HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA3526~-~·
$WIN Joint v ....... ---~52.11
..
Arc"-ologle~l Sliney &lid Sit~ Distribution In llelatfo11 to
Tu'I'A In 1/ni ts
Universi ty of Al1s ka ~use~
1:185
RECI!IVI!O
J U L 2 1985 1/. t/. ;a.
N.NiiA rawBI~
...
·.
I -[ntro<tuct I on
At the requeSl of the Alasb POtter Authority . a study was undertaken t,o
qu1ntlfy the In tensity of archeological survey and site occurrence by
ternln u11tt In direct 1.,..n a~u of tl"e Susltn<~ Hydroelectric
Praject. Thh report describes tnt Rthodo109J and the results of t ....
terrain unit analysis. Only sites that fall within the boundaries of
specific project futures and facilities and "ere recorded and tested as
part of the Universi ty of Alas~a field program (253 sites) arc con -
sidered In the analysis , however a listing of all si t es by terrain unit
Is provfdd In Table 13.
l -Methodology
2. I -Terrain Unll K.lpplng
Terra in unit mapping for the Susltna Hydroelectric Project was conducttd
by R & 14 Consulunts, Inc. (1981) and based upo,. geologlul lntei"CCreu -
tlon of aii"CChoto IIOSIIcs with~ ground-tn~thtng. Tbl' terralll unit Is
1 g~rp~ologlul te,. lihlch Is used to denote landfo,.s occurring froa
th• ground surface to • depth or about 25 feet (R 6 14 Consul unu. Inc.
1981:1). A total of 26 terrain unit\ were Identified and delineated on
photOIIJOsalc oue 111l!ps , wh ich were reproduc~d as dhzo copies at a scale
of l:ZtOOO. Terrain units werf assigned s)llbols wh ich reflect the
g•netlc orlg1n of the d~Sil (e.g •• G rep~sents a glactal origin ~nd C
rep~enu 1 co11wl•1 origin), u .-ell n othe~ specific fnforwtlon
about the la~clfo,... ~nd t.err•ln unlu .-ere c~•ctd for arru when
the surficiAl u~u~ patterns or two hndfor.s were so COIIlPltxly
related that they had to ~e mapped as one unit. Host of th• terrain
units have been descrlo~d by R & M Consultants In tent\ of their topog raphy,
distribution, slope, csrofnage, pervabfllty, and other attributes
pertinent to engineering concerns. Terrain unit description 1nd 1 list
of properties whfch Ny be relAted to archeological site occurrence
•PP••• in T1ble 1.
..
lb!! first sup In •uurlng the areal utrnt of trrrafn units within th!!
projrct area ws the prepnatf O<l of IO'lu o verlays for t h!!
A 4 II ternln unh IUpS. Of tilt! 18 trrnln unit .up s~eets II'"!!P«red by
R 4 11 Consultants, only those coverfii<J the IIII)OII~nts, construction
facilit i es , and borrw areas Wflre used In this stvdy. 1lley Include
shtets 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 , 9 , 10, II, 12, and 13. Initially, the chtnn!!l of
the Susltna River, majo r tributaries, and other hydrologic fettures wer e
t r aced from the photocnosalc base onto the ove r lay . The lmpoundm!!nt
ll•lt contours werr ~pped on the overlays by using vegetation maps
prtpared by the University of Alasta Agricultural E~pe r ltent Station
~1980) at • s~le of 1:£4000 , wnf ch Is !!OUivalent to that of the terrain
~~t~l: base -..ps. 1M 1500 f Y.t contour was uSoed u the IIII)OIIndleflt lfaft
for the Devil Reservoir, a:nd the 2200 foot contour was used u tbe
l~nt ll•ft for thr lltUina Resrrvolr. Construction facilities In
the vlclnfty of the Devil and lltUna CUIIISftes and borrow areas occu r-
r ing ou t side the ll!l$)0undl!tnt lf•lts were noted using .. ps prepared by
Acres American (1983). The terrain units falling wi t hin the Impoundment
limits, constructi on facili t ies and borrow areas were then traced onto
the overlay.
Areal ext~nt of terrain units WJS detenafnecl using a laslco ROclel l-30
1cljU1tab le IIMI!anlcal planteter. A conversion factor of 0.5028
htctare,/unft, to be 1pplfed to the planl .. ter unit walues, w.s
detel'lllnecl by lll!nurlng a known area as follows:
Actual ground area • Test area x (Scale factor )2 -----Plonl~~~eter value
Calibrated tes t area: 81.18 sq. ca
Planf ... ter v1lue: 933.5 untu
Scale factor: l(()()O
Actual ground area • 81 ·~8 sq . c• x {Z4C0)2 • 50280000 sq. 01/unlt
933.5 units
• 5028 sq. a/unit • 0.5028 ha/unlt
The methods for planimeter use follo..ed those outlined by Brinker and
Wolf (1977).
In measuring the terrain units , the Individual units were given a
reference number and the measured area was recorded accor ding to that
n~r. Individual terrain units of the s~me class were sunned for each
h•poundlaent, construction faclhty area, and borrow area outside the
l~ndeents and construction areas to gain a -easure for areas occupied
by each clus within these fubres. The dusu 11ere In turn added
together to obtain the total terrain area within each of these features.
It was not possible to detenalne terrain unit cover age In Borrow r. or
for the northern.ost 17S.75 ha of Borrow F es terrain units had not been
mapped In these area.
2.2 -Happing of Survey Areas for Cultural Resources
The area to be l~pacted by Susltna Hydroelectric Project features tnd
facilities was subdivided Into units ctlled survey locales (Dixon et al.
1985:6-5). Field personnel concentrated their su rvey efforts within
survey locales and other project-defined areas, such as borrow sites.
Areas outside o f survey loctle boundaries were considered to have low
archeological pot.entlal and th~s were elf•lnated frc:. survey. These
low/no potential area s are ch aracterized by steep slopes exceeding 1s•,
areas of standing water such as Tates, bogs, and muskeg, and the active
ch annel s and gravel bars of the Susltna Rtver and Its tributaries.
Areas encompassed by survey locales con tained terratn likely to hold
potent ta 1 for archeo log ica 1 s fte cccurrence, preserva t ton and discovery,
I.e., hig h topographic relief, well-drained soli. and proximity to
strta~s . rtvers, or lakes, but included some areas of low/no potential
as well.
'
In ondr~ to derlv~ • wrasur~ or the surv~ytble area vlthln ~ch terrain
unit class, surv(Y loctle boundlrles ~re first traced onto the terrain
unit overlays. Survey locale boundaries ver~ orl9lnally plotted on air
photo overlays used dur1n9 •~heolo;lctl flel6wor~. The •tr photos used
tn fleldwor~ vere the ,_ n tho~ used to construct the phot01110sa lc
Ills~ lliips. and thus the sules vere I!Oulvalent. In s-lnna..ces,
survey trlnsects recorded on the overlays occurred outsld~ of survey
locale boundtrles. Thts happened, for tu"!!le, vhM rleld crews locued
feAtures havl119 art:hfllloglcal potential adjacent to the survey locales
as lnltl-li~ d~flned. In such cases the survey locale boundaries vere
extended u• !.•elude these arus. The surv~yable trea IllS thus cltffrn!d
as the arcoa lnc'uded vlth ln the fll!pOundl::t!nts, construction areas, and
borrov areas A, :, f , H, and K ~enclosed vltJJin IN! COIIblrt«ii surrey
locale boundaries. Areas of {nd1vldual terrain units fallln9 vfthln the
•surveyable• category were III!!Uured vlth the phn1~~eter and then f-.1
to gain a total surveyable area for each terrain unit class. The t otal
surveyable area for eu:h project feature or facll fty vu obtained by
sunalng the area of all terrain unit claSSP\ v lthtn It,
Th~ p~rcentage or surveyablP terrain that actually recelv~d lntensfvt
ff&ld survey vu ulculated. The alrphoto overlays that dell11lted
survey locale boundar ies al~o contained a record of the trans.ct lfnes
covered durin9 the course of etch survey, In the case of ffeldvork
conducted prior to 1981, vl!en nrl1l phot09r~phy of the project •~•
bect-e available, surv~y transects were plotted directly on survey
locale .. ps (Di•on et a1. 1985: Appendix E). These trans~ts were
transferred ,,.. the survey locale NPS to the airphot:o overhys as
accurately as possible. The alrphoto overlays vere used In conJunction
with the terr•ln un 't Nps to detenal~e the •~•1 extent of surveys
conducted within each terrain unit class. The length of each transect
v1thln an Individual terrain unit -as ~suntd vlth a NP -easurlng
vheel. This value vas converted to a ground distance value according to
the na.lnal scale of 1:24000.
In order to deten~lne t~ e~tent or the area surveytd , en approxiNte
Yllue representing the -tdth of the area srarched on a 9fven survey
s
ll
I
"
. ' '
swath was requlrN. Sl~ce t"h svull eros~ fea tu~s of hfg~ II"Cheo-
loglu 1 pott~t 111. wt.lcll vert! surveyed l nttml•e ly . and lllttrveJ'If19 low
potential lrNS tn.t ~tlvtd less coverage, 1 single nlue IdS not
co~s~~~d adtqu1tt to r~ruent trai\Sti:t v fdth. Thtl"efore, ll'.e sun-ey
11'!!1 w.as ulculued twl cr, usl"9 est luted widths of both JO • Uld 60 •·
Vbtn thfie figures vert .,lllplltd by transect length, two llti SUraotnts
of the 11'!!1 surveyed vert derived. Thr~e _.SUTI!IIII!nts reprt!Stnt the
uppe~ and lower l lal ts fOT transect coverage within tny gl•en terra in
unt
2.) -Llaltatlons of the Study
Before Interpreting t he results of ter rain unit analysis. a discussion
of socne of the limita t ions of t his study orust be presented. The firs t
l imita t ion Involve' errors In the mapping scale w~lch slightly affect
t e rrain unit measurellll!nts . I t was found that the scale of 1:24000 was
not constant on the alrphotos and photomosalcs prepared from thea
bl!cause or varying CU!I'ra elevations, alsallq!lft'tnt during photomosalc
construction. and distortions Int r oduced during the reproduc t ion of the
terTaln u~lt .aps. Sc ale factor error resulting f~ faage dlsplac~nt
Is a functton or tn~ amount of variation In ~le•atfon of the terTaln
being photogr1pn.d . T/le actu&l scale for 1 gfven point un be det~natned
usl11g t.ht fo lllllftng fnrauh (Vol f 1983):
Seal~ • ( . ( whe,..,.: ~ . rocal l~ngth or l~ c..era lens
(H-11) H' ". 'lylno netg~l o f t~e ca=era
h • grOU"'d or ablKt elr•at fon
H' • obJ.c~ tflsta"Ce f..,. th• e-ra
Euaple: If , • o.s rt .• H o 13970 ft. and ~ • noo ft .• t~en
SUit • o.s rt. • o.s ft. • _1_ 1:23540
(13S70 ft.-2110 ft.) 117JO ft. 13540
For the purposes of thh study a 6 In, (0 .5 ft.) focal length w.<
assumtd, while tbe flytng height or the camtr! wa s talen rr~ tlttaeter
6
I
I
"~
t
·~
readings recorded on each alrphoto . For the object elevation the upper
impoun~ent li~it and the lowest point on the photograph were used as
the highest and lowest elevations , respectively.
For the Devil Reservoir the scale varied between a maximum at the
f~poun~ent Hmft of 1:24460 and a minimum at the lowest elevation of
1:25280, with an average of 1:24570 . Relative to the nominal scale of
1:24000 the actual scale varied between 0.6t and 5.3S smaller , with the
average being 2.41 smaller. Fo r the Watana ~eservoir the scale varied
between a ma ximum of 1:23C20 and a minimum of \:24920 , with the average
being 1:24020. This was between 4.1 1: larger and !.OS smaller than
1:24000 , while the average was ~.OBS larger .
Additional error can be expected to be present In the photomosalcs,
depending on construction procedures . The mosaics appear to be either
uncontrolled or semlcontrolled (I.e., ground control and ratlolng and
rectification of alrphotos were not rigorously used du r ing construction),
with Image details se rv ing a s the principal means of aligning photographs.
As a result, dfsUnces may vary greatly and randomly In crossing the
matching lines between photographs relative to the actual scale. The
diazo rep roduction process can al~o be expected to Introduce further
error since a 1:1 enlargement ratio will not ne~essarlly be maintained,
and, In fact, the linear distortion may be greater In one direction than
another.
These sources of error cannot be mathematically modeled so a series of
meuurements were taken to gaIn some Idea of the actua 1 amount of error
to be expected. ~asurements were made between prominent features
recognizable on bo t h the photomosalcs and U.S .G.S. quad r angles for each
of the terrain unit maps used. These values we re then converted to
actual ground distance, using the nominal scale of 1:24000 for tht
photomosaic measurements. The variat ion between the distance obtained
from the terrain unit maps and the correct distance as obtained f rom the
topographic maps was then expressed as a p~•~entage. From a sample of
ZD measurements the average error was +1.2~! 7.1 S at one standard
deviation for t~e Devil Reservoir, with the greatest single error value
,,
I
"
••
I ...
I
• I •
being •15 .9S. For the Watana Rese rvoir thl ~ average was -0.61 • 5.6S,
with the greatest sing le error value being -13.4S. The comb1ned average
for bot~ reservoirs wa s >O.IS i 6.?1 .
The second limitation of the study In volves the diff iculty In deriving a
value which represents the width of a survey swa th which can be us~ to
measure actual coverage. Even though the same genera l procedures for
recording transects were used by all crews In the field , many factors
may have affected the actual wldth of the swath being walked. For
example, rugged terrain may have physically restricted wide spacing
between Individual crew membe rs, and thus the survey swath width could
~a ve been less than the estimated 30 -60 mete rs. On the other hand , If
the terrain permitted the surveyors to spread out and cover the area by
"zlg-ngglng• along the survey route , the width of the swath could havr
been effectively Increased to 100 m or more. Also. the number of people
comprfsl ng a field crew bear~ directly on the width of the swath. In
most cases the crew wa s comprised of three people , but t he number
sometl~s varied from two to four. Th erefore, H should be stressed
that although 30-60 m is a reasonable swath width, it Is stfll only an
estimate for a parameter that Is very difficult t o accurately ~asure .
Another limitation of the study that could affect potential correla t ions
between site occurrence and terrain unit Is the va r iability within each
t ~r ra ln unit cl ass . Topography , vegetation, and soli conditions ire not
h01110genous within the boundaries of a given terrain unit. In fact,
spe cific locales that hold high archeological potential , such as areas
of high topograph ic relief or areas in close pro~lmlty to stream and
rl •er con flu~nces, may actually cross-cut t'rrain unit boundaries. This
I nte rnal variability Is impor t an t to consider when attempting to discover
pa tterns of archeological site occurrence by terrain unit analysis.
8
..
h
• I
...
'I
..
3. -Results
Tahl~s 2-10 presf~t the results of t~aln unit ..asureaents and tran~t
cov~rag~ In tht Vatana l~n~t. Wltana construction area, 0tYI1
lllpOUn<tllrnt. Ot'f'll conHrvc:tlon are.a, and In Borrows A, C , F, H, and 11:,
rrs~cthely. Tilt greatest utrnt of surveyable terrain (total h«tarH
alnus hecures tllafnatPd fn. ~tln'~y) wu lnclu~d within ttle Vatar ..
ir.poun~nt and totaled 8,CS2.63 bectares (T able Z). Surveyable te~ra1n
In the Vatana and nevi! cons truction areas was calculated as IS98.S2 and
1298.00 ~ctcres, respec thely (Tables 3 ard 5). Of t11e bOrrow areas
~t Included within other categories , Borrow F Included the largest
areas of sur~eyable terrain, 451.02 hectlrts (Table 8), while Borrows H
and K had no areas that were considered surveyable (Tables 9 and 10).
The percentage of su rveyab le terrain whi ch received cove rage was calcultted
twice for each of the project facilities and feetures discussed here.
The first calcu lation was based on an estlaated survey swath width of 30
m, end the second on a width of 60 e . The resulting percen tages Indi-
cate the range of coverage In each of the proJect •reas (Table 2~).
For uUII)Ie, Table 2 Indica tes that In the llaUna IIIPOUndllent, the range
at coverage fe ll betlleen 15.20'l and 30.381 of the totll heetlres of
surveyable ttrreln. llhm conslcter1ng ell project futures and facil-
Ities, esth .. tes of transect coverage werl! .. de for '9 1ndhlclull
ttrra ln unit ~l.o!lses. In three cues In >lfllch tliR ftUIIber of llectlrM
,.s re la t ively saall, 60 • Wlls found to be an ovtrestlute or survey
swath width, aNI resulted In ~rcentlg4!S of surveyed terra in eqcullfng
grener than 1001. Orte sucb overntiute WliS ude for the s-.11 pa~l
or glttlal ouU<ult ~Its (Gfo) In the !latina lllpOU~t. Onlt 7.04
hectotres or .081 of the totll surveyable h«Ures In the VItaM l.,and-
aent wu attributed to this terrain unit clas•. Underesti .. tes of
cov~nge were not 11 euf ly dl!tectable. but ouy have O«un'@d when 30 •
was usPd to detl!rwlne the extent of surveyed terrain .
9
,
I
.,
•
I
'I
I
j
The .,ufc of ternln units Is qvlte different for ucll of the project
fulln'U 1nd f~ellltles discussed, IS nfdent when c~l'lll'J tht h«tue
n lues for t,erraln unl ts listed on T&blu 2-10. 111 tile llltllll IIIIJOU!ld-
•nt (Telt 2). f or UIIIIJlt, froze~~ hAu l till (G tll -f), ll cu strl~~e
de;J01 1U over frozen bini till (l/Gtl>-f ), 1nd tollvvlu. over bedrock
and tllposed b..odroct (C/flllu + !xu) 1re the btst rt$Jrestnt!d of the
ternln unit cl1uu. In c~rfson, Ole llltlna c0111U'Vetton 11'8
(T1 :.te 3 ) fs ca.prfsed prlurlly of 1blatfon till (Gu l , ablat ion till
over unwHOiered bedrock (Gtl/flllu ), 1nd organic deposits (0). The
percentlge of survty&llle tel'raln In eacll terrain unit clau VInes
consldenbly between featuns and facilities. Tills probably ..enecu
the varltblllty within each terrain unit In tenas of surf1ce .,rphology
and veget£tlon, wh ich In tul'ft affects •surv~abtltty•. Tile difftren¢t
In proportions of surveyable and unsurveyable terrain within a terrain
unit class Is best Il lustrated by compa r ing lacustr i ne over fi'O te~ basal
till deposits (l/Gtb-f) In Borrows A and H. In Borrow A, IOOJ of this
terrain unit was surv~able (Table 6), whereas In Bori'OW H, lOOS or the
sa.e terra in ••nl t wu elilrfnated froa surv~ (T1ble 9). u boggy areas
were so extensive that llellcopter landing and on-tlle•ground re.coftnlfs-
Sinct were t~sslble.
The distribution of sites by terrain un1t 1Jid by proJect factll~ or
featun h precse:nted In Ttble 11. Only sl~s loc1~d vl,tllln the Vltll!l
f~ndlltnt/consvvctlon uu, Onfl f~l'ldllent/c:onstructlon 1re1 , aad
8oi'T'OWS A, (, F, H, tr.d ~Ire -rilttd Oil tills t&blt, Mllevtr I
ca.plrtt list o f Jltes by Urrt ln unit Is prutnted In T&blt 13. As
expected on the bash of she In svntyable htctlru, the !latiN f..,oand-
.ent pi"'ddlctd lilt -.Jortty of si tes, 73 of 1M toul 123. Elgllteen WJ"e
found In the W.t1111 connrvctfon ln!l •·» 17 In lloi'T'OW C, although 111
of the BarTOW C sfus occurred In a..eu u-pped f or terrtln unfts .
Ttrnln chlrlcterl t ed u IKitnrlne sedl.ents over tror•n bull tfll
(l/Gtll-f) yielded the ~t sftes, l8 or 22.76S of 1M tou l , 1nd 111
Wl't found In the II1Una f~n-n l . Ab l ltlon till (all) and Mood
pltln deposi ts (Fp) w..e the next 110st productive trrnln units, yielding
14 and 13 sft•s, respectlvtly. Hlne other terr1ln unit classes produced
s ites , wh ile II c lasses did not . Terr1ln units associated wi th
10
..
..
·•
•
ar'CIIftlloglcal situ Wl"'! ge~~e ra lly gtt~tle to ~rate 111 sl•, and In
Any uus !he drainage and pen:ubfllty of !he soli vu good-high
(good-high l"'!flecu R&fl Consultants' teralnol097 for soil dra1111ge and
pe,_.blllcy; R< COflsul tants 1981 -Terrain unit -.ps). In s-cues,
penafrost vts present. Terrain unlu wlllch produced no sites Wl"'! 80St
often s teep to near vertical In slope , v1tll tbe soil drainage and
per.eabl llty ranging f~ good-high to froLen. Thtse descriptions ,
..title valid on • brNd scale , ust the fn teMIIl variability lfithln each
terrain unit class.
Table 12 sU~Dtrlzes the results of terrain unit an1 l ysls. Of the
23 ,265.82 hectares Inc luded In all mapped project featu res and facil-
I t ies, 13 ,509.19 hectares , ur 58.061 of the total , were detera1ned to be
survr7able. However, fn each of 11 Individual terrain uni t cl asses, t he
percentages of surveyable hectares exceeded 60S of' the t ota l he cta i"'!S
for tha t class. Since the percentage of surveyable hectares be ars a
direct relationship to the ar-cheological potential of 1 t er rai n uni t ,
these II c lasse s aay be considered to have a higher po t enti a l f or t he
occurreJICe, dhnvery, and preservatiOfl of ar-cheological sites t lla n t he
~lnlng 12 ttrraln unit classes. The 11 classes wltll relatively high
archeologica l potential are : solifluction dtposlts (Cs-f), flood pltln
terraces {fpt), outwash deposits (Gfo), eshrs (6Fe ) t-s (6ft),
ablation til l CGta ), lacustrine sedl~~e~~ts ovt!l' frozen bual till (L/Gtb·f),
soli fl uction ~eposlu over flood plain terraces {C s -f t rpt), solffluctfon
deposlu O¥tr bedi"'Ct (Cs -f/Bw), frozen bani till o._r bedi"'C t (G tb-f/Bxu),
and ab l at1on tlll over bedroct (G ta/8xu). for all terretn unlu, sur ny
coverage nngtd f~ 13.791 t o 27.561 of the survey•blt erea bl3ed on
esthuted swath lfidUts of 30 • al!d 60 •·
Tab le 12 also provides the pen:.enuge of total survey tffort tllat VIS
e~pended In e•ch of the terrafn unit classes. These flgul"'!s vere
derived by dividing t he hectares of survt.Yed 1re1 for a given cUss by
the total m.Oer of hectares surveyed. for t he II terrain un i t s vlth
relatively high archeological POtential , the cllllblned survey effort
equaled 51.771 of the total. The 12 t errain units with lower potential
received H .77S of the total survey cove.,ge, duplte the fact that
II
,,
I .,
I •'
th~se t~rrain units comprised 59 .56S of the trtal number of hecta~s tn
the project area. Three of the lower pot-::nttal c lasses were c0111pletely
elt•inated from survey. These percenta~es indi cate that survey coverage
reflects not only the total nu~er of hec ta~s of a given terrain unit
class, but may also suggest the -.rcheologlcal potential of that class.
Si te occu rrence Is also s~mmarlzed on Table 12. Terrain unit classes
wfth relatively high archeologi cal potential produced 63 , or 51.22S of
th e sites , wherea s the classes with lower archeological potential
produced 38 , or 30.891 of the sites . The 38 si t es occu r red In only four
terrain unit clas ses, i.e., ~lluvlal fans (Ffg), flood plain deposits
(Fp), frozen basal ti ll (Gtt-f), and co l luviuM over bedrock and exposed
bedrock (C/Bxu + Bxu). Five of the lower potential terrain unit classes
that were surveyed proved to be cultura lly steri le. The r~ining sites
fell In areas outside of those mapped for terrain units (within Borrows
C and F). Since only 3.461 of the survey effort was expended in these
unmapped areas , the discovery of 22 sites (17 .891 of the total ) Is
quite significant.
Table 12 i ndicates th't a good cor re lation exists between su rvey cover-
age and site discovery. As prPvlousty mentioned. the coverage given any
ter~afn unit or portion of a t errain unit reflects Its assessed poten-
t i al for site occurrence, pres ervation and discovery. The hlqhest
percentage of sites (28 ~l tes or 2Z.76S of the total) occurred In
lacustrine deposits over lying frozen basal tilt (L/Gtb-f ), which also
received the greatest survey coverage (20.52S). On the opposite slde of
the spectrum, no sites were found In t he five terrain u ~lts (C, Cl,
Cs-f, Cs -f/Bxu , and C/Bxw t Bxw ) that each r eceived less t~n lS of the
total survey effort . Again, It shoul d be str essed that the tow survey
coverage reflects both the small number of hecta~s and the tow archeo-
logical potential of these par't lcular terrain unit classes. The greatest
discrepancy between survey coverage and si te discovery occurred In the
unmapped terrain of Borrows C and F, encompassing a narrow strip of land
on either side of Tsusena Creek. A unique cluster of attributes,
Including a va I ley constriction, well-drained overlooks , and proxiMI ·ty
12
...
..
......
..
to sln!-. ldts, tlld stre• c01rnu~s. cbn.ct:rrlns thfs highly
IJI"')ductlvt area.
In s-ry. Ole anal,.s ls bas shclom thAt altllouglli tach tunln u"lt class
Is Interna lly nrfable wi th r6DKt to topOgra~y . vegetltlon, ttt., It
c;111 be bro~dly ch4racurlud as either relnhtly high Cl r low In •~Mil
logical potential. A~~loglal survey In the grCMlp of ternln units
whlc:h wre usessed t o be of higher archrolog1ul potent al tended to
produc;e 110re sites than those nsessfd to be of lower potent i al. As
Illustra t ed by the high occurrence o f sltts In the unuppfd portions of
Borrows C and f, the IIOH l110ortant factors In s lte discovery art
specific topograp hic features and/or environmental settings that, In
many cases, cross-cut t errain uni t boundaries •
13
-·'--...... --.., """-~ '..., _ .... _ _....,_, -" _, ~
Table I. Terrain Unit Distribution and Properties (after R & H Consulta nt ~, 198 1)
Terrain Topography Drainage Ground
Unit and and Water
Sytnbol Ha~~e Distribution Slope Permeabll tty Teble
Bxu Unweat hered, Cliff s, rounded knobs 1110derate deep
consolidated and ll!OIIntaln peaks to near vertical
bedrock
c Colluvial Base of steep bedrock moderate to good/high deep -.... deposits slopes steep
Cl Landslide Unconsolidated deposits lllOderate to poor/low shalloot
deposits along Susftna River and steep
major tributaries
Cs ·f Solifluction Smooth to lobate; formed gentle to frozen s hall ~·
deposl ts by frequent freeze/thaw steep
cycle~
Ffg Granu l ar Cone-shaped deposits; moderate good/high shalloot
alluvial fan fonned where high
gradient streams flow
onto flat surfar.es
-
Tabl e 1. (ContI nuecl)
Terrain Topography DrAinage &round
Unit and and Veter
S)'llbol "-Oh trlbut I on Slope PtrRibi llty h .ble
Fp Floodplain Pitfns slightly tbove nat to gentle good/high very slo.allow
deposits and adjacent to Sus ttna
Rfver and trfbuttrfes
Fpt TelTIGI Rr~nts of fo~r net t o gentle goocl/hlgb deep ... r O'>'"~laln Above pre.stnt "' fl!:Odpltln
Gfo Oubflsh Botto-s of U-shaped gentle good/high shlllllll to
deiiOslts valleys and adjacent deep
to Susltna Ainr
GFe Eshr Round@<! to sharp 'rested steep l~al gooel/hfgh deep
deposits sinuous rfdges slopes
Gfk Kue Rounded to sharp cres t@<! St!ep l~J gooel/hlgh
deposits ln-cty hills slCIPf's
Gta Ablation till Valley side va lls and gentle to steep IIOderate/ sba11011 to
bo ttoes between Tsu~ena IIOderlte 8Dderately ci"P
lnd Deadun creeks
..
"'
-
Table I. (Collllnutd)
Ternfn
Unit
S)'llbol
0
l -f
l/Gtb-f
Cs-f/
Gtb·f
Basal til l
(frozen)
Orgenlc
deposits
llcvs trfrws
(froun)
LICU1 trfne
over buel
till
Soliflucti on
deposits (frozen )
over blul til l
(frozen )
lopog replly
lnd
Ofstrlbut lon
Bot toms of U-snaped
valleys and adjacent
gen t le slopes
swa les be twee.n s11111 r ises
on lowlands; net surf~ee
to s ttplfke terrtce
l owhnds (~low 3000')
In W Tyone -Oshe ~
liver aret
Lowlands (bleow 3000')
~twee.n Stepl!an l a\e
tnd WtUna Creek &
upstream pa st Tyone River
Slope
gentle to steep
na~
~ntle
sentle t '>
80<1eratu
Drainage
end
Perwtebl llty
frozen
poor /80<1el'ate
l O hfgh
frozen
l ews t r lne-9QOCI/
gOOd; basa l •til-
frozen
Ground
Veur
Ttble
-
shallOM to deep
IIOdtn te 1 y
deep
""""" -1!.\t -""----. ""--"\--, -.A -
Tablt I. (C4n t1 nutd}
Ttrnfn T opog ,..plly OnfNge 6rcund
Unit and ind litter
$)tlbol .... Distribution 51~ PelWabfllty Tabla
Cs·t/Fpt SoltOuctfon s.oot" to 1 011a u n ows gent II' fr-ozen shill ow to deep
deposits of fr-ozen ffne-grifned
(fr-ozen) over .. terfals on ter-race of
terrace Su~f tna River; frrquent
stdlaents between Tyone & Oshetna .. .... rhen
Cs·f/8KU Sol lfluctlon Stepltke topogr•phy on t110der1te to steep fr-ozen shaliCIIf
deposits BOuntatn flanks north and
(frozen l over south of Devil tanyon
bee! rock
Gtb·f/ Fr-ozen b1,.1 Rolling lowlands ; eoderate to steep frozen shall ow
Bxu till over rher canyon walls
bee! r-ock
tit.I /Ba:u Ablation till "'-clly rolling surface gern l e to Heep good/high shall ow to
over u~~~~eatllertd tnnsl tl011a l to _,ntalns; lllderately
bedrock acij acent to Deadlwn Cr!'ek deep
--
Table I. (Contlmr@d )
Ten-1ln
Unh
~1 ~
C/BIU + Collwlta over
8xll bedrock and
bedrock
eltpoSUM!S
-C/Bxv + Colluvfu. over "" Bxv veathen!d poorly
contol ldtteo
bedi'OCk
L/Bxu Lacustrine
s@dh•ent over
~nvea t!tered,
consol ldat@d
bedrock
F/Fl
-"'•
Topognphy
lnd
Ofstrlblltlon )lope
Stepp slopes along st~ to nHr
Susftne River and vertlal
ulbuurfes
S..ll cliff' In Terti ary s~p to near
sedlllll!nU along Vatana vertical
Creek ' Tertl1ry volcanics
In Fog CrNk
... __
Oraf,q;ge
and
.. --
Pt .--uf 11 t,r
good/low to
IIOderate
9ood/low to
~trate
_, -
&round
W.ter .... ,.
Q~ , -"'~ ... ~
~ _, ~ c::l .., _...... _, -
ltblt 2. Transect CoveT&ge by TtrT&In Unit In the Vatana l~nd.ent
Su,..,ty Coverage
Ternfn Total Hectares nt .. tnlted Su,..,eyab It Aru 30 a wfdth 60 • wfdth
Unft Hec t•res F n:a Su,..,ey Hecures Percent Hectares Pe-rcen t Hectares Percent
a.w
c 23.13 3.02 20.11 86.94 .92 4.57 l.ltl 9 .10
Cl 20.61 9.80 10.81 5~.~5 2.30 21.28 4.57 42.28
Cs -f 11.06 11.06 100.00 1.37 12.39 2.74 24.77
Ffg 46 5.62 195.60 270.02 57.99 67.75 25.09 135.36 50.13
:0 Fp 802.69 492.22 310.47 38.68 61.31 19.75 112.59 39.49
Fpt 7~.1 8 245.36 458.82 65.16 106.79 23.27 213.54 46 .54
GFo 23.63 16.59 1.~ 29.79 4.58 65.06 9.14 129.83
Gf e .so .so 100.00
GFt 279.06 36.70 242 .36 86.85 48.25 19.91 96.49 39.81
Gta 110.86 77 .43 33.43 30.16 2.29 6.85 4.57 13.67
Gtb-f 5259.71 2580.60 2679.11 50.94 JilS .SC 11.52 616 .93 23.03
0 124.92 28.65 96.27 17.01 6.88 1.15 13.70 14 .23
L-f 34 7.69 156.62 191.07 54 .95 23.79 12.45 47.54 24 .88
L/G t b -f 1731.79 405.14 2326.65 85.17 355.82 15.29 711.50 30.58
Cs·f/Fpt 779.60 239 .36 540.24 69.30 95.39 17 .66 190.70 35.30
C5-f/Bxv 64.11 1.76 62.35 97.25 6.64 10 .65 13.28 21.30
Gtb-f/Bxu 196.23 33.56 162.67 82.90 23 .10 IC.20 46.19 28.39
Table 2. (Con tinued}
Gt.<~/B•u
C/Bxu + Bxu
e;axw + Bxw
llbu
F/Fpt
Totals:
TDUI
HKtares
211.68
2035.56
362.03
14 1 55-4.66
Hecures fllafMUd
Frw Survey
26.90
1313.89
238.83
6 , 1(12.03
(CL9n)
184.78
72!.67
123.20
8 ,452.63
(S8 .08S)
87.29
35.4 S
34.03
Survey Cove rage
)II • lrldt:ll 60 • lrldtlt
23.10
138.1 9
?.S6
I ,284.57
15.20!
8 .83S
12.50 46.1!1
19 .15 276 .25
6.g IS.IO
2 ,568.21
25.00
38.28
12.26
J0.38S of Surveyabl e
17 .65S of Total
I '-....
Table 3. Transa:t Co.-era~ by Terrain lln1 t In tbe lllttn. C011stn.ctlon Area
Terrain Totti flee tares £1 f•fnated Surveyable Arta Survey Cove ra ge
ll'lft Hect.ares Fn. Survey l!ec:ttres Percent 30 a width 60 a wfdtll
li«tlri!S Perant I!Kttru Pvunt
8xu
c
Cl
ts-"
~ ffg
Fp 36.71 zs.~ 11.07 30 .16 1.38 12.47 2.74 24.75
Fpt 15.S8 1.77 12.81 82.22 .92 7.18 1.83 14.29
GFo 1~.67 26 .40 138.27 83.97 24.92 18.02 49.86 36.06
life
CA:
Gta 1087.55 40.98 1046.57 96.23 113.42 10.84 226.80 21.67
Gtb-f 5.711 5.78 100.00
;; 194.08 10.44 183.64 94 .62 II. 9 1 6.49 23.77 12.94
l-f
l/Glb-f
C.s-f/Fpt
Cs-f/llxu
Glb-f /hu
----"' --"' -~
Table 3 . (Continued )
Ttn•ln Tot.a 1 llec u res £1 hri nHed Sun~y•b 1 t Are• Su rv~ Cover•ve
Uni t llec ures f 1'011 Su ,..,ey HKUres ~rcenl. 30 • v ldth 60. vldtlt
Kecu r-rs Percen t IIKUres Perctnl.
GU/bu 2l0.23 37.~0 183.03 83.11 26.30 \4.37 52.60 28.74
C/Bxu • Bxu 112.88 95.~ l 17.35 15 .37 2.29 IJ.20 4.57 26 .34
C/8xv + Bn
L/8au
" F/Fpt "
Touls: 11137.48 238 .96 1598.52 ~ 362.]7
(13.001) (87 .OO'l) 11.331 22.661 of Survey•ble
9.861 19.711 o f Tout
..... _.., ...
Table •• Transect Coverage by Terrain Uni t In the Devil l~poundment
Terrai n Tot~l llec tues Ellalnatfd Suney•b1e Are• Su rvtY Coverage
1)\ft Hecta res F 1"011 Survey H~cures Percent JO Ill Mldth 60 111 wfdt 1
Hectares Percent Hectlru Pe -cent
bu 15.59 15.59
c 19.61 16.59 3.02 15.40 0.46 15.23 0.91
Cl
i:s-f
"' ... ifg 353 .72 137.76 ZIS.96 61.05 50.79 23 .52 101.~ 4J.Ol
Fp 640S6 Z2 J .Tl 418.83 65.38 91.95 21.95 183.M c .tz
Fpt IS0. 59 47.71 102.82 68.28 15.25 15.80 32.46 l .. P
Gfo 4.53 4.53
Gfe
Gfk
&tl
&tb-f 168.70 82.46 86.24 51 .12 16.04 18.60 32.00 31.11
0 1.01 1.01
L·f
L/Gtb-f
Cs -f/Fpt 63 .35 36.20 27.15 42.!6 9.60 35.36 19.20 ;o.n
Cs -f/bu
Gtb-f/8~11 280.29 258.40 21.89 7.81 4 .12 18.82 8.22 .. 7.55
""'-
Teble 4. (Conti nued)
Terr~1n Totll Hectares E11•1nated Surveyable Area Trensect Coverage
Unft Hectlres Fro. Survey Hectares Pe rcent 30 • width 10 • wfdtll
Hectlres Percent llecUNS Pw....t
liti/Bxu
C/Bxu + Bxu 1264 .78 987 .99 276 .79 21 .88 26 .33 9.51 52 .57 18.!11
C/Bxw + Bxw
l/Bxu 1.76 1.76
N • F/Fpt 17.10 17.10
Totlls: 2981 .59 1828.89 1152.70 215.54 430.84
(61.34S) (38 .66 S) 18 .70S 37.381 of Surw,yllll e
7.23S 14.451 of To tll
Table 5. Transect Coverage by Terrain Unit in the Devil Constru ction Area
Terrain Total Hectares E11•inated SUrveyable Area SUrvey Coverage
Unit Hectares Fro. SUrvey Hectares Percent 30 • width 60 • widtll
Hectares Percent Hectares Perallt
hu 56 .56 56.56
c 189.80 189.80
Cl
Cs-f
Ffg 50.28 50.28
Fp
Fpt
&Fo
&Fe
6Ft
Gta
Gtb-f 591.80 591.80 100.00
0 248 .80 248.80
L-f
L/Gtb -f
Cs -f/Fpt
Cs-f/Bxu
Gtb-f/Bxu 731.08 28.41 702 .67 96.11 4.39 0.62 8.78 1.25
-~-
Table 5. (Continued)
Terrain Total Hectares Eli•inated Surveyable Area Survey Coftrqe
Unit Hectares F,. Survey Hectares Percent 30 • width 60 • w1dtll
IlK tares Percent Hectares Percellt
&ta/Bxu
C/IXU + Bxu 278 .31 274 .78 3 .53 1.27
C/Bxw + Bxw
l/lxu
N
COl F/Fpt
Totlls: ~ 848.63 1298 .00 4.39 !:1!
(39.53S) (60.47S) 0.34S 0.68S of SurftJible
0.20S 0.41S of Total
Tlble 6. Transect Coftrage by Terrain Unit in BoM"'W A
Terntn Total Hectares El t•tnatecl AI"H Surveyable Survey~
Untt Hectares F n. Survey Hectares Pen:ent 30 l l wtdth 10. wt«!t
Hectlres l'erallt IIKtaNs ~
lxu
c
Cl
Cs-f ... ... Ffg
Fp
Fpt
&Fo
&Fe
8Fit
Sta
Stb·f
0
L-f
L/Stb-f 80.70 80.70 100.00 26.30 32.59 52.60 65.18
Cs -f/Fpt
Cs-f/Bxu
Stb-f/Bxu 81.20 -0-81.20 100.00 42.98 52.93 85.96 105.86
Tlllle 6. (C:O.t111Ued)
THTI1n Toul Hecures EH•1r~~ted Suneylble Aru SllrveyCoverlll
11111t lllcures F,. Suney Hec:ures Percent 30 • widtll ll•wt•
Hec:UNS Percent lllcures '-'-'
IU/Ixu
C/llu + lxu 13.58 13.58 100.00 6.86 50.52 13.72 Ill ..
C/lliW + lxw
L/lllu
91 F/Fpt
Tetals: 175.48 -o-.ill:!! 76.14 152 ••
(100.001) 43.391 16.711 of S.a ,.,..,..
43 .391 16.711 of Teta1
Q!
-. ... _,--.. -
Table 7. Tr ansect Co¥erage by Te rrain Unit in Borrow C
Terratn
Unit
l au
c
Cl
Cs -f
Ffg
Fp
Fpt
&Fo
GFe
GFk
lita
litb-f
0
L·f
L/litb·f
Cs-f/Fpt
Cs-f/Bau
litb·f /Bau
Total
Hectares
Hectares EH•i nated
r,.. Survey
Surveyable Area Survey Co¥erage
Hectares Percet~t 30 • width 60 • widtll
Hectares Percent Hectares 11ercat
8
~ •"'-! -""'--, ..._.,
Tlllle 7. (Conttnu!d) -. ....,
Terntn Toul Hec+Ares E11•1n.ted Surveyable Aru
Unit Hecures F 1"011 Survey Hectares Percent
6Wixu
Cllxu + Bxu
Cllaw + lllOf
L/Bxu
F/Fpt
U..pped 609.89 232.05 377 .84 61.95
Touls : .!!Y! 232 .05 377.84
(38 .051) (61.951)
30 • wtdtlt
Hecures Percent llectliNI
48.24 12 .77 ....
48.24 !!:!!
12.771 25.531 of s.r .....
7.911 15.121 of Tot.l
THlo I. Tr~nsec:t Coverege by Terra i n Unit in Borrow F
T~atn Total Hectares Eli•inated Surveyil ole Are• Survey Coverage
Ulltt Hectares r..,. Survey Hectares Pe rcent 30 • width 60 • width
Hectares Percent Hectares Percetlt
...
c
CT
Cs-f .. ... Ffg 7.04 7.04 100 .00 .92 13.07 1.83 25.19
F, 31.43 31 .43 100 .00 4.11 13.08 1.22 26.15
Fpt 52.05 52 .05 100.00 7.78 14.95 15.54 29 ••
&Fo .,.
&n
Ita 137.51 -o-137 .51 100 .00 18.29 13 .30 36.57 26.51
ltb-f 32 .92 -0-32.92 100.00 3.67 11.15 7.32 22.24
0
L-f
L/Gtb-f
Cs-f/Fpt
Cs-f/Bxu
Gtb-f/Bxu
....., -
Table 1. (CoRttnued)
Terntn Total Hie tares Eltlli 111 ted Surveyabl e Are1 Survey Coverage
Ulltt Hie tares Fro-Survey Hectares Percent 30 • width 60 • w1dtll
Hectares Percent Hectares Percent
IWixu 13.32 13.32 100.00 1.37 10.29 2.74 20.57
Cllxu + lxu
C/lbw + lxw
L/lxu
liS F/Fpt
~ 179.75 179.75 100.00 16 .24 9.03 32 .47 18.06
Teals: 454.02 -0-454.02 ~ ~
(100.001) 11.541 23.061 of Su~ble
11.541 23.061 of Total
_ ...
Table 9. Transect Coverage by Terrain Unit in Borrow H
Terr1fn
Unft
BliU
c
Cl
Cs-f
Ffg
Fp
Fpt
&Fo
GFe
GFk
Gta
Gtb-f
0
L-f
L/Gtb-f
Cs-f/Fpt
Cs-f/Bllu
Gtb-f/Bllu
Totll
Hectares
10.31
424.87
Hectares Eli•fnated
From Survey
10.31
424.87
Surveyab 1 e Area
Hectares Percent
Survey Cove1-age
Hectares Percent
-"'
Tlllle 9. (Colltf..-1)
T.,....fn Toul Hecures Eli•fnated Surveyab 1 e Area Survey Coverage
Unft Hecures Fro. Survey Hectares Percent Hecures Percent
liUI/IIal
C/IQ + bu
C/IJif + btl
L/11111
F/Fpt
Totlls: 435.18 lli:J! -0--0-
¥ (100.001)
_ ... _ -
Table 10. Transect Coverage by Terrain Unit i n Borrow K
Terrain Total Hectares El f•fnated Surveyab 1 e Area Survey Coverage
Unft Hectares Fn. SufVey Hectares Percent Hectares Percent
lxu 55.55 55 .55
c 18 .48 18 .48
Cl
Cs -f
Ffg
w .... Fp
Fpt
&Fo
&Fe
&Fit
&ta
Gtb -f
0
l-f
l/Gtb-f
Cs-f/Fpt
Cs -f/Bxu
Gtb-f/Bxu 13 .20 13 .20
-"'---
Table 10. (Continued)
TerTain Total Hectares E11111 n.ted Surveyable Area Survey Coverage
Uni Hie tares r,. Survey Hectares Percent Hectares Percent
Gta/Bxu
C/Bxu + Bxu 101.83 101.83
C/Bxw + Bxw
l/Bxu
F/Fpt
lS:
Totals: 189.06 189.06 -o--o-
(100.001)
Table 11. Site Occu r rence by Terrain Unit: wauna h1poundllent , WaUna
Construc t1o n Area, Dev11 IlllpOUndilent, Dev11 Constntet1011 A,.,,., lo
A, C, F, H, and K
Unit WI we DI DC B-A B-C B-F B-H B-K To Ul Pe
Bxu
c
Cl
Cs-f
Ffg 7 2 g 7.32
Fp 8 5 13 10.57
Fpt 7 7 S.llt
GFo 1 .11
GFe
GFk .11
Gta 12 14 11.31
Gtb-f 7 8 6.50
D
l-f
L/Gtb-f 28 28 22.76
Cs-f/Fpt 3 3 2.44
Cs-f/Bxu
Gtb-f/Bxu 1 .81
Gta /Bxu 6 8 6.50
C/Bxu + Bxu 8 8 6.50
C/Bxw + Bxw --
l /Bxu
F/Fpt
UIWIIpped 17 5 22 17 .89
Totals 73 18 7 17 8 123 99 .98
37
II!
-
T1ble 12. s-ry of Terr1fn Unft Anllysfs: llatan. IJIIPOuncilent, llltln. Con.strvctfon ArN, llllvfl lllpoulllllllat. llllwt1
Construction Area, Borrow A, Borrow C, Borrow F, Borrow H, 1nd Borrow K
Areas Elf•fnated Survey Cover1ge:
Totll Fn. Survey Surveyable Are.: 30 • Width 60 • Wfdtll Total
Unft ~res Percent Hectlres Percent Hectares Percent Hectlres Percent Hectares Pen:ellt s.ne,
!lxu 83.46 1 .36 83.46 100.00
c 236.81 2 1.02 213.38 89.18 23.13 10.82 1.38 5.97 2.74 u .• .f17
Cl 20.61 .09 9.80 47.55 10.81 52.45 2.30 21.28 4.57 42.28 .12
Cs-f 11.06 .1)5 11.06 100.00 1.37 12.39 2.74 24.n .f17
Ffg 876.66 3.77 383.64 43 .76 493 .02 56 .24 119.46 24.23 238.73 48.42 1.41
Fp 1511.39 6.50 739.59 48.93 771.80 51.07 158.75 20.57 317.49 41.14 8.5!
Fpt 922.40 3.96 295.90 32.08 626.50 67.92 131.74 21.03 263.37 42.04 7 .f17
&Fo 192 .83 .83 47.52 24.64 145.31 75.36 29.50 20.30 59.00 40.10 1 •• 1
&Fe .50 .02 .50 100.00
6Fk 279.06 1.20 36.70 13.15 ?42.39 86.85 48.25 19.91 96.49 39.81 2.11 1
litl 1335.92 5.74 118.41 8.86 1217 .51 91.14 134.00 11.01 267.94 22.01 7.20 14
litb-f 6058.91 26.04 2663.06 43 .95 3395.85 56.05 328.25 9.67 656.25 19.33 17.12 • 0 579.12 2.49 299.21 51.67 279.91 48.33 18.79 ,6.71 37.47 13.39 1.01
l-f 347 .69 1.49 156 .62 45 .05 191.07 54 .95 23 .79 12.45 47.54 24.88 1.28
l/litb-f 3237.36 13.91 830.01 25 .64 2407.35 74.36 382.12 15.87 764.10 31.74 20.52 28 22.71
Cs-f/Fpt 842.95 3.62 275.56 32.69 567.39 67.31 104.99 18.50 209.90 36.99 5.64 3 2.44
Cs-f/Bxu 64.11 .28 1. 76 2.75 62 .35 97.25 6.64 10.65 13.28 21.30 .36
... ...
.......,
Table 12. (Continued)
Areas Eli•inated Survey Coverage: Percent of
Toul FI'OI Survey Survey ab le Area: 30 • Wi dt h 60 • Wf dt K Toul Sftes~
IMft Hecures Percent Hecures Percent Hectares Percent Hectares Percent Hectares Percent Surfty ....... ~
6tb-f/lxu 1288.sol 5.54 320 .37 24.86 958.43 75.14 74.59 7.70 149.15 15.40 4.01 ...
6u /Bxu 445 .23 1.91 64 .10 14 .40 381.13 85.60 50 .77 13.32 101.53 26 .64 2.73 8 ••• C/Bxu + Bxu 3760.424 16.16 2727.50 72 .53 1032.92 27 .47 173.67 16.8 1 347 .11 33 .60 1.32 • Ut
C/Bxw + Bxw 362.03 1.56 238.83 65.97 123 .20 34.03 7 .56 6.14 15.10 12.26 .41
L/Bxu 1.76 .01 1.76 100 .00
F/Fpt 17 .10 .07 17 .10 100.00
U...pped 789.64 3.39 232 .05 21 .39 557.59 70.61 64 .48 11 .56 128.95 23.13 3.46 22
Touls:
231265.82 ~ 91756 .63 131 509 .19 11 862.40 31 723 .45 ~ .m.
(41.941 ) (58.061) 13.791 27.561 of Su~lllle
8 .001 16 .00 of Toul
* Percent o f t ou l s urvey va h.es are based on 60 • t r ansect width
llote: A boundary overlap of the Devil Construction Area with Borrow K required that the foll..tng terratR lllttt
sub trac ted f~ the t otal hectare a.ount in order ' for t hat t otal t o be t rue: 1) 44 .24 hecures; 2) 14 .21 hlct1r111~ ~II
hecures; 4) 46.52 hectares.
-"' '-·
Teble 13. Sites in Relation To Terrain Units
Bxu Ffg Fp Fpt Gfo Gfe Gflt Gta Gtb-f L/Gtb-f Cs-f/ Cs -f/ Gtb-f/ Gu/ C/Bxu .........
Gtb-f Fpt Bxu Bxu + Bxu
TUI TUI TUI TUI TUI TUI TUI TUI TUI TUI TUI TUI TUI TUI TUI TUI
031 023 034 026 043 022 075 015 049 039 106 173 030 017 ~ 021
032 024 035 033 028 016 050 041 107 204 069 018 027 025
037 077 079 042 185 051 060 048 233 101 112 029 011
232 178 052 074 061 059 103 116 040 031
t; 238 196 053 098 065 063 104 137 047 OM
239 206 062 099 073 064 114 165 058 045
241 229 080 108 119 122 118 166 on "" 242 230 182 109 120 123 144 167 102 ..
249 240 199 110 121 124 169 115 -Z58 250 200 111 125 126 214 145 -251 256 113 127 128 246 057
252 257 117 132 129 247 -253 138 139 130 248 067
259 146 140 131 011
147 171 133 071
149 194 134 071
150 207 135 078
151 212 141 011
152 218 142 -153 143 ..,
--'"-_,
Tlble 13 . (Continued)
Bxu Ffg Fp Fpt &Fo GFe &Fit &ta Gtb-f L/&tb-f Cs-f/ Cs -f/ Gtb-f/ &U/ C/Bxu U..pped
Gtb -f Fpt Bxu Bxu + Bxu
TUI TLM TUI
154 148 084
155 159 085
160 174 086
164 175 017 • -168 183 1!18
170 184 .,.
172 195 010
177 198 811
180 215 -181 216 -188 217 ..
191 220 -192 221 -193 222 017
197 223 -208 224 •• 245 225 Ul
226 111
227 171
228 ~
Table 13. (Contfnued )
Bxu Ffg Fp Fpt GFo GFe GFk Gta Gtb-f l/Gtb-f Cs -f/ Cs-f/ Gtb -f/ Gtl/ C/Bllu
Gtb -f Fpt Bxu Bllu + Bllu
nM 'Ill
231 -234 Ill
235 •• 236 Ill
237 zc
243 201
244 2tll
28
210
211
213
IlEA
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
Table 13. (Continued)
Bxu Ffg Fp Fpt Gfo GFe GFk Gta Gtb-f L/Gtb -f Cs -f/ Cs -f/ Gtb-f Gta C/Bxu Unmapped
Gtb-f Fpt Bxu Bxu + Bxu
HEA
181
182
183
184
185
• ... 186
210
211
FAI
213
214
Total
3 10 14 12 3 38 19 47 2 3 8 10 13 69
s
(1.2) (4.0) (5.5) (4.7) (.4) (1 .2) (.4) (15.0 ) (7.5) (18 .6) (.8) ( 1.2 ) (3 .2) (4.0) (5.1) (27.3)
Bibliography
Acres Allerican, Inc. 1983. Maps. Sus1tna Hydroe 'ectr•c Project,
Vol. 4, Exhibit G (Before the Federal Ene~v Regulatory
eo..ission applicati on for license for ~.Jor project).
Sublitted to Alaska Power Authority.
Agricultural Experi.ent Station, Un i versity of Alaska . 1980.
Vegetation .aps of proposed Susitna Hydroe 1 ectric i~ct
areas. Pal.er, Alaska.
Brinker R.C., and R. Wolf. 1977 . Eleuentary surveying, 6th
edition. Harper and Row, New York .
Dixon, E.J., G.S. S.ith, W. Andrefsky, B.M. Saleeby, and C.J.
Uten10hle. 1985 . Susitna Hydroelectric Project Culturai
Resource Investigations 1g79 -1985. Sublitted to Alaska Power
Authority
R & M Consultants, Inc. 1981. Terrain unit ~ps. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project subtask 5.02 photo interpretation.
Prepared for Acres Amer i can, Inc. Sublitted to Alaska Power
Authority.
Wolf, R. 1983. Elements of photo~ramaetry, 2nd edition.
McGraw-Hill, New York .
44