HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa30Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Cultural resources study
SuWa 30
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
Prepared by Justin M. Hays, Carol Gelvin-Reymiller, and Peter M. Bowers, Northern Land Use
Research, Inc. ; Charles M. Mobley, Charles M. Mobley and Associates ; Taylor Brelsford, URS
Corp. ; Tom Bundtzen, Pacific Rim Geological Consulting, Inc.
AEA-identified category, if specified:
2012 Environmental Studies
AEA-identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS-assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 30
Existing numbers on document:
Published by:
[Anchorage, Alaska : Alaska Energy Authority, 2013]
Date published:
February 2013
Published for:
Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Final
Document type:
Pagination:
v, 23, 8 p.
Related work(s):
Pages added/changed by ARLIS:
Notes:
All reports in the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document series include an ARLIS-
produced cover page and an ARLIS-assigned number for uniformity and citability. All reports
are posted online at http://www.arlis.org/resources/susitna-watana/
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
(FERC No. 14241)
Cultural Resources Study
Prepared for
Alaska Energy Authority
Prepared by
Justin M. Hays, Carol Gelvin-Reymiller, and Peter M. Bowers,
Northern Land Use Research, Inc.
Charles M. Mobley, Charles M. Mobley and Associates
Taylor Brelsford, URS Corp.
Tom Bundtzen, Pacific Rim Geological Consulting, Inc.
February 2013
(sensitive location information has been removed from this document to facilitate public distribution)
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page i February 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................1
2. Study Objectives.................................................................................................................2
2.1. Begin inventory of known cultural resources within the direct APE ................2
2.2. Synthesize existing location data for known AHRS sites ..................................2
2.3. Map site locations and environmental variables ................................................2
2.4. Identify previous survey coverage .....................................................................3
2.5. Add existing and baseline place names .............................................................3
2.6. Identify and map prehistoric resource locations (settlement patterns, historic
land use) .............................................................................................................3
2.7. Develop archaeological locational model prior to fieldwork ............................3
2.8. Update and retrieve legacy records ....................................................................4
2.9. Research Bureau of Indian (BIA) 14(h)(1) records ...........................................4
2.10. Summarize paleontological records and develop site location model ...............4
2.11. Prepare inadvertent discovery plan ....................................................................4
3. Study Area ..........................................................................................................................5
4. Methods ...............................................................................................................................5
5. Results .................................................................................................................................6
5.1. Inventory and newly discovered cultural resources ...........................................6
5.2. Testing................................................................................................................7
5.3. Modeling ............................................................................................................9
5.4. Paleontology ....................................................................................................12
5.5. Borehole investigation .....................................................................................12
6. Discussion and Conclusion ..............................................................................................13
6.1. Site inventory and AHRS location discrepancies ............................................13
6.2. Testing in the study area ..................................................................................14
6.3. Technological advancements in analysis, methods, and modeling ..................14
6.4. Paleontology in the Study Area .......................................................................15
7. References .........................................................................................................................15
8. Tables ................................................................................................................................17
9. Figures ...............................................................................................................................19
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ii February 2013
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.1-1. Number of sites visited ............................................................................................. 17
Table 5.2-1. List of test areas ....................................................................................................... 18
LIST OF FIGURES
Table 5.1-1. Number of sites visited ............................................................................................. 17
Table 5.2-1. List of test areas ....................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3-1. Overview map of the Study Area at the time fieldwork was conducted. .................. 19
Figure 3-2. Overview map of the impoundment Area at the time fieldwork was conducted. ...... 19
Figure 3-3. Overview map of the Chulitna and Gold Creek corridors at the time fieldwork
was conducted. ...................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 3-4. Overview map of the Denali corridor at the time fieldwork was conducted. ........... 19
Figure 5.3-1. Model area with random points, cultural resources, and APE in black
(Alaskamapped: Best Data Layer Mid Resolution Natural Color background). .................. 19
Figure 5.3-2. Cumulative model surface: highest values of +42 (white); lowest values of -10
(black). (Alaskamapped: Best Data Layer Mid Resolution Natural Color background). ..... 20
Figure 5.3-3. Cumulative model raster value spread from -10 to +42. ......................................... 21
Figure 5.3-4. Prehistoric site dispersion across raster values. ...................................................... 22
Figure 5.3-5. Random point dispersion across raster values. ....................................................... 23
APPENDIX
Cultural Resources Assessment of 2012 Borehole Sites, for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project (August 2012)
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iii February 2013
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SCIENTIFIC LABELS
Abbreviation Definition
ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
AHRS Alaska Heritage Resource Survey
ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
APA Alaska Power Authority
APE Area of Potential Effect
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cmbs Centimeters Below Surface
CRS Cultural Resources Study
FASL Feet Above Sea Level
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
GIS Geographical Information Systems
GPS Global Positioning System
ILP Integrated Licensing Process
MTRS Meridian, Township, Range, Section
NAD27 & NAD83 North American Datum 1927 & 1983
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
OHA Office of History and Archaeology
PAD Pre-Application Document
PRGCI Pacific Rim Geological Consulting, Inc.
RM River mile(s) referencing those of the 1980s APA Project.
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
tN True North
USGS United States Geological Survey
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iv February 2013
Restriction Statement
A more complete version of this report containing the locations of cultural resources was
prepared and submitted to oversight agencies and landowners to facilitate environmental and
engineering planning efforts. Under the provisions of the Archaeological Resources Protection
Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, site location information is restricted; disclosure
of such information is exempt from requests under federal and state freedom of information
laws. With specific site location information removed, this report now becomes a public
document. It is submitted as partial fulfillment of cultural resources permit agreements with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Section 106 Consultation Authorization
#14241-000; Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Permit for Investigations and Fieldwork
Authorization AKAA-093320; State of Alaska Field Archaeology Permit 2012-17; and Tyonek
Native Corporation Land Use Permit 20121306-05. It is intended for release to the BLM, FERC
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology, the State
Historic Preservation Office, and affected Native entities.
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page v February 2013
SUMMARY
Purpose
The main goal of the 2012 field season was to begin inventory of the known cultural resources
within the Project area. Part of this involved a screening of potential paleontological resources in
the area. A second goal of the cultural resource study was to conduct subsurface testing in areas
of high and low archaeological potential. The purpose overall was to inventory and evaluate the
significance of previously identify cultural and paleontological resources in the Project area. The
2012 field work consisted of the Cultural Resource Study Lead and two technicians surveying
for 17 days.
2012 Accomplishments
The 2012 work included synthesizing the existing location data for known State of Alaska
Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) sites, mapping the existing AHRS site locations along with
environmental variables, identifying previous (early 1980s-era) survey coverage, determining
existing and baseline place names within the study area, mapping known land use and site
distribution in order to develop an archaeological locational model, acquiring and updating early
1980s-era records and ANCSA 14(h)(1) property information, and preparing a plan for
inadvertent discoveries. Paleontological research focused upon summarizing existing
information and developing a site location model. All the tasks intended in 2012 were
accomplished. In addition, locations near the dam site selected for exploratory drilling by AEA
were investigated and determined to lack cultural resources, enabling the geotechnical
investigation.
Applications of 2012 Data
The 2012 field results primarily concern the nature and location of known AHRS sites, and the
nature and location of newly discovered sites. This information will be used to refine the
archaeological locational model for further testing in the continuing studies in 2013 and 2014,
and to help refine the survey strategies. The improved model applicability and more informed
survey strategies will improve sampling confidence and research efficiency when conducting the
2013-2014 archaeological inventory and evaluation.
Important Findings:
Within the Project area there were previously 115 recorded cultural sites, and the 2012 survey
resulted in the discovery of three more. Of the 115 known sites, 25 were revisited in 2012. Of
the total of 28 sites documented, 19 were on federal land, three were on state land, and six were
on CIRI land (survey on Tyonek land resulted in no site observations). The impoundment and
all three access corridors were sampled in 2012.
The potential for undiscovered sites in areas unsurveyed or lightly surveyed during the early
1980s-era work was confirmed. Of the three new sites found in 2012, two were identified by
surface observation and the third was found only through exploratory testing. Each contained
one or more prehistoric stone artifacts.
The paleontological background research identified about 100 known fossil find localities in the
region, of which three are in the impoundment and 12 are in access corridors.
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1 February 2013
1. INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), which is licensing the
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (Project) using Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). The Project’s dam site will be located at River Mile
(RM) 184 on the Susitna River, an approximately 300-mile-long river in the Southcentral Region
of Alaska. Federal, state, and private lands are included in the Project Area. Cultural resources
investigations are required as part of the environmental studies being conducted for FERC
licensing.
Northern Land Use Research, Inc. (NLUR) archaeologists began a cultural resources field
inventory for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project on August 1 to 17, 20121, as a central
component of the 2012 Cultural Resources Study (CRS). The firm is contracted to URS Corp,
which in turn is contracted to AEA to undertake environmental studies for the Project. Results
of this study have aided the planning of the 2013-14 formal study program and will help inform
the Exhibit E of a license application (18 CFR 4.41), as well as contribute to FERC’s National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for the Project license. In the field the
archaeological crew was guided by the most current Project development plans available at the
time. The Project development plans have since changed slightly as a result of further
engineering studies, and this report does not reflect those changes; current engineering plans are
referenced in the AEA 2013-14 Revised Study Plan (RSP) (AEA 2012).
Construction and operation of the Project as described in the Pre-application Document (PAD;
AEA 2011) will affect cultural resources. Cultural resources studies will enable the applicant
and lead federal agency to assess any Project-related effects to historic properties under the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its accompanying regulations (36 CFR 800), and
other pertinent federal and state laws and regulations. It will also provide a basis for, as
appropriate, developing avoidance and protection measures; defining mitigation and
enhancement measures; and preparing resource management and monitoring plans.
There are 118 known cultural resource sites within the 2012 Area of Potential Effect (APE),
which is comprised of the Susitna-Watana impoundment area, the Chulitna corridor, the Denali
corridor and the Gold Creek corridor (Figure 3-1). The main goal of the 2012 field season was
to begin inventory of the known cultural resources in the Project Area and develop a predictive
model along with some subsurface testing to help identify areas of high and low archaeological
potential. To facilitate these goals, all known sites were incorporated into a geographical
information system (GIS) geodatabase prior to fieldwork, and areas of high and low potential
were modeled. Study objectives described in the Cultural Resources Data Gap Report (Bowers
et al. 2012) are reiterated and summarized in Section 2. The study area is defined in Section 3,
and the inventory and testing methods are described in Section 4. Results of the 2012 inventory
and limited testing are presented in Section 5, and a discussion and conclusion are contained in
Section 6.
1 Two archaeologists were deployed on June 7 and again on July 1 to survey geotechnical borehole locations prior to ground
disturbance. Those results are presented in Appendix 1.
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2 February 2013
2. STUDY OBJECTIVES
The primary study objective for the 2012 CRS was to inventory a sample of known cultural
resources within the direct APE, in order to better assess the time and effort involved with
inventorying the total of known cultural resources. Ten secondary objectives were also
identified and listed in the Data Gap Report (Bowers et al. 2012) and the Proposed Study Plan
(AEA 2012). This section lists the objectives and describes what was achieved. Work planned
for the 2013 and 2014 seasons is also described where applicable.
2.1. Begin inventory of known cultural resources within the direct APE
Study Lead Justin Hays and two crew members began field inventory of known cultural
resources in the direct APE. A sample of sites listed in the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey
(AHRS) database was visited, and each site was recorded using contemporary archaeological
methods. Priority was given to sites within the impoundment area, but portions of each of the
three proposed corridors were also surveyed – either by air from a helicopter or by foot.
Logistical considerations such as weather and helicopter access determined which sites could be
inventoried in 2012. Areas with clusters of sites within hiking distance of one another were
favored for pedestrian survey and inventory.
2.2. Synthesize existing location data for known AHRS sites
Because GPS technology was not available during the early-1980s era surveys, locations for
known sites in the study area are not precisely recorded. Moreover, narrative location
descriptions in the AHRS database are often ambiguous and at times misleading. In order to
refine site locations and site descriptions, the original individual site documents were scanned
and archived: field journals, site-specific field journals, sketch maps, photographs, slides, and
site reports, as well as other primary and secondary documentation. These documents fill 44
boxes in the University of Alaska Museum of the North (Fairbanks) (UAMN) archives. Original
USGS maps used in the field with recorded site locations, bearings, and miscellaneous notes
written on them were also scanned. All early-1980s era field notes, maps, and associated
materials are being compiled into individual site packets for field use during the 2013 and 2014
seasons.
2.3. Map site locations and environmental variables
Known AHRS sites were relocated and mapped to compare their reported locations with their
actual locations, to obtain more accurate data for the site locational model, and to help plan the
2013 and 2014 field investigations. The sample size of sites under consideration varied as the
definition of the APE evolved in 2012, with fewer known sites captured by the later (October)
version of the APE. Site locations were mapped with revised coordinates where possible,
resulting in approximately 16 percent of the sites within the APE being updated. New sites were
also discovered and mapped. Environmental variables and baseline physiographic data provided
by DNR and other agencies as digital datasets were mapped either as raster or vector data.
Mapped variables were examined to help plan the 2012 field logistics, to better understand site
location attributes, and to compare with the 2012 field results. Environmental variables were
compared to landsat imagery to assess the accuracy of recorded data when applicable
(vegetation, for example).
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3 February 2013
2.4. Identify previous survey coverage
Between 1978 and 1985, archaeologists conducted cultural resources surveys, testing, and site
excavations for the proposed Alaska Power Authority (APA) Susitna Hydroelectric project and
ancillary facilities (construction camps, transmission lines, access roads). Collectively the effort
is here characterized as the early-1980s era investigations. While the project proposed in the
1980s had a different footprint than the currently proposed Project, much of the two areas
overlap. For the earlier project, annual and summary reports described over 270 sites that
required some form of analysis and curation of associated artifacts (e.g., Dixon 1985; Dixon et
al. 1985; Greiser et al. 1985, 1986). Another 22 previously known sites were revisited and
documented. Of the sites found, 111 were found through subsurface testing (resulting from ~
28,000 shovel tests). About 99 percent of the known cultural resources have yet to be evaluated
for their National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility. Of the known sites, 87 percent
have prehistoric remains, two percent have protohistoric remains, 10 percent have historic and
modern remains, and two sites (1 percent) have paleontological remains.
2.5. Add existing and baseline place names
Native place name information for the study area has a direct bearing on the understanding of the
cultural resource inventory, and initial collection and use of this information was anticipated.
Compilation of place name data was not conducted during 2012 but will be part of a
comprehensive ethnogeography study in 2013 and 2014, with initial results available for
incorporation into the locational model and survey strategy. The place names study is described
in more detail in the RSP.
2.6. Identify and map prehistoric resource locations (settlement patterns,
historic land use)
Settlement patterns, as reflected by known AHRS site locations, were mapped according to three
subsets: prehistoric sites, Native historic sites, and Euro-American sites. Because prehistoric
resource locations are hypothesized to be similar but not identical to modern resource locations,
mapped resources were generalized by buffering in GIS. Caribou migration patterns and ranges
appear to be closely associated with prehistoric settlement patterns; however, additional
fieldwork in the APE corridors in 2013-2014 may refine this view, especially based on the
results of survey in areas not previously surveyed. Ethnographic information was also assessed
in 2012 for insights into protohistoric and Native historic land use. Historic Euro-American land
use is represented by sites reflecting early exploration (TLM-020 outside the direct APE), early
hydropower (TLM-204), reindeer herding (TLM-113), and railroad development (TLM-005), all
of which were mapped to help understand their local relationships to the regional history.
Historic mining and trapping locations in the impoundment area were mapped in 2012, and trails
were recorded in the APE.
2.7. Develop archaeological locational model prior to fieldwork
Digital data were examined statistically to assess the strength of associations between known
dependent variables (site locations) and independent variables such as elevation (23 variables
were assessed). The model output is a map of the study area with negative to positive values
depicted in 30 m (98 feet) by 30 m (98 feet) units with gradations of color from dark to light;
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4 February 2013
areas with negative values are considered least likely to hold sites, and areas with positive values
are most likely to hold sites. The map was useful for developing survey strategies across the
APE prior to fieldwork, particularly for unsurveyed areas.
2.8. Update and retrieve legacy records
A hard-copy inventory was created of documents associated with the 1976-1985 surveys, and the
contents were then evaluated for their relevance to the 2012 and 2013-2014 studies. The most
useful documents were scanned and digitized, including field journals, all site-specific field
notes, all photographs and photologs, survey locale reports, and field area testing reports. All
digitized documentation was sorted and compiled by site. For use in GIS, survey locales (Dixon
et al. 1980) and survey units (Greiser et al. 1986) were compiled as shapefiles and mapped
accordingly.
2.9. Research Bureau of Indian (BIA) 14(h)(1) records
BIA staff was contacted for information regarding Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) 14(h)(1) sites in the vicinity of the Project APE. A list of 14(h)(1) sites in or near the
Project APE was compiled from small-scale maps provided by the BIA’s ANCSA office. The
NLUR-GIS Department prepared index maps of the Project area for use at BIA, depicting the
APE, impoundment area, corridors, trails, and the meridian, township, range, and section
(MTRS) on individual USGS quadrangles. Trail information came from a variety of sources
including BLM, ADNR, AEA, and the 2012 field observations.
2.10. Summarize paleontological records and develop site location model
Subcontractor Thomas Bundtzen of Pacific Rim Geological Consulting (Fairbanks) performed a
geologic literature review of the APE, relying mostly on the early 1980s-era records. Using
regional stratigraphy and geochronology, a classification system was developed to help identify
likely locations for significant fossil finds. As provided in the RSP, field investigation will take
place during the 2013 season.
2.11. Prepare inadvertent discovery plan
A plan was prepared by the cultural resource study team in the event that cultural resources or
human remains are incidentally found by AEA’s various study teams or other staff and
contractors during the 2012-2014 fieldwork. The plan is based around long-standing protocols
developed by the SHPO and the Alaska State Troopers, and identifies the involved parties
(including land owners and Native tribes), how they are to be notified of discoveries, and when.
Protocols for the inadvertent discovery of human remains, in particular, require immediate
parallel notification of the SHPO and Alaska State Troopers for their determination as to whether
the find is an archaeological matter or a potential crime scene, with copies to the Alaska State
Medical Examiner. Information about cultural resource discoveries is channeled according to
the type of cultural resource and the specific landowner.
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5 February 2013
3. STUDY AREA
At the time of the 2012 survey, the study area, encompassed the Watana Reservoir, Watana
Construction site, and three potential road and transmission corridors (Chulitna, Denali, and
Gold Creek corridors; Figure 3-1). This initial study area consisted of the geographic area or
areas where the character or use of historic properties may be altered (directly or indirectly) by
construction and operation of the Project. The study area was defined by Geographic
Information System (GIS) shapefiles in the project geodatabase provided by the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). The total acreage within the study area is 186,275
acres. The impoundment study area is defined by a 45,321-acre polygon, referred to as Study
Area Boundary Elev 2200 ft, within the aforementioned geodatabase (Figure 3-2). The three
proposed access routes differ in length and area: the Chulitna Project Boundary is 51.8 miles
long and 36,107 acres in area; the Gold Creek Project Boundary is 54.7 miles long and 59,750
acres (Figure 3-3) and the Denali Project Boundary is 62 miles long and 45,097 acres in area
(Figure 3-4).
The study area described above is referred to as the direct APE for 2012 (Figure 3-1), since the
APE has been further refined in the RSP. Within the direct APE there are 118 known cultural
and paleontological resources (115 previously recorded on the AHRS and three discovered
during the 2012 field effort). Site information and locations listed in the AHRS database were
sufficient to guide the cultural resources inventory, realizing that undiscovered sites may still
exist in previously surveyed areas within the direct APE (three new cultural resources were
recorded in areas that had been surveyed in the 1980s). Of the total number of known sites, 15
are in the Chulitna corridor (all prehistoric in age); 14 are in the Denali corridor (13 prehistoric
and one paleontological); two are in the Gold Creek corridor (one prehistoric and one historic);
and 87 are in the impoundment area (76 prehistoric, six historic, four protohistoric, and one
paleontological).
4. METHODS
The results of the 2012 season were expected to help evaluate the accuracy of known site
locations and to quantify the effort required to relocate known sites. Site locations were updated
in 2012 with GPS and integrated into GIS for the initial inventory.
Prior to the field investigations NLUR developed a locational model to identify areas of high and
low potential in the direct APE. Phase I (Inventory) survey and limited testing was conducted in
areas of the APE not previously surveyed, in areas that modeled high for the potential occurrence
of cultural resources, and in one area that modeled low for cultural resources. GIS-modeled
locational surfaces of the direct APE, which incorporate numerous environmental and cultural
variables, were categorized by cumulative numerical values. Higher values are areas of higher
site potential, and lower values are of lower site potential. Previously recorded information
regarding the general study area, as well as specific site descriptions, was reviewed prior to
fieldwork. USGS maps and landsat imagery also provided guidance for delineating possible test
areas. Systematic sampling was not conducted in 2012 (it will be implemented in the 2013 and
2014 field seasons as provided in the RSP). The importance of testing areas of both lower and
higher site potential is fundamental for guiding survey efforts; in order to confirm that areas with
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6 February 2013
higher values do indeed hold the most cultural resources, and that areas with lower values do
actually contain fewer cultural resources.
During the 2012 field season selected site locations listed in the AHRS database were
investigated on the ground by a crew of three people. The crew was transported by a Robinson
44 helicopter to landing zones near clusters of cultural resource sites. The crew then navigated
on the ground with the aid of USGS maps and aerial photographs produced in GIS, compass, and
GPS formats. Known sites were re-located and recorded with a survey-grade, handheld
Trimble® GeoXT™ GeoExplorer® 6000 series GPS. Descriptions were recorded and the site’s
condition verified and, where appropriate, updated. A metal detector was used to sweep the
reported site location in search of buried site datums and/or related materials (e.g., metal spikes,
nails, wire, and datum tags) as well as possible historical artifacts.
The 2012 season was dedicated to initiating the site inventory, and so exploratory testing was
limited. Sites were given a preliminary assessment of condition, mapped, and photographed.
Subsurface testing was not done at known sites, but limited testing was performed in areas of
high and low potential as determined by the locational model. Previously unknown sites were
recorded to a Phase I (Identification or Inventory) level as defined by the OHA (Alaska Office of
History and Archaeology Historic Preservation Series No. 11, revised 2003). Artifacts from all
newly discovered sites were collected, cleaned, catalogued and analyzed. Artifacts collected
from federal and state lands will eventually be accessioned at the University of Alaska Museum
of the North archaeological repository. Tephras, paleosols, charcoal, and bone were also
collected when present. Such special samples will be used to help differentiate strata, and
organic samples will be radiocarbon dated using the AMS method; bones found will be identified
to species if possible.
5. RESULTS
Outcomes of the inventory, testing of areas deemed of high and low archaeological potential, site
location modeling, and paleontology literature review are presented below in that order.
5.1. Inventory and newly discovered cultural resources
Study Lead Justin Hays, Archaeologist Mark Rusk, and Archaeological Technician Aurora
Bowers began the 2012 archaeological field survey for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
on August 1. The fieldwork was completed on August 17, with specific goals set forth in the
2012 Proposed Study Plan (AEA 2012) being met. A second field excursion with Mat-Su
Borough Archaeologist Fran Seager-Boss was scheduled for September 20, but the trip was
canceled due to flooding in the Project Area, and was not rescheduled.
As described in the 2012 Proposed Study Plan, cultural resources within the proposed study area
were inventoried based on known site locations in the AHRS database. Sites were visited on the
ground or aerial surveyed within all three of the proposed access corridors (Chulitna, Denali, and
Gold Creek) and the impoundment area (Table 5.1-1). Weather, wildlife, landing zone
availability, site density, and helicopter access/sharing determined daily goals and objectives.
Known AHRS sites were relocated using modern professional-grade GPS equipment. Previously
recorded sites were found to be anywhere from 0 to 155 m (0 to 509 feet) from their reported
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 7 February 2013
location in the AHRS system. Metal detectors proved to be an important instrument for
confirming site location and distinguishing among closely located sites and new, previously
unrecorded sites. No systematic patterns of error (such that a correction could be universally
applied to all the original location information) can yet be detected from comparing the early
locations with the new GPS readings. The average number of sites visited each day during the
inventory phase of fieldwork was 3 (Table 5.1-1). It is estimated that a survey crew of six people
spaced 10 m (33 feet) apart would be more efficient, especially for transecting landforms with
reported cultural resources. Due to the unsystematic and inherent errors in the AHRS database,
it is conceivable that one crew could relocate and record two to three known sites per day. Each
crew will need a metal detector to search for site datums. Most datums from previous surveys
consisted of a buried aluminum tag attached to a 12 inch-long metal spike. However, datums
were only recovered at six the 25 known sites visited in 2012. Three were metal spikes and three
were wooden stakes with or without nails. Only two had the site name attached to the spike or
stake. In most cases, wooden stakes and lathes were observed in varying degrees of decay on the
surface of sites or partially concealed by ground vegetation. Some stakes had metal nails on the
end that could be detected in dense vegetation with a metal detector.
Of the 28 sites inventoried in 2012 (25 known sites and three newly recorded sites), 19 were on
federal lands; three were on state lands, and six were on private lands (all owned by CIRI
Corporation). Included are three new cultural resources that were recorded during the inventory
phase of fieldwork: HEA-488, HEA-489, and TLM-284. Below is a brief summary of the
cultural resources newly recorded in 2012.
HEA-00488
The site is a lithic scatter composed of mainly cortex flakes (debitage). A small fragment of
weathered bone was also noted but may not be related to the concentration of stone flakes.
(specific location description removed to allow public distribution)
HEA-00489
The site is on a large esker or moraine. Possible waste flakes of dacite or argillite were mapped
on blow-out surfaces. A rusted pack can opener was also observed. The site shows evidence of
both prehistoric and modern use.
(specific location description removed to allow public distribution)
TLM-00284
The observed site consists of a single basalt flake located on the trail surface. No subsurface
testing was performed, but future testing could better characterize the site.
(specific location description removed to allow public distribution)
The site is situated on a hill with evidence of solifluction. The resulting topography is a series of
small terraces and knobs.
5.2. Testing
Cultural resource testing in areas of high and low potential was performed at six locations during
the 2012 field season (Table 5.2-1). As stated Section 2.0, the primary goal of 2012 was to begin
the field inventory of known cultural resources in the Study area. Testing for the presence of
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 8 February 2013
unknown cultural resources was a secondary study goal for the season. Testing had two goals: 1)
to aid subsequent field seasons by identifying previously unknown cultural resources in the
direct APE and, 2) to inform the theoretical locational model with real data derived from the
field that could be integrated into the high and low potential model surfaces. Testing was limited
to three full days and two half days of surface and subsurface testing (August 12 to 16). The
results of the testing phase of the 2012 investigations are presented below.
IM-JMH-002 was a negative test area on Tyonek land. OHA Special Projects Archaeologist, Dr.
Richard VanderHoek accompanied the AEA cultural resources team in accordance with the state
field permit stipulation. The test area was in a high potential area west of (location description
removed to allow public distribution). The area of the landform deemed to have the highest
potential is 274.9 m2 (2958.6 feet2). AHRS site TLM-180 -- reported to have multiple
components and multiple tephras -- is near the site and on the same general landform that the test
area is on. Systematic transect survey is warranted along the landform, along with further
exploratory testing.
GO-JMH-001 was a negative test area on CIRI land (Figure 5.2-1). The test area in on a broad
ridgeline oriented east/west. The landform was modeled as high potential for cultural resources.
Two test pits were excavated at this location. The test area is 990.74 m2 (10,664.14 feet2). The
landform is very large and warrants further investigation: systematically transect survey and
further testing. An aluminum datum was placed in the ground and flagged for work in 2013 and
2014.
GO-JMH-002 was a negative test area on CIRI land. The test area was placed on a high
potential landform that overlooks the Susitna River 1.7 km (1 mi.) to the north and Stephan Lake
3.7 km (2.3 mi.) to the south. There is a steep canyon and river valley to the west of the
landform that drains into the middle Susitna. The broad slope is oriented roughly east/west with
the eastern-most portion sloping roughly 18o down towards the river valley. Three test pits were
excavated along a systematic grid, spaced 10 m (33 feet) apart. Test pits were excavated to
bedrock and the natural stratigraphy was recorded. The test area was 2069.9 m2 (22,280.42) but
could be expanded after systematic ground survey. An aluminum test area datum was placed in
the ground and flagged for work in 2013 and 2014.
CH-JMH-001 was a negative test area on federal land. The test area was placed on a substantial
and prominent terrace above Portage Creek. The terrace comes to a narrow point on the
east/northeast portion of the landform. The test area is 1.6 km (1 mi.) from the confluence of
Portage and Thoroughfare Creeks at 229o tN. A grid was laid out from the point of the terrace,
along the narrow terrace edge, at 300o tN. A second grid was laid out north of the 1st grid; test
pits were spaced 5 m (16 feet) apart to maximize coverage on the narrow point. Test pits were
excavated to bedrock and the natural stratigraphy was recorded. The test area was 990.7 m2
(10,664.1 feet2) in size. An aluminum test area datum was placed in the ground and flagged for
work in 2013 and 2014.
CH-JMH-002 was a negative test area on state land. The test area was placed on a low potential
landform near Swimming Bear Lake. The landform is a relatively flat terrace, moraine, or kame
deposit at the base of a steep cliff below the talus slope. The landform was tested to inform the
locational model of the presence or absence of cultural resources. The test area is 661 m (2168.6
feet) at 285o tN to Swimming Bear Lake. A grid was laid out at 106o tN along the small
landform. Test pits were spaced 10 m (33 feet) apart. The small test area was 394.7 m2 (4248.4
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 9 February 2013
ft2). The pits were excavated to bedrock and the natural stratigraphy was recorded. An
aluminum test area datum was placed in the ground and flagged for work in 2013 and 2014.
DE-JMH-005 (AHRS HEA-00248) was a positive test area on federal land. At the time of
testing, the area was considered to be a high potential landform with no previous investigation.
The landform is a terrace directly above (location description removed to allow public
distribution). The west bank of the terrace is steeply eroded at 42o slope. A grid was laid out
along the edge of the terrace at 260o tN, directly next to the eroding west bank. Two test pits
were positive for cultural resources. Subsurface lithic flakes were recorded above and below the
Devil Tephra deposit. Test pits were excavated to bedrock and the natural and cultural
stratigraphy were recorded. Preliminary analysis based on only two test pits suggest this site,
HEA-248, is a multicomponent site. An aluminum test area datum was placed in the ground and
flagged for work in 2013 and 2014.
5.3. Modeling
For the proposed Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (AEA 2012a), a locational model was
requested as part of the cultural resources work for aiding archaeologists in locating sites,
especially prehistoric sites, within the study area. The reasoning for using models and the basic
steps in modeling have been detailed in the Data Gap (Bowers et al. 2012) and RSP, and will not
be repeated here. Instead, a brief discussion of determining the extent of the modeled area
(which encompasses the APE, but extends beyond it; Figure 5.3-1, 5.3-2), development of
variable weights, and use of the model surface for future survey design purposes will be
included.
The focus of the 2012 field season was the assessment of effort required for the relocation and
inventory of previously located cultural resources. Field efforts as they related to the model were
1) assessing the accuracy of site coordinates, and 2) ground truthing readily observable variables
such as vegetation and slope. The results of the 2012 field season were informative for
determining the reliability of certain variables, and for considering optimal ways to apply model
results more fully in the 2013 and 2014 field seasons during systematic sampling of survey areas.
A full discussion of the model will be presented in future reports following its use and tests of
efficacy.
Regional environmental data, much of which has been compiled by state and federal agencies,
were readily available (see AEA 2012b for list) for formulating the model. Spatial coordinate
information, used as the dependent dataset in the model, was extracted from the AHRS. This
dataset is compiled from numerous sources by the OHA. Typically, all regional data varies in
accuracy and in scale. For modeling purposes, steps were taken to improve comparability, such
as rescaling rasters, classifying, and re-coding data. When available, datasets were compared to
archived material from earlier surveys (Dixon et al. 1985; Greiser et al.1985, 1986).
Model area
The spatial applicability of the Susitna-Watana model was evaluated primarily by assessing the
topographic diversity within the region surrounding the study area. The model includes 10,885
square miles (28,192 km2) or almost 7 million acres, and contains varing ecosystems. This
breadth allows for the most inclusive dataset of prehistoric site types already discovered, which
theoretically gives the model the ability to reflect more realistic land use patterns within the
region. Major ecozones within the model area are the high mountains and glaciers of the Alaska
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 10 February 2013
Range to the north of the proposed dam area, the highlands of the Talkeetna Mountain Range
which surround the dam area, the valleys and lakes of the Susitna River and its tributaries, and
lower terrain such as Lake Louise and Susitna Lake with associated wetlands to the east of the
proposed dam area. Ethnographic research in the area indicates that several Na-Dene speaking
groups of people, including the Ahtna, Den’aina, and Lower Tanana, inhabited this area, using a
wide range of flora and fauna. Linguistic data which attests to their inhabitation may be
incorporated into future models. According to Kari (2011:248), 15 percent of toponyms in the
Ahtna language, for example, refer to human activities on the landscape such as subsistence
locations, trails, or material culture. Prehistoric archaeological sites (n=396) in all ecosystems
formed the dependent dataset for the model. In the study area, the least surveyed areas are
primarily the APE corridors and areas beyond the immediate impoundment; the impoundment
area has had focused archaeological survey in the past and has contributed most of the known
cultural resource dataset (Dixon et al. 1985). Random points (n=400) generated in ArcGIS
software were used as a comparative dependent dataset (Figure 5.3-1).
Model variable weighting
Independent variables overlap spatially, and for the purposes of organizing GIS layers, variables
were conceptualized as classes of coded data (see AEA2012b for table of variables). The
weighting of variables was based on the statistical relationship of variables (results of Chi
Square, Pearson’s R and Fishers Exact tests), as well as on professional judgments, the Principal
Investigator’s knowledge of regional archaeology, and general subarctic human land use. We
know prehistoric human land use is linked to all variables chosen for analysis, but with some
more or less relevant in decisions regarding placement of settlements or camps, and some more
or less readable in the archaeological record (Dixon et al. 1985). In the case of the Susitna
region, an example of weighting is provided by the resource variable ‘caribou’. Procurement of
caribou as a resource appears distinctly significant in the region based on ethnographic,
archaeological, and statistical data. Known archaeological site locations are linked spatially with
caribou ranges (polygons of ranges provided by Alaska Department of Fish and Game),
corroborating the importance of caribou for site location decision-making, with a higher
significance for the variable ‘caribou-summer’ range.
Thus, the variable ‘caribou-summer’ was weighted heavily, which gives the spatial extent
associated with caribou ranges during that season a higher value for site potential (higher cell
values in that location), contributing to a lighter color on the final mapped surface. However,
this variable is spatially defined from modern caribou ranges (as are all independent variables),
and additional factors were considered when defining variable spatial extents in the model.
Buffers of 5 km (3.1 mi.) were added to caribou ranges both for incorporating possible range
variation through time, and also for considering such factors as logistical subsistence strategies
(i.e., transporting resources outside the range to camps).
The assessments of linked attributes associated with caribou ranges and migration patterns such
as elevation, aspect, and hydrography, which are variables not as subject to change over the
millennia as terrestrial mammal movement, also aided in making decisions regarding weighting.
In reality, shifts in vegetation, weather patterns, presence of predator species (aside from
humans), caribou populations in neighboring regions and a number of other factors all effect
caribou summer range and migration patterns through time. While it is difficult to quantify some
of these factors for modeling purposes, awareness when weighting variables was integral to
reasoning. Buffers (from 1 to 5 km [0.6 to 3.1 mi.]) were also placed on other mobile resource
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 11 February 2013
variables including sheep and avian ranges in an attempt to account for range changes over time.
Topographic variables were also buffered, such as possible tool stone sources, rivers and lakes,
and linear landforms (terraces), in an attempt to recognize prehistoric human mobility patterns
related to these resources and the spatial breadth associated beyond the exact resource location.
Model surface
Accordingly, the model surface generated for the Susitna area is a generalized depiction of site
potential used especially for defining areas with clusters of variables with higher weights.
Cumulative weights of the model surface range from -10 to +42 (Figure 5.3-2). As might be
expected, the upper and lower extremes of the range of values have the least numbers of cells
(raster units) represented on the model surface. The most numerous cells are mid-range values
between 0 to -3 and between +14 to +21, giving a bi-modal appearance to the raster cell counts
(Figure 5.3-3).
As a check on the construction of the model surface, known prehistoric sites should fall within
areas of higher raster values. This is the case, and Figure 5.3-3 shows sites and associated raster
values, with a mean raster value of +23 (Figure 5.3-4). Random points should not show this
pattern of association with higher values, and this is also the case; mean raster value for random
points is +11 (Figure 5.3-5).
The cumulative model surface, when categorized into thirds for analytical purposes results in
38.8 percent of cells in the lowest value range (-10 to +7), 56.2 percent of cells in the middle
value ranges (+8 to +25), and 5.0 percent of cells in the highest value ranges (+26 to +42). The
highest value range equates to approximately 128,000 acres of the entire modeled area (about
0.01 percent of the modeled area).
Within the current APE (three corridors and the impoundment area), highest cell values represent
an area of 34,860 total acres, approximately 35.8 percent of the APE acreage. The majority of
this acreage lies within the impoundment area. Other highest value acreage lies within the
distant end of the Denali corridor covering a stretch of approximately 16 km (10 mi.), within the
western end of Chulitna corridor discontinuously for approximately 27 km (17 mi.), and within
the Gold Creek corridor eastern portion for approximately 26 km (16 mi.). A sampling design
for appropriate survey of these and other areas is being developed for use in the 2013 and 2014
field seasons. Surveys of areas of moderate and lower site potential will also be included in
sampling; the efficacy of the model and verification of model assumptions requires testing
outside the areas of highest site potential.
The 2012 field season observations suggest a probable source of error in model efficacy will be
due to inaccurate information of variables associated with point locations (coordinates) of
existing cultural resources, as well as, the coarse grain of available environmental datasets. Sites
located prior to the availability of hand held GPS technology were based on points drawn on
paper maps at relatively broad scales (1:24,000 USGS at the finest) and without the benefit of
detailed land-satellite imagery. Today, field crews using survey-grade GPS can expect
uncorrected, real-time sub-meter accuracy in recording point locations. This inaccuracy of
earlier data was confirmed by the 2012 field crew; actual site locations varied from previously
recorded locations, with no consistent variation in distance between actual and previously
recorded data (Table 5.1-1). The inaccuracy of derived raster variables from these AHRS points,
however, is not anticipated to be of great consequence for model results at this time, mainly due
to the coarse-grained nature of the all datasets across the study area. As a first iteration, the
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 12 February 2013
generalized model surface nonetheless illustrates areas of higher and lower site potential within
the study area which is incorporated into the archaeological survey sampling design, and is based
on the best available data at this time. It is expected that future iterations can incorporate
updated cultural resource data and other datasets as they become available.
5.4. Paleontology
An assessment of known and potential fossil-bearing localities in the Susitna region was
conducted by Pacific Rim Geological Consulting, Inc. (PRGCI) through an evaluation of
geological terranes and a literature review of previously published paleontological records.
Paleontological localities are recorded in federal, state, university, and other professional
publications, and a database was compiled which summarizes 100 known fossil localities in the
region. Potential for fossil locations on federal lands, which follows the BLM classification
system, was also described; no locations were identified as critical or ranked as Class 5 - very
high potential. The majority of the study area and immediate surrounding locations were ranked
as 2 to 3 - poor to moderate or unknown potential for fossils. At the time of the literature review,
PRGCI was only asked to review fossil-bearing locations on Federal lands. As provided in the
RSP, other locations on State and private lands will be reviewed in 2013 and 2014 and
eventually surveyed should the potential for Project-related effects to fossils exist.
Assessments indicate most known fossil locations are in the east-central and western portions of
the region. Seventeen fossil localities are located east of the proposed dam location, 59 are
located to the west, and remaining localities are scattered in various sections of the region. Three
fossil localities are within the impoundment study area and 12 occur in study area corridors.
Fossil locations on federal lands are limited to the northern-most portions of the study area, and a
small section of federal lands along the Susitna River from Gracious House on the Denali
Highway to the proposed dam location.
5.5. Borehole investigation
After the original study plan for the 2012 field season was prepared and filed, AEA notified the
cultural resources study group of 2012 plans to drill eight geotechnical boreholes in the vicinity
of the proposed Watana Dam site, near the banks of the Middle Susitna River. Ground
disturbance for these geotechnical investigations could not proceed without prior cultural
resources survey and assessment of the affected areas and the concurrence of the SHPO.
Therefore, at AEA’s request, NLUR added this work to the original study plan in order to inspect
the borehole locations during the 2012 field season and allow the geotechnical investigation to
proceed expeditiously (Appendix). The cultural resources survey was conducted as a Phase II or
“Evaluation” survey as defined by the OHA (Alaska Office of History and Archaeology Historic
Preservation Series No. 11, revised 2003). Such surveys are designed to locate sites in an
affected area and gather sufficient information to evaluate the eligibility of sites for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60). Archaeological fieldwork included on-the-
ground pedestrian survey and aerial survey of the APE for the proposed boreholes.
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 13 February 2013
6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The 2012 CRS greatly informed our understanding of the project area in terms of the effort
necessary to positively determine AHRS site locations. We also learned how valuable metal
detectors are for locating shallowly buried site datums and associated modern materials from the
sites recorded in the 1980s. Imprecise coordinates of known sites, especially at locations with
dense clusters of sites, will need to be thoroughly examined from existing 1980s field notes and
maps, and then surveyed on the ground. All of the known sites will need more accurate field
coordinates using survey-grade GPS and mapping equipment.
6.1. Site inventory and AHRS location discrepancies
As first noted in the data gap analysis for this project (Bowers et al. 2012), there are
discrepancies in site locations recorded in the AHRS versus the actual location of sites on the
ground. The use of GPS and GIS analyses in current use were unavailable for most of the
previous archaeological work in the Project area, in which researchers were limited to
triangulation using USGS maps, compass/tape, or other methods of locating sites. Sites were
later hand plotted on paper copies of USGS maps in the OHA office. Therefore, site location in
the Study area for many sites is imprecise, ambiguous, and/or inaccurate.
We use the terms ‘precision’ and ‘accuracy’ in very specific ways in this report. ‘Precision’
refers to measurement scale only, and is defined as “the refinement used in taking a
measurement, the quality of an instrument, the repeatability of the measurement, and the finest or
least count of the measuring device” (Moffit and Bouchard 1975:11). For instance, a site
location at a certain coordinate is more ‘precise’ than the same site located at ‘near the junction
of the X and Y rivers.’ ‘Accuracy’ refers to the real versus the documented location, and is
defined as “an indication of how close [a measurement] is to the true value of the quantity that
has been measured” (Moffit and Bouchard 1975:11). A position nearer to the actual location of
the site is considered more accurate. For our purposes, this accuracy can only be assessed and
analyzed using primary documents such as field notes, original survey maps, and the like. Truly
accurate site locations require precise field measurements with calibrated instruments.
Problems with AHRS site locations are not unique to this project. A review by NLUR of data
gaps associated with the proposed Denali Gas Pipeline found that of 73 sites compared, there
was an average discrepancy of 24.9 m (81.7 feet), with a minimum of 2.37 and maximum of
124.6 m (408.7 feet). Fifty percent of the sites were offset by 10 to 30 m (33 to 98 feet) (Bowers
et al. 2008).
Our findings substantiate those of Reanier, who in 2002 surveyed Alyeska Pipeline sites and
observed that, “….our concerns regarding AHRS site locational accuracy appear to have been
well founded. We were able to estimate the discrepancy between the AHRS location and the
actual location [measured using high precision sub meter accuracy GPS] for 53 archaeological
and historic sites. For these sites the average error was 209 m with a minimum error of 10 m [33
ft.] and a maximum error of 2,067 m [6781.4 ft.]” (Reanier 2003:4).
In Table 5.1-1 we list AHRS sites, coordinates as shown in the AHRS, and the discrepancy
between the recorded position and our field verified position. As shown, site locations vary
between zero and 155.43 m (509.94 feet) with an average discrepancy of 46.5 m (152.6.feet).
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 14 February 2013
Discrepancies can be resolved in the field resulting in better data, more efficient field seasons,
and lower costs.
6.2. Testing in the study area
The margin of error of the 1980s coordinates in the AHRS database fluctuated from a few meters
to over a hundred meters. Orientation to/from the sites was inconsistent with no logical pattern
of error. Metal detection at all sites proved to be the best method for relocating site datums;
however, often no site name or number was recovered from metal datum spikes. In sum, sites
were relocated using a combination of GPS, AHRS coordinates and site description, metal
detection, and general archaeological training (e.g., interpreting natural and cultural landforms in
the field).
Due to the short field season, no designated testing crew(s), a total of 18 test pits in six test areas,
and little stratigraphic information to draw from, conclusions from the 2012 fieldwork must
remain provisional and subject to further refinement. The testing phase of the project within the
2012 study area has helped orient the cultural resources team to the direct APE in general.
Surface and subsurface observations at this point are only cursory glimpses into the natural and
cultural landscape of the area. The 2013-2014 effort will involve further adjustments to maintain
the most efficient testing protocols for the Project, as set forth in the RSP.
6.3. Technological advancements in analysis, methods, and modeling
More than a quarter century of modern archaeological research, aided by new methods and
technology in GPS and GIS, geoarchaeology, geochronology, stratigraphic analysis, lithic and
faunal analysis, and ice patch research, have taken place in Alaska since the original Susitna
work. Research in Southcentral and Interior Alaskan river drainages has demonstrated that the
prehistoric cultural chronology and dynamics are far more complex than was believed (Dixon
1985). Of major pertinence, modern advances in radiometric dating techniques require a review
of the radiocarbon dates from the Project area, as set forth in the RSP.
The Project cultural resources data gap report (Bowers et al. 2012) summarizes the available
literature about cultural resources in the Project area, and reviews the cultural resources reports
prepared during the 1978 to 1985 environmental studies. Data gaps identified include
inadequacies in the location information of sites due largely to improvements in field and
mapping methods since the 1980s (GIS, portable GPS units, better topographic maps, and datum
transformation from NAD 27 to NAD 83), and advances with survey methodologies compared to
those employed during the earlier research. The cultural chronology of the Project area needs re-
examination, as set forth in AEA’s RSP.
Predictive models as research tools are not new to archaeology (cf. Judge and Sebastian 1988;
Aldenderfer and Maschner 1996; Wescott and Brandon 2000). The earlier legacy studies also
utilized predictive model frameworks for approaching surveys of the Susitna region. What is
new for current studies is the availability of regional digital datasets with greater standardization
of scale across the area, and the use of GIS technologies which increase the flexibility of models
as spatial tools. In many ways, the attempts to understand the region then and now are based on
similar assumptions regarding land use, the relationships between cultural variables and
environmental variables. The current model is an updated, more detailed and more flexible
version of an approach used for examining land use and site potential. This first pass at
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 15 February 2013
determining which variables are helpful for considering presence of cultural resources confirms
what archaeologists have already noted (i.e., importance of resources, landforms, elevation), and
this is due to the use of known sites for deriving associated values. Testing the model during the
2013 and 2014 field season by applying it especially to areas previously unsurveyed, as
explained in the RSP, will likely provide information for refining the weighting of variables and
increasing our understanding of associations between prehistoric site locations and the landscape,
and for assessing effects of the proposed Project on cultural resources.
6.4. Paleontology in the Study Area
Paleontological information compiled by PRGCI includes valuable data regarding the region’s
deep past, represented by recorded species of fossilized flora and fauna, and observations of
geological change within the region. For example, fossils of species which lived exclusively in
warm, equatorial environments illustrate global tectonic terrane shifts across geologic time as
manifested within the Wrangellia Terrane, which is present within part of the impoundment
study area. In the western Susitna region the Cantwell Formation sedimentary facies have
yielded dinosaur foot and skin prints; this Formation has not been thoroughly assessed for
paleontological resources.
Relevant to understanding spatial distribution of cultural resources are Quaternary age deposits,
which, by PRGCI estimates, cover about 30 percent of the region. These are mainly re-deposited
materials, primarily of glacial origin. Paleontological materials associated with Late Quaternary
and Early Holocene deposits in other parts of the state often represent mega fauna, such as
Mammuthus and Bison spp. which were potentially present within the time span of human
prehistory, and in some cases are found in association with cultural materials (Holmes et al
1996). Mammoth remains have been located in the Tyone River mouth area, and in the northern
portion of the region. In addition, Quaternary age deposits are important indicators of sequences
of deglaciation, which are of course relevant for understanding the development of
paleoenvironments and habitability of the Susitna region. According to PRGCI and other
researchers studying the terminal Pleistocene, glaciers receded in the region earlier than
previously thought, which has obvious implications for time depths of potential cultural
resources.
7. REFERENCES
Alaska Energy Authority. 2011. Cultural Resources PAD Section Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project (FERC No. 14241). September 26, 2011.
Alaska Energy Authority. 2012a. Proposed Study Plan: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
FERC No. 14241. July 2012.
Alaska Energy Authority. 2012b. Revised Study Plan Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
(FERC No. 14241). December, 2012.
Aldenderfer, M. and Maschner, H. (eds). 1996. Anthropology, Space, and Geographic
Information Systems. Oxford U Press, Oxford.
Bowers, Peter (editor), Joshua D. Reuther, Richard O. Stern, Carol Gelvin-Reymiller, Dale C.
Slaughter, Jill Baxter-McIntosh, Haley Brown, and Sarah McGowan 2012. Susitna-
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 16 February 2013
Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis. Report prepared
for the Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage. Report prepared by Northern Land Use
Research, Inc., Fairbanks.
Budtzen, Tom. 2012 Analysis of Paleontological Resource Sites, Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project, South-Central Alaska. Draft report written by Pacific Rim Geological
Consulting, Inc. for Northern Land Use Research, Inc., November 25, 2012.
Dixon, E. James Jr., George S. Smith, William Andrefsky, Becky M. Saleeby, and Charles J.
Utermohle 1985 Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Cultural Resources Investigations, 1979-
1985. Alaska Power Authority, Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Project No. 7114 Volume VI, Appendices E and F. University
of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks (APA document no. 2718).
Greiser, T. Weber, Sally T. Greiser, Glenn H. Bacon, Thomas A. Foor, Priscilla Russell Kari,
James Kari, David F. Gallacher, and Janene M. Caywood 1985 Phase I Report:
Background Research and Predictive Model for Cultural Resources Located Along the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project’s Linear Features Volume I. Report by Historical
Research Associates, Missoula, Montana, with contributions from Alaska Heritage
Research Group, Inc. through Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture for Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage, Alaska (APA document no. 2865).
Greiser, T. Weber, Sally T. Greiser, Glenn H. Bacon, David F. Gallacher, Thomas A.Foor, and
James A. Fall 1986 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Phase II Final Report. Sample
Survey and Predictive Model Refinement for Cultural Resources Located along the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Linear Features Volumes 1 and 2. Report by to Harza-
Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture and Alaska Power Authority by Historical Research
Associates, Missoula, Montana (APA document no. 3408).
Holmes, C. E., E. R. VanderHoeck, and T. Dilley 1996 Swan Point. In American Beginnings:
The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia. Edited by F. H. West, pp. 319-323.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Judge, W. and Sebastian, L. (eds). 1988. Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past:
Theory, Method, and Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling. US
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver, CO.
Kari, James 2011 A case study in Ahtna Athabascan geographic knowledge, Ch.11, pp. 239-260.
In Landscape in Language. Transdisciplinary perspectives, D.M. Mark, A.G. Turk,
N.Burenhult and D. Stea, editors. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Moffitt, F H., and H. Bouchard. 1975. Surveying. 6th ed. Thomas Y. Crowell, New York.
Reanier, Richard E. 2003. Archaeological and Cultural Resources Reconnaissance in the
ConocoPhillips Alaska Exploration Area, National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska, for the
Year 2002. Confidential report prepared for ConocoPhillips (Alaska) Inc. by Reanier and
Associates, Inc., Seattle.
Wescott, K. and Brandon, R.J. 2000. Practical Applications of GIS for Archaeologists: A
Predictive Modeling Toolkit. Taylor and Francis, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 17 February 2013
8. TABLES
Table 5.1-1. Number of sites visited
Date Visited Number of
Sites Visited AHRS Sites Visited
8/1/2012 2 TLM-00165, TLM-00166
8/2/2012 4 TLM-00199, TLM-00200, TLM-00230, TLM-00257
8/3/2012 3 TLM-00138, TLM-00146, TLM-00229
8/5/2012 3 HEA-00183, HEA-00184, HEA-00489
8/6/2012 3 TLM-00049, TLM-00073, TLM-00207
8/7/2012 3 TLM-00246, TLM-00247, TLM-00284
8/8/2012 4 TLM-00065, TLM-00074, TLM-00076, TLM-00077
8/9/2012 2 HEA-00176, HEA-00488
8/10/2012 3 TLM-00077, TLM-00241, TLM-00242
8/12/2012* 1 TLM-00180
Notes:
1 *Only the morning portion of the day was spent conducting inventory; the latter part of the day was spent
testing a high potential area.
2 Sites in bold were newly recorded cultural resources in 2012.
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 18 February 2013
Table 5.2-1. List of test areas
Test Area
Name
Location
(DD.dd) Study Area Location Site Vicinity and Description
CH-JMH-001 62.930899,
-149.152362 Chulitna Corridor
This is on the southwest-most point of a massive terrace
on the east/northeast side of Portage Creek. It is roughly
1.6 km (1 mi.) northeast of the Portage/Thoroughfare
confluence at 229°tN. The terrace comes to a narrow
point. A grid was laid out along the south facing edge. Five
negative test pits were dug to 32, 32, 40, 48 and 52 cmbs
respectively.
CH-JMH-002 62.892002,
-148.878839 Chulitna Corridor
This area is marked by rolling hills and ridges and was a
modeled low potential area. The area is around 4200 fasl
and (location description removed to allow public
distribution). The low potential area is on a flat terrace or
moraine near the base of a talus slope. Four test pits were
dug; all were negative.
GO-JMH-001 62.754517,
-148.942344 Gold Creek Corridor
The test area is on a terrace, south of the Susitna River
~1.68 km (1 mi.) from RM 168 at 5°tN. The test area is
within the GO-010 high potential ellipse. The ellipse is
large enough to accommodate approximately a dozen test
areas. Two negative test pits were dug to 38 and 54 cmbs
respectively.
GO-JMH-002 62.751687,
-148.886013 Gold Creek Corridor
This test area is a broad hill slope oriented to the east with
a view of the Susitna River and Stephan Lake. This should
be tested more in the future. The test area is within GO-
009, which is a massive broad ridgeline that spans many
hundred meters east to west. Three negative test pits were
dug to 32, 51, 52 cmbs respectively.
IM-JMH-002
(location
description
removed to allow
public
distribution)
Impoundment Area
The test area is on a terrace (location description removed
to allow public distribution), 230 m (754.6 feet) at 345o tN
from the active channel. AHRS site TLM-00180 is 87 m
(285.4 feet) at 93o tN to the east. One negative test pit was
excavated to 40 cmbs.
DE-JMH-005
(location
description
removed to allow
public
distribution)
Denali Corridor
Due to AHRS site location error, this positive test area was
later determined to be known AHRS site HEA-00248.
Positive subsurface tests revealed this site has multiple
components.
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 19 February 2013
9. FIGURES
(map with AHRS site locations removed to allow public distribution)
Figure 3-1. Overview map of the Study Area at the time fieldwork was conducted.
(map with AHRS site locations removed to allow public distribution)
Figure 3-2. Overview map of the impoundment Area at the time fieldwork was conducted.
(map with AHRS site locations removed to allow public distribution)
Figure 3-3. Overview map of the Chulitna and Gold Creek corridors at the time fieldwork was conducted.
(map with AHRS site locations removed to allow public distribution)
Figure 3-4. Overview map of the Denali corridor at the time fieldwork was conducted.
(map with AHRS site locations removed to allow public distribution)
Figure 5.3-1. Model area with random points, cultural resources, and APE in black (Alaskamapped: Best Data Layer Mid
Resolution Natural Color background).
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 20 February 2013
Figure 5.3-2. Cumulative model surface: highest values of +42 (white); lowest values of -10 (black). (Alaskamapped: Best
Data Layer Mid Resolution Natural Color background).
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 21 February 2013
Figure 5.3-3. Cumulative model raster value spread from -10 to +42.
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 22 February 2013
Figure 5.3-4. Prehistoric site dispersion across raster values.
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 23 February 2013
Figure 5.3-5. Random point dispersion across raster values.
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix Page 1 February 2013
Appendix:
Cultural Resources Assessment of 2012 Borehole Sites, for the Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project (August 2012)
Introduction
The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) proposes to drill eight geotechnical boreholes using a
helicopter-carried drill rig in mid-July and mid-August 2012 in the vicinity of the proposed
Watana Dam site, near the banks of the Upper Susitna River, south-central Alaska. Landing
zones (LZs) near the borehole sites were also surveyed because they are very often on flat, level
ground surfaces suitable for aircraft landings and slinging cargo. The locations of the eight
borehole sites and LZs are shown on Figure 1.
The proposed project falls within lands owned by Tyonek Incorporated. A draft permit
application to operate on properties owned by ANCSA organizations, which includes Tyonek,
was submitted May 5, 2012 by AEA. Two, one-day cultural resources field surveys were carried
out by Northern Land Use Research, Inc. (NLUR) on June 7, and July 1, 2012. NLUR is a
subcontractor to URS, a prime contractor to AEA.
This limited assessment is needed to gain concurrence from the Alaska State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). Because this work is ultimately part of a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) licensing process, this assessment is required under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act and implementing regulations in 36 CFR 800.
Methods
The cultural resources survey was conducted as a Phase II or “Evaluation” survey as defined by
the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology (OHA) (Alaska Office of History and Archaeology
Historic Preservation Series No. 11, revised 2003). Such surveys are designed to locate sites in
an affected area and gather sufficient information to evaluate the eligibility of sites for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60).
Archaeological fieldwork included on-the-ground pedestrian survey and aerial survey of the
Area of Potential Effect (APE). Standard fieldwork protocols were followed, including
photographs, observations of the affected area, surficial geology, slope, soils, and other
environmental factors that generally influence the location of cultural resources. The field crew
collected Global Positioning System (GPS) points of the surveyed area using a Trimble 6000
Series GeoXT handheld receiver. The measured level of accuracy was +/- 50 cm, uncorrected.
Had cultural resources been encountered, they would have been described following standard
professional guidelines; however, no artifacts or cultural resources were encountered.
Pre-field Data Review
NLUR’s first task included a literature review of appropriate files and resources pertaining to the
Project Area. Most of this material had already been acquired by NLUR as part of the data gap
report for AEA (Bowers et al. 2012). NLUR reviewed the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey
(AHRS) database managed by the OHA and our own extensive library to assess the
archaeological potential and level of previous archaeological investigations that have been
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix Page 2 February 2013
conducted in the vicinity of the Project Area (e.g., Dixon 1985; Dixon et al. 1985). AEA
provided NLUR with site coordinates of the boreholes and LZs with brief descriptions of each
location (Table 1). Slope angle and/or general description were the main criteria used to
determine if ground survey was needed. Aerial photographs and topographic maps were also
consulted prior to field investigations. Sites: DH12-1; DH12-2; DH12-5; DH12-7 and LZ; LZ
DH12-1 and DH12-2; LZ DH12-5; and LZ River, Right Abutment were selected for potential
ground survey for cultural resources.
Cultural Resources Fieldwork
Study Lead Justin M. Hays (NLUR Fairbanks) and archaeologist David Guilfoyle (NLUR
Anchorage) met in Talkeetna on June 6. Field work began the following day at the Watana Dam
site. Hays and Guilfoyle were able to locate, survey, test (when necessary) and record all of the
borehole sites and LZs except for DH12-5 and LZ-DH12-5 (Table 1). Borehole DH12-1 was on a
steep slope at 27 degrees on the upper, southern bank of the Susitna. DH12-2 was on a 24-degree
slope, however we dug a test pit in a level area near survey stakes (Figures 2 and 3). The test pit
was hand excavated using a folding shovel and trowel. Sediments were screened through a ¼-
inch mesh screen. The pit measured roughly 50 × 50 cm and was dug down to bedrock or
otherwise culturally sterile sediments. The test pit terminated at an approximate depth of 17 cm.
The test pit was backfilled, with the original vegetative mat replaced over the backfilled
sediments so that the surface is nearly indistinguishable from surrounding vegetation. LZ DH12-
1, DH12-2 was also in a steep area with standing water. An old LZ, possibly from the 1980s, was
recorded. There were recent remains consisting of dimensional lumber, a canvas tarp and an oil
can lid (Figure 4). Boreholes DH12-3, DH12-4, DH12-8 and the LZ River, Right Abutment were
confirmed by aerial survey to be on very steep slopes (~30 degrees). DH12-7 was on an 18-
degree slope at the edge of a very steep cliff that drops off to the active channel of the Susitna.
Inclement weather precluded the next day’s field work. The remaining sites were rescheduled to
be surveyed for a later date when helicopter availability would allow access.
The survey resumed on July 1. Hays and archaeological technician Jill Baxter-McIntosh flew to
the DH12-5 site from Talkeetna and were able to locate it from the air (Figure 5). Upon locating
the borehole site DH12-5 we were able to determine that is was unlikely for cultural resources to
be impacted by proposed drilling in the flagged location. The borehole site was on the south side
of the dam site, on a ledge at approximately 2000 feet above sea level, on a 30-degree slope. The
site was flagged with orange flagging. We were able to photograph the borehole site and record a
GPS point. The associated LZ DH12-5 was not flagged or located.
Based on NLUR’s 2012 survey, no artifacts, cultural features, human remains, or other cultural
resources were encountered at any of the borehole sites or LZs. No cultural materials were
reported for this general area by previous investigators (Dixon et al. 1985).
Summary and Recommendation
All of the proposed 2012 borehole sites and LZs were inspected, in addition to reviewing
background data, AHRS files, and regional literature. As no cultural resources were encountered,
NLUR recommends a finding of no historic properties affected (36 CFR 800.4(d)(1)). In our
opinion, no further fieldwork is required in advance of the mid-July geotechnical program, and
the sites may be considered “cleared” for coring. This report should be submitted to the Alaska
SHPO for concurrence and will be incorporated in our final report on the 2012 season.
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix Page 3 February 2013 Table 1. Exploration and Testing Program Work Plan, Provided by AEA to NLUR. Boring or LZ General Location Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Northing (ft) Easting (ft) Slope Angle (approx) Clearing Requirements DH12-1 Left Abutment-Dam 62.820702 -148.537274 3226058 745009 ~20° slope Low-moderate. Scattered black spruce, some alders. DH12-2 Left Abutment-Dam 62.819918 -148.537913 3225769 744908 ~20° slope Low. Scattered black spruce. DH12-3 Right Abutment-Dam 62.824229 -148.536609 3227350 745091 ~25° upslope, ~35° downslope Moderate-High. Majority of trees are birch to over 40 feet tall, some spruce. DH12-4 Right Abutment-Dam 62.823566 -148.538202 3227102 744830 ~35-40° slope Moderate-High. Birch and some spruce, trees to over 40-50 feet tall. DH12-5 Right Abutment-CM Source 62.821143 -148.526431 3226261 746818 ~15° upslope, ~30° downslope Low-moderate. Dense alder, scattered white spruce and birch to 30-40 feet tall. DH12-6 Right Abutment-CM Source 62.820567 -148.532055 3226029 745883 ~30° slope Low. Black spruce to 15-20 feet tall, alder. DH12-7 and LZ Right Abutment-CM Source 62.822124 -148.522236 3226636 747511 ~10° upslope, ~25° downslope Low. Scattered black spruce. DH12-8 Left Abutment-River 62.822055 -148.537416 3226552 744974 Generally Flat None to minor. Site located on river cobbles and boulders. Upslope are alders and birch.
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix Page 4 February 2013 Boring or LZ General Location Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Northing (ft) Easting (ft) Slope Angle (approx) Clearing Requirements LZ - DH12-8 River Terrace, Left Abutment 62.822057 -148.539496 3226545 744626 Generally Flat Low-moderate. Scattered birch and alder. LZ DH12-3, DH12-4 Midslope on Right Side of Valley (N2 stake) 62.824768 -148.538501 3227540 744770 ~20-30° upslope Moderate-High. White spruce to greater than 50 feet tall, alder. LZ DH12-1, DH12-2 Midslope LZ on Left Abutment 62.817642 -148.539097 3224933 744729 Flat to low angle (helo already able to shut down) Low. Less than 20-30 minutes of final clearing of black spruce. LZ DH12-5 LZ Southeast of Drill Site, Left Abutment 62.820868 -148.525604 3226164 746959 Low angle Low-moderate. Moderately dense black spruce. LZ River, Right Abutment River Terrace, Right Bank 62.823356 -148.536212 3226995 745516 Generally Flat Low. Clearing logs and alders on river terrace.
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix Page 5 February 2013
Figure 1. Location map with Borehole Sites and LZs, Talkeetna Mountains (D3 and D4) 1:63,360 scale (USGS
base map).
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix Page 6 February 2013
Figure 2. Test pit in near the DH12-2 stake, view to the northeast (NLUR image).
Figure 3. Test pit excavated to bedrock, plan view (NLUR image).
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix Page 7 February 2013
Figure 4. Recent LZ recorded near the DH12-1 site (NLUR image).
FINAL REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix Page 8 February 2013
Figure 5. Overview aerial photo of DH12-5 near the bottom center of the image (NLUR image).