increased human activity.The most important visual impacts resulting from the Project would include the loss of Devil Canyon rapids,Vee Canyon rapids and Deadman Creek Falls, which are notable scenic features of local or regional importance. While Devil Canyon would be mostly inundated,much of the Vee Canyon and its scenic rock formations would remain since its location in the upper reaches of Watana Reservoir prevents its complete inundation. The other seven notable natural features described in Section 5.2 would not be directly affected by the Project.These include the waterfalls at Devil Creek,the Tsusena Creek Falls,Caribou Pass,and four lakes (Stephan Lake,Fog Lakes,Tsusena Butte Lake,and the Big/Deadman Lakes).. Temporary visual impacts would also occur.These would include the presence of construction personnel,traffic,materials,and worker camps.Viewer response to visual change would vary depending on individual preference and values. The Project would also have positive effects,since the access road and,to a lesser extent,the railroad spur and reservoirs would provide new recreational and viewing opportunities to the public.Viewing of notable natural features in the area would substantially increase as a result of project access and recreation facilities.Additionally,the dams are expected to be visually interesting to many. Aesthetic impacts of the Project are summarized below.Discussions of aesthetic impacts for Stage I,Stage II,access routes and transmission lines are based on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement,Appendix M,modified to reflect staging (FERC 1984).Addi tional details of potential impacts are listed by project feature in Appendix E6.8. 8.1 -Mitigatation Planning of Incompatible Aesthetic Impacts (Now addressed in E.8.9). 851016 E-8-8-1 8.2 -Watana Stage I (***) The construction of the Stage I Watana Dam and associated structures, the impoundment area,the construction camp and village,and the permanent village would substantially change the image and character of portions of the project area,especially in the Susitna River Valley landscape character type and in the southern portion of the Wet Upland Tundra landscape character type.The currently remote and largely undisturbed Susitna River valley would become an area of increased human activity and development,and visual resources would be altered accordingly. The proposed earth-fill dam,which is 700 feet high and 4,100 feet long,would become the most prominent visual feature in the previously natural setting of the Susitna River valley.The geometric lines and forms of the dam and associated structures would be in visual contrast to the natural form,color,and texture of the valley.These structures would be viewed by project personnel,support staff, recreationists in the area,and individuals flying over the area. -The main spillway of the dam would consist of a long,straight,sloping concrete chute,2,000 feet long,up to 100 feet wide,and more than 250 feet deep.This deep rock cut spillway would be visible to operation personnel and visitors.The rock cuts and grading would contrast with the natural landforms and vegetation in the area.The road cuts and clearing required for construction of the road to the powerhouse and tailrace tunnel areas would be visible from the dam area • ...··When~fi-Hed,-theWatana .---Stage-limpoundment would-·be-about ·40miles-- long,3 miles wide at its widest location,and would have a surface area of approximately 21,000 acres.The landforms,waterforms,and vegetation within the Susitna River valley would be inundated.The impoundment would also inu.ndat.edownstt'eampQrti.ons of mCl-jQ:r tributaries,including Deadman (l mile),Watana (7 miles),Kosina (2~5),and Jay Creeks (2 miles)as well as the Deadman .and _Watana Creek Falls.The Vee Canyon rapids would be inundated from July through ..-.-.-~-._....__.__~Eebr.ua.ry:..duri ng._aye.r.age_wat.er_.y.ea r_s •.Mo_s_Litf_'Ile~_C.gnY_Q.J::l-~ouJJLt'emai-n--..- visible throughout the_year.Of the affected landforms,Deadman Creek Falls,is considered to be a notable natural feature (see Section 5.2). During operation,the maximum reservoir drawdown of 150 feet would be in the spring (April and May)and would result in exposure of substantial mudflats.During much of this period,the mudflats would be covered by s.nowwhichw()tjl<ireducel:heYisua limpact.It is expected that these mudflats would be more than one mile wide and be visible to people near the reservoir once the snow cover melted.While snow cover might obscure the mudflats in early spring,they would continue to be visible to people on or near the reservoir throughout the summer until the reservoir fills by September each year. ·-l J 851016 E-8-8-2 A number of proposed borrow areas would be located both up-and downstream from the proposed Watana Dam.The presence of borrow areas not inundated by the reservoir would create long-term visual impacts. Such areas include islands in the Susitna River below the dam,the low north river terrace below the dam (near the mouth of Tsusena Creek), and the borrow area located on the high north terrace adjacent to Deadman Creek.The borrow areas along the river below Watana Dam would be in full view from the dam area until inundated by the Devil Canyon Reservoir.Figure E.8.8.l indicates the location and sizes of the borrow areas.Borrow area boundaries located above reservoir shores, if constructed as presently proposed,would create rigid angular forms visible to visitors in the area. The temporary construction camp and village constructed for Watana - Stage I would create long-term visual effects.See Section 8.3 for a discussion of the long-term visual effects. The permanent village would be visually inconsistent with the natural landscape character of the area.The village would consist of a town center with approximately 20 buildings,a hospital,92 dwelling units, and a water and sewage treatment plant.Adequately designed facilities and boardwalks would avoid degradation of the visual character resulting from human activities in and surrounding the permanent village. 8.3 -Devil Canyon Stage II (***) As was described .for Watana -Stage I,the construction of the Devil Canyon Dam and associated structures,the impoundment area,and the construction camp and village would substantially change the image and character of the upper and middle Susitna River basin,especially in portions of the Devil Canyon,Mid-Susitna River Valley,Talkeetna Uplands,Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands,and Portage ·Lowlands landscape character types.The visual character of the area would change from that of a remote and largely undisturbed canyon area to one of greater human activity,development,and disturbance. The proposed project area would be viewed by project personnel, recreationists,and people flying over or near the area.The line, form,and color of the 645 foot high,1,300 foot span concrete arch dam would visually contrast with the natural form,color,and texture of the Devil Canyon area. When filled,the Devil Canyon Reservoir would be about 26 miles long and a maximum of 3,800 feet wide.The surface area of the reservoir would be about 7,800 acres,with the impoundment reaching upstream almost to Watana Dam.The reservoir would inundate Devil Canyon and its rapids,which·are considered to be notable natural features (see Section 5.2).The impoundment would also inundate a small portion of Devil and Fog Creeks. 851016 E-8-8-3 The main spillway of the dam would consist of.a sloping concrete channel more than 1,000 feet long and approximately 25 feet deep,with a tapered width ranging from 75 to 150 feet.The spillway would require rock cuts on the northern slope of the river valley.The main spillway and rock cuts would dominate the landscape on the northern river valley slope and be in full view of the proposed·visitor center, located on the southern side of the canyon. The 1,000 foot long Devil Canyon saddle dam adjacent to the main arch dam would dominate the small~scale,plateau-type landscape.The texture and color of the saddle dam would be in sharp contrast to the surrounding vegetation and small pond area.Extensive clearing of vegetation,as well as rock cutting for 2.5 miles of road access during construction of the powerhouse tunnel,would leave large visual scars on the steep northern slopes that would be visible to persons using the access road and the visitor center. The development of the temporary construction village and camp sites would cause long-term visual impacts that would extend into the operation phase of Devil Canyon Stage II.Both sites would be located on a flat,wetland terrace surrounded by mixed forests.Visual impacts would result from the scarification of the land in areas devoid of vegetation after the camp structures are removed.This lack of vegetation and the presence of mud and water ponding created by soil compaction would be visible to persons traveling through the area (FERC 1984). ·1 8.4 -Watana III (***) would be similar to aesthetic impacts equipment would last Watana Dam Short-term workers and Aesthetic impacts related to ra1s1ng those·described for Watana.Stage I. related to construction activities, for approximately six years. The Stage III reservoir would be approximately 48 miles long and more than 5 miles wide at its widest location,and would have a surface area ......~of·.·approximately ..38,000ac~es.······WhiletheStage.III~ese~voir-would . ...hav_e.....l.es.s_dr.awdo.wn_than_the_S.tag.e_l.I.e.s.erJl:o.ir_(12'o_fe.e.t_a.s~c.omp.ar_e.d_.. with 150 feet),substantial areas of mudflats would still be exposed in the spring.In fact,the Stage III reservoir would increase the amount of exposed mudflats in the Watana Creek drainage because of the low topographic relief in that area.However,in Watana Stage I,the mudflats would be inundated by September each year. The same cons true tIon camp and v1.Iiage.would·.be used for Wa tana - ....Stages.I.and.I!I •..•.The.camp:a.nd .•vilJage.WQuJd.m.o$t l.i~.elY.J:>e..vi sj.b Ie from the project access road depending on the final alignment of the road.After construction is completed,temporary facilities would be removed and the areas rehabilitated.Nonetheless,these areas would still visually contrast with the surrounding natural vegetation for many years. ) 851016 E-8-8-4 IJ Quarry Area A,which is located immediately south of Watana Dam and would be excavated as a source of material for raising the dami would be in full view of the proposed Watana visitor center.Visual impacts as a result of viewing the quarry would be acceptable if design and reclamation of the site are prepared with post-construction viewing in mind. 8.5 -Access Routes (***) Temporary visual impacts during construction of the proposed Denali Highway-to-Watana Dam access route,the Watana Dam-to-Devil Canyon Dam access route,and the Devil Canyon rail spur would result from the presence of workers,equipment,and materials along the routes.The nature of these impacts would be similar to those discussed for other project features;namely,remote and largely undisturbed areas would be converted to areas of greater human activity and development.Visual disturbances would be viewed by construction personnel,recreationists in the areas,and individuals flying over the access routes.Visual impacts that would extend into the long-term operation phase of the project are discussed below (FERC 1984). 8.5.1 -Denali Highway-to-Watana Dam Access Route (***) The presence of the 40-mile long,24-foot wide,high-speed design (40-55 mph),gravel access road to Watana Dam would result in substantial visual impacts to the landscape,as the road would extend south from the Denali Highway,cross Brushkana and Deadman Creeks,extend west of Deadman Mountain,cross a Deadman Creek tributary,and parallel Deadman Creek to the Watana Dam site. Visual impacts along this route would consist of views of large cut-and-fill areas,areas where vegetation has been removed,and areas subject to erosion.All these features would vary the aesthetic character of the area.In addition,borrow areas excavated adjacent to the road would result in long-term visual impacts from scarification caused by the removal of vegetation, erosion,and the presence of partially water-filled depressions. At the same time,the proposed road would provide new access to scenic views for visitors,recreationists,and persons from the permanent Watana village.Such views would include panoramic views toward the Alaska Range,Clearwater Mountains,and the Talkeetna Range.However,some people may consider the road to be a visual intrusion that detracts from their enjoyment of the area's natural landscape (FERC 1984). 8.5.2 -Watana Dam-to-Devil Canyon Dam Access Route (***) Development of the 34-mile long,24-foot wide,gravel road between the Watana and Devil Canyon Dam sites would result in cut-and-fill areas and borrow areas visible to motorists and 851016 E-8-8-5 recreationists.during the operation phase of the Project. Creation of borrow areas near the road would result in ~carred, unvegetated,and partially water-filled depressions that would remain long after construction is completed.As with the Denali Highway-to-Watana Dam access road,the visual character of the Watana Dam-to-Devil Canyon Dam access road would be in contrast to the existing natural environment,but,at the same time,the route would provide views of the surrounding area previously unavaila~le to the general public travelling by car (FERC 1984). A 2,600-foot steel suspension bridge located 600 feet above the Susitna River wes t of Devi I Canyon Dam would be vi sually prominent.Construction of this bridge would require extensive grading and disrup'tion of land forms and vegetation for the bridge approaches. 8.5.3 -Devil Canyon Rail Spur (***) The construction and operation of the proposed 14-mile long, 3l-foot wide rail spur between Gold Creek and the Devil Canyon Dam would create visual impacts along the Susitna River.The ..rail'aligriInent would resul tin cut-"'and-"'fill operations that would contrast with the color and texture of naturally forested and vegetated areas along the river valley.People using the Susitna River would see the scarification of the slopes adjacent to the rail spur.If,after project construction the rail spur is used for public transportation,the rail spur would provide the public with new opportunities to view remote areas in the Susitna River ~"~----'-'va~neY~~('FERC'1984);'-'....--- 8.6 -Transmission Facilities (***) The project transmission facilities would be constructed ~n stages as shown in Figure E.8.8.2. The temporary visual impacts that would occur during construction of the ..Susitna .'tr.ansmission line facilities would be ..similar fox.all . ..._.._....._..~gments ~.of the :gro:gosed transmission line corridors.These imp-ac~.__ consist of the presence of workers,equipment,and materials during construction of the transmission lines and their associated facilities. These visual disturbances would be viewed by construction personnel, individuals flying over transmission lines,persons at various vantage points along project access roads and on highways and rail lines in the vicinity of transmission line segments,and residents of communi ties along various corridor segments.In addition to these temporary impaC:l:s,clE:!YE:!loPlIlE:!lll:o~l:hE:!=l:I"a,n~il3l3ic>nlinE:!fa,.ci Ii tie.l3::~ould create visual impacts that would continue during the entire operating life of the facilities (FERC 1984). ',( -I ) I 851016 E-8-8-6 I) [J I \ 8.6.1 -Watana and Devil Canyon Dams-to-Gold Creek Segment (***) The transmission line towers along the 45-mile long Watana and Devil Canyon Dams-to-Gold Creek 345-kV transmission line segment would consist of 100-foot high,guyed,Corten steel-pole, X-frame structures.Some single steel-pole structures would be used for angles and areas with steep slopes.The cleared right-of-way would be 300 feet wide between the Watana and Devil Canyon Dams,and 510 feet wide between the Devil Canyon Dam and the Gold Creek Substation.The transmission line towers and conductors would be silhouetted against the skyline from various viewpoints along the Watana Dam-to-Devil Canyon Dam access road and rail spur,and at the dam sites.Through wooded areas,the cleared right-of-way would be highly visible from the air (FERC 1984). 8.6.2 -Gold Creek-to-Fairbanks Segment (***) The transmission line segment extending 185 miles from the Gold Creek Substation to its termination point at Fairbanks would consist mainly of 100-foot tall,guyed Corten steel-pole,X-frame towers.The cleared right-of-way would be 300 feet wide.The distance between tower structures along the proposed transmission line typically would be 1,300 feet.Adjacent tower structures along parallel lines would be about 115 feet apart.Between Gold Creek and the Healy Substation,the proposed transmission line would essentially parallel the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie transmission line;therefore,visual impacts caused by the Susitna Project tower and line placement along this stretch of the corridor would be only incremental in nature.From the Healy Substation to the terminus point near Fairbanks,a new right-of-way would be required for most of the segment (FERC 1984). Visual resources would be particularly impacted within the Broad Pass landscape character type,where the transmission line would extend across the Denali Highway and be in full view of motorists.Also,the transmission line would be from about 200 feet to about 2 miles away from the George Parks Highway in this highly scenic region.The transmission line would be visible at two Alaska Railroad crossings as well as from portions of planned remote parcel land disposal areas between Gold Creek and Hurricane.Between Cantwell and the Yanert Fork,the transmis- sion line would be close to the Parks Highway.The transmission line would be highly visible along the Nenana River in the Alaska Range landscape,and from various vantage points along the eastern boundary of Denali National Park and the Parks Highway. The Healy Substation near the Alaska Railroad would also be highly visible.From Healy to Fairbanks,the transmission line 851016 E-8-8-7 would extend through the forested Tanana Ridge and the Nenana Uplands landscape character types,while paralleling the road near Healy (FERC 1984). Additional detail on landscape characters types,views and impacts associated with the Intertie transmission line can be found in supplemental information on the Susitna License Application presented to FERC in July 1983 (APA 1983). 8.6.3 -Gold Creek-to-Anchorage Segment (***) The transmission line segment extending 145 miles from the Gold Creek Substation to the terminus point in Anchorage would consist of the same type of tower structures as discussed above. The right-of-way clearing would be 400 feet wide.Between Gold Creek and the Willow Substation,the proposed transmission line would parallel the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie transmission line.Thus,visual impacts caused by the Susitna.Project's tower and line placement would be only incremental in nature.A new right-of~waywould be required from the Willow Substation to the the west shore of Knik Arm.The route east of Knik Arm into Anchorage would parallel an existing transmission line;visual impacts there would be only incremental also. Major visual resource impacts between Gold Creek and Anchorage would include those in the Talkeetna Mountains landscape area, where the transmission line would be in full view from Curry Ridge in Denali State Park and where it would be highly visible ·······~--·-a's-i·t-e·x;t-ends-ac·I'os·s-t-he·'l'a·l-keet-na·R-ive·I'-,·which..i·s-cons·ide·redt-o· be an important state recreation resource.From Talkeetna to Willow,the transmis.sion.line.isseldoIll visible to Parks Highway travelers due to distance from the.highway,flat topographic relief and intervening vege.tation.Be.t~eenWillow and Anchorage, the transmission line corridor would be visible mainly from the air.Within the greater Anchorage area,from the Knik Arm to the terminus point,the transmission line would generally parallel an E!.~!~!.I'!g t ran smi ss ion 1i ne.~nd .w0 uJ<l..no .~..,~:tl.1?§J:.~£!!:.!~lly...a.J.iE!~t:...,1:he... visual resources in the area 1984). ] '..I I I j 851016 E-8-8-8 } 9 -MITIGATION (**) Aesthetic mitigation measures were designed to protect the quality of the existing landscape by preventing or minimizing negative impacts caused by human activity and development.The measures are also intended to enhance the existing environment in the following ways: o Improve opportunities to appreciate areas of high aesthetic quality; o Improve the aesthetic quality of proposed facilities;and o Maximize the positive relationships of proposed facilities with existing landscapes. 9.1 -Mitigation Feasibility (**) The mitigation measures proposed in this section are all considered feasible for project facilities.Mitigation measures with low or mediocre success have not been proposed.For example,use of non-local small caliper (3/4"- 1 1/2")trees,even when they were native species,did not create adequate screening at Trans-Alaskan Pipeline road crossings as a result of high mortality rates due to transplant shock.On the other hand,the use of woody cut tings as di scus sed in the "Erosion and Sedimentation Control"Bes t Practices Manual (APA 1985)has proven to be highly successful in achieving adequate screening,although more time is needed for the trees to reach screening height.Although each mitigation measure listed below would be implemented to the extent practicable,it is expected that some measures may be modified as a result of detailed engineering and design refinements during the final design phase.Moreover,because specific locations of all project disturbance cannot be anticipated prior to detailed design work,some mitigation measures are general or non-site-specific. The proposed mitigation measures have been grouped into categories:best development practices,siting refinements,and considerations.Each of these categories are described below: three design o Best Development Practices -Best development practices (BDP)are general measures typically used in construction p:rojec ts to avoid or reduce construction-related impacts.BDP's commonly include measures for erosion control,educational programs for workers,rehabilitation techniques,and construction guidelines. Most BDP's can be implemented at no additional cost to a project. In addition to BDP measures identified in this chapter,measures identified in Best Management Practices Manuals,developed specifically for the Susitna Project,would help reduce or avoid aesthetic impacts. 851016 E-8-9-1 o Siting Refinements -Siting refinements are adjustments in the location of facilities made in the detailed design stage of a project.They are used to improve negative aesthetic impacts due to visibility.In addition,siting refinements can avoid impacts that would require costly mitigation. For example,topographic maps used to site the access roads and transmission lines have 100-foot contour intervals.Field investigation shows that throughout proposed corridors,landforms under 100 feet in height can be used to screen or partially s cre e n transmission line towers from access roads or at least from viewpoints andtrailheads where people would congregate. o Design Considerations -Design considerations are recommended modifications or design guidelines made to project facilities to reduce visual contrast with facility surroundings and/or to enhance the aesthetic quality of an area.They range widely in cost and overlap with siting refinements as part:of the planning and design process. Because of design constraints already imposed by distance, weather cOriditionsand cons-tructioncost,there-are substantial limitations on making major design changes during the detailed design phase. 9.2 -Mitigation Plan (***) The Aes thetic Mi tigation Plan cortsists of the recommended aes thetic -------ffitfiga t-iorC measur es 1i steel De lot,";-Tl:re--mefasuresa re-tts-cea-accorai rtg to seven project feature groups:Watana Dam site,Devil Canyon Dam site,access roads,q uarry/borrowa reas ,railroad,camps and villages , and transmission lines.Recreation faci li ties are not incl uded (wi th the exception of visitor centers)because the-proposed -rec-reation f aci lities (incl uding trai lheads,trails,campgrounds and campsi tes) were all determined to be compatible with existing landscape.To ensure that these facilities do not create an aesthetic impact,they ---------would----be-.-ca-~eful-l.y--sited--in ...the--f-ieldr-taking---into-account --the---- __________________3LsihLLLty__imp_a_c_t_fr_om_r_o_ad_s__anil_o_t_hex_Lo_c_a_d_o_us_.__.Ea_ch-'--r_e_cx_e_a_t_ism _ facility would be planned and designed using design standards of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Department of Parks current at that time. 9.2.1 -Watana Dam Site (***) The Watanad.a.msiteincl udesthe -dam and associated .struc tures suc ho'i stheSlP i 11 waYi<::()Ils t:t:"lJ,<::ti:oll1:lo'ilJ,L;r()o'iclS ,propo se cl n s 1 tor center,and the reservoir.While the dam and reservoir are not considered mitigable with respect to aesthetic impacts,general best development practices related to reclamation of surrounding construction,and mitigation applied to associated structures as discussed below would help reduce the degree of aesthetic impact. 851016 E-8-9-2 .J !J Best Development Practices 1.Consolidate structures to minimize the amount of disturbance and need for rehabilitation. 2.Site facilities to minimize vegetation clearing. 3.Identify areas of notabie vegetation before construction that are not necessary to remove for construction,and mark for protection. 4.Develop an environmental briefing program for construction personnel that includes aesthetic resource concerns. 5.Use fracture and bench construction methods for cut slopes to avoid uniform cut slope appearances and to provide spaces for debris to collect and vegetation to grow. Siting Refinements 1.Minimize haul road construction by increasing haul distances over existing haul roads,where practical. 2.Coordinate final siting of the Watana visitor center south of the dam with the boundaries of Quarry Area A. 3.Locate the visitor center at the edge of the quarry high wall to allow better views of Watana Dam and impoundment. Design Considerations 1.Use stone in the design of the Watana visitor center to visually integrate the facility with Quarry Area A and Watana Dam. 9.2.2 -Devil Canyon Dam Site (***) As with the Watana Dam,there are few aesthetic mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce the visual contrast that Devil Canyon Dam and reservoir would create with the surrounding landscape.However,the concrete form and arch design of Devil Canyon Dam would create a positive contrast to the equally dramatic natural setting of Devil Canyon.Aesthetic mitigation for surrounding areas dist~rbed by construction activities and related facilities such as the high level bridge are described below. 851016 E-8-9-3 Best Development Practices 1.Retain as much vegetation as possible between the Devil Canyon saddle dam and the Susitna River to provide visual screening from the Watana Dam to Devil Canyon Dam access road (Figure E.8.9.l). 2.Consolidate structures to minimize the amount of disturbance and need for rehabilitation. 3.Site facilities to minimize vegetation clearing. 4.Develop an environmental briefing program for construction personnel that includes aesthetic resource concerns. 5.Use fracture and bench construction methods for cut slopes to avoid uniform cut slope appearances and to provide spaces for debris to collect and vegetation to grow. Siting Refinements 1.Site the Devil Canyon visitor center as close to the canyon rim as possible to create maximum views of the dam and high bridge. Considerations 1.Use concrete construction and design forms for the Devil Canyon visitor center to complement the dam and canyon characters. 9.2.3 -Access Roads (***) The first priority of the proposed access roads is to facilitate construc~ionof.the Project •..:L':t::~.~~!!t(tE!§ig:r1gJ::it~xiaf.Qrthe._- roadsrefleci:stjlis-~-Howeve~,since the access roads would ._ -alsoprovidea scenic driving experience for the general public, final siting and design of the roads should consider the scenic and recreational attributes of the area and be coordinated with the development of project recreation facilities such as scenic pulloffs and trailheads. Similarly,post..;;,cOtl.struction--IIlanagerilent objectives.and agreements would be established between·entities responsible for access road operiition arid mairitenance·and adjacent landowners.These management objectives would focus on enhancing the recreational experience for road travelers,while protecting the visual character of the area.In addition to the following measures, ') :1 I] 11 il ,I , j I ] 851016 E-8-9-4 m1t1gation guidelines identified in the Forest Service's road manual (USFS 1977)should be considered. Best Development Practices (BDP) 1.Adhere to standard erosion control practices for areas around stream crossings. 2.Feather clearings in forested areas rather than making straight-edged clearings. 3.Provide dust control if roads are not blacktopped. 4~Site facilities to minimize vegetation clearing. 5.Develop an environmental briefing program for construction personnel that includes aesthetic resource concerns. 6.Use fracture and bench construction methods for cut slopes to avoid uniform cut slope appearances and to provide spaces for debris to collect and vegetation to grow. Siting Refinements 1.During detailed design,refine road locations to: minimize cut and fill;select appropriate stream crossings for bridge locations;establish horizontal and vertical curves to take best advantage of long side valley views;and avoid passing through forested areas, staying at the tundra edge,whenever possible. 2.Coordinate the final siting of the Watana Dam-to-Devil Canyon Dam access road with the final siting of the adjacent transmission line to minimize views of the transmission line from the access road. 3.Orient the Watana Dam-to-Devil Canyon Dam access road to maximize distant views of Mt.McKinley. 9.2.4 -Quarry/Borrow Sites (***) Mitigation of proposed borrow and quarry sites is important because of the extent of their disturbance and their location in primary view corridors.Careful planning and design that considers post-construction land use would lessen adverse visual impacts. 851016 E-8-9-5 Best Development Practices 1.Round cut-and-fill slopes for side borrow construction of the access roads to match the rolling character of the surrounding landscape. 2.Grade borrow sites for the access roads to minimize steep cuts and conform to surrounding topography. 3.Screen access road borrow sites from significant view corridors,wherever possible. 4.Prioritize access road borrow sites so that sites with the least visual impact would be used first. 5.Complete reclamation and revegetation as soon as quarry and borrow sites are no longer being used. 6.Develop an environmental briefing program for construction personnel that includes aesthetic concerns. 7.Retain as much vegetation as possible to provide visual screening. 8.Provide dust control. Siting Refinements 1.Locate any borrow sites necessary for the Watana Dam-to-Devil Canyon Dam access road to minimize impacts to west-bound traffic and vistas of Mt.McKinley. 2.Avoid use of Borrow Site C and the upper portion of Borrow Site F,if possible,since they are highly visible to views from the Watana Dam-to-Devil Canyon Dam access road and from recreation sites.-_._-"."---_.._-------_._---------_..__._-_._---_..,-~--_._-___..------_.•..-_..•........•-..~~_----_..-.._----,--_.._--_.._-__.--"--,.._.~-".._..__..__._--._-----.- I} .j ,.J~·-·l 3.Mainta ina1/4-mi l-e--;-b-u-;;f;-::f;-e-r--;-b-e-ct-w-e-e-n---th-e--p-r-o-pos-e-dac-ce-i~-----­ roads and Borrow Sites C,D,and F (Figure E.8.9.2). Borrow boundaries should be coordinated with access road views and recreation trail and trailhead placement. I 851016 4.Coordinate the delineations of final boundaries of Quarry Sitei\..wi.th the.:fiti.a1..~itirig oftb.e ..proposed Watanavisitor center to maximize views from the visitor center. E-8-9-6 ] ":\--'.,,.. ..-( Design Considerations 1.Coordinate reclamation of Borrow Sites E and D with the location and views from the proposed Watana visitor center,access roads,and other recreation sites such as the boat launch downstream of Watana Dam.Excavate borrow edges above reservoir lands to follow contours (Figure E.8.9.2). 2.Reclaim access road borrow areas according to designated post-construction land uses (e.g.,campsites, trailheads,ponds)as determined by an interdisciplinary review team and landowner. 3.Locate the proposed-Watana -Stage III visitor center at the highest point within Quarry Site A (after mining)to allow better views and interpretive opportunities. 9.2.5 -Railroad (***) The proposed railroad would follow construction methods similar to those used for the Alaska Railroad.For example,ballast would be used for the foundation to support heavy construction loads.Wood trestles would be used at stream crossings where the volume of flow is sufficient to warrant such construction. Disturbed areas due to construction,such as at the connection with the Alaska Railroad at Gold Creek and at the proposed railhead facility at Devil Canyon,would be reclaimed as soon as construction is completed in those areas. Best Development Practices 1.Consolidate railhead facilities as much as possible to reduce the amount of disturbance and rehabilitation needed. 2.Keep vegetation clearing to a minimum. 3.Use fracture and bench construction methods for cut slopes to avoid uniform cut slope appearances and to provide spaces for debris to collect and vegetation to grow. 4.Evaluate the visual impact of railroad cuts on viewpoints from Denali State Park after construction to determine whether mulches or sprays should be applied to the cut slopes to reduce visual contrast. 5.Keep parking areas at railheads dark-toned,if paved,to reduce visual contrast. 851016 E-8-9-7 6.Retain as much vegetation as possible to provide visual screening. 7.Adhere to standard erosion control practices for areas around stream crossings. 8.Feather clearings in forested areas rather than making straight-edged clearings. Site Refinements 1.Refine the final railroad alignment to minimize extensive cuts as much as practicable. 9.2.6 -Camps and Villages (***) Temporary construction camps and villages would be removed after construction and the sites rehabilitated with natural vegetation species.The need to mitigate Watana camp facilities would be greater than for Devil Canyon facilities because of the Watana camp facilities'higher visibility from both access roads. Particular emphasis would be placed on the location and design of the permanent village since it would be a permanent living environment for project personnel and families,and since the structures would remain long after construction and visible to the general public. 1.Rehabilitate camps and surrounding disturbed areas after they are closed out. 2.Minimize the removal of trees surrounding the Devil Canyon construction camp and village sites to screen the facili ties from major viewpoints such as Indian Mountain -.----.---·.--Lookout.-(-Dena-l-i--S·tate-Pa-~k-)-,--the--h-igh-br-id-ge,-v-i-si-tor---.-.-· ....._.....c_enter_and_trai_ls_.________._.______..._...__....... Siting Refinements 1.Physically separate the construction village from the permanent village. 2.Consolidate structures within the construction areas to minimize the:amount of:distur.bance_and need for rehabi 1i tat ion. 3.Develop an environmental briefing program for construction personnel that includes aesthetic resource concerns. .J 851016 E-8-9-8 j 4.Provide dust control. Design Considerations 1.Design the permanent and construction villages to create smaller clusters of structures,which would more readily fit into the landscape and would minimize vegetation loss. 2.Make maximum use of elevated paths and pads to reduce soil and vegetation degradation in the camps and villages to the extent practicable. 9.2.7 -Transmission Lines (***) Mitigation measures for the proposed transmission lines focus on areas of high visibility and areas where new rights-of-way are created.Most of the recommended mitigation measures listed below are general in nature.In addition to these measures, mitigation guidelines identified in the Rural Electrification Administration's Bulletin (USDOI and USDA 1970)and the Forest Service's Utilities Manual (USFS 1975)should be considered. Best Development Practices 1.Construct towers of Corten steel. 2.Use nonspecu1ar conductors unless the hazard to aircraft is too great. 3.Use short spurs off the Watana Dam~to-Devi1 Canyon Dam access road for access to adjacent transmission line construction rather than clearing new access in the transmission line right-of-way. 4.Feather right-of-way edges to prevent rights-of-way from appearing as tunnels cut through timber. 5.Minimize clearing and construction activities in the vicinity of streams to minimize damage to the natural condition of the area and adhere to standard erosion control practices near stream crossings. 6.Limit clearing of natural vegetation to material which poses a hazard to the transmission line. 7.Vary the right-of-way and create openings in the forest edge where transmission lines must parallel a roadway. 851016 E-8-9-9 8.Replant trees and shrubs native to the area if natural vegetation cannot be saved to provide adequate screening. ,I 9.Develop an environmental briefing program for construction personnel that includes aesthetic resource concerns.'/ 10.Avoid the use of trucks by using aircraft where possible to inspect and maintain transmission facilities. 11.Adhere to standard erosion'control practices for areas around stream crossings. Siting Refinements j ..~ ..1 Avoid siting rights-of-way in places of high visibility such as prominent ridges,or near lakes and streams. 3. 2. 1.Use land forms,vegetation,and minor alignment adjustments during detailed design to screen transmission line towers from significant views.For example,route the line north of promontory proposed for Devil Canyon Dam overlook if possible (Figure E.8.9.1). "Routethe lirt'eaway from Tsusena Falls if possible (Figure E.8.9.2). Avoid alignments which result in long views of -~-----~-----~tran'smissron-tinespara-lt-eT't'o-trarrsportatrorr-routes. 4.Locate transmission lines at sufficient distance from transportation routes so that intervening vertical elements would interrupt views down the rights-of-way. 5.Site transmissi.on lines along natural linear features such as the bottom of a ridge,valley,or cliff,or .._---.--.a1 ongedges._of.muskeg__openings_.or '..fore s.ts,_.instead of.. ______c.e.n.J::_e_ring down the middle.For examp-le,route the.._ transmission line along ridge bottom and along forest edge south of the Gold Creek railspur (Figure E.8.9.1). 6.Cross major roadways as near to perpendicular as possible to allow for maximum setback of facility structures and minimum visibility from the roadway into the right-of~way on each side. 7.Where ridges run parallel to roads place transmission lines beyond the ridge or downslope,to the extent practical,so that facilities are not silhouetted against the sky. ',I 'I 851016 E-8-9-l0 8.Site facilities to minimize vegetation clearing. Design Considerations 1.Use longer spans and taller towers where transmission lines must cross valleys to retain as much existing vegetation as possible and to reduce construction impacts to slopes. 9.3 -Mitigation Costs (**) The aesthetic mitigation plan is designed to reduce or eliminate adverse visual impacts due to project development,and to enhance the aesthetic resource of the project area.The emphasis of the mitigation measures in this plan is on: o Avoiding important natural and visual environments through site refinements; o using best development practices;and o rehabilitating areas as soon as they are no longer needed. Many measures of this kind have been addressed in Exhibit E throughout the evolution of the Project.As part of ongoing,supplemental,and future planning throughout the design engineering phase,additional study for aesthetic mitigation would include siting studies,avoidance of difficult site specific physical conditions,and visual compatibility with the existing landscape setting. 9.3.1 -Mitigation Measures (***) Costs for many of the aesthetic mitigation measures listed in the previous section under best development practices and siting refinements would be included as part of the detailed design process and project reclamation costs.Similarly,costs for most of the design consideration measures identified above would be included under other program mitigation costs or general project development costs.For example,the costs of the aesthetic mitigation measures identified for the visitor centers would be included in the visitor center construction cost noted in the recreation plan. The aesthetic mitigation plan costs include measures identified solely for reducing aesthetic resource impacts.These measures include feathering rights-of-way,spraying cut slopes with mulch to reduce visual contrast,planting vegetation to provide screening,adding additional transmission lines to avoid important views or sensitive areas,development of an environmental briefing program,and focusing on aesthetic 851016 E-8-9-11 resource concerns.While costs for these measures cannot be detailed at this time since the measures are highly dependent on final design and construction methods employed,it is anticipated that costs would not exceed $500,000. 9.3.2 -Monitoring Costs (***) Costs for monitoring aesthetic resource concerns during construction would be included as part of the cost for the Project Environmental Field officer (EFO).Costs for the EFO and project monitoring are discussed in Exhibit D. 9.4 Mitigation Monitoring (***) Monitoring of aesthetic resource concerns during construction would be the responsibility of the Project'Environmental Field Officers (EFO). EFOs would supervise environmental briefing programs for construction workers,ensure according to the project design specifications that scenic and natural resource areas of distinction are protected,and ensure that identified aesthetic resource mitigation measures are implemented and properly developed.These duties would be shared with rIl0iiifOfirigdtitiesfof othef resource pfogramswhich'are described in Chapters 3 and 5 of Exhibit E. After completion of Watana Stage I,a review of implemented aesthetic mitigation measures would be made.Those mitigation measures that have succeeded in reducing aesthetic impacts would be continued at Devil Canyon Dam,while those that have not achieved a substantial reduction inaes'Elieticimpact;~or nave-proven-'Ee>"""oe more costly."t"nan frCe-tevel'of' reduction warrants,would be modified or eliminated.Measures implemented for the other stages,likewise,would be reviewed after construction is completed. \.j .j ] I Ii ,) 851016 E-8-9-12 I 1 10 -AESTHETIC IMPACT EVALUATION OF THE INTERTIE (This section deleted) 851016 E-8-10-1 ,I ") )J ,\ OJ !1 ,J "( ".' J \} (1 r J 11 -AGENCY COORDINATION (**) 11.1 -Agencies and Persons Consulted (**) This section was prepared following discussions with the following agencies and Native corporations: o u.s.Bureau of Land Management o U.S.National Park Service o U.S.Fish and Wildlife o Alaska Department of Natural Resources o Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities o Matanuska-Susitna Borough o Cook Inlet Region Inc. o Tyonek Native Corporation o Ahtna,Inc. o Knikatnu,Inc. 11.2 -Agency Comments (**) In response to the Draft Exhibit E provided to the agencies by the Applicant on November 15,1982,review comments were received only from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. The concerns raised by these two agencies included: o Incorporation of mitigation measures in project design; o Use of avoidance as a mitigation measure;and o Access road location and design criteria. In response'to these concerns,the mitigation section has been expanded to include site refinement and design modification mitigation measures. These measures would be considered during the detailed design stage of the project.In particular,the transmission and access road alignments would be reassessed before construction begins. Responses to the specific comments raised by these two agencies are included in Exhibit E,Chapter 11 of the original License Application filed before FERC in February 1983. 851016 E-8-11-1 ,1 ,! t 1 ) \! ;\ ,I ! ,") ) •~I ;,I" I I ,f I) iJ -J ") I l 12 -REFERENCES Alaska Power Authority.1983.Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,Susitna Hydroelectric Project,FERC License Application.Project No.7114.Anchorage,Alaska • •1985.Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Staged Construction---Pre-Filing Consultation Package.Filed with FERC May,1985. Project No.7114. EDAW.1985.Aesthetic Resource Mitigation Plan.Draft Report.Prepared for Harza/Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture,Anchorage,Alaska. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.1984.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Draft Environment Impact Statement.FERC No.7114.Volume 6:Appendices Land M. Frank Orth &Associates.1985.Documentation Report for.the Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Socioeconomic Impact Model.Preliminary Draft Report.June 1985.Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. u.S.Department of Interior and U.S.Department of Agriculture.1970. Environmental Criteria for Electric Transmission Systems. u.S.Forest Service.1975.National Landscape Management,Utilities. Vol.2,Chapter 2.July 1975.147 pp • •1977.National Forest Landscape Management,Roads.Vol.2,---Chapter 4.March 1977.62 pp. 851016 E-8-12-1 ;J 'j J :,J l i ! :1 ,""1 '-J ) '" ,I : 1 \ ,-I i ) ,( I,J :) I "" .1, ~ 13 -GLOSSARY Absorption Capability - A measure of the natural sensitivity of a landscape to alteration.Factors such as the potential for human experience,compatible site relationships,and aesthetic .values are commonly considered. Aesthetic Value - A measure of the relative overall importance of the visual landscape,including such components as distinctive- ness,uniqueness,harmony and balance. Compatible - A relationship between the existing landscape and man- made features in which the proposed elements are designed in fit- ness with the character of the existing landscape. Distinctiveness - A measure of the visual impression of an area;a landscape where landforms,waterforms,rocks,vegetative or soil patterns are of outstanding and memorable visual quality. Harmony and Balance - A measure of the degree to which all elements of the landscape form a unified composition.This includes the level of integration of man-made elements in a natural setting. Landscape Character Type (LCT)- a description and classification of coherent units of the landscape which are used as a frame of reference to classify the physical features of an area.They are, for the most part,based on physiographic units,and represent land areas with common distinguishing visual characteristics such as landform,geologic formation,waterform and vegetation pattern. Observer Position -The location or .point from where an individual views the landscape. Rarity - A measure of the relative scarcity or commonality of the landscape. View Duration -The length of time an individual views the land- scape from a particular position. 851016 E-8-13-1 TABLES I ]. iJ TABLE E.8.6.1 :SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SIGNIFICANT VIEWS Potential Viewers:All vehicular traffic traveling north Distance:Panoramic,but narrower than la. Facilities Seen:None Significant View la.Nenana River Valley and Alaska Mountain Range lb.Nenana River Valley and Alaska Mountain Range View Description Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facili ties Seen: Observer Position: View Duration: Access road Seen at 50 miles per hour for +3·miles All vehicular traffic traveling north Panoramic Access road (foreground) Access road Seen at 50 miles per hour for 1+miles 2. 3. 4a. Views of Butte Landmark Panoramic View of Clearwater Mountains .. Views Up Small Drainage Ways Into The Chulitna Mountains Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facilities Seen: Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facili ties Seen: Observer Position: View Duration: Access road Seen at 50 miles per hour for ±6miles All vehicular traffic traveling north Middle ground Access road fore- middle-ground Access road Seen at 50 mile per hour for 4 miles Vehicular Traffic: northbound Panoramic None Access road Seen at SO mile per hour for +3 miles or during stops at road SOURCE:EDAW 1985 heads Potential Viewers:Vehicular Traffic: northbound - southbound Significant View TABLE E.8.6.1 (PAGE 2 of 8) View Description 4d.Views Up Small Observer Position:Access road ~-------~.-~-----Dra;l;nage-Ways··---~~~-Vi-ew-Duratj;on:-~·····Seen-·at-··50-mi-I-es~per-­ -.:r.n~to~-T.he--Ghu1-i-tma-hourfor 4+miles Mountains 4b. 4c. 5. Views Up Small Drainage Ways Into The Chulitna Mountains Vi ews ..Up Small Drainage Ways Into The Chulitna Mountains Panoramic View of Talkeetna Mountains Distance: Facilities Seen: Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facilities Seen: Observer Position: View Duration: po ten ti al Viewer s : Distance: FacilitlesSeen: Potential Viewers: Distance: FacilitiescSeen: Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Drainage way,fore- middle-ground,Chul- itna Mountains back- ground Trailheads,trails Access road Seen at 50 miles per hour for 1+mile Vehicular Traffic: southbound Drainage way to ChUlifriaMountains Trailhead and trail Access road Seen at 50 miles per hour for 3+miles Veh:i e1.l1 ar Tr af fi c: north-and southbound Drainage Way to Chulitna Mountain Trailhead,Viewpoint and Trail Vehicular T:caffic: northbound Drainage Way To Chulitna Mountains Trail Access road Seen at 50 miles per hour for =4 miles Vehicular traffic Foreground,Big/ Deadman Lakes,Middle ground,Watana Reser- voir,Background, Talkeetna Mountains 1 J } ) J ) 1 ) 1 ) J Significant View TABLE E.8.6.1 (PAGE 3 of 8) View Description 6. 7a. 7b. 8. 9. Deadman Creek Deadman Lake Tsusena Butte Tsusena Drainage Townsite Views Facilities Seen: Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facilities Seen: Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facilities Seen: Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facilities Seen: Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Fadli ties Seen: Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Fadli ties Seen: Access road and reservoir Access road or road pull-off Seen at SO miles per hour for ±6 miles or at stationary pull- offs Vehicular traffic Foreground None Access road Less than 1/2 mile Vehicular Traffic: northbound .Middl eground Access road,Trail Access road Seen at SO miles per hour for ±10 miles Access road users Middleground None Access road Seen at 50 miles per hour for 2.5 miles Access road users: northbound Mid-to background Access road, foreground Watana townsite Stationary/ destination Town residents Fore-to middleground Dam,damsite facili- J J TABLE E.8.6.1 (PAGE 4 of 8) Significant View View Description ·l 100 Watana Reservoir Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facilities Seen: Damsite Stationary/ destination 'Damsite workers, visitors Foreground through background Power plant facili- ties,dam,and reservoir 11.Downstream Watana Views Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facilities Seen: Damsite Stationary/ destination Damsite workers, visitors __ Fore-to middleground views of facilities Background views of river valley Rivet bottow areas and powerhouse road, middleground Power facilities and transmission lines, foreground I ,, J 1 ',IDamsite Stationary short-term a.riddestination· Damsite workers and visi tors Fore-to middleground Transmission lines and swl tchyard (silhouetted) Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facilities Seen: Distance: Facilities Seen: Observer Position:Damsite ViewDura~ion:-····-Stati=onary/ ....de s tination Potential Viewers:Damsite workers and visitors Middle to background Visitors facilities 12.Fog Lakes Area 13.Transmission Lines Significant View TABLE E.8.6.1 (PAGE 5 of 8) View Description 14.Watana Site Observer-Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facilities Seen: Access road above facilities Seen at 50 miles per hour for :2 miles Damsite workers and visi tors Middle to background Damsite facilities, the dam,and reser- voir Observer Position:Access road immed- iately under the line 15.Transmission Corridor Crossing View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facili ties Seen: Seen at 50 miles per hour for 2 miles East/west road users Foreground Transmission towers and corrido r Note:This view occurs at a sharp angle and minimizes the length of view dura- tion. 16.Transmission Corridor Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facili ties Seen: Access road immed- iately below facility Seen at 50 miles per hour for :200 feet (crossing) East/west road users Fore-to middleground Transmission corridor and tower,s ~:This view is very oblique,causing a much greater length of corridor to be prominent at the crossing as well as along the uphill side of the east/west road. Potential Viewers:East/west road users 17a Talkeetna MountainS-and Susitna River Valley Observer Position: View Duration: Access road Seen at 50 miles per hour for +5 miles TABLE E.8.6.1 (PAGE 6 of 8)·1 Significant View View Description Distance: Facilities Seen: Panoramic None 17b.Denali Vista Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facilities Seen: Access road' Seen at 50 miles per hour for 10+miles (in good weather) Vehicular Traffic: westbound Background,panoramic Access road,Trans- mission Lines,Borrow Pits_J 18.Devil Creek Drainage Observer Position: .View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facilities Seen: Access road Seen at 50 miles per hour for 1 mil e East/west road users Middle to background Transmission line (uphill side) I.Damsite Stationary/ destination Damsite workers, visitors Fore-to middle- ground;reservoir ex- tends to background Dam,damsite facili- ties,and reservoir Observer Position: View Duration: Observer Position:Access road View Duration:Seen at 50 miles per hour for :2 miles Potential Viewers:High Lake visitors, road users Distance:._~c:lc:ll:~gr()und to backgroundtiesSeen:---None- Facili ties Seen: Potential Viewers: Distance: 19.High Lake 20.Devil Canyon Reservoir 21.Devil Canyon Saddle Dam Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Damsite Stationary Damsite workers, vis!tors .J :1 TABLE E.8.6.1 (PAGE 7 of 8) Significant View View Description Observer Position:Bridge surface22.Devil Canyon Bridge 23.Devil Canyon (Downstream View) 24.Alaska Range and Chuli tna River Valley Distance: Facilities Seen: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facilities Seen: Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facili ties Seen: Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facilities Seen: Middleground Saddle dam and assoc- iated fadli ties Seen at 50 miles per hour for ::t:l mile Visitor center visi- tors and damsi te workers Fore to middlegound Power plant outfall, transmission line corridor Dam top (800 feet and higher) Stationary Damsite visitors and workers Fore-to middleground Power facilities, power access roads, and dry river bed Back country trails Walking for indeter- minate distance Hikers Panoramic None 25.Soul Creek, 26.Deadman Creek, 27.Tsusena Creek, 28.Caribou Pass 29. Observer Position:Back country trails View Duration:Walking pace at many positions Potential Viewers:Hikers and recrea- tional users Facilities Seen:None TABLE E.8.6.1 (PAGE 8 of 8) Significant View 30.Susitna River Views 31.Indian Mountain View Description Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facilities Seen: Observer Position: View Duration: Potential Viewers: Distance: Facili ties Seen: River surface or shore Seen at floating speed for :1:6 miles River recreationists Fore-to middleground Railroad Lookout at end of Little Coal Creek Trail Stationary Hikers on existing trail,along Parks Highway corridor Background Railspur,transmis- sion lines,Devil Canyon constructioncamp(cl.epend:l.Jig on siting/clearing) ·1 ,I I ) .J TABLE E.8.7.l:AESTHETIC IMPACT POTENTIAL COMPOSITE RATINGS AESTHETIC VALUE HIGH MEDIUM LOW I I ( Composite Rating HIGH ........--_AESTH EriC -~""",'.....LOW IMPACT De sc rip ti on Design Criteria rj11i·j Ifll11 Landscape has high aesthetic value with moderate to little ability to absorb man-made features. Landscape has moderate to high ability to absorb man-made features. Landscape has low to moderate aesthetic lalue with high ability to absorb man-made features. Facility designs should be similar in character and equal in boldness with the landscape,or remain visually sub- ordinate to the natural surroundings Facility designs may visually dominate the landscape but should relate to the surround- ing form,line,color and texture to be compatible with the surroundings. New elements may add to the aesthetic quality beyond existing condi- tions by introducing visual interest and/or complementing the ~I.J l I ~ \ :! .I lv .I ..~ j~ FIGURES ,I ---' ••••••••RANGES ,,-----,,-- "INTERIOR I _,. \---,,'SOUTH...., I CENTRAL '\ I -- I...: /0o _._- LOCATION MAP ~ ott.DAMSITES .....~.... LEGEND' ___PRIMARY PAVED UNDIVIDED HIGHWAY _•••-RIVERS .............~••••••• •••••• ••••~\G~ ............................",~. ••••••BROOKS'\ 00 00 00 00 00 ~,;'\ .:: :.....•~·o:m\4;~i :..0 :~. :'l:l!'"J •f =~\ :..'\-\\\'.'-. \~-\ ••• ~.,"\,',~,~,~, ,.-'8\ '"1'"s··.'.' f \ ••••••••• REGIONAL MAP FIGURE E.8.1.1 ! j I ! I ! I I -I ,j 'I ! I~----------------.---I j 1 ] : j ,1 - II....lUI III. T.blt To III It T.ITIt 1'.1".Il.2W.Illl!I.R.Il!:.R.!!.1I.111t.ft.41t.!lSI!:.1I.81!:.IUIt.11.81:.R.III!:.!l101!:.1I.1Il£.1I.IlE. LEGEND: ++++MtRAILROAD EXTENSION _____PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD ---PROPOSED TRANSMISSLINE ----INTERTIE ~i~1IMPOUNDMENT AREA T.t!S. I--__--:~T.l4N. T.llIN. T.11N. T.IIN. T.IOII. T.IIN. T.811. T.TN. 1'I.1Ow. PROPOSED PROJECT FEATURES o 4 8 MILES SCALE ep!!'~5_iiiiiiil FIGURE E.8.4.1 ] ] ] I i J 1 1 ] J } 1 1 .j 1 J 1 J ,] r- LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPES I I, ILJ I ] lJ T.29N. 1:28 N. T.2TH. R.4W.IUW. R.6W.R.!lW.·R.4E. _NOTABLE NATURAL FEATURES I.DEVIL CANYON RAPIDS 2.DEVIL CREEK FALLS 3.STEPHAN LAKE 4 TSUSENA CREEK FALLS 5.TSUSENA BUTIE /LAKE 6.DEADMAN CREEK FALLS 7.FOG LAKES a BIG/DEADMAN LAKES 9.CARIBOU PASS 10.VEE CANYON ------+-=-Io~=1 T.ns. T.KN. I I I T.IZN. T.IIN. T.ION. T.9N. T.eN. I .."; T.TN. R.IOW. o 4 8 MILES SCALE EI~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_!r------ I \.:. FIGURE E.8.5.1 J I J ] ] ] .] ~] 1 J 1 j I I j j ,) .I ].--....._-_--.-------.-.--.------.-------r 11 )1 I I I' I ~ I :1 I I Ii LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPES NORTHERN STUB FIGURE E.8.S.2 ] ':1 ,I] 1 i !( ;/~ I: il·' ") II : r r :\ ,j ,I J I I I-INTERTIE I I N£D SHlW' LAK£ PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE STUB-WILLOW TO ANCHORAGE \\ \\\ \\\\\\ INL£r j) SUSITNA RIVER LOWLANDS il \ SCALE r LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPES SOUTHERN STUB FIGURE E.8.5.3 I J 1 J J J J ] J 1 J J 1 l .\ J ] J -1 J j T.29 N. T.28 N. T.2TN. '1.4W. LEGEND: 'llII~...-PANORAMIC VIEWS ....IMPORTANT FOREGROUND VIEWS R.6W.R.l5W. SIGNIFICANT VIEWS i ., R.4E. T.l2N. T.IIN. T.lON. T.9N. T.aN. T.TN. R.IOw. O~~,!4iiiii&_.8 MILES I~ALEL 1- ;FIGURE E.8.6.1 J ] J J J J ] 1 ] ] ] 1 J J 1 ] J J /",.' \ WATANA BORROW SITE MAP .~- ~'<;:~ \ BORROW SITE F LOCATION MAP \ o.~~~'l~_';B.MILESSCA~E i:. LEGEND L·:·,:;;'"I BORROW/QUARRY SITE NOTE, I.PROPOSED SOURCE OF IMPERVIOUS ~4It~~~IN A~~THREE PROJECT 2.PROPOSED SOURCE OF .GGREGATE AND FI~TER MATERIAL IN STAGES I AND m.. 3,~~~Sii'ci't?~~CE OF ROCK FILL IN 'l.REQUIRED EXCAVATION~WI~L SATISFY ALL STAGE I ROCKFILL REQUIREMENTS. o.~~5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~2 MILESSC.~E L FIGURE E.8.8.1 1 j 1 J J 1 ~) I I I I I J========-----~-----------I -j 1 \ j J 1 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TRANSMISSION LINES GOLD CREEK • {I' ~; ~~:~.~ f1.¢'.¢'~I FAIRBANKS II~I HEALY r~j '_..IIIlIIIIIIllIII ..-'DEVIL CANYON 1iII1IIIIlIII ......~/'""""""""""""""".,4\.W A TAN A"4IfiI""""""""""411',""',Af'l....:j. EXISTING INTERTIE .,.""""",n WA TANA INITIAL DAM-STAGE I 11IIllIII ...DEVil CANYON-STAGE n •••••••••WA TANA HIGH DAM-STAGE m (Note all Lines=345 kv) WILLOW ~ KNIK ARM ~ANCHORAGE SOURCE:PLP 1985 FIGURE E.8.8.2 ":'~~..:. ACCESS ROAD(PEfllAANENT) ACCESS ROAD (TtllPORARY) CONSTRUCTION ROAD .,....,-' .""",~. I "l :) ] -] J I 1 ] ,1 J ,) ·] ) ·) ·! 1 ·) ) LEGEND o 4 SCALE I!!!!~~_iiiiiiiiT MILlS MEASURES .-. ----EDGE OF WATER SURFACE PROPOSED ~.' AESTH~T!C MITIGATION SUSITNA ~YDROELECTRIC PROJ.:CT-STAGE J:(WATANA) o 1000 SCALE ~;~~~~2r FEET ~-I!IIWICC___ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 2-345 KV WA T ANA SITE LA YOU'VT +ORANSMISSION LltlES [__------Ir---~=:.:--~ __GOLD CREEK_·..t------ .-' I §J ~col;!i!1 ....i 1 "'I I I I I I i \ \ N3 34 N3 2 N 3.22B.000 ---- N N 3.224.000 BORRW SITE-E .==:l\i,':"0E'."".." 11, I AUG.19B5 ] J ] J 1 J J ] j ! j 1 j j j 1 1 ,I r APPENDICES l' ) APPENDIX E 1.8 NOTABLE NATURAL FEATURES II I J IIL_ NATURAL FEATURES #I DEVIL CANYON RAPIDS ';PttO-TQ.E'1.Jl"J:_DEV{L.GAN.YQN ..RAPJD$__ LOOKING UPSTREAM·TO ._._...,'DEVIL CAN'(ONDAMSITE NATURAL FEATURES #I DEVIL CANYON RAPIDS PHOTOE1.8..2~DEVl.lCANYON RAPIDS _ ] ] ] --] 1 i (IIi ] 'j ,1 'I I j ,): :] '_] \jli'Y~ -I )1 ;).. NATURAL FEATURES #2 DEVIL CREEK FALLS P1l9TO E1.8.S:OEVILCREEI(.FALLS'i~"J_, .. .PHOTO E1.B.4:DEVIL CREEK FALLS #2 NATURAL FEATURES *3 STEPHAN LAKE ...oJ ·"] ·J ) .I °I ~J J ·] :J °I J J ] J ] \} :I 1.! '.', NATURAL FEATURES #4 TSUSENA CREEK FALLS ... J:>!i9"IQ __~J.J:h.Q;__TSUSENA GREEK FALLS,, ] NATURAL FEATURES :It:5 TSUSENA BUfTELAKE PHoTOE1.a.i:i.>TSUSENAsQ.TTELAKE LOOKING NORTH j 0---:'~~~"-r-''':--'~_·_·--···---N:OR:t"tiwE·ST:;-~_"'_".,_". 1- 'j. '] :1 \] 'j 1 11 l j I j NATURAL FEATURES #6 DEADMAN CREEK FALLS NATURAL FEATURES"7 FOG LAKES PHOTO Et.8.9.FOG LAKES- NATURAL FEATURES #8 BIG/DEADMAN LAKES .PHOTO E 1.8.10:BIG/DEADMAN LAKE ..... ..._..._'.·tTHE.·cbN~E.CtfNG LAN P'SETyJEEN THE 2"LA K~S) .;-;".,-: PHOTO E 1-8.11:BIGlDEADMAN LAKE (DEADMAN LAKE IS IN'THE FOREGROUND AND ..·BIQ..J,AKE IN THE MIDD'LEGROUNDJ ,..._..._......_....__ NATURAL FEATURES :I:9 CARIBOU PASS ;~"",:"I"i'{':;~ PHOTO E1.8.12:9ARIBOULAKES.LOOKING SOUTH --~"._-...-TOWARDS"THE CONFLUENCE'OF" _.__.SQJ,~LE.cBEEK_ANQJACKRBlE ~:"_':~...:::.:,~::_...:_:'-::::"_ ,) j ] ] .~ ,I .I ) ) ;J I "I • I 1 'i j ;,I J ,.\ i ( ,) T- NATURAL FEATURES #10 VEE CANYON PHOTO E 1.8.13:VEE CANYON AND VIC!NITY J ] 1 ·) .) ·] I .j 1 1 .,] .1 1 1 ·1 ] r I..... J: ) .1 ·APPENDIX E2.8 S·ITE PHOTOS WITH SIMULATIONS OF PROJECT FACILITIES }: .} ~I WATANA RESERVOIR EXISTING SUSITNA RIVER CLOOKING.'.',. WATANA PERMANENT TOWNSITE PHOTO E2.8.2:~SITE OF PERMANENT TOWNSITE/CONSTRUCTION {VILLAGE (LOOKING NORTH) 4...---....~-'...-...--,.._.._.'.,..-...-~-._.._---....-..__...-.._---...-'-'"._.-. ,f:lERMANENT.,TOWNSITE -WATANA "J "1 ,:] ,..}. " 1 i l ],.J } I J j 1 J 1 I } DEVIL CANYON ACCESS ROAD PHOTO E2.8.3:·EXIS.TLN_G_.c.QN.DITJO.N~......PROPOSED ROAD .CROSSING NEAR TSUSENACREEK \ \~APPENDIX E3.8 PHOTOS OF PROPOSED PROJECT FACILITIES SITES PHOTO E3.8.1:PROPOSED DEVIL CANYON CONSTRUCTION' VILLAGE/CAMPSITE (LOOKING EAST) .,~~-,-"".~.,...,...:.,- PHOTO E3.8.2:PROPOSED DEVIL CANYON CONSTRUCTION VILLAGE/CAMPSITE (LOOKING EAST) ] ] j 1 j ] 1 '.) PHOTO E3.8.4:PROPOSED MAJOR BORROW"AREA FOR WA TANA DAM ON NORTH (RIGHT)LOWER SUSITNA RIVER TERRACE (NEAR CONFLUENCE OF TSUSENA GREEK) """ PHOTOE3.8.S:PROPOSED MAJOR BORROW AREA (SAME--AS'-- ABOVE)FOR WATANA DAM ON NORTH (LEFT) --:TOWER-SUSITNA RIVERTERR"ACETNEAR~--,.. CONFLUENCE OF TSUSENA CREEK) ;1 ,j I -1 I J '1 -j J I J I I ------------------------------------------ 1 :..1 2J I ] j APPENDIX E4.8 EXAMPLES OF EXISTING. AESTHETIC IMPACTS 1 ] j HIGHWAY CONDITIONS PHOTO E4.8.1:TYPICAL ROAD PULLOUT ON':1 .THE PARKS HIGHWAY (A PAVED ROADWAY)_._._ PHOTO-E4:8.2:BORROW AREAS NEAR THE DENALI.HIGHWAY SHOW LACK OF NATURAL VEGETATION 1 1 ) 1 } ,! ] J \ J 1 ] I j 1 'J j j ] ,,;: _eHoTo.E4.8A:DENALI HIGHWAY BRIDGE.TYPICAL WOOD-FRAME STREAM CROSSING fl:lQrq E4.8.3:.DENALI HIGHWAVIL06KING soutHEAST)NEAR PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD.JUNCTION.THIS IS A ___LYPICAL.C-OMPACTED-..GHAVEL..BOAD...AND 1$'--i SIMtLAR TO THE-PROPOSED1ACCI;SS ROAD HIGHWAY CONDITIONS "......, OFF ROAD TRAIL IMPACTS , I I· PHOTO E4~8.5:,JEEp ROA.O.lTBAIL.OFE.PENALI HIGHWAY .. ,i TRACKS MADE BY VEHICLES IN THE TUNDRA~~~J~I~~I~Jli~I~~ti~]li 'ARE..VIRTUA.L.LY__EE.RM~.ENI.__:,_.__........\. \,.,.,.~..~~.~..---,-.-._--- PHOTO E4.8.6:ALL-TERRAIN-VEHICLE CATV). TRAIL TO BUTTE LAKE.THIS TRAIL IS SEVERAL YEARS OLD AND IS CAUSING RAPID ·-·-P-E:RMAFROSriHAW.EACH" YEAR THE OLD MARKS "BECoME LINEAR PONDS. ;·P-I:IQTQE4.8A7:GOLD CREEK ORVTRAIL PHOTO E4.8~.8:EXISTING WATANA CAMP_ ) j j 1 \ .....J 1 . J j ] ! I 1 j l 1 J. CAMPSITE CONDITIONS PHOTO E4.8.9:,EXISTING BRUS.HKANA.CAMPGROUND CBlM) .:OFF DENALI HIGHWAY -PROPOSED EXPANsION. THIS IS TYPICAL OEDEVELOPED CAMPGROUNDiDESrGNINTH'E REGION NOTE THE UNCONTROlED ORV TRACKS \- I PHOTO E4.8.10:EXISTING BORROW PIT ALONG DENALI HIGHWAY.BORROW PITS .....ADJACENT TO.PUBLIC ROADS ARE POPULAR CAMPSITES FOR -···-RUNTERS~·FiSHERMEN.AND OTHER RECREATIONISTS BECAUSE .--'~fHEY AR1~'-RELA TIVEL Y DRY AND BUG FREE TRANSMISSION LINE CONDITIONS ,) ] ] \ ] j ·1 ~,j ] I 1 ,:",.; ..,._..-..,'--_..•......"...~PHOTo.E4~.8~11:._E)HSTING·TRANS,MISSloN LINES NORTH SIDE OF COOK INLET-SUSITNA RIVER LOWLANDS. ._.LNOTE TI:IE ..HIGH VISIBILITY OF TH.~.Ah,lJMINlJM..' \.I TONE TOWERS '... \. P'HQTO_E.43 •.8.12:,EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINES.NORTH SIDE .OF COOK INLET -SUSITNA RIVER LOWLANDS. ,--THIS CORRIDOR IS SIMILAR IN SIZE AND TOWER ,DESIGN TO THE DEVIL CANYON TO 'GOLD CREEK CORRIDOR.NOTE THE STRAIGHT ALIGNMENT AND, RIGID VEGETATION EDGES'.J"" ';...,.' APPENDIX E5.8 EXAMPLES OF RES·ERVOIR·EDGE CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE ANTICIPATED AT WATANA AND DEVIL CANYON DAMS \ 1J i,. I \I \1 ., PHOTO E5.8.1:POTENTIAL RESERVOIR SLOPE/EDGE CONDITION" (WILLISTON RESE'RVOIR-BRITISH COLUMBIA)' PHOTO E5.8.2:POTENTIAL RESERVOIR SLOPE/EDGE CONDITION (WILLISTON RESERVOIR-SRITISH COLUMBIA) ] ] 11 11 ,",J '" :) ,I' ,, 1 f J II' ~ Jl APPENDIX E6.8 P·ROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS AND CHARTS -:J j PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS I I PROJECT FEATURE WATANA PROJECT AREA 1 - 9 1 WATANA DAM .STAGE JIt FEATURE DESCRIPTION •Earth-fill dam • •885 ft (270 m)high. •4100-ft (1250 m)crest length. •ROugh textured rock surface simi liar color tones as surrounding exposed rock. •Will be one of the highest dams in the world.. FEATURE IMPACTS •Massive scale and sloping dam face in harmony with existing land forms in the river valley. •Rock color is consistant with exposed rock but not with soft texture and color of existing vegetation patterns •. •Horizontal form is consistent with the dominant horizontal character of reservoir. •Construction activity will denude much of the surrounding land and disturb the soil. WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ... Susitna River LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 8 (AIM) PROJECT FEATURES PROJECT FEATURE 2 WATANA RESERVOIR FEATURE DESCRIPTION IMPACTS •Approximately 54 miles (90 km)in length and over 5 m~les (8 km)wide at the confluence of Watana Creek. •Surface area of 38,000 acres (15,200 ha). •Maximum depth at normal operating level of 680 ft (205 m). •Normal maximum operating elevation is 2185 ft (660 m)and a low of 2065 ft (625 m)in April or May -- drawdoWl of 120 ft (35 m). •All timber will be cleared in the reservoir area and will probably be burned. •Drawdown will create extensive mud flat areas up to over 1 mi (1.6 km)in width at maximum drawdown. •Extensive slumping,scaling and landsliding is expected along steep side slopes,possibly extendlng hundreds of feet up sidewalls,when reservoir is filled.Will continue until angle of repose is reached. •In winter,ice shelves will form along the shoreline. •The impoundment will inundate small to significant portions of 7 major tributaries,2 waterfalls,and a large amount of Vee Canyon. FEATURE IMPACTS •The reservoir will replace the highly rated existing landscape character by covering much of the valley landform. •As a result of extensive erosion and regular exposure of large mud flats during annual drawdown,the 1-•Ad~~fI-~aI!Li;~~~t;t'i~~I~d~e~h;e~~~;()~~la~~f~f~d~~~l n~~u~;I'feafures:--Vee-Canyon,--fsusena Creek - Falls,Deadman Creek Falls and Watana Creek Falls. WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ... LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING ___Susitna.River ----River-Canyon - t- -8 (A/M) ---------9-tAltY- E6-8-1-2 ] 1 I] PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS PROJECT FEATURE 3 WATANA MAIN SPILLWAY FEATURE DESCRIPTION •Concrete sloping channel 2000 ft (600 m)long and 100 ft (30 m)wide varies. •30 ft (9 m)deep. •As engineered will require rock cuts up to and over 100 ft(30 m)deep on river valley alope.Cut side slopes are 4 ft (1.2 m)vertical to 1 ft (0.3 m)horizontal. FEATURE IMPACTS •Long straight concrete chute will be vislble by Watana workers and visitors as they cross the access road br idge. •Extensive rock cuts and grading is inconsistent with the natural landforms and vegetated slopes. WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ••• Susitna River LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 8 (A/M) E6-8-1-3 PROJECT FEATURES PROJECT FEATURE IMPACTS 5 WATANA POWERHOUSE ACCESS ROAD AND TAILRACE TUNNEL ACCESS ROAD FEATURE DESCRIPTION Powerhouse Road •Gravel road of +24 ft (7.3 m)wide and over 1.5 miles (2.5 km)long.Severalhalrpin turns as it traverses down 400 ft (120 m)in elevation on the river's south slope before it contInues down and across the dam face. •Significant cuts will be required to place the road on these steep slopes. Tailrace Tunnel Road •Gravel road of +24 ft (7.'m)in width and over 1 mile (1.6 km)In length. •Traverses down the south river slope some 500 ft (150 m)In elevation.Several hairpin turns. •Significant cuts will be required to bUIld the road on these steep slopes. FEATURE IMPACTS_I-.;..;;;;;;;.;.;,.,;;;..:..;=-...;.;;,;.,;.;;..;.;;;.;;;;..:..;:;...-----------------------------~---__i •The primary impact of these roads will be the extensive vegetation clearing and rock cutting required for construction on such a steep bank.This will leave large scars which are highly visible from the dam site. 1 .1 WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ... ----Susitna River- ------ LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 8 (A/M) E6-8-1-4 I J ) PROJECT FEATURES PROJECT FEATURE 7 WATANA DAM BORROW SIrES FEATURE DESCRIPTION IMPACTS •Material for Watana Dam. •Extracted by draglines in the river;blasted in other areas. •Existing islands and several miles of the low north river terrace below the damsite are designated as borrow sites. • A borrow site of approximately 640 acres (256 ha)is located on the high north terrace adjacent to Deadman Creek. FEATURE IMPACTS •Riverine borrow sites will be located at the mouth of Isusena Creek and wlll be in full view of the dam area.Exposed rock and rigid angular forms will be out of character with the soft flowing forms a f the river valley. •Borrow sites designated upstream of the dam may affect the shoreline by creatlng ngid angular shores. •Borrow limits shown,leave no buffer between excavation activities and the construction camp. ] .J WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ••• Susitna River wet Upland Tundra Susitna Upland Terrace LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 8 (AIM) 7 (B/l) 7 (BIL) E6-8-1-5 PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS PROJECT FEATURE 8 WAJANA PERMANENT JOWN FEATURE DESCRIPTION •Town Center -approximately 20 buildings. •Road -perimeter. •Supports 304 people of which 92 will operate both·dams and facilities. •Dwelling Units (125). •Hospital. •Water and Sewage Treatment Plants. FEATURE IMPACTS •Town siting is inconsistant with existing physical environment. •Permanent dwellers will have to access village through the old construction townsite which will continue to be.a blighted area even after removal of structur.es.and..si.te.facilities... •Town will most likely be visible from the access road depending on the final layout of the road. ) WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ••• Wet Upland Tundra ... LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 7 (B/L) 1 .J E6-8-1-6 PROJECT FEATURES PROJECT FEATURE 9 WATANA TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION CAMP &VIllAGE FEATURE DESCRIPTION IMPACTS Camp Village •Covers an area of approximately 150 acres (60 ha). •Over 100 structures +dorllatories +recreation facilities +hospital +service bUildings +administration buildings,etc. •Ball fields ('). •Sewage treatment plant and landfill. •Will support 3480 people for approximately 8 yr. •Roads •Fenced FEATURE IMPACTS •Covers an area of approximately 150 acres (60 ha). •MUlti-family and single family status. •Supports 1120 people for approximately 8 yr •Variety of structures including +dwelling unita +school +service +recreation center +gymnasium +managing offices +general store,etc. •Roads •Fenced •These facilities will be removed after'construction is complete,therefore the physical design is not a long term issue,but rehabilitation must occur. •Impacts will result from facility removal,the visual scar created by invegetated mud and ponds created by soil compaction. •This scarring is most significant on the village site because permanent town residents will travel through the site and will live adjacent to it.' WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ••• -Wet Upland lundra LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 7 (B/l) E6-8-1-7 PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS PROJECT FEATURE DEVIL CANYON PROJECT AREA (1-9) 1 DEVIL CANYON CONCRETE ARCH DAM FEATURE DESCRIPTION •Arch dam will be double curved with a maximum height of 645 ft (195 m),spans approximately 1300 ft (394 m)across lower Devil Canyon. FEATURE IMPACTS •Dramatic concrete form snd massive scale will create s positive contrast to the equally dramatic natural setting of Devil Canyon. •Arch down design embraces rock outcrops and canyon enclosure. •The river channel will be dry for approximately 0.66 milea (1.1 km)below the damsite lIhich includes _.~.the.pr.esentDevil.Canyon rapids._.~.__...----...-- •Surrounding construction areas will create large areas of disturbed land. ,J ) WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ... Devil Canyon LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 9 (AIL) .. ) E6-8-1-8 I_,PROJECT FEATURES .I PROJECT FEATURE IMPACTS !2 DEVIL CANYON SADDLE DAM (Adjacent to Arch Dam) 1---------------1 1] j I FEATURE DESCRIPTION •Earth-fill. •Saddle dam is an extension of the arch dam.Same crest elevation and approximately 1000 ft (300 m) long.Rough (consiatent)textured rock surface.·· 11------------==-----=----------------1FEATUREIMPACTS •Massive scale and form of saddle dam will dominste the small scale plateau landscape. •Its rough texture and earth tones will be a stark contrast to the surrounding vegetated land and small ponds. WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ••• Devil Canyon LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 9 (AIL) E6-8...,1-9 PROJECT FEATURES PROJECT FEATURE 3 DEVIL CANYON RESERVOIR FEATURE DESCRIPTION IMPACTS ,I •Approximately 32 miles (53 km)long (backs up almost to Watana Dam)and its broadest point is near the dam. o The reservoir will inundate most of the WOrld Class whitewater through the canyon. •Surface area of 7800 acres (3120 ha). •Maximum depth at normal operating level of 550 ft (167 m). •Normal maximum operatiryg elevation of 1455 ft (440 m)for most of the year.Low of 1405 ft (425 m)in Auguat or September [drawdown of 50 ft (15 m)]. •All timber in the reservoir impoundment area will be cleared and probably burned. •Exposed areas due to drawdown will coincide with heaviest visitor season. •The impoundment will inundate a few major tributary canyons.Devil Creek falls will not be covered. FEATURE IMPACTS •Aesthetic impacts are similiar to Watana reservoir. •The new lake will replace a highly dramatic river canyon. •Regular drawdown will occur exposing mud slopes and sheer rock walls.. •The outstanding natural features of Devil Canyon and Devil Canyon Rapids will be lost. \I WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ... LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING ----------------1---- Devil Canyon Susitna River 9 (AIL) _,~_._.__.._...__._____..__.~__.~8__(ALM_l ..._.__~.._._...._...._~._._.__..~__.____......._ E6-8-1-10 i - PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS PROJECT FEATURE 4 DEVIL CANYON MAIN SPILLWAY FEATURE DESCRIPTION ). •Steeply sloping concrete channel over 1000 ft (300 m)long with a tapered width no less than 75 ft (22.7 m).Channel dep~h of approximately 25 ft (7.~m).. •As engineered,will require cuts up to and over 100 ft (30 m)deep on the north river slope.Cut side slopes are 4 ft (1.2 m)vertical to 1 ft (0.3 m)horizontal. FEATURE IMPACTS The spillway and associated rock cuts will dominate the north bank of the damsite.Exceed~ngly steep terrain is visually exposed to the proposed visitor center on the south side of the canyon. WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ... Dev il Canyon LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 9 (AIL) E6-8-1-11 PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS PROJECT FEATURE 6 DEVIL CANYON POWERHOUSE TUNNEL ACCESS ROAD FEATUR~DESCRIPTION •Gravel road +24 ft (7.J m)in width andover 2.5 miles (4 km)long from the switchyard to tunnel entrance.- •Makes 3 hairpin turns as it traverses down the north slope some 800 ft (242 m)in elevation. •Significant cuts will be required to build the road on these steep slopes. FEATURE IMPACTS •Extensive cutting will leave large scar on the canyon wall in full view of access road users. •This landscape character type has very little ability to absorb this feature without substant ial design alteration. 1) ,1 WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ••• Devil Canyon LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 9 (AIL) E6-8-1-12 J II PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS PROJECT FEATURE· 8 DEVIL CANYON TWO 345-kV TRANSMISSION LINES - Adjacent to and parallel to the two 345-kV lines From the Watana phase FEATURE DESCRIPTION •See Watana Project Area description of transmission lines. •Increases right-oF-way width to 500 Ft (150 m). FEATURE IMPACTS •Transmission lines in the dam area will be quite apparent From primary use areas. •Both lines and towers will be silhouetted against the skyline. •Cleared corridors through densely wooded areas will be highly visible From the air. WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ... Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands Talkeetna Uplsnds Mid Susitna River Valley LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 8 (A/M) 7 (B/l) 5 (B/M) E6-8-1-13 PROJECT FEATURES PROJECT FEATURE IMPACTS 9 DEVIL CANYON TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION VILLAGE &CAMP FEATURE DESCRIPTION Village •Covers an area of approximately 100 acres (40 ha). •Multi-family and single family.status. •Supports 550 people for approximately 10 years. •Structures include +320 housing units +school +gymnasium +recreation center +store,etc. •Roads •Fenced •Landfill FEATURE IMPACTS ~\ •Covers an area of approximately 100 acres (40 ha). •Approximately 75 structures including +dormitories +hospital +warehouse +recreation hall and facilities +water treatment plant and reservoir. •Roads and covered walkways. •Supports 1,780 workers for approximately 10 yr. •Sewage treatment plant. •Fenced . •Both temporary sites are located on a flat wetlands terrace which are surrounded by mixed forests. •Intense human activity and vehicle movement will cause.these wetlands to deteriorate. \ WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ••• Mid Susitna River Valley LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 5 (B/M) - .. E6-8-1-14 ...I PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS PROJECT FEATURE 10 SWITCHYARD AT GOLD CREEK INTERTIE FEATURE DESCRIPTION •Termination point for the Watana phase transmission lines and also the 2 additional lines from Devil Canyon at a later date. •Miscellaneous electrical equipment. •Located approximately 75 ft (22.7 m)above the Susitna River on the south bank terrace north of Gold Creek. FEATURE IMPACTS •Facility site is well situated in LCT to minimize intrusion. •No major views of this facility are anticipated. •Surrounding heavy forest blends well with form and texture of equipment and will screen the facility. WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ... Mid Susitna River Valley LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 5 (8/M) E6-8-1-15 PRO·JECT FEATURES PROJECT FEATURE IMPACTS - 11 RAILROAD SPUR FROM GOLD CREEK TO DEVIL CANYON FEATURE DESCRIPTION •Approximately 14 miles (23 km)in length. •Minimum disturbed section width of 31 ft (9.3 m). •Primary purpose of operation is hauling materials and equipment for the construction of Devil Canyon Dam. •Railhead facility at Gold Creek and Devil Canyon construction camp.Requires a space of approximately 600 ft (180 m)by 3000 ft (900 m).Includes: -engine turnaround -fuel storage -loading docks -workshop,stores and management office. •Will require extensive cut and fill to construct railroad bed at 2 percent maximum slope. FEATURE IMPACTS •Railroad alignment impacts views from the Susitna River. •Large cut and fills will contrast natural forest color and texture as the rolling landforms on rlver terraces. •Railroad bed will create disruption of wildlife habitats. J. -1-- WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ... Mid Susitna River Valley . LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 5 (8/M) E6-S .....1-16 .. ] .J .j PROJECT FEATURES PROJECT FEATURE IMPACTS WATANA ACCESS ROAD -DENALI HIGHWAY TO WATANA DAM FEATURE DESCRIPTION ,., •Gravel road of approximately 40 milas (67 km)in length. •24 ft (7.3 m)wide,44 ft (13.3 m)minimum disturbed section. •Significant cut and fill will be required to construct rO,ad on the variety ,of landscape and terrain conditions +wet bog areas +permafrost +steep slopes +cresk and ravine crossings •Will serve as an access road for construction of Watana Dam and will not be open to the pUblic until dam completion (1993). •long-term use of road will be for recreationists and project operators. •Several recreational developments will have amall parking areas for 3-5 cars. FEATURE IMPACTS •Road section and alignment criteria for assigned design speed generates large cut and fill sections. •Revegetation will be difficult on'steep proposed slope gradients for drainage ditches.These steep slopes also will have erosion problems which reduce the aesthetic site value.The design speed is too fast for a scenic designation for a road.. • WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ... Wet Upland Tundra Chulitna Mountains LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 7 (B/l) 9 (All) E6-8-1-17 PROJECT FEATURES PROJECT FEATURE IMPACTS. "] BORROW SIrES -Material for Construction of Watana Access Road FEATURE DESCRIPTION •Rock/gravel extraction areas for road material. •Large pits in selected locations adjacent to the proposed road. •Upland sources of rock material may also be chosen.May require temporary roads for extraction. i FEATURE IMPACTS .j '~ •Large pits near roads will be visually disruptive and are often located 1n primary view corridors. Access roads to upland or distant sites will also impact views.Borrow sites alongside rOads will parallel the road alignment and be more compatible to existing landforms once natural revegetation oc.curs. WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ... '-..Wet Upland Tundra 1-- Chulitna Mountains LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 7·(B/l) 9 (A/L) E6-8-1-18 j j -J 11 II PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS PROJECT FEATURE WATANA TO DEVIL CANYON ACCESS ROAD FEATURE DESCRIPTION •Constructed after the completion of Watsna DllAl.(1993). •Grsvel roed of approximately 34 miles (56 km)in length. •24 ft (7.3 m)wide -44 ft (13.3 m)minimum disturbed section. •Significant cut and fill will be reqUired to construct road on the variety of landscape and terrain conditions. +wet bag·areas +permafrost +steep slopes +significant river and ravine croasings. •Will have several small recreational smsll parking areas for 3-5 cars. FEATURE IMPACTS •Major impacts result from cut and fill work required for road construction in steep sreas. •Height of road profile has been minimized to reduce visual instrusion. •Roadside borrow trenches are designed to be revegetated and will be graded to fit character of existing landforms.Alignment and road section design criteria for assigned design spee,d creates awkward relationship to the existing landscape. WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ... Wet Upland Tundra Chulitna Hoist Tundra Upland Devil Canyon LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 7 (B/l) 8 (A/H) 9 (All) E6-8-1-19 ~-- PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS PROJECT FEATURE BORROW SITES -Material for Construction of Watana to Devil Canyon Access Road FEATURE DESCRIPTION •Rock/gravel extraction areas for road material. •large pits in selected locations adjacent to the proposed road. •Upland sources of rock material may also be chosen.-May require temporary roads for extraction • ......F-E-ti.-:r-U-R-E-IM-P-A-C-T-S-------------------................-----......~! •Potential impacts include views from road to the borrow sites,which in some cases will be filled with -) water and in others will appear as a unvegetated scar. •Borrow pit sites are located in landscapes which have little ability to absorb these intrusions as presently planned. ~- WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ... LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 7 (B/l) . -------~-I--------------~~--~-----------------~-----~--------1---------------~---~------------+--------~-----~-_-----~~~---~~---~_~~_ Chulitna Moist Tundra Upland!8 (A/M) Devil Canyon 9 (All) -- -J...;...................................=.:.=:.......................======±:========~~;;;,;;;;;;;±;;;,;;;;;;;;;;,;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;=;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;.;.;.;;;;;;;.;.;.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;.;.;.;;;=========_I E6-8-1-20 I I I PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS PROJECT FEATURE HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE OVER DEVIL CANYON BELOW DAM FEATURE DESCRIPTION •Steel suspension bridge approximately 2600 ft (785 m)in length and 600 ft (180 m),above the river bottom. •The bridge,as engineered,is'not horizontal.The south end is nearly 100 ft (30 m)higher in elevation than the north end. •Primary purpose is to aid in construction of Devil Canyon dam. •Shallow curved suspension. FEATURE IMPACTS •Bridge does not offer significant views of Devil Canyon Dam. •form of structure does not take edvantage of the dramatic Devil Canyon environment. •Bridge approaches may require extensive grading and disruption. WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ... Devil Canyon LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 9 (AIL) E6-8-1-21 PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS PROJECT FEATURE ANCHORAGE TO WILLOW TRANSMISSION STUB LINE FEATURE DESCRIPTION •Two 345-kV transmission lines after completion of Watana Dam.An additional 345-kV line will be constructed with the completion of Devil'Canyon Dam. •63 miles (105 km)in length. •See feature description of transmission lines for Watana Project Area for,detail. FEATURE IMPACTS •Seldom in view of any roadways,these lines are qUlte distant from major ground activity. •Major impacts will be from the air as travellers view the long cleared corridors. -OJ -I -- WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ••• Anchorage,Alaska LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING ----------------------------------------------------------------------------,------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Susitna River Lowlands 1 (C/H) -- E6-8-1-22 1 ,I PROJECT FEATURES PROJECT FEATURE TWO 345-kV TRANSMISSION LINES FEATURE DESCRIPTION IMPACTS •Towers are guyed steel pole "x"structures (CORTEN) +100 ft (30 m)high to structure top,85 ft (25.7 m)to cross beam and 45 ft (13.6 m)at the base +3 single circuit conductors per transmission line for a total of 6 nonspecular conductors. •Right-of-way width of 300 ft (90 m)vegetation will be cut to 6 in (15 cm)in height areas between will be trimmed to 10 in (25 cm)high. •Additional towers include: +single steel pole angle structure,also 100 ft (30 m)high.Generally one pole per conductor. +single steel pole structure for slopes 30 percent or more.Three conductors per pole. •30 percent slope structures are typically 116.5 ft (35.3 m)high. •Typical distance between towers is 1300 ft (394 m)with 115 ft (34.8 m)between adjacent towers. •Foundations for all structures,except hill side single poles,will consist of steel piling or rock anchored concrete pedestals,base width is 45 ft (13.6 m). •Single pole structure will have a foundation pedestal anchored to rock or a concrete cylinder approximately 6 ft (1.8 m)in diameter and 25 ft (7.5 m)deep in other soils. •Rough construction and maintenance trails will run along the R.O.W.at various points. •Right-of-way clearing. •Towers and conductors have been signed to minimize glare impscts. FEATURE IMPACTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE •••COMPOSITE I RATING Mid Susitna River Valley 5 (B/M) Devil Canyon 9 (AIL) i Susitna River 8 (A/M).I Chulitna Moist Tundra Upland 8 (A/M) Talkeetna Uplands 7 (BIL) E6-8-1-23 PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS PROJECT FEATURE HEALY TO FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION STUB lINE FEATURE DESCRIPTION •Two 345-kV transmission lines after completion of Watana Dam. •98 miles (163 m)in length. •See feature description of transmission llnes for Watana Project Area for detail. FEATURE IMPACTS •Transmission lines will be quite apparent through the Nenana Uplands. •Transmission lines will not be seen from the major travel route in Nenana Lowlands,except at crossings and when paralleling the road near Healy. •Transmission lines will be apparent through the forested Tenana Ridge landscape.1 WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ... Nenana Uplands Nenana River Lowlands Tanana Ridge LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 5 (8/M) 1 (C/H) 7 (B/l) E6-8-1-24 I~- , 1 r IIi I I ] PROJECT FEATURES IMPACTS PROJECT FEATURE 1 RECREATION fACILITIES AND fEATURES WATANA DAM VISITOR CENrER FEATURE DESCRIPTION •Exhibit building with food service,souvenir shop,museum,restrooms and tour facility. •Indigenous botanical garden. •Parking for 20 cars.. •Located above the dam on the south side of the river. FEATURE IMPACTS All proposed facilities are to be part of the design character of the damsite. WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ... Susitna River LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 8 (A/M) E6-8-1-25 - PROJECT FEATURES,IMPACTS PROJECT FEATURE 2 DEVIL CANYON DAM VISITOR CENTER FEATURE DESCRIPTION •Located above the dam on the south side of the river • •See Watana visitor center description above.No botanical garden. FEATURE IMPACTS All proposed facilities are to be designed as part of the design character of the damsite and the existing landscape character. l j j j I J ! .j "j WITHIN LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE .•. Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands LANDSCAPE COMPOSITE RATING 8 (A/M) ........ .. .......... E6-8-1-26 ·APPENDIX E7.8 GENERAL AESTHETIC MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ] EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 8 APPENDIX E7.8 AESTHETIC MITIGATION MEASURES 1 -TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTING o Rights-of-Way (ROW's)should avoid sites of high visibility such as prominent ridges lakes and stream.They should avoid heavily timbered areas,steep slopes and proximity to main roads where possible. o Transmission ROW's should avoid paralleling r1vers and streams since these are heavily used wildlife corridors. o Select a route that will maximize the use of natural screens to remove transmission facilities from view. o Unobtrusive sites should be selected where possible ·for the location of substations and like facilities. o The joint use of ROW's with other types of utilities should be coordinated in a cornmon corridor wherever uses are compatible. o In rough or very hilly country,change the alignment continuously in keeping with the scale of topographic change. CURveD TO FIT TOPOGRAPHY IN MOUNTAIN AREAS. STRAIGHT ACROSS FLAT OPEN AREAS 850904 E7-8-1-1 o Avoid alignments which result in long views of transmission lines parallel to highways.Locate transmission alignments at sufficient distance from the highway that intervening vertical elements wi 11 interrupt the view down the transmission lines. o Locate transmission alignments along natural linear features such as the bottom of a ridge,valley or cliff,or along the edges of muskeg openings,instead of centering down the middle.A center alignment focuses attention on the utility,while there is minimum visual disturbance if the alignment follows the edge of landform change. The background vegetation and topography of the slope serve as an effective visual screen,since lines and poles blend against their texture • .f--ZONE OF VISUAL----'v INFLUENCE / / \t---ZONE OF VISUAL4' \.INFLUENCE POOR LOCATION 850903 E7-8-1-2 PREFERRED r l o ROW's should not across hills and other high points at the crests or perpendicular to the contours.Where ridges are adjacent to highways,the ROW should be places beyond the ridge or downslope so that facilities are not silhouetted against the sky and tunnel effects are avoided. ALIGNMENT ON CREST CREATES A STRONG VISUAL IMPACT. PREFER E L1GNMENT-AWA Y FROM THE CREST AND LAKE. o ROW's through forest areas should be deflected and follow irregular patterns.This will prevent the rights-of-way from appearing as tunnels cut through the timber. UNOBSTRUCTED VI EW DOWN ROW. 850903 E7-8-1-3 PREFERRED- VIEW L1MtTED BY CHANGE IN ALIGNMENT. I ] ) \] j , j I \I j ) r- j ] j j I 1 I j 2 -TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION o Trees and other vegetation cleared from ROW's in areas of public view should be disposed of without undue delay.If trees and other vegetation are burned,local fire and air pollution regulations should be observed.Unsightly tree stumps which are adjacent to roads and other areas of public view should be cut close to the ground or removed. o Clearing shall be performed ~n a manner which will maximize preservation of natural beauty,conservation of natural resources, and minimize marring and scarring of the landscape or silting of streams. o Clearing and construction activities in the vicinity of streams should be performed in a manner to minimize as much as possible, damage to the natural condition of the area.Machine clearing should not be permitted within 100 feet of any stream bed. o The use of helicopter for the construction of ROW's should be considered on the steep slopes,where all-terrain vehicles cannot be used. 850903 E7-8-2-l o Clearing of natural vegetation should ]:>e limited to,that material which poses a hazard to the transmission line. should be limited on the downslope side in upslope edge created by clearing.Selective should be done to remove danger trees. On slopes,clearing order to screen the thinning and topping TOPPING ZONE- 60' 0'T EE .1 (T,..in oW ......,__I'IIlI'f ",lid!150 feet,l'lIqUirinl the toppint zone to be ex ......CIIlIt I o The angle at which transmission lines cross major roadways should be as near to perpendicular as possible to allow for maximum setback of Linestructut'esandminimum-vi sibi-l-i-t-y-f-I'om--t-he-t'oadway'into ·~heR0W on each side.Long spans should be used in order to preserve existing vegetation along the roadside.The same should be done where the ROW enters a wooded area from open land.Retent ion of existing material is preferable to replanting. ) j 850903 E7-8-2-2 o Where the transmission line must parallel the roadway,vary the ROW and create openings in the forest edge.This reduces the visual impact from the linear from of the transmission line,and ROW edge. I 1I.I. i I PLAN VIEW o In locating transmission lines through wooded zones,preserve within the ROW as much vegetation as possible in order to reduce tunnel effect.Achieve a natural and random tapering down of forest edge through careful installation and selective thinning and topping to reduce the sheared-edge effect.The notched affect of a ROW cross section should be avoided. TYPICAL VEGETATION CROSS-SECTION CREATING "TUNNEL EFFECT". SELECTIVE THINNING OF EXISTING ,.....:rREES AT RIGHT-OF·WAY EDGE. SERVICE ACCESS PROVIDED VIA A SECTION ZONE IN RIGHT-OF·WAY KEPT FREE OF SUBSTANTIAL WOODY VEGETATION. MEDIUM SIZE TREES EXTEND INTO ROW IN IMMEDIATE AREA Of POLES HERE LINE SAG IS LEAST. 850903 E7-8-2-3 o If the transmission line must cross valleys,particularly l;ltream corridors,the use of longer spans and ta Her poles should be considered in order to retain as much existing vegetation as possible and to reduce construction impacts to the slopes. ~. ~LONGER SPAN .'\ \.) ) o Certain conductors can be highly reflective and produce a highly visible line across the landscape under the right light conditions. The visibility of the conductor from a distance can almost be c-~eLiminated~by--using~a--non,.".-reflect-ivecor~-non~specula-r-Ga-ble-.-- ) 850903 E7-8-2-4 ,) , j I .I 1 ,1,, J I 'J ) \) I ,I : J J (I '.1 .I FIGURES } MINIMIZE SITE DISRUPTION FOR ROAD AND TOWER CONSTRUCTION 95'105'95' 55' 3=oa:1 40' 1 101I-_-=5.:::..5,__....~I.40' 3=oa: II.o LtJ Cl Q LtJ VEGETATION TO TEN FEET HIGH TO REMAIN EXCEPT AT MAINTENANCE ACCESS CREATE IRREGULAR NATURALISTIC EDGE TO MAJOR VEGETATION TYPES I..TRANSMISSION LINES LI MIT OF CLEARING CREATE IRREGULAR NATURALISTIC EDGE TO A TYPICAL TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR PLAN AND SECTION FIGURE E7.8.1 II j ) OJ REVEGETATE WITH INDIGENOUS PLANT SPECIES BY SCARIFICATION AND NATURAL SEEDING I (REFER TO CHAPTER 3)'J I 1 REDUCE SLOPE GRADIENT THROUGH DITCH j SECTIONS TO BLEND INTO EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY r- 1, I ] I•.1 I TYPICAL ROAD SECTION I i FIGURE E7.8.2 APPENDIX ES.S LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPES OF THE PROJECT AREA LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE MID SUSITNA RIVER VALLEY PHOTO E8.8.1 LANDFORMS •Valley is 2 to 6 miles (3 to 10 km)wide with steep slopes. •Flat terraced land adjace~t to Indian River near confluence with Susitna. WATERFORMS •Moderately braided and silt laiden river up to 1/2 mile (0.8 km)wide. •Wetland areas are common adjacent to the flat terraced areas,as are islands,sandbars and cobbles. Gold Creek tributary to Susitna here has high aesthetic value -flows through narrow forested canyon. VEGETATION •Dense mixed forest·of spruce and deciduous trees. •Tundra and brush species only on steeper valley slopes. Spruce/green is most prominent color -small amount of yellow/gold fall color by deciduous trees and willows. •Tundra cover provides good red/orange tones in the fall. VIEWS Views are dIrected within the river channel,valley slopes and the commonly snow-capped Chulitna Mountains to the North. ,.j •Steep to vertical rock canyon walls -medium to dark brown colors for several miles -nearly 1000 fee "'j (300 ffl)deep.Unstable environment. •Deeply incised valley overall for over 20 miles (33 km). •Giant rock shelves and angular boulders in river channel. •The canyon is a significant Alaska natural feature. SUSITNA RIVER NEAR DEVIL CREEK PHOTO E8.8~2 LANDFORMS LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE WATERFORMS •High volume and fixed ch~nel river through a deep canyon. Contains anH-mile (18-km)stretch of world class kayaking whitewater (Class VI). •Pbrtage,Cheechako and Devil creeks are all notable -steep to vertical canyoned tributaries. Devil Creek Falls are the most scenic falls in the basin. 1.*Devil Canyon Rapids _........_.·_I ···2 •.*..Devil ..Creek.Ealls...._.J. VEGETATION J •Slopes are-densely covered with a good mixture of spruce and deciduous trees -good fall color. •Small pure stands of poplar species prov ide interesting tree patterns in the fall and winter. •High color contrast with foamy gray water.] VIEWS •Views are primarily restricted within the immediate canyon/valley. Views are dramatic in the vertical and near vertical rock canyon portions of the river. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE SUSITNA RIVER PHOTO E8.8.3 ~~.,,-: ".-," LANDFORMS ':: ~~. Bro~der vali~y'~'.up to 4 miles (7 km)wide -in comparison with Devil Canyon area. Occasional ~ark colored rock outcrops or bluffs are found·along the valley.Up river from Tsusena Creek on·thenorthside·is shear cliff of light colored rock,soil and cobble.•.1na ri~er bottom also has a low terrace before it steeply rises to the uplands. ~..,.'~.""'~'~"~'.'~"~:,~.~~~.'?:I:-·:··..·/~:-.;:-...,_"=r<~"~~j..:-;:::T.. .~.....-:::.~...~.'. ..\".'~::'i "/..:....'~.B'.) .:,', WATER FORMS . •Mildly braided river with large islands of cobble and sand. Fog,Tsusena,Deadman,Watana,Kosina and Jay creeks are all significant.and scenic tributaries to· this portion of the Susitna.All have steep and narrow canyons near their confluences with the river. •Tsusena,Deadman and Watana creeks all have notable falls. The tributaries'clear-water conflUence with the silt-water river is of visual interest. 4.*Tsusena Creek Falls 6.*Deadman Creek Falls VEGETATION •Moderately dense to dense spruce-deciduous forest covers much of the river and tributary valleys. Good fall color.. Willow .and other shrub species are found along the river banks and terraces. ~ VIEWS •The broader valley allows for more expanded views and although mostly river and valley oriented, .of the valle are ossible on the longer-straight portions of the river.High mountain tops can be seen. \ J LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE VEE CANYON PHOTO Es.s:4 •Steep and meandering uver valley.~l' The 1/4 mile to.1 mile (0.4 to 1.6 km)widevalley rises up over 500 feet (150 m)from the river bottom. •Vee Canyon d~splays'a unique,very tight v-shaped rock featureina.double·hairpin bend of the Susitna River.Colorful.. •Goose Creek,Oshetna River and other smaller tributary creeks have deep valleys themselves near their 'I confluences with the river.. . . ;_..••.•..:::·'.~~:~.:.:'i.':r.!;;f.~~::t,·. ..ou......_" ..'.'.•;.•,"i;r."'>':,.,:,:",~,.."'-::.~"··,'''·:·,'::'.'t,..;,,::.,N:7'~ WATERFORMS •The Susitna flows very fast here through a fixed channel. • A well known stretch of rough whitewater occurs through Vee Canyon. •Begins to meander several mile~up river from Vee Canyon. •'Numerous islands and sandbars with gravel cobble edge. 13.*Vee Canyon- VEGETATION •Tundra,brush and rock slopes dominate on the south side while moderately dense to sparse spruce forests cover the northside slopes and river bottom •.. VIEWS •The deep and narrow nature of the canyon/valley restricts views to the foreground area • •'Some of the higher points adjacent uplands can be seen from the more open areas of the river. •Adjoining tributary canyons offer additional foreground views of interest. ) I LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE SUSITNA UPLAND WET TUNDRA BASIN PHOTO E8.8.5.-.. 1 i J LANDFORMS •Low,flat and rolling terrace above the banks of the Susitna River. WATERFORMS The Susitna River here is mildly to heavily braided..Becomes more braided as it nears its glacial headwaters.. •River varies from 1/8 mile to over 1·mile (0.2 km to over 1.6 km)wide. •Several .hundred lakes ranging from very small to over 500 acres (200 ha)in size.Dense patterns. •Oshetna,Tyone and Maclaren rivers and Clearwater,Butte,Windy and Valdez creeks are all significant tributaries. VEGETATION •Tundra (wet)is the dominant vegetation type. •Sparse stands of spruce are scattered throughout the area. •Dense willow and other shrub types are found along the river and many lake banks. •The tundra foliage in the fall creates an extensive variety of colorful patterns over the landscape. VIEWS The wide 0 en character of the river basin allows scenic views of the Alaska Range and the Talkeetna Mountains. •Susitna and West Fork glaciers -the source of the Susitna River -can be from 30 to 50 miles (50 to 80 km)distant. •Views in the foreground landscape are not particularly scenic -except the fall tundra color. i .1 j l ,<,~j .) i 'I ) ']' Portage Creek is a very scenic,fast-flowing and clearwater tributary to the Susitna below Devil Canyon. • Anumber of small streams cascade down into Poi-tage Creek. •The'lower portion of Portage Creek forms a distinct winding f~xed channel and steep-sloped valley., •Large eroded sidewalls are common on the many hairpin turns in the river. •Flat terraced a~eas along the upper creek are also common. LANDSCAPE i CHARACTER ,; TYPE I PORTAGE LOWLANDS IPHOTOE8.8.6 LANDFORMS ~WATEFfFORMS' •Moderately dense spruce-deciduous forest covers most of the valley up to an average elevation of 2500 feet (757 m).' The well mixed forest provides scenic fall color. •Bright gr-een spring foliage of the deciduous trees also provide color .. VIEWS •Views are generally restricted to the deep and forested valley. •Overall,the combination of natural features provides a very aesthetically pleasing environment. Forest'views are in marked contrast to many"locations in the'region. IJ LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE CHuLITNA MOIST TUNDRA UPLANDS PHOTO E8.8.7 .~.-.... LANDFORMS •Wi~e variety of small and large scale topographic relief. •Large,well defined and enclosed lake beds. Long,flat as well as rolling terraces above the Susitna River,with a variety of canyon sizes. •Dark brown'colored rock outcrops are common along upper terrace,canyon and lake edges. •Several long shallow valleys. WATERFORMS Dozens of irregular shaped lakes up to several hundred acres in size. Bog and wetland areas are common throughout the area. •Many small streams flow through the canyons down to the Susitna. •Indian River,Portage and Devil creeks are part of this area. VEGETATION The upland area east Portage Creek is predominantely tundra. •The upland area west of Portage Creek is covered with a moderately dense spruce forest. •Willow and other shrub species are commonly found in·dense cover near lake banks and wetland areas. •Scattered and sparse stands of spruce are fourld east of Portage Creek and mixed woods in the creek valley. •Tundra colors are gold and light brown during 'winter months -when not covered by snow.Medium to dark green in spring and summer.Bright red,burgundy and yellow,tones in the fall. VIEWS are scenic and common except in the denser forested areas. ---T-~-vi~~irffiFCtillm:fii=if~Tii:t<eet1llrlllOlmt:ail1s-'OC1CUI:-ofum-andviews of the-Alaska-Raogle-<:u:e'--pl.lSS.LWu:...-I-__ of the lakes are in contrast to the snow covered landscape. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE CHULITNA MOUNTAINS PHOTO E8.?8 LANDFORMS •Over 900 square miles (2340 square km)of rugged glacially carved mountains. •Narrow and broad v-shaped valleys. •Glaciers and permanent ice fields.Rock glaciers. •Steeply rises up to over 6000 feet (1818 m)in elevation. •Many extensive talus slopes. 1~.*Caribou Pass .-6.'!l'TsusEma--Butte-Lake-. WATERFORMS •Cirque lakes of aqua-blue color. Five or six lakes of several hundred acres in size.Largest one·is in Caribou Pass. •Tsusena,Brushkana,Soule;Deadman and Honolulu creeks and the Jack,Middle and East Fork Chulitna rivers are all significant drainages. "__._~__.!--...~========"'·-"'··iiiiiiii----iiiiiiii···_..iiii--iiii-iiii-··_·---~·iiiiiiii-iiii~iiiiiiiifI VEGETATION Tundra and shrub species cover the valley .floors·and slopes creating an interesting edge as they meet the barren steeper rock slopes. •Scattered stands of spruce and deciduous trees along Jack,Middle and East Fork Chulitna rivers. •Tsusena Creek forms a unique green spruce-deci'duousforest over 20 miles (33 km)through the Chulitnas .. VIEWS Views are scenic most everywhere.. Impressive and awesome natural features. •Mountain rock colors of.light to dark gray (primarily talus slopes)and medium to dark brown (higher mountain tops)provide a variety of textures and patterns with the seasonal color changes of the tundra. .J I { LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE WET UPLAND TUNDRA PHQTO E8Ll;l~9/' /"_/ LANDFORMS •flat to rolling upland area with several large surficial creeks. •Gentle to moderately steep gradient slopes from Chulitna highlands to the creeks. •Mild to moderately depressed lake beds with adjacent glaciated bluffs and h~lls. WATERFORMS •Big Lake and Deadman Lake are the largest examples of lakes in the upper basin.Big Lake is approximately 1080 acres (732 ha). •Deadman Creek is a unique meandering watercourse. •Brushkana and Butte creeks are other significant drainages of the area. •Bogs and wetland areas are common and extensively occur in this upland. 10.*Big/Deadman Lakes VEGETATION •Wet tundra cover is prevalent with occasional stands of spruce. Willow and other shrub species are common near creek banks and lake shores and in wetland areas • .. VIEWS Panoramic views of the Chulitna,Talkeetna and Clearwater mountains and the Alaska Range are possible. interest in atterns and textures. •fall color of the tundra,combined with all other natural features,is highly scenic. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE TALKEETNA UPLANDS .PHOTO E8.•8.10 LANDFORMS :I,/ .j } •Flat to rolling upland plateau. •Slopes are primarily moderately,steep to steep. •Several knobs rise above 4000 ft (1212m)with the average elevation of 3000 •Drainages in the area form deep and steep,sloped'valleys and canyons. •Rugged rocky hilltops and outcropping are common. WATERFORMS ft(900 m). •Tens of lakes which are 20-50 acres (8-20 ha)in size.Simple and complex forms. •Massive areas of muskeg bogs~ •Chunilna Creek is a very significant drainage in the area with many tributaries. •Many of the lakes are topographically enclosed. VEGETATION •Moist and west tundra 1S dominant. •Moderately dense spruce-deciduous tree'cover is primarily restricted to drainages. Chunilna Creek valley is densely forested. VIEWS Foreground and background views are scenic throughout most of the landscape. •Panoramic views are possible from higher points. •The Chulitna and Talkeetna mountains and the Alaska Range can be seen. •Good views of the Susitna and Talkeetna river valleys are possible. .\ LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE TALKEETNA MOUNTAINS PHOTO E8.8~11 LANDFORMS •Rugged and steep sloped mountain range covering several thousand square miles. Elevations over 8000 ft (2420 m). •Large glaciers,permanent ice fields and glacial features. •Large moderately sloped terraces. •Long,narrow and broad v-shaped valleys. •Large talus slopes. 4.*Clear Valley WATERFORMS Cirque lakes. Numerous lakes up to several hundred acres in size.Scattered to dense concentrations. •Over ten rivers and creeks. VEGETATION •Primarily tundra and shrub species throughout the mountains below the steeper rocky slopes and peaks. •Except for the drainages on the northeast area of the range,dense spruce-deciduous forests cover the river valleys. VIEWS Views are scenic and limitless. Views are panoramic to semi-enclosed depending on viewer position. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE SUSITNA UPLAND TERRACE PHOTO E8.8.12 LANDFORMS Terraced,flat and rolling terrain. •Slop~s have gentle gradients. Depressed lake basins. WATERFORMS •Large linear glaciated ana irregular formed lakes.Stephan Lake is the second largest in-the upper Susitna basin. •Fog Lakes (5 adjacent lakes of sE!veral hundred acres in size each)create,apattern;cuniqueto the area. •Fog Creek forms a narrow and deeply incised canyon leaving the Fog·Lakes area and flowing into the Susitna. l.-II:Stephanlakes ... Lakes VEGETATION •Densely forested with spruce and some deciduous trees,except for an area of approximately 10 square miles (26 square km)northeast of Fog Lakes,which is predominately tundra. •Spruce-green is the dominant color for most of the year,white (snow)in the winter. VIEWS •Views are often restricted due to the forest cover and depressed lake beds.However,the higher mountains (Talkeetna and Chulitnas)still rise above the horizon. •Open vantage points for panoramic views are present. 'j LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE SUSITNA UPLANDS PHOTO E8.~_.!~_/ ..",/'~- LANDFORMS •Terraced,flat and rolling terrain. •Elevl'ition range is approximately 3000 -5600 ft (900 -1700 m). •Slopes are primarily flat to moderately ,steep. •Larger lake beds are depressed~ •Stream valleys are broad and fixed channel. •Rock outcrops,cliffs and rocky hilltops are common in the area.Rock colors are light tan to dark brown.' WATERFORMS • A number of small lakes are scattered throughout the area in dense patterns. •The two largest lakes,Watana and Clarence,are narrow and linear in form.Both are several hundred acres in size. •Large number of small creeks. •Tributaries of the Susitna,Kosina,Tsisi,Gilbert and Goose creeks and the silt laiden Oshetna River are all scenic and significant to this area. 12.*Watana Lakes ,VEGETATION •Upland moist tundra and shrub species cover most all of the land except for the rock environments. •Fall colors of this massive tundra area create 'a variety of patterns.', Spruce are found within some of the drainages in sparse to moderately dense stands. VIEWS •Views are expansive. i----I----::-Many-areas at the-sam~'-"t~~:::-::::t::.J.Il:l:-Y.uj,l.J,!!e<..!r'----"b!.!;la!5!S~in!.!....!c~a'!!.n~b:=e_'_,v.!:'~~'e=:!w!.':e~d'-.!..fE:ro~m~t~h~i~s~h~ig~h~u~p~l~a~nd~.__-1-__ Views of the Talkeetnas are particularly scenic. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE ANCHORAGE,ALASKA PHOTO E8.8.14 ~.·.;1~j LANDFORMS •Rolling and flat terraced lowlands of Knik and'Turnagain arms (upper Cook Inlet). •Rolling and moderately steep slopes of Chugach foothills. •Large sunken areas caused by 1964 earthquake. •Urbanized town landscape. WATERFORMS •Several sma!I creeks traverse thtough the atea .arid into Cook'Inlet. •Several large man-made lakes. ~cattered natural lakes -low density. •Dominated by the adjacent Cook Inlet and connecting arms. VEGETATION •Denser urban areas have sparse ornamental tree cover with some natural spruce and deciduous trees.'j •Undeveloped areas,lakes and foothills are generally covered with moderately dense to dense forests of spruce-deciduous trees and willow. •Natural drainages are usually forested and/or have dense shrub cover. VIEWS •Due to the flat to undulating terrain,views are open. •The adjacent Chugach Mountains create a high quality aesthetic setting.Covered with.snow in the J winter,green in the summer and colorful in the fall.. •The Alaska Range,nearby Mount Susitna,Kenai Mountains and the Cook Inlet,with its unique mud flats,can be seen. I 1 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE SUSITNA RIVER LOWLANDS PHOTO E8.8.15 LANDFORMS Very flat to gently rolling lowlands. •Larger lake areas are enclosed by small hills. •Mount Susitna,a flat topped remnant volcano,rises over 3000 ft·(900 m)above the lowlands.Adjacent· .little Mount Susitna and nearby Beluga Mountain also steeply rise above the landscape. WATERFORMS Wet bog and wetlands cover a large percentage of the land. •Hundreds of small lakes make dense patterns. Numerous topographically enclosed lakes several hundred acres in size. •Heavily braided Susitna River varies from 1/2 mile to several miles (0.8 km to over 2·km)wide;many islands. •Numerous meandering tributaries to Susitna. VEGETATION •Thin stands of black spruce cover many bog areas. •Marsh grasses. •Moderately dense to dense cover of spruce-deciduous trees around higher reliefed a~d larger lake areas -good fall color -also along Susitna River and tributaries. •The dark green color of the spruce is most dominant. VIEWS •Views of the immediate area are generally monotonous because of the expansive commonality and flat r-----I------il::rmiG·m""'aphy 0 f I:he-lafldseaj3~~--;----:--:--::----:=----:__-;-;:-;---;-;-_-;--;:;---;-;-_-;--~---.-.l-_ •Views of the Alaska Range,Chugach and Talkeetna mountains and the Mount Susitna landmark are possible from open areas. Weather permitting,Mount McKinley dominates the scene. j LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE NENANA UPLANDS PHOTO E8.8oi16 i LANDFORMS .'j Relatively flat meandering river valley terraces several miles (over 2 km)in width with steep slopes rising up to the Alaska Range foothills.<~. •Exposed rock and soil cliffs and highly eroded banks are commonly found along the Nenana River. •Rock outcrops are also common along rising terrace edges;light tan to dark brown in color. WATERFORM.S •The moderately braided and large Nenana River is the most significant water form;silty glacial water. •Several relatively small tributaries. •Scattered small lakes. Bog areas and wetlands. •Many islands,broad floodplain.' ...~_Il_-"-V",,,-EG=E.J AtlQJ'~.... •Variable patterns of sparse to dense spruce and mixed forest over most of the area. •Scattered open spaces of tundra and bare ground.Soil colors are light. VIEWS •Views are oriented to the Alaska Range in the south and the higher reliefed foothills in the east. •Views of the river are not particularly scenic in comparison to mountain views. •Rock cliffs and outcrops do provide visual interest. •Transmission lines (existing)are very visible. , 1 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE NENANA RIVER LOWLANDS PHOTO E8.8.17 .--------- LANDFORMS •Extremely flat terrain. •Numerous small drainages and the Nenana and Teklanika rivers. •Sand,gravel and cobbles. WATERFORMS Braided channels and heavily meandering Nenana and Teklanika rivers create a distinct pattern on the land. •Numerous smaller and also meandering tributaries. •Adjacent to and tributaries of the larger and heavily braided Tanana River. •Many scattered small lakes and expansive wetland areas. •Many islands. VEGETATION •Expansive cover of thin to moderately dense spruce forests west of Nenana River. •Linear bands of spruce along drainages east of Nenana River. •Tundra and wetland-bog species cover most the the area. ~ VIEWS •Views of the immediate area are monotonous because of the lack of relief and lack of distinctive features to view on.ground. ~e s . .e--J:r.i§R-al'l north and the Alaska Range to the south. •Transmission lines (existing)are very visible. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ,TYPE TANANA RIDGE PHOTO E8.8.18' .! .j 'j ,j ,j LANDFORMS •Distinct rounded hills interrupted by small valleys. •Slopes are moderately steep to steep. •Rise several thousand feet above the lowlands. WATERFORMS •Bounded to the south and west by the heavily braided Tanan~Riv~r (~i~h longest in Alaska). •Numerous creeks throughout the area.. • A few small scattered lakes. •Goldstream Creek is a very distinctive meandering watercourse dividing Tanana Ridge from the higher hills to the north. V.EGETATION •Distinct stands of pure deciduous trees occur here as well as pure stands of spruce and mixed •Forest cover is generally dense., •Foliage color patterns have high aesthetic va~ue in the spring and fall. The white trunks of the birch also provide interesting winter textures. VIEWS forests. I J The views are'moderate in scenic quality.However,fall color is an exception. •Views are limited due to the dense forest cover. •Clear-cut right-of-ways of existing transmission lines and roads are distinctly visible from many areas. I APPENDIX E9.8 AESTHETIC VALUE AND ABSORPTION CAPABILITY RATINGS J ,1 AESTHETIC VALUE AND ABSORPTION CAPABILITY RATINGS LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC ABSORPTION COMMENTS CHARACTER VALUE CAPABILITY I I TYPE I J MID SUSITNA RIVER Moderate Med1um •Common Alaskan landscape--nothing "t VAllEY which makes it particularly dis- I tinctive. II •Existing man-made elements (i.e., railroad parallel to river,railroad I I bridge,cabins and railroad related structures)have not had significant negative aesthetic impacts. DEVil CANYON High low •Distinctive Alaskan natural resource feature. •Dramatic but unstable environment because of steep slopes. •Man-made elements must be sensitive to the existing landscapes.A highly aesthetic and recreational resource. SUSlTNA RIVER High Medium •Distinctive and impressive deep valley--large-scale. •Good variety of landform,vegetation and water edges.- •Variety of scenic large-to small- ,.scale features. •Able to absorb some man-made impacts on semi forested,less steep areas. Small-scale impacts. RIVER CANYON High low •Distinctive river canyon. •Steep slopes make the area sensit1ve to development. •Due to the lack of substantial forest cover,the overall open character of the canyon requires highly compatible des1gn solut10ns. SUSIlNA UPLAND WEl Moderate Medium ·Impress1ve scale but landscape TUNDRA.BASIN character 1S common 1n Alaska. •Distant scenic views to mountains along with a var1ety of land,water and vegetative edges 1n foreground gives the area moderate to h1gh \ aesthetic value. •Flat and open character of land will not easily absorb man-made elements/ impacts.However,eXls~lng roaos and small structures are not dis- tractive • . E9-8-1-1 AESTHETIC VALUE AND ABSORPTION CAPABILITY RATINGS ] LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE PORTAGE LOWLANDS CHULITNA MOIST TUNDRA UPLANDS CHULITNA MOUNTAINS AESTHETIC VALUE High High ABSORPTION CAPABILITY Low Moderate Low COMMENTS •Distinctive deep and wi~ing tribu- tary river canyon to the Susitna River.Variety of vegetation types and river bottom terrain. •Steep erodible slopes would be sen- sitive to a"¥development. •High aesthetic quality due to diver- sity of landforms,water and vegeta- tion patterns. •The landform diversity and variety of forest edges and densities will allow for some visual integration -j and absorption of man-made element s.. •Highly distinctive area,rich in significant natural attractive features. •Complex glaciated landforms of all scales. ~~_~__~_~__.~~~__~_~~-!-Although the area i_s_l:»-as_ic_ally_open,~ the rolling terrain would not be significantly impacted by man-made elements if they were proper ly sited and sensitively designed.Elements must be subordinate to the land- scape. WET UPLAND TUNDRA ~~ TALKEETNA UPLANDS I~ - Moderate ~MOderate Low Lciw E9--8--1-2 •Man-made elements and impacts will be--very-visible on this p1'edomi-~ nantly treeless and steep sloped landscape. •Basically a wilderness area. •Th.ere is a variety of water forms and their distinct edges with land and vegetation,along with highly scenic views. •The overall aestheHcvalueof this area is good due primarily to variety of landforms,but is not _.as scenic (middle and foreground views) in comparison to ma"¥of the other char acter types. •The bisecting forested river valleys create a distinct and interesting pattern. r ] J AESTHETIC VALUE AND ABSORPTION CAPABILITY RATINGS LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC ABSORPTION COMMENTS CHARACTER VALUE CAPABILITY TYPE TALKEETNA UPLANDS Moderate Low •Man-made features would be visible 'I (contd)in most areas due to the flat to I rolling open terraln. •Sensitive siting is mandatory with the land~cape dominating the character of development if any. TALKEETNA MOUNTAINS High Low •Highly distinctive mountain range with a complex variety of land and water forms,and patterns. ·As with the Chulitna Mountains,thls, area can be considered a wilderness . area. •Medium-to large-scale man-made features will be highly visible in this treeless steep sloped mountain environment. ·Recreation trails here and ln the Chulitna Mountains should not be aesthetically,disruptive. SUSITNA UPLAND Moderate,Low ·This setting of large lakes,dense TERRACE forest and scenic views to the moun- tains is basically of moderate aesthetic value. •Distinctive to the basin but not to Alaska. ·Clearing of trees for most any type of development would be highly visible in this densely forested area• •'Any major man-made impact (medium- to large-scale)must be carefUlly considered to emphasize site fit- ness. SUSlTNA UPLANDS Moderate Low •This landscape character is common .ln Alaska with the exception of its large number of distinctive streams !I and rivers.The open landscape is ! ! significantly enhanced by the scenic I.J views of adjacent and distant character types. •other than recreational trails--if properly sited--most all other man- made features would be highly visible. I r ! I I I E9-8-1-3 AESTHETIC VALUE AND ABSORPTIONCAPABllITY<·RATINGS LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE AESTHETIC VALUE ABSORPTION CAPABILITY COMMENTS ANCHORAGE,ALASKA Low High •Although the city is in a high quality aesthetic setting,the visual image of the city itself is not high in aesthetic value. •With the except~on of the Chugach foothills,the large-scale urban environment should be able to absorb new man-made features.However, proper design,siting and alignment of features will be essential to lessen any-potential aesthetic ~) impact. SUSITNA RIVER Low High •The landscape is continuous and broad in scale with few s~gn~ficant land- scape features. •Flat terrain and diverse vegetation patterns should be able to effec--] tively absorb most man-made features. Aesthetic ~mpacts will not be sign~­ ficant. ------~-II------------------------~----------~-I--~---~---~-~- ------ NENANA UPLANDS Moderate Medium •Landscape has good variety of land- ~_~I ~__forms and vegetation patterns afl~'!~1_---~--large ihstincfTve river. •Aesthetic value is not high in com- parison to many other Alaskan character types. •This rich d~versity and patterns of natural elements and generally open landscape will be able to absorb limited man-made features with sensi- tivep-!~nfl~rl~_al'1~~~~igl1._ r HighLow ---- I - I NENANA RI VER LOWLANDS ---------11------------1------------------------------------~--------------~-~-- •ThlS landscape has complex patterns of vegetation and water features but no topographic relief or sign~fi­ cantly unique and attractive features to give it a higher aesthetic value. •Man-made features should be visually absorbed by this flat expansive IclOd- scape with a variety of vegetative patterns. TANANA RIDGE Moderate Low •Distinctive landscape relatlve to the general geographic area.The forested hills are at the edge of a large flatlands and visually signifI- cant.J E9-8-1-4 1 AESTHETiC VALUE AND ABSORPTION CAPABILITY RATINGS LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC ABSORPTION COMMENTS CHARACTER VALUE CAPABILITY TYPE I "I TANANA RIDGE Moderate Moderate •Again,this character has local high (contd)aesthetic value but not significant in comparison to other Alaskan land- scapes. •The dense forest cover and steep I slopes do not provide a condition allowing for visual absorption of medium-to large-scale man-made development.Sensitive siting will be essential to lessen aesthetic impacts • . I] - I] I E9-8-1-5 ] :1 ] .! J J ,1 ] .,.'1"j J 'I .' 1 ] J ] ] J :I .] S~SITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 9 LAND USE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 -INTRODUCTION (--=iilil!!!_IiI:"2l:**). .......... . . .... . Title 2 -HISTORICAL AND PRE ::::;ENT LAND USE (***)........ Page No. E-9-1-1 E-9-2-1 2.1 -Historic~~==::L'1 l...iii:il9.ud Use (***) 2.2 -present WE .and Use (***). . E-9-2-1 E-9-2-2 2.2.1 -:=E::::=3;pec.::::::1.al Land Use Consideration (***) 3 -LAND MANAGEMEN--=_....P~ING IN THE PROJECT AREA (***). . E-9-2-4 E-9-3-1 E-9-6-1 E-9-5-1o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . ... ....... . .. . ... 4 -IMPACTS ON LAN'::lWiIl.E~:::::J:)US::E WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROJECT (***)E-9-4-1 5 -MITIGATJ:ON (***:r-.==iiiiiiiiiiiiiillll!!'!!lI1I::')• 6 -REFERENCES • • 851010 i r I t I Number E.9.2.1 851010 EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 9 LAND USE LIST OF TABLES Title EXISTING STRUCTURES ,IN'I'lIll:SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC IMPOUNDMENT VICINITY ii 'I ,) "(""' \,, 'I () -:' "1 ,'J \} '} J roj Number E.9.2.l E.9.2.2 E.9.2.3 E.9.2.4 E.9.2.5 E.9.2.6 E.9.2.7 E.9.2.8 E.9.2.9 E.9.2.10 851010 EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 9 LAND USE LIST OF FIGURES Title SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AREA EXISTING STRUCTURES SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AREA LAND USE AGGREGATIONS SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AREA ANCHORAGE-WILLOW TRANSMISSION LINE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT HEALY-FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION LINE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT - SOUTH HEALY-FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION LINE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT - NORTH FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION -TALKEETNA,ALASKA LOCATION OF THE SUSITNA AREA PLAN STUDY AREA BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DENALI PLANNING BLOCK SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FACILITIES iii ,] '1 \ iJ ,o.:.t ") !.J ) r 1 1,r~ I .j .l . 1 :,I ,'] 1 :j' ,, EXHIBIT E -CHAPTER 9 LAND USE 1 -INTRODUCTION (***) This chapter has been substantially modified and restructured to account for material changes in state land management policies that significantly affect the land use requirements applicable to the Susitna River Basin.Specific information respecting land ownership is found in Chapter 16 of Exhibit A and in Exhibit G.Subsequent sections in this chapter include the following information pertinent to an assessment of project-related impacts on land use: o Descriptions of historical and present land use in the project vicinity, o Highlights from federal,state,local and private land management plans which establish policies governing lands in the Susitna River Basin and elsewhere in the State of Alaska, o Discussions of direct and indirect effects of project development on land use,and o An account of pertinent mitigation measures. The following assessment of land use in the Susitna project area was based on a review of aerial photographs and topographic and management planning maps,and field reconnaissance to ascertain land classifications and locate features such as trails and structures.A literature review was conducted to determine historical land uses and identify current resource management planning documents for the area. Interviews with lodge and air taxi operators,guides and individual resource users provided past and present resource use information.In addition,interviews with agency resource management personnel provided verification of land management policies and strategies. 851010 E-9-1-1 J ,1 \ I) 'l j "I -J 1 , 1 ,r~ I J .~-----,~-~-----~~--_...~-_.~_..._-_._~~-----_.~-_._.-_._---~.__._-------,--,---_._-_._--~--~._------.--_._---------~_._._------_._----_.~_._-_.__._-- I ,I ] j ,] / .I J I \~ 2 -HISTORICAL AND PRESENT LAND USE (***) 2.1 -Historical Land Use (***) The location and isolation of the Susitna project area in a subarctic environment has resulted in extremely low-density land.use activity. Literature reviews prepared for the Applicant by Terrestrial Environ- mental Specialists,Inc.(TES 1982)and Historical Research Associates, Inc.(Greiser et al.1985)suggest that this has been the case through- out the historic period.Information on the physical evidence associ- ated with historic land uses is contained in Dixon et al.(1985)and TES (1982).The evidence includes remains associated with activities such as hunting,fishing,trapping,food and/or equipment storage, research,recreation,and mining. For over a decade beginning in 1741,Russian fur companies were active in Alaska.Trading was the primary activity,although some explora- tion,trapping,and missionary work was undertaken by the Russian American Company.While a Russian expedition ascended the Susitna River in 1834,most exploration of the interior involved the Yukon Basin north of the project area and the Copper River to the east (Greiser at al.1985). After U.S.acquisition of Alaska in 1867,development centered around minerals and transportation.A trading post to supply explorers and prospectors was established on the lower Susitna River at Susitna Center as early as the mid-1870s~In the late 1800s,two expeditions ascended the Susitna River:the first (in 1876)ascended the Susitna River to Portage Creek,where it was stopped by Devil Canyon;the second (in 1898)followed the Susitna River to the Jack and Nenana Rivers.Due to the barrier presented by Devil Canyon,the middle Susitna River region was for the most part unexplored.Ore strikes in the 1890s and early 1900s to the south and southwest brought individual prospectors to the Susitna area in greater numbers (Greiser et al. 1985). Miners followed aboriginal routes,frozen rivers,and/or a trail systems developed by the Alaska Road Commission to further their explorations.The bulk of activity was by individuals who eked out a marginal living by supplementing their prospecting with trapping. During the 1920s,fur prices escalated rapidly and fur farms became popular in the lower Susitna area.This industry crashed along with prices during the 1930s.Limited farming was developed in the lower Susitna to supply miners beginning in the late 1890s.Settlement was largely incidental,with extensions to the interior restricted to line cabins and caches (Greiser et al.1985). The coming of Alaska Railroad (which was completed in 1923)changed land use patterns significantly.Talkeetna replaced Susitna Center as the regional supply post,shifting the center of population and 851010 E-9-2-1 activity north from the Susitna delta.Construction camps along the route of the railroad became maintenance camps,and,with access to the outside world,small,permanent settlements. With the availability of the railroad,the trail networks fell into disrepair,and new transportation networks came into being.The use of the airplane became widespread.Later automobile roads,such as the Denali and Parks Highways,further opened up the area for recreation. Still,settlement and land use remained light,and left little in the way of remains to mark the primary mining and transportation uses of the historic past. Since the 1940s,the Susitna River has been considered for hydropower development and several preliminary plans for such development have been prepared.Proposals prior to 1980,which included one to four reservoirs,did not proceed beyond the pre-feasibility analysis stage. The present project is located in the middle Susitna Basin (see Figure E.9.2.l)and focuses on a two-dam development in three .stages:one near Tsusena Creek,Watana damsite-Stages I and III,and one at Devil Canyon-Stage II. 2.2 -Present Land Use (***) Existing land use activity and development in the project area has evolved from the utilization of this remote resource base as a source of income,food,shelter,and recreation.As in the past,access continues to play the single most important role in determining the .t..y_pesand le:v:.elsof landu~_~in~th~midl:ll,ELSus ht:.na].i.Ylar.bas!!l.To date,access has been limited by the lack of roads,ruggedness of terrain,and navigational difficulties presented by Susitna River rapids.In addi don the area offers no unique ameni ties that would result in its being utilized for trade or industry.Furthermore,the relatively low population of the state continues to expand around already established growth centers.Those who use the area have gained access by various kinds of aircraft and boats,off-road vehicles (ORV's)and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs),dog teams and horses,and/or .-.--~On·-:foo-i:·'Consequeritr.f,-tne-p-rojeEf--area-is-u·s-ed-pr-edonri-mrntJ:y-o-n-a-------- .----~-------sea sona r cas is-for avar-i-et-y~o-f-re-c·r·e-ati-on-a-cti_vi.-ti-e-s-su·c·h-a-s-hun-t-in·g---~~·_·__· and trapping.To support these activities there are 120 structures in the area of which only half are currently maintained (see Figure .E.9.2.2 and Table E.9.2.1). The 120 structures (which include lodges,cabins,sheds,trailers,tent frames,-'and foundat·ions },-a-fewai-rst-rips-,-pr-imi tive.road s,trails,and miIli.Ilg claims comprise the:e:icistingclevelopment that is found sparsely distributed throughoutthe·proj ec t area-.'-~Asshown in·Figure E.9.2.3 much of the development is aggregated around lakes that are accessible by floatplane.The activities that these isolated areas of development support are summarized below to indicate the overall minimal nature of r .I .,] 1 .851010 r \J resource use in the project area.More detailed descriptions of resource use activities can be found in Chapters 3,5 and 7 of Exhibit E. Hunting,fishing,trapping,mining,and other nonconsumptive recreational activities are pursued throughout the project area, although there are concentrations of such activities just as there are concentrations of the associated development. Both guided and non-guided hunting occur within the project area, particularly near Stephan,Fog,Clarence,Watana,Deadman,Tsusena,and Big Lakes,as well as many of the smaller lakes.Both lodges and cabins provide field bases for hunters.Approximately 10 big game hunting guides operate 9 guide businesses which use the area. Generally,the businesses provide hunting as well as other activities including fishing and boating.In 1984,the 9 businesses guided approximately 300 clients (Harza-Ebasco 1985). Fishing in the project area occurs either as a separate pursuit or in close association with other activities,such as hunting and trapping. Considerable fishing for lake trout,grayling,and salmon occurs in the Stephan Lake-Prairie Creek drainage.Salmon fishing occurs in lower Portage and Chunilna Creeks and Indian River.Fishing in Fog, Clarence,Watana,Tsusena,Deadman,Big,and High Lakes appears to be associated with other activities,such as hunting,summer cabin use, and mining.There is little stream fishing elsewhere in the project area. Trapping in the project area occurs mostly on the south side of the Susitna River near Stephan and Fog Lakes.Some trapping also occurs near Tsusena Creek and Clarence and High Lakes.Traps are also set by trappers using airplanes in the easternmost portions of the Susitna River valley. Mineral exploration and m~n~ng have been limited in the immediate project area.Mining in the upper and middle Susitna River basin has been low in claims density and characterized by intermittent activity since the 1930s.Active mining has been more concentrated in Gold, Chunilna,and Portage Creeks than in areas of the upper Susitna basin. Other active claims are located around Stephan and Fog Lakes,Jay Creek,and the Watana Hills east of Jay Creek. Activities directly related to the Susitna River include river boating and floating.Boating within the project area has been linked with research,fishing,and recreation.Raft float trips are taken from the Denali Highway on the Susitna or Tyone Rivers down to above either Vee or Devil Canyons,while a few highly skilled kayakers have negotiated Devil Canyon rapids.In addition,riverboat operations out of Talkeetna travel up the Susitna River offering services that include 851010 E-9-2-3 851010 day trips to Devil Canyon,drops at camps for hunting,fishing,and photography,and canoe hauls to tributaries.Some canoeing and rafting takes place from just below Devil Canyon to Talkeetna.Some canoe enthusiasts portage between the lakes near Stephan Lake and canoe to Talkeetna via Prairie Creek and the Talkeetna River.Other nonconsumptive activities such as photography generally occur in conjunction with the activities already mentioned. The vast majority of residential,commercial,agricultural,transporta- tion and utility land use development occurs in and around Parks Highway communities and along rtiral sections of the Parks Highway west of the project area.That is,small towns such as Willow,Talkeetna, Cantwell,and Healy have a mix of residential and commercial land,and transportation lands for the highway,other roads,railroad,and air- strips.Other scattered residential lands occur in agricultural, homestead or other settlements along the highway,near the railroad or area rivers. From Anchorage,the Anchorage-Willow transmission line route would cross or parallel numerous trails,including the Iditarod Trail, seismic survey lines,tractor and ORV trails,and several recreational trails near Willow (ADNR 1980)as illustrated in Figure E.9.2.4.The route would also traverse 5.3 miles of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural sale located north by northwest of Point MacKenzie.It would then cross approximately 11 miles of the Fish Creek Management Unit located between Point MacKenzie and Red Shirt Lake.The route would also cross the northeast corner of the Susitna Flats State Game Refugee,and .1LmilesQftJl~FortRi~htilr:d~tlMtlitaryReserve-parall~l to tl1e existing Chugach Electric Association·-i~c:po:intMacKenz:le"'Universlty Substation transmission line. Between Willow and Healy,the proposed transmission line route would parallel the existing Intertie transmission line corridor-crossing lands (including the Indian River Land Disposal and Remote Parcel) described in detail in the Intertie environmental assessment (Commonwealth Associates,Inc.1982).From Healy to Fairbanks the ·propo sed··f·oufe-woiIld intermittent I yps.ralleT--·the-·exi sting-Go·lden-Valley· .....·.....···-.---·..·.------El-e-c-n·i-c-lts-s<:rd-a·ci-on-tGVEA-)-H-n:e,·the~Parks-Hi·ghwa-y-,-a·nd-l;he-A1-a·ska--·--'- Railroad (see Figures E.9.2.5 and E.9.2.6).Ten miles of the U.S.Air Force Clear Missile Early Warning Si te Mi li tary Preserve near Anderson and the Healy,Windy,Brown's Court and Goldstream Agricultural Disposals north of Healy would also be traversed.Numerous trails, light-duty roads,and a number of airstrips or small town airports ·~ould also be near the Healy-Fairbanks ..transmission route •. 2.2.l-SpecialLand-·Use·Considerat·ions {-***} The Susitna project.area is characterized by an isolated subarctic environment comprised primarily of coniferous and E-9-2-4 .\ 1'1 \'1 1\ 1 '· ..' \1 .] J mixed forests and low shrubs.Numerous creeks flow into the Susitna River and occasional lakes dot this remote region.The locations of wetlands,floodplains,and prime agricultural lands are important considerations in the development of the proposed project. Detailed wetland mapping of much of the state has been completed as part of the National Wetlands Inventory,conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).Federal regulations define wetlands as areas that,under normal circumstances,would support vegetation typically adapted to saturated soils.By this definition approximately one-third of Alaska is wetlands.In the project area as a whole,wetland areas of particular importance include Brushkana and Upper Deadman Creeks,the area between Deadman and Tsusena Creeks,the Fog Lakes area,the Stephan Lake area,Swimming Bear Lake,and Jack Long Creek. Wetlands specifically within the proposed impact area were mapped by the USFWS and classified according to Cowardin et al.(1979) into appropriate wetland classes (TES et al.1981).The Cowardin system of wetland mapping has been adapted by the USFWS,and is acceptable to the U.S.Corps of Engineers for permit applications (Cowardin et al.1979). Within the approximate boundaries of the dams and impoundments, there are wetlands of various types,including riverine.The Watana -Stage I and III Dam,spillway,borrow sites and impoundment would cover approximately 12,732 acres of wetlands. The Watana camp,village,and airstrip would occupy an additional 98 acres of wetlands.The Devil Canyon Dam,spillway,borrow sites and impoundment facilities would cover 2,868 acres of wetlands while the Devil Canyon construction camp and village would occupy 76 acres of wetlands. The proposed access road corridor from the Denali Highway south to Watana and then east to Devil Creek would cover about 202 acres of wetlands.Ninety-nine percent of wetland (105 acres)in the Denali Highway to Watana portion of the corridor is palus- trine (marsh-like)habitat broken only by occasional creek crossings;97 percent of the wetlands (97 acres)in the Watana to Devil Canyon portion are also palustrine type.The remaining three percent of wetlands are riverine type. The railroad corridor would cover 26 percent of which are wetlands. wetlands covered would consist of intermixed. about 74 acres of vegetation; Sixty-three percent of the forest with emergent vegetation The Stage I and III transmission line corridor within the middle Susitna Basin impact area would cover 256 acres of wetlands;249 851010 E-9-2-5 acres (97 percent)are palustrine and 8 acres (3 percent)are riverine.Stage II transmission lines would cover an additional 26 acres of wetlands,20 percent of which are palustrine.The Anchorage-Willow transmission line corridor would pass through relatively flat terrain which is approximately 24 percent palustrine or lacustrine (lake-like)emergent meadows.The southern portion of the Healy-Fairbanks transmission line corridor would have palustrine forested wetlands along ridges, wi th palus trinescrub":":shrub and pal us trine or ~a,c1.ls trine emergent wetlan~s occupying the flatter areas.The central portion of the corridor would cover a complex mosaic of wet palustrine forested and palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands.The gradation and patches of wetland types made it necessary to map this area as "complex." Forested types of wetlands accounted for 78 percent of this corridor. Details about the specific types of wetlands that would be disturbed or crossed by project facilities are found in Chapter 3 of Exhibit E. The U.S.Corps of Engineers,Floodplain Management conducts hydraulic analyses offloodlands to determine floodplains for the Federal Insurance Program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).Floodplains of interest to the Federal Insurance Program are defined,as "the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters,including at a minimum,that area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in a given year"(Office of the President 1977).In Alaska,due to the remo t e-i salatea 'na£ureorl:ne-ma Ioriti'of--tlie-sEate ;.fl cod::' plain studies and mapping have occurred only in communities and populated regions.No floodplain studies have been prepared by the U.S.Corps of Engineer in the middle Susitna basin.However, studies conducted in conjunction with the project include esti- mates of the 100-year floodplains along the river. In other parts of the Susitna River basin,a preliminary final 'reportentitl ed Flood Insurance--Study-,Mat-Su Borough,{U.S.Corps -~---o.f-Eng,i,nee.r.-s-no-da.te-)-has-been-compl.e.te.d-by-the-U.•-S .•-Arm.y_CoI.PS,~.._. of Engineers for the FEMA.No consideration has been given to the Susitna River.Detailed study included the Little Susitna River,and Disception and Willow Creeks. In addition,the U.S.Corps of Engineers has mapped the 100-year .flood eleyation on--=-the-Nenan~.liiYe.l:"..~t:.t:he.!=()IIl!J1~J:lit:Y of Nenana and at Chulitna-on Pass-Creek,a tributary of the Chulitna River. The 100.,..year floodplain-of.the Talkeetna.,_.SusitnaandChulitna Rivers has been mapped within the townsite of Talkeetna where flooding has occurred in the past.The floodplain of the Talkeetna River at Talkeetna is wide and developed only on the \ -\ ') 851010 E.,..9-2-6 south side at the mouth of the river (see Figure E.9.2.7).Open spaces in the floodplain are extensive and may come under pressure for future development. The Floodplain Information Report for Talkeetna,Alaska,(U.S. Corps of Engineers 1972)is a basis for the adoption of land use controls to guide floodplain development and prevent loss and damage.Peak discharge for the Intermediate Regional Flood,or the 100-year flood,at Talkeetna is estimated to be 268,000 cfs. Peak discharge for the Standard Project Floodl1 was estimated to be 315,000 cfs.These estimates are for the Susitna River downstream of the confluences with the Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers. Exhibit E Chapter 2 of this report provides flood peak informa- tion for assessing natural and with-project flood conditions in the Susitna River reaches located downstream and upstream from the damsites.In addition,it discusses the existing flow, sediment and river regimes from Devil Canyon to the mouth of the Susitna River. The U.S.Soil Conservation Service has determined that there are no prime or unique farmlands,rangelands,or forests within the middle Susitna basin.f II Standard Project Flood as defined for the lower river in the Floodplain Information Report is not related in any way to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. 851010 E-9-2-7 j 1 I j \ \ } 1 1 1 ,J~ 1 1 j .t J 1 ,,1 3 -LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING IN THE PROJECT AREA (***) The majority of land in the project area is managed by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)and the U.S.Bureau of Land Management (BLM).In April 1985,ADNR published the Susitna Area Plan which puts forth management guidelines and policies for all public lands (except such lands as existing parks and wildlife refuges)in the Susitna Area (see Figure E.9.2.8).Although numerous management plans covering portions of the Susitna project area have been completed by various federal,state and local agencies,the Susitna Area Plan is the most relevant to the entire project area and is most responsive to the interests of the numerous land management agencies that participated in its development.The plan was prepared by ADNR,the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G),and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su Borough)in cooperation with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOTPF),the Kenai Peninsula Borough,the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),and the BLM.This plan establishes policies that allow state and Mat-Su Borough lands to produce the greatest possible public benefits by designating uses (agriculture, fish and wildlife habitat,forestry,recreation,settlement,subsurface resources,transportation)that are to occur on the lands in the Susitna Area.The designated uses outlined by the plan encourage development of resources and stress protection of environmental quality and community character. As stated in the Susitna Area Plan (ADNR 1985)the four major goals of the plan with respect to the economics,natural environment,social environment and land sale,and transportation and access of the Susitna area are: o To use public lands for the development of basic industries that can contribute to the local and regional economy when state oil revenues decline. o To allow forestry,agriculture,m1n1ng and other types of development to occur,but manage these uses to minimize environmental impacts. o To sustain the characteristics of the region that attract people to the area:proximity to recreation opportunities,availability of local supplies of wood and fish and wildlife resources,visual quality,and plenty of open space. o To open more land in the region to a variety of public and private uses. According to the plan,the Talkeetna Mountain Subregion where the Susitna Hydroelectric Project would be located,will be managed for multiple uses with emphasis on those uses most important to the area - recreation,protection of fish and wildlife,and mining.Grazing, 851010 E-9-3-1 p private recreation settlements,·and personal use timber harvest are also noted as secondary uses applicable to dispersed portions of the subregion. Given the scope and intent of the Susitna Area Plan,the Susitna Hydroelectric Project would be compatible with the uses,goals,and policies outlined and endorsed by the management agencies that participated in its formulation. In addition to coordinating with other agencies on the Susitna Area Plan,theBLM had already produced a land use plan for the Denali Planning Block which encompassed federal lands in the project area (see Figure E.9.2.9).This land use plan (BLM 1980)emphasized multiple use management.In 1982,as an amendment to the earlier plan for the Denali Block,the BLM prepared environmental assessm~nts of mineral leasing,mineral location and land disposal and concluded that any decisions should be deferred until the Susitna Area Plan was completed by the state.The Susitna Area Plan recommends that federal lands in the Susitna Area remain in public ownership and be managed for recreation and wildlife resources.In response to this recommendation, the BLM inarecentdecision·(BLM 1985).proposed.tolimit land.disposal and use actions to those meeting criteria established by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and decided that the State of Alaska and the Mat-Su Borough would review proposed actions.In summary,the Susitna Hydroelectric Project would be compatible with current management plans for public lands managed by the BLM. Nat-i-ve--cOl"pol"a-t-iaus-·a-re--a-l-s o-"responsible.-£o.r--land._manageme.nt~Qn_t_heiI': lands in the project area.Currently,no active land management activities are being carried out,although preliminary development plans have been outlined by CIRI Village Corporations (Brown 1984). The outline includes extensive recreational development with lodges, trails and concessions as well as mineral and other resource development • ._.NtJ!Ile:r.C>_1.!~Q.t:h~l:.l!!'!l.p.~.g~!Ilentplans~orspecific regions.of the project area and transmission linecorrtdor·have-a:ls-c;--oeeii-produced-;---Tliese ---_..-..-. ------include the Denali NaFfonar Scen[cl:IigfiwaYFea-Si·l5iTn~y--St:uaytAl-a-sk~ Land Use Council 1983),Denali to Wangell-St.Elias Study (Kuklok et. ale 1982),Land Use Plan for Public Lands in Willow Sub-Basin Area (ADNR1982),Mat-Su Borough Land Use Comprehensive Plan (Mat-Su Borough 1970),Mat-Su Borough Coastal Management Program (Mat-Su Borough 1983), Tanana Basin Area plan (ADNR 1984),Anchorage Comprehensive plan (MunicipalityofAnchorage1982handthe Fairbanks.-North Star Borough Comprehensive Plan (Wilsey and Ham 1983).TheS1.lsitna Hydroelectric Project i.s generally compat:iblewith each of these plans. 851010 J ---IJ r I ,\ 4 -IMPACTS ON LAND USE WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROJECT (***) Land use impacts due to the Project would result from the construction of the following project facilities:dams and impoundments, construction camps and villages,recreation plan facilities,access road,railspur and railhead,and transmission lines (see Figure E.9.2.10).Some impacts would be temporary such as with borrow sites which can be reclaimed.Other impacts such as the inundation of lands covered by the reservoirs would be permanent.All impacts can be classified as direct or indirect and of these,indirect impacts are of the most concern. Direct land use impacts would be limited to the conversion of a specific number of acres from one use to another.Construction of the Watana and Devil Canyon Dams and impoundments would result in the inundation of approximately 43,952 acres (including 9 structures) changing the land from forest land used for dispersed recreation to reservoirs used for hydropower generation.A total of 2,208 acres of forest and low shrub land would be temporarily or permanently disturbed for borrow and quarry sites.placement of the 2 construction camps and villages would convert 385 acres of low shrub and mixed forest land to developed community use.In addition,minimal acreages would be permanently disturbed by road and rail access,transmission line corridors and recreation plan facilities. Direct impacts to wetlands,floodplains,and prime agricultural lands are again of special concern.Project impacts on wetlands are discussed in Chapter 3,Section 3.3.6 of Exhibit E.The discussion quantifies the extent of wetland areas that would be occupied or disturbed by project facilities or inundated by the impoundments.In addition,it describes indirect effects on the wetlands resulting from project development.Project impacts on U.S.Corps of Engineer-designated floodplains cannot be ascertained because of the lack of data for the middle Susitna basin.However,extensive project-related data show that floods up to the 50-year event would be diminished in magnitude on the middle reach of the Susitna River from Devil Canyon Dam to Talkeetna.Furthermore,the project is designed to accommodate the magnitude of the 50-year flood and such floods would generally be contained within the banks of the river.Details with project findings with regard to floods can be found in Chapter 2, Sections 4.1.3(a),4.2.3(a),and 4.3.3(a)of Exhibit E.No impacts occur to prime agricultural lands because none exist in the area. Provision of access into the Susitna River basin,an otherwise remote, roadless area,is the major indirect land use impact of the Project. The Project itself would establish new temporary and permanent population centers at the construction camps and villages,at the townsite,and at the railhead facility in Cantwell.The public would be introduced into the area via the access road connecting the Denali Highway to the Watana and Devil Canyon damsites,more easily navigable 851010 E-9-4-1 river routes leading into the reservoir,and by floatplanes landing on the reservoir itself.New opportunities to use the reservoir for access to surrounding lands would be opened.An increase in numbers of people would in turn increase recreational and other activity levels and put new harvest,extraction,and development pressures on fish, wildlife,and other natural resources.Current activity patterns would change and displacement of a small number of resource users such as guides and trappers would follow.As more people are attracted to this area,peripheral commercial and other development would occur thus stimulating the regional economy.The opportunities for additional roads extending off the access road could encourage mineral and other resource extraction.Land values may be affected (see APA 1983 for further discussion).Also,an impetus for more active land management and cooperative agreements between landowners would be created to address such issues as trespass on private land. Increased access would also be a primary land use impact with the establishment of the transmission line corridors,since,much of it is routed over undeveloped recreation land.However,most additional impacts would be incurred in the southern corridor from Anchorage to Willow since north ·of Willow the project lines would parallel the exisfing lritertiea.nd GVEAlilles.Other transmission route";"related indirect impacts would be possible effects on airplanes where the lines pass near floatplane bases or airstrips,negative visual effects,and the possible disruption of normal patterns of cultivation where the lines cross agricultural land. The project area has been relatively undeveloped in the past,because .'of-nnirl:ea'~ac-cesffafi-d "unfavo-rab"le-e-c-(mom:i~c-"fea:si:bi"lity;;---Di-scus-sions with landowners/managers and consideration of present market..conditions indicate that,without the project,little change.is likely to occur in existing land use or activity patterns.However,the CIRI Village Corporations have expressed intentions to develop.t:he timber,mineral, and recreational potential of their lands south of the project area with or without the Project (Brown 1984). j ·1 r 851010 E-9-4-2 1 {'! 5 -MITIGATION (***) There are no mitigation measures for the project's direct land use impacts except where temporary facilities such as construction camps are removed and excavation sites are reclaimed and/or stabilized. Associated mitigation measures for compensation of fish and wildlife resources lost due to inundation are discussed in Chapter 3 while Chapters 3 and 6 describe reclamation and/or stabilization of disturbances at borrow and quarry sites. Mitigation measures for indirect land use impacts are discussed in in other chapters of this document.For example,mitigation for the influx of people into the project area and impacts on special population/occupation groups (i.e.,guides,lodge and air taxi operators)are discussed under Socioeconomic Impacts,Chapter 5. Increases in recreation opportunities and mitigation measures for increased activity levels are discussed in Recreational Resources, Chapter 7.Mitigation measures for fish,wildlife,and botanical resources are identified in Chapter 3.Aesthetic resource mitigation measures are presented in Chapter 8. 851010 E-9-5-1 J l \ } \ 1 '\ I ) 1 r ! ] ,J 'I J 1 r 6 -REFERENCES Alaska Department of Natural Resources.1980.Susitna Basin Land Use/Recreation Atlas Planning Background Report.Prepared in cooperation with the U.S.Department of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service,Anchorage,Alaska. •1982.The Willow Sub-Basin Area Plan,A Land Use Plan for the---Public Lands.Prepared in cooperation with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Anchorage, Alaska. •1984.Tanana Basin Area Plan,Public Review Draft.Anchorage, ---Alaska. •1985.Susitna Area Plan.Prepared in cooperation with the---Matanuska-Susitna Borough and Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage,Alaska. Alaska Land Use Council.1983.Denali National Scenic Highway. Anchorage,Alaska. Alaska Power Authority.1983.Responses to FERC Schedule B Supplemental Information Requests.Anchorage,Alaska. Brown,B.A.1984.President and Chairman,Tyonek Corp.Letter to Jon S. Ferguson.November 8,1984.Copies to FERC,EPA,DOl,DNR. Bureau of Land Management.1980.Bureau of Land Management Land Use Plan for Southcentral Alaska - A Summary.Anchorage District Office,Anchorage,Alaska. •1982.Amendment to the Southcentral Alaska Land Use Plan for the---Denali/Tiekel Planning Blocks (Draft).Anchorage,Alaska. •1985.Decision Record,Denali/Tiekel Amendment to the---Southcentral Management Framework Plan.Anchorage,Alaska. Commonwealth Associates Inc.1982.Environmental Assessment Report, Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie.Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska. Cowardin,L.M.,V.Carter,F.C.Golet,E.T.LaRoe.1979. Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.Prepared for U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington, D.C. Dixon,E.J.,G.S.Smith,W.Andrefsky,B.M.Saleeby and C.J.Utermohle. 1985.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Investiga- tions 1979-1985.University of Alaska Museum,Fairbanks,Alaska. 851010 E-9-6-1 Greiser,T.W.,S.T.Greiser,G.H.Bacon,TeA.Foor,J.Kari,P.R.Kari, D.H.Gallacher and J.M.Caywood.1985.Background Research and Predictive Model for Cultural Resources Located Along the Susitna Hydroelectric Linear Features Project.Prepared for Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture,Anchorage,Alaska. Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture.1985.Guide Survey Report.Prepared for Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska. Kuklok,D.L.,S.G.Heikkala,K.Fleck-Harding,L.Arndt,and W. Peterson.1982.Denali to Wrangell-St.Elias.Prepared for Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Anchorage,Alaska. Matanuska-Susitna Borough.1970.Matanuska-Susitna Borough Land Use Comprehensive Plan.Palmer,Alaska • •1983.Matanuska-Susitna Borough Coastal Management Plan.Palmer,---Alaska. Municipality of Anchorage.1982.The Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Development Plan.Anchorage,Alaska. Office of the President.1977.Presidential Executive Order 11988. Federal Register 42:p.26951.May 24,1977. Terrestrial Environmental Specialists Inc.1982.Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Environmental Studies Subtask 7.07:Land Use Analysis, Phase I Report.Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, Anc1iorage~Ala.§ka~ Terrestrial Environmental Specialists Inc.,.FrankOrth &Associates and the University of Alaska.1981.Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Environmental Studies Report Subj:ask 7 .14:A<:cess Road Environmental Analysis -Environmental,Socioeconomic and Land Use Analysis of Alternative Access Plans.Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,Alaska • .__....U._S._Cor_ps_o_f----Engine_ex_s 19]_2 The__Floodplain Information -Talkeetna River,Susitna River,Chulitna River,Talkeetna,Alaska.Prepared for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.Anchorage,Alaska • •Undated.Flood Insurance Study,Matanuska-Susitna Borough---Prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Wi!sey.andHam.1983.Fa:lrbanks Nqrtl1 St:ar.BoroughCoIl1prehensive Plan. Draft.Prepared for the Fairbanks :North Star Borough,_Fairbanks, Alaska. 1 :_.j 851010 E-9-6-2 TABLES TABLE E~2J;EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC IMPOUNDMENT VICINITY..-r::~"','':-'-..:~".";"~~., Zone{a)Location 2 Lake E.of Stephan Lake, 1850 feet elevation Use Status Bui lt in 1960s and in current use for seasonal hunting,fishing,and boating. Built in 19605 for Stephan Lake Lodge;currently used seasonally by Stephan boati ng/hunti ng guests. Yes Acces~b) boat,foot floatplane,skis S.bank Susitna:on tributary 3 miles S.W. of Fog Creek/Susitna Confluence 12 1 Ma 3 Cab~n;shed 4 Cab,1n 5 Cabln 2 2 N.W.shore of Stephan airplane Lake Tsusena Creek:3.5 miles foot,dog team from Tsusena/Susitna Confluence Yes No Built 1960s and in current use for seasonal hunting,fishing,and boating. Built in 19405 as a trapline cabin and used until late 1950s;no longer in use. 6 Cab1n fourhdations 1 N.shore of Susitna: W.bank of 1st tribu- tary W.of Tsusena/ Susitna Confluence foot,dog team No Built in 1939 by Oscar Vogel as a trapping line cabin;used until late 1950s,now collapsed;no longer used. 7 Cabi n;shed 2 s.shore of Fog Lake #2 floatplane Yes Built in 1960s and currently being usd as a seasonal fishing and hunt i ng cabi n. 9 Stephen Lodge 2 (101 structures) 8 Cabln 2 On knob of Fog Lake #1 W.central shore of Stepha n Luke airplane airplane,foot Yes Yes Built in 19605 and currently being used as a seasonal hunting and fishing cabin. Built in 19605 and in current use as hunting,fishing,and recreation lodge;can accommodate up to 35 guests;operates year-round. , ; TABLE E.9.2.1:.(Page 2) I Zoneta)Location I Use Status Built in 1960s and in current use seasonally as a hunting and fishing cabin. Built in 1940s and used until late 19505 as a hunting,fishing,and trappi ng base and residence;no longer used. Hunting,fishing,boating,seasonal use;built in 1960s. Built in 19605 and in current seasonal use as hunting,fishing, and boating cabins.' Built in 19605 and used as a year-round residence;hunti ng and fi shi ng. Built in 1960s and currently used on a seasonal basis for hunting, fishing,and recreation by guests of Stephan Lodge • Built in 19605 and currently used seasonally by Stephan Lodge for purposes of fl sni ng emu ,Wllt i lIy. Built in 1960 and 1979,respec- tively,and currently used as a year-round residence.from which hunting,fishing,and trapping occur. Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Cur-fe-fitly MaintainedAccess(b) ainplane,foot, hOrise I aifjpl ane,foot ) aitpl ane,foot ai~pl ane,foot I ai'iplane,foot ah1pl ane,foot I ail1pl ane,foot foot,dog team, bo~t i S.E.shorelof Daneka Lake .PrairielTa~keetna confl uencel 2 2 2 3 .I'2 0.5 mlle SoW~ of Stephani Lodge on Stephan LaKeShore I . E.shore of Stephan Lake I IE.shore or Stephan Lake 2 ! I . 2 Mouth of P~a,rie Creek at S~ephan Lake i IIi I II ,w.shore of Prrairie Creek I' I I I 'I • .I !E.shore of Murder Lake (S.of Stephan Lake)I! I i I 'i, 3 Map Structure 22 Cabi n;shed 10 Cabin;shed 20 Cabin;shed 21 Cabin;shed 12 Cabin;shed 13 Cabin;shed 14 Cabin;shed 15 Cabi n;shed 16 Cabin;shed 17 Cabin 18 Cabin 19 Cabin;meat house 11 Cabin;shed -=--------.------'..-.'~~~--; .1 '-------' TABLE E.9.2l1:(Page 3) MaD Strudture Zone(a)Location Access(b)Maintained Use Status 23 Cabin:shed 2 Game lake airplane,foot Yes Built in 19405 and used since then for trophy game hunting;now a part of Stephan Lodge's series of out- reach cabins used on a seasonal basis. 25 Mini 1 g 2 Portage Creek:2.5 miles airplane,ATV No Mining records exist as far back as bui 1 ings N.of Portage/Susitna foot,dog team,1890s;mined 1920 and sporadically (5)Confluence horse 1930s,then 1950-70s;currently inactive mining operations; buildings not in use. 26 Cabins (2)2 1 mile N.of Portage airpl ane,ATV,Yes Mining;built in 1950s;used Creek Creek mini ng foot,dog team seasonally. 27 Cabins (2)N.W.shore of Dawn Lake airplane,ATV,Yes Built in 19605 by owners of High horse,dog team Lake;used currently as a hunting cabin on a seasonal basis. 28 LOd9j'High 2 S.shore of High Lake airplane,ATV,Yes Bui lt in 19605 for use as an i nter- Lake (9 horse,dog team national hunting/fishing lodge; bui 1 i ngs)currently in use by Acres Amer ican Susitna rroject on a seasonal basis. 30 Cabi3 2 S.shore of High Lake airplane,ATV,Yes Built 1980. foun ations horse,dog team 34 ChUnrn.3 Chunil na Creek airplane,ATV,Yes Large placer mixing operation in Cree Pl acer 4WD,snowmachine existence since 1950 and currently (7 b i1ding s)mined on a seasonal basis. 36 Minina 3 Chuni 1na Creek:8 miles airpl ane,ATV,Yes Four buildings built in the 1920s, S.W.of VABM Clear 4WD,snowmachine,19405 and 19605 and used seasonally dog team ,foot for mining. ... !fABLE E.9.2.1:(Page 4) Zone(a)Location Currently used ona seasonal basis for recreational purposes. Use Status Currently used on a seasonal basis for recreational purposes. Currently used on a seasonal basis for recreational purposes. Built by Vogel in the 19405 as a hunting cabin;currently used on a seasonal basi s as a Stephan outrach cabin for hunting. Built in 1970s;current use not known at this time. Built in 1960s and in current seasona 1 use as hunt i ng,fi sh lng, and boating cabins. Built in 19605 and currently used on a seasonal basis for hunting and fishi ng. Built in 1940s and used seasonally for trappi ng unt 11 early 1960s;no longer used. res Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Currently MaintainedAccess(b) fpot,airplane, ATV,4WD foot,airplane ~TV,4WD fpot,sled,road, aiirp1 ane,ATV I fpot,airplane, ~TV,4WD a~rp1ane,foot fpot,'airp1 ane f~)Qt,dog team, a~rp1 ane f90t,dog team ~~Stephan Lake: ~.of Fog Lake E.shore lof Stephan Lake I IPortageqreek:2 miles N.W.of Qawn Lake I 1 mile w.1 of Portage Creek mi ~i ng 1 mile W.I of Portage Creek mining,on sl ed road ! iUnnamedl,ake N.of Otter La~e 9 miles 7 miles 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 miles N.E.of VABM Curry I; I I , Grizzly Clamp:5 miles E.of Dan~ka Lake i 47 Cabin 48 Cabin 49 Cabin 46 Cabin 45 Cabin Map Structure 39 Cabin 40 Cabin;shed 42 Cabin 38 Cabin 37 Cabin 50 Trailer 2 !W.end o~S.shore of unnamed lake N.of Otter La~e .foot,airp1 ane, ATV,4WD No Currently not in use,abandoned. _'__e '---''---'--~',i I .~., --'-,-------' TABLE E.9.2.1:(Page 5) Zone(a)Location 2 W.end of S.shore of unnamed lake N.of Otter Lake Ma ,.51 52 53 55 Cabli ns (3) 56 Cabli n 57 LOdlge 58 59 Ca 60 Ca 61 Ca 62 Ca 63 Ca 64 65 69 Ca 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 S.shore of unnamed lake N.of Otter Lake W.end of Bear Lake N.shore of Bear Lake N.shore of Bear Lake E.end of Bear Lake Chulitna Pass:near railroad Miami Lake ,S.shore of Bear Lake Acces~b) foot,airpl ai ne ATV,4WD foot,airplane, ATV,4WD foot,airpl ane, ATV,4WD foot,airplane, ATV,4WD foot,airplane, ATV,4WD foot,airplane, foot,airpl ane, rail,car rail,foot,car, airplane airpl ane,foot, 4WD urrently Maintained No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Use Status Built in late 1960s and currently used for hunting and fishing on a seasonal basis. Built in late 19605 and is seasonally used for hunting and fi shi ng. Bui lt in 19705 and currently used on a seasonal basis for hunting and fishing. Bui lt in 19705 and currently used on a seasonal basi s for hunti ng and fishing. Built in 1970s;lodge and cabin used for fi shi ng,hunting,and sk i- ing on a year-round basis;seasonal boating. Built in 1950s for trappi ng purposes;no longer in use. Exact construction dates not known; currently used as year-round residences. Perhaps being used as recreational cabins. Built in 1960s ~nd currently used for hunting,fishing,and swimming. TABLE E.9.2.1:(Page 6) Zone(a)Location .Big Lake 3 N.shore Lake Map Structure .70 Lodge 72 Cabin 73 Cabin 74 Cabi n 75 Cabin 76 Cabin 77 Cabin 78 Cabin 79 Cabin 80 Cabin 81 Cabin 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 I 'Tof!susena I Deadman L~ke:W.of Big Lake ' i .,'4 miles fro~Watana/ Susitna cpnfl uence 7 miles d of.I IBigLakeI. i , W.end oflw~tana Lake iE.end oflW~tana Lake I II I I : i j E.end ofl Gil bert/ Kosina corfluence Access(b) a rplane,ATV airplane,ATV i ! ATV a rpl ane,ATV a rplane,ATV Ialrpl ane,dog team,snowmachine I airplane,dog t~am,snowmachine ! I f?ot,dog team Currently Maintained Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Use Status Built in 1958;used for commer- cially guided hunts until 1976; presently used on a seasonal basis for private hunting,fishing,and skiing trips. Built in 1960s for fishing and hunting purposes and currently used on a seasonal basis. Built in 1960s;currently used on a seasonal basis for hunting and fishing. Built in 1960s;currently used on a seasonal basis for hunting. Constructed in 19705 and Gurrently used on a seasonal basi s for hunti ng and fi shi ng. Built in 19505 and 19605,respec- tively,and currently used seasonally for hunti ng and fi shi ng. Built in 19505 and 19605,respec- tively,and currently used seasonally for hunti ng and fi shi ng. Built on 1936 as a trapping line cabin;used until 1955;currently abandoned with ev~rythi ng intact., ~~.~-- ~ TABLE E.9.2l1:(Page 7) Mao Strutture Zone(a)Location Access(b) Currently Maintained Use Status 2 S.W..foot,C1 arence Lake 82 .Tent I frame 84 Cabims (2) 85 Cabi 86 Cabi 87 Cabi 88 Cabins (2) 89 Cabi 90 Huntlng lean to 2' 2 2 2 2 3 1 S.E.end of Clarence Lake E.end of Clarence Lake N.end of C1 arence Lake On tributary 1 mile E.of Clarence Lake Gaging station:S. bank of Susitna Unnamed lake 3 miles S.W.of Clarence Lake (island in middle) S.E.bank of Kosina/ Susitna confluence foot,dog team airp1 ane airplane airplane foot,dog team airplane f10atp1ane,boat boat,foot, floatplane J No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Built in 1950s and used until 19605 for seasonal hunti ng. , Built in 1950s and currently used seasonally as a hunting andfi shi ng cabi n. Built in 19705 and currently used on a seasonal basis for hunting, fishing,and trapping. Built in 19605 and currently used on a seasonal basis for hunting, fishing,and trapping. Built in 1930 and used until 1950 for trapping,hunting,and fishing (Simco's line Cabin #4);currently used seasonally as a hunting shelter. Bui lt in 19505 for research purposes;currently not used or mai ntai ned. Exact construction date not known; currently used on a seasonal basis for fishing. Built in late 1970s for hunting/ fishing purposes;fresh supplies indicate current use. rABLE E.9.2.1:(Page 8) Zonefa)location No Built in 19605 for hunting purposes; cabin collapsed;no longer in use. CurrentlY Maintained Use Status No Built in 19505;used as a seasonal hunting and fishing cabin;supplies indicate current use. Built by Simco in 1930 as a trap line cabin and used on a seasonal basis for hunting and fishing. Built in 19605 and currently used fur bOati fl~011 a S~asulldl uasis. Built in 19605 and used currently on a seasonal basis for fishing. Built in 19605 by Stephan Lodge owner as a river cabin for Stephan Lodge boating guests. Built in 19705 and used currently for transient boaters. Bui lt in 19505 and used currently on a seasonal basis for fishing. Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Builtin 19605 and used currently on a seasonal basis for hunting and fishing. No boa,t dog team,foot, boat boat Adces~b) i boa!t,hel icopter air\plan~ flqatplane, air,plane I airiplane i flqatplane i I dog team,foot i i I i Susitna sandb~r:S. of Tyone Rilve~/ Susitna confluenceII O.2 mil e s.1 Oi1= "laC 1ar~1i/;;jus i tJla confuence !; I . 2 mi 1es N.E.fof Watana/ Susitna coryflluence I iN.W.bank of Watana/ Susitna co~flluence I 1 W.of Jay /~uslitna confl uence i !i Laha Lake:I I!.5 mi 1es W.of Jay qre;ek .Unnamed laJe:1 2.5 miles S.E.of Ve~Canyon gaging·sta~i~n '.I i Oshetna River':10 miles S.of OshetnaVSusitna confl uence i ' Tyone Rive~/s~sitna confl uence I ' 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 91 Cabi n 95 Cabin 96 Cabi n 99 Cabin 100 Tent platform 93 Cabin Map Structure 92 Cabi n/cache 94 Cabin 101 Cabin 98 Cabin '--c---/.~ .I' ~'---' '---' TABLE E.9.2.1F (Page 9) Mao Struc'Uure Zone(a)Location Access(b) urrently Maintained Use Status 103 Cabin 105 Cabin 106 Cabin 107 Cabin 110 Cabi n 111 Cabin 112 Li ne dabi n 112 Cabi n foundations 2 3 3 1, 2 1 1 2 Jay Creek:3 miles N.of VABM Brown Coal Creek S.end of Coal Lake S.bank of Susitna at Devil Canyon N.end of Madman Lake S.bank of Susitna; 1 mile upstram of Watana/Susitna confluence N.E.corner of Jay/ Susitna confluence W.bank of Portage Creek:4 mil es from Portage/Susitna confluence ATV ATV,airplane ATV,airplane LMD airpl ane dog team,foot foot,dog team, boat,fl oatpl ane dog team,foot Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Bui It in 19705 for hunti ng and currently used on a seasonal basis. Built in 19705 for hunt;ng ann currently used on a seasonal basis. Bui lt in 1960s and currently used on a seasonal bas is for mi ni ng and fi shi ng. Built and used in 19505 for Bureau of Rec.study;currently not in use. Built in 19605 and currently used on a seasonal basi s for hunt;ng and fi sh;ng. Built in 1945 as a trapping line/ hunting cabin;used for trapping until mid 1950s,presently covered with brush;no longer used. E.Simco's line (trapping)and hunting cabin built in 1939;dates and game records indicate annual use. Built in 19405 as a mining/prospect- ing cabin;no longer in use. TABLE E:9.2.l:(Page 10) Map Structure I ; Zone(a)Location I Access(b) Currently Maintained Use Status 113 Cabi n 114 Cabin 115 Cabin 116 Cabi n 117 Cabin 118 Cabi n 119 Trailer; work shack 120 Shack 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 Unnamed 1 ~k~:6 mi les I Iw.of Murden LakeI' 7 miles N~E~of VABMDisapPointm~nt I I 2 miles of ~.of Tsusena LakeI'. 1 mile w.of VABM Oshetna i ; i ITyoneRiver/Tyone ICreekconfluence , I!i,I 7 miles d~eIE.of Tyone RivbrlSusitna confl uenc,b I " I I 'N.bank of Susitna: 1 mi 1e ofl Deadma nl Susitna confluence 1 I S.bank ~f ~usitna: 1 mile o~Deadmanl, I Susitna confluence I ! I airpl ane airplane airpl ane a rplane boat,dog team boat,dog team h~l icopter hel icopter ! No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Built in 19605 for hunting purposes; no longer in use. Built in 19705 for hunti ng use and currently used for seasonal hunting. Bui lt in 19705 and currently used as a year-round residence by a guidi ng outfit. Builtin 19705 for hunti ng purposes and is currently used on a seasonal basis. Built in 19605 for hunti ng and fi shi ng purposes and currently used on a seasonal basis. Builtin 19605 for hunting and fishing purposes,no longer in use. Bui lt in 1970s by Army Corps for Susi tna study. Used and built in 1970s as a research site;since ArmY Corps study,has collapsed;no longer used. I Notes:(put on bottan of first page): I ' I ' (a)Zone 1 is the impoundment zon~PlUS a 200 foot perimeter. Zone 2 is the 6 mile perimete~around Zone 1. Zone 3 is that zone between 6 jand 12 mil es,from the impoundment. (b)Almost all sites are accessible by helicopter. -"-"-""~'"---' I r~~ I . II FIGURES J ~I IJ LEGEND FOR FIGURES E.9.2.4,E.9.2.5, AND E.9.2.6 1 I 1 j 1 FIGURE E.9.2.1 O~~~35mi_Siiil6~~~9 MILESSCALEt: \ .._CLARENCE ..LAKEc=::::;> CREEK WATANA LAKE '\) 2J BIG LAKE TSUSENA ",LAKE~'U ....v.W ~~r~Q~t(- BRUSHKANA DENALI STEPHAN LAKE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AREA t:::. SWIMMING BEAR LAKE HIGHaKE OTTER LAKE 1:= j fi I I,) ~--------------~- ] I,I '[ J .\ . J ,j j ] j I .) I J i .) ) FIGURE E.9,2.2 o 3 6 9 MILES SCALE Ei~~5 __~~~1 86 BCLARENC£ L~85 8 2 1II'----J11 II 87 84 CREEK BRUSHKANA 1139 DENALI SUSITNA RIVER ~ SWIMMING BEAR LAKE EXISTING STRUCTURES SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC .PROJECT AREA 110 112 3 11.1 4 11II STEPHAN 9 Ii1 AKE 10 II II 16-19 12 15 15 14c Ii I'J \1JI 1 J 1 j 1 J ~J j ,I 1 1 1 1 ---------~-_....•~ .1 ( } '1 J >\ 1 LOW MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM INTENSITYUSE LEGEND RECREATION RECREATION / RESIDENTIAL MINING MINING/ RESIDENTIAL O~~~35m_iiiii!6~~~9 MILESSCALE.=.., NOTE:LOW INTENSITY AREAS CONTAIN ONE DWELLING OR LESS PER ACRE.MEDIUM I N- TENSITY DESIGNATES A CONCENTRATION OF.TWO TO FOUR DWELLINGS PER ACRE. HIGH INTENSITY AREAS SUPPORT FIVE OR MORE DWELLINGS PER ACRE (ADNR 1980), I BRlISHKIJNIJ DENALI SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC pRlOJECT-AREA SlJSITNA RIVER t::. SWIMMING BEAR LAKE [] I J IJ FIGURE E.9.2.3 i "~---"~ } J ] 1 1 1 J . J "l 1 1 1 1 1 J ! } J f COOK INLET FIGURE E.9.2.4 o 5 10 MILES 5 CA LE e~~~!!!!!!::~~liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiwiiiiiiiiiiiiii I / / / I I ) / f 1\.-1 II (.---' ---,------------ ,J J ] ] } l J -] ] ] , 1 .] 1 .~~~- 1 J ") ) I J ,( , J I ) I I (., I I\._.....-1 ~. ANCHORAGE -WILLOW TRANSMISSION LINE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT SHEET 20F 3 COOl(INLET 5 FIGURE E.9.2.4 (Cont'd) 1 1 } ] } 1 j 1 1 l COOK INLET FIGURE E.9.2.4 (Cont/d) o 5 10 MILES SCALE ~F~~~~~iiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiljjiil SUSITNAI~----"'-- RED SHIRT L PROPOSED--- a rl I I ,J ...~.., 1000 // HEALY -FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION LINE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT -SOUTH SHEET I OF 3 FIGURE E.9.2.5 } : I 1 I I, 1 J J .J "J J ] ] ] } 1 1 ,] ,j J 1 ] I'" ] ...~... HEALY -FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION LINE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT -SOUTH SHEET 2·0F 3 FI GURE E.9.2.5 (Cont'd l J.- I OJ I ] ] J j r"] J \ I 1 I :1 l 1 \ \ °r ,J .1'0 '"---'-......~...~", ~.., .' HEALY -FA~KS TRANSMISSION LINE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT -SOUTH SHEET 3 OF 3 ,FIGURE E.9,2.5 (Cont'd) i ) l 1 ] 1 j I .j ,I J FIGURE E.9.2.6 .:~.,. HEALY -FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION LINE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT-NORTH SHEET I OF 3 r .' Gc. (1 I I [1 1 I !\ i i (I ,I \. !I 11 \I ~.,.. HEALY -FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION LINE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT -NORTH SHEET 2 OF 3 o 5 10 MILESSCALE~r!!!!~~~~~~5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiia FIGURE E.9.2.6 (Cont'd) J I: I, 'J ) 1 1 ] 1 J ] -1 J \ 1 .j ] .J J '1 1 r FIGURE E.9.2.6 (Cont'd) " .,.~ '. HEALY-FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION LINE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT -NORTH SHE~T 3 OF 3 :' ~_.. f I I i LJ -""- J 1 I ] ] ] J .\ 1 1 -] 1 1 1 J j .1 r INTERMEDIATE R...E.GIONAL.f, FLOOD I ()i)y;r>R D crcY STAN DARD PROJECT FLOOD GROUND ELEVATION IN FEET SEA LEVEL DATUM CABINo LEGEND ". III tjljljljltjjil~~jJ NOTE ~MAP BASED ON USGS QUADRANGLE SHEET TALKEETNA B-1.MINOR ADDITIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. ( \~ (0 2000 4000 FEET /SCALE el~~~§_ )( .)SUSITiN.:· RIVER U ·\CHULITNA RIVER ~.., ~';;;DY LIMIT FLO DPLAIN I .FIGURE E.9.2.7 'j J ] J 1 .] ~] \ J ] l J ] 1 J J 1 1 ] -( SOURC8:ADNR 1985 ~t#-. •'~ltbonl'. •\ • \ • \ • \ • \, \ • \ LOCATION OF THE 'SUSITNA AREA PLAN STUDY AREA' FIGURE E.9.2.8 -L ... --l ---I ---1 -------,-------, "'~ ...~ ) ~... ~~ ~'i~;;/.' ...\ ,~~~~.~\<a \.~.L ....---- .., r~ /----.(r/~-/'l-')(~. GLENN HWV. a DEVIL CANYON, ~~,,-~SUS/TNA\~~('"•••~RIVeR Iv '..L&-'"LIj+~'">r:"x:!'WATANA ~•••./\_....,-"-~,.\ (~'", · .~'frJ"/"'~,,-\..._,r·AI.t<~••,.~,~~,>-.'f/.,I~:\\-"X '~_ l:1 •TALKEETNA """'_/~~\~'--""-- Cl:;"'.3 •UPPER SUSITNA r WATERSHED BOUNDARY )~.. ~~\ \~r ....~) )CANTWELL r r:t:: ) '/~I'.~C? ) BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DENALI PLANN I NG BLOCK FIGURE E.9.2.9 o 3 6 9 MILES SCALE ~I~~5iiii_~~~~ ;FIGURE E.9.2.10 LEGEND: I.HEALY -WILLOW INTERTIE 2.GOLD CREEK SUBSTATION :3.DEVIL CANYON RAIL SPUR 4.DEVI L CANYON VILLAGE 5.DEVIL CANYON CAMP 6.DEVIL CANYON DAM 7.DEVIL CANYON ACCESS ROAD . 8.WATANA/GOLD CREEK TRANSMISSION LINE 9,WATANA DAM 10.WATANA VILLAGE II.WATANA CAMP 12.DENALI HIGHWAY-WATANA ACCESS ROAD 1:3.RAILHEAD FACILITIES CREEK WATANA LAKE ~ J BRlISHKANA DENALI STEPHAN LAKE SUSITNA RIVER SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FACILITIES _J .j ] ] 1 } : J J .:1 1 ] ,] .'J ,J i OJ ] ] \J '.1