HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa122Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project cultural resources data gap analysis
SuWa 122
Author(s) – Personal:
Peter M. Bowers, principal investigator
Author(s) – Corporate:
Report prepared by Northern Land Use Research, Inc.
AEA-identified category, if specified:
Data Gap Analyses
AEA-identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS-assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 122
Existing numbers on document:
Published by:
[Anchorage, Alaska : Alaska Energy Authority, 2011]
Date published:
November 30, 2011
Published for:
Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Public review draft
Document type:
Pagination:
xii, 72, 25 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
CULTURAL RESOURCES DATA GAP ANALYSIS
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
SITE INFORMATION REDACTED
Report prepared for:
Alaska Energy Authority
813 W. Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6690
Report Prepared by:
Northern Land Use Research, Inc.
Peter M. Bowers, M.A., R.P.A.
Principal Investigator
P.O. Box 83990
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
November 30, 2011
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
i
Redacted Version Notice
This document is a redacted version of a restricted distribution document, intended for public
use. Under the provisions of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and the National
Historic Preservation Act, disclosure of some cultural resources information is excempt from
requests under federal and state freedom of information laws and regulations. Sensitive cultural
resource data, especially site location data has been removed from this redacted version. This
specifically applies to (1) NLUR’s standard restriction of data statement, (2) Appendix B, and (3)
Figures 2 through 6.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
ii
List of Preparers
Editor: Peter Bowers
Authors: Peter Bowers, M.A., R.P.A.
Joshua Reuther, M.A., R.P.A. (A.B.D.)
Richard O. Stern, Ph.D.
Carol Gelvin-Reymiller, M.A.
Dale Slaughter, M.A.
Jill Baxter-McIntosh, B.A.
Hayley Brown, B.A.
Reviewers: Peter Bowers, M.A., R.P.A.
Richard O. Stern, Ph.D.
Technical Editor: Sarah McGowan, M.A.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ABR, Inc. Alaska Biological Research, Inc.
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
AHRS Alaska Heritage Resource Survey
AMS Accelerator Mass Spectrometry
ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
ANGTS Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System
ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
APA Alaska Power Authority
APE Area of Potential Effect
ARC Alaska Road Commission
ARLIS Alaska Resources Library & Information Service
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BOR Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
CA Commonwealth Associates
CAA Civil Aeronautics Administration
DOE Determination of Eligibility
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
FAI Fairbanks
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
GIS Geographical Information System
GPS Global Positioning Systems
HRA Historical Research Associates
ICP-MS Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry
IRP Railbelt Integrated Resource Plan
ISL Infrared Stimulated Luminescence
NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NLUR Northern Land Use Research, Inc.
NPS National Park Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OHA State of Alaska Office of History and Archaeology
OSL Optically Stimulated Luminescence
PA Programmatic Agreement
SHPO Alaska State Historic Preservation Office
TAPS Trans Alaskan Pipeline System
TCP Traditional Cultural Property
TES Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc.
UAF University of Alaska Fairbanks
UAM University of Alaska Museum
UAMN University of Alaska Museum of the North
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
iv
UCM Usibelli Coal Mine
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USGS United States Geological Survey
WAMCATS Washington Alaska Military Communication and Transportation System
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
v
Executive Summary
Between 1978 and 1985, investigators conducted cultural resources surveys, testing, and site
excavations for the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric project and ancillary facilities (construction
camps, transmission lines, access roads, etc.). Annual and summary reports and more than 50
professional papers and journal articles described over 270 sites which required some form of
analysis and curation of associated artifacts. Another 22 previously known sites were revisited
and documented. Of the sites found, 111 were located through subsurface testing (about 28,000
shovel tests). Some 99% of the known cultural resources have not been evaluated for their
eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, a necessary step in the Section
106 process required by the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800). Of the known
sites, 87% have prehistoric remains, 2% have protohistoric remains, 10% have historic and
modern remains and one site has paleontological remains. Advances in our understanding of the
geoarchaeology of the region’s stratigraphy, especially tephra deposits, requires a re-examination
of the conclusions reached in the 1980s regarding site locations and distributions in time and
space, and of the project area’s cultural chronology from a predictive modeling perspective.
This data gap report 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 advances with survey methodologies compared to those employed
during the earlier research. The cultural chronology of the project area needs re-examination due
to more modern dating techniques (e.g., AMS radiocarbon [14C], optically stimulated
luminescence [OSL]) and newer geoarchaeology (tephra) studies. Our understanding of
prehistoric land use patterns has advanced through development of more sophisticated predictive
models, which can be deployed for Susitna-Watana cultural resources field studies. Research
documenting Native Alaskan placenames now exists, which was not generally available during
the “legacy” studies of 1978-1985, and can be incorporated into predictive models and field
survey strategies. Traditional Cultural Places (TCPs) were not identified in the earlier studies,
but are now considered a required element of any cultural resources research program. Some
paleontological resources are legally afforded the same protection as cultural resources. In
addition, recommendations for the development of a research program for cultural resources
includes consultation with agencies, tribes, and interested parties, the development of protocols
for unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources and/or human remains, paleontological
resources, and artifact and records preservation, curation, and public education. Appendix A
lists the extensive materials housed at the University of Alaska Museum of the North (UAMN)
from the 1978-1985 work. Appendix B and maps list the known cultural resources from the
Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) maintained by the Alaska Office of History and
Archaeology (deleted in this redacted document). A table presents information about potential
data gap topics for desk-top and field investigations to advance the permitting process.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
vi
Table 1. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gaps
Potential Data Gap Topics Specific Information Needed
SITE LOCATION DATA
SL-1: Synthesis of existing location data information for
known sites
• Compilation of existing site location data
• Quality Control/editing of existing location data
imagery
• GIS layers of known sites with ability to sort by site
type, age, size, and associated environmental
variables
• Geodatabase with site location data plus aerial
imagery
• Digitized field map records identified in LRAC-1
SL-2: Mapped site location data and environmental
variables
• 1980s and current digitized/orthorectified imagery of
the middle Susitna
• Geodatabase of habitat types based on historic and
current aerial imagery
• Coded environmental variables
SL-3: Compilation of existing shapefiles (GIS) of
environmental variables
• Available environmental variables shapefiles
• GIS layers and georectify shapefiles to existing aerial
photography
SL-4: Field verification of existing site location data • Modern GPS technology in the field to verify/update
existing site location information
• Updated AHRS database
SURVEY COVERAGE
SC-1: Synthesis of 1978-1985 survey coverage
information
• Geodatabase with 1978-1985 survey coverage
information plotted
• Cross-reference lists between 1978-1985 surveys and
survey report information
• GIS layers with survey coverage data: locations, test
pit locations, level of effort, survey report
information
SC-2: 1978-1985 excluded survey coverage areas data • Geodatabase of 1978-1985 geographic areas within
study area excluded from CR surveys
• GIS layers from 1978-1985 reports showing areas
excluded from 1978-1985 CR surveys
SC-3: Adequacy of horizontal and vertical subsurface
testing strategy in 1978-1985 field research
• SC-1 geodatabase to assess adequacy of previous
survey methods compared with contemporary
standards and requirements
• Data on size, depth, and results of each 1978-1985
shovel test pit abstracted from reports and field notes
SC-4: Relation of 1978-1985 project components (dam
site, access corridors, camp location, and indirect impact
areas such as roads, recreation areas, etc.) to 2011 Wa-Su
Hydro Power project.
• GIS layers of 1978-1985 project components
• GIS layers of 2011 Wa-Su Hydro Power project
• Comparison of two project component footprints to
evaluate relevance of 1978-1985 CR survey data to
present project
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
vii
Potential Data Gap Topics Specific Information Needed
SITE LOCATION MODELING
SLM-1: Identification of variables used to develop site
location models used for 1978-1985 field research
• List of environmental variables used in 1978-1985
modeling
• Update data for legacy variables with more recent
information
• GIS layers
SLM-2: Refine 1978-1985 models with current modeling
applications
• Information gathered during SLM-1, SC-1 through
SC-4, SL-1 through SL-4, CC-1 through CC-4,
LRAC-1 through LRAC-4, LU-1 through LU-4, PN-
1 and PN-2, and TCP-1 and TCP-2
CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY
CC-1: Radiocarbon dates obtained from 1979-1985
research
• Lists of radiocarbon dates in unpublished and
published reports
• GIS layers showing distribution of radiocarbon dates
by age, cultural affiliation, and laboratory
• Compilation and evaluation of dates are critical,
especially as many dates are from the now defunct
Dicarb Laboratory.
CC-2: Tephra dating samples • Lists of tephra (volcanic ash) samples collected
during 1978-1985 field studies
• GIS layers showing distribution of tephra samples
• Analysis of tephras by contemporary geochemical
standards and laboratory techniques
CC-3: Update of tephra dating studies since 1985 • Geodatabase of tephra dated sites
• List of tephra samples, dates, analysis since 1985
adjacent to and in the project area
CC-4: Update of radiocarbon dates since 1985 • List of radiocarbon dates, sample locations, and
associated data for cultural resource and geological
studies
• Geodatabase of radiocarbon dates in and adjacent to
project area
CC-5: Update cultural chronology with modern
radiocarbon testing (e.g. AMS) dating analytical
techniques and tephro-chronology techniques (e.g.
geochemical)
• Identification of available samples from 1978-1985
research for modern dating
• Application of modern dating techniques to bone,
and other materials (collagen samples)
• Application of OSL dating to tephra deposits
CC-6: Synthesize southcentral and interior Alaska
cultural chronology by updating 1985 cultural
chronology with current cultural-historical frameworks
• Cultural resource literature developed since 1985
• Professional literature in books, journal articles,
reports, and professional papers
• Research of museum collections of artifacts
LAND USE
LU-1: Identification of prehistoric resource locations • Identification of available raw materials such as
lithics, fresh water, springs, salt licks, etc.
• GIS layers depicting raw material locations
LU-2: Prehistoric settlement patterns in different
prehistoric cultural periods
• Identification of prehistoric cultural periods
• GIS layers showing time-space distribution of
cultural resources and site types (some data from
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
viii
Potential Data Gap Topics Specific Information Needed
LRAC-1)
• Updated Susitna data in light of more recent research
on Glacial Lake Atna and Susitna, Holocene sand
sheets, ice patches and rock blinds, traditional trails,
regional pollen studies, tec.
LU-3: Historic land use • Identification of sources available for research
• Data from source materials (homestead records,
cabins, mining claims, etc.)
LU-4: Prehistoric subsistence practices and seasonal
round
• Identification of prehistoric harvests of wildlife
resources
• Analyses of seasonal patterns of resource harvests
• Analysis of faunal remains and plant macrofossils
from 1978-1985 research
LU-5: Effects of environmental and ecological changes
on land use patterns
• Identification of hiatuses in the cultural
chronological record in CC-5 and CC-6
• Identification of changes in land use patterns in LU-1
through LU-4
• Review of existing pertinent local and regional
environmental data
• Use of tephra data in CC-2 and CC-3
PLACE NAMES
PN-1: Synthesis of existing place names information
• Lists of published/unpublished Native place names
• Place names’ translations and associated historic
land use and cultural information
• Geodatabase place names location data
PN-2: Update baseline place names information to
account for unknown place names
• Oral interviews
• Place names’ translations and associated historic
land use and cultural information
TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PLACES/TRIBAL SACRED SITES
TCP-1: Synthesis of traditional cultural places (TCPs)
• Lists of unpublished TCPs
• Associated historical and cultural information
• Geodatabase with TCP/sacred sites location data
TCP-2: Update baseline TCPs information to account for
unknown TCPs
• Identification of sources available for research
• Use information gathered in PN-1 and PN-2
• Review of ethnographic and historic literature
• Oral interviews
• Informal and formal consultation with agencies,
Tribes and interested parties
LEGACY RECORDS AND ARTIFACT COLLECTIONS
LRAC-1: Finding Aids to Accession Records of 1978-
1985 UAM data
• Names, locations, descriptions of 1978-1985 records
(fieldnotes, maps, artifact inventories, etc.)
• Database of UAM accession records
LRAC-2: Inventory of 1978-1985 faunal remains and
geoarchaeology samples
• Database of UAM accessioned items for redating and
comparative use
• Descriptions of 1978-1985 samples
LRAC-3: Inventory of 1978-1985 field records at state,
federal agencies, and public libraries
• Names, locations, descriptions of 1978-1985 records
• Database of state and federal agency records
LRAC-4: Oral history interviews with 1978-1985 field • Oral interviews with principal investigators and
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
ix
Potential Data Gap Topics Specific Information Needed
research principals researchers in 1978-1985 SHP cultural resources
research
• Photographs and field information about previously
researched locations
HISTORIC CONTEXTS/EVALUATION CRITERIA
HC-1: Develop historic contexts for the project area • Review current federal and state legislation,
regulations and guidelines
• Review existing management plans and historic
contexts for areas adjacent to the project area
• Synthesis of pertinent data sources and results from
CC-1 through CC-6, SLM-2, LU-1 through LU-4,
LRAC-1 through LRAC-4, PN-1 and PN-2, and
TCP-1 and TCP-2
• Informal and formal consultation with agencies,
Tribes and interested parties
• OHA criteria and historic contexts.
HC-2: Develop project specific significance standards to
evaluate a property’s potential eligibility to the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
• Review current Federal and State legislation,
regulations and guidelines
• Review existing management plans and historic
contexts for areas adjacent to the project area
• Use historic contexts from HC-1
• Synthesize pertinent data sources and results from
CC-1 through CC-6, SLM-2, LU-1 through LU-4,
LRAC-1 through LRAC-4, PN-1 and PN-2, and
TCP-1 and TCP-2
• Informal and formal consultation with agencies,
Tribes and interested parties
PALEONTOLOGY
PAL-1: Synthesis of paleontology data • Paleontology site location data
• Geodatabase of paleontological sites
PAL-2: Paleontology site location model • Surficial geology and bedrock geology type
information
• GIS layers of surficial geology and bedrock lithology
• Data on locations of rock outcrops
Plans for Unanticipated Discoveries
PUD-1: Develop plan for unanticipated discovery of
cultural resources and human remains
• Review current Federal and State legislation,
regulations and guidelines
• Review existing management plans for areas
adjacent to the project area
• Informal and formal consultation with agencies,
Tribes and interested parties
PUD-2: Develop plan for unanticipated discovery of
paleontological resources
• Review current Federal and State legislation,
regulations and guidelines
• Review existing management plans for areas
adjacent to the project area
• Informal and formal consultation with agencies,
Tribes and interested parties
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
x
Table of Contents
Redacted Version Notice ............................................................................................................. i
List of Preparers .......................................................................................................................... ii
Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ x
Table of Figures ........................................................................................................................ xii
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Cultural Resources—Applicable Laws and Regulations ................................................. 2
1.3 Consultation Under Section 106 ...................................................................................... 5
2. Methods................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Research Methods ............................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Data Limitations............................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Known Additional Materials............................................................................................ 9
2.4 Other Literature Sources of Possible Relevance .............................................................. 9
2.5 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................ 9
2.5.1 Editorial Cleanup ........................................................................................................ 9
2.5.2 Identify Locations of and Obtain Paper/Scanned Copies ......................................... 10
2.5.3 Review Documents, Develop Abstracts, Assess Utility for 2011-2017 Program .... 10
2.5.4 Conduct Research at UAMN .................................................................................... 10
2.6 Known and Potential Problems with These Citations.................................................... 11
2.6.1 Duplicate Reports or Report Sections Listed under Different Authors .................... 11
2.6.2 Draft and Final Versions of the Same Report Title .................................................. 11
2.6.3 Different Alaska Power Authority Document Numbers for the Same Report ......... 11
3. Cultural Resources in the Watana Study area ....................................................................... 12
3.1 Cultural Resources within the Area of Potential Effect ................................................. 12
3.2 Cultural Resources—History of Research ..................................................................... 13
3.3 Geochronology and Prehistory of the Middle Susitna Region ...................................... 17
3.3.1 Devil Tephra ............................................................................................................. 18
3.3.2 Watana Tephra Set .................................................................................................... 19
3.3.3 Oshetna Tephra ......................................................................................................... 20
3.4 Cultural History ............................................................................................................. 20
3.4.1 Prehistory .............................................................................................................. 20
3.4.2 Ethnohistory .......................................................................................................... 24
3.4.3 History................................................................................................................... 25
3.5 Cultural Resources—Affected Tribes ............................................................................ 32
4. DATA GAPS ........................................................................................................................ 34
4.1 SITE LOCATION DATA.............................................................................................. 34
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
xi
4.1.1 Synthesis of existing location data information for known sites .......................... 34
4.1.2 Mapped site location data and environmental variables ....................................... 35
4.1.3 Compilation of existing shapefiles (GIS) of environmental variables.................. 35
4.1.4 Field verification of existing site location data ..................................................... 35
4.2 SURVEY COVERAGE ................................................................................................. 35
4.2.1 Synthesis of 1978-1985 survey coverage information.......................................... 36
4.2.2 1978-1985 excluded survey coverage areas data .................................................. 36
4.2.3 Adequacy of horizontal and vertical subsurface testing strategy in 1978-1985 field
research 36
4.2.4 Relation of 1978-1985 project components (dam site, access corridors, camp
location, and indirect impact areas such as roads, recreation areas, etc.) to 2011 Wa-Su
Hydro Power project. ............................................................................................................ 37
4.3 SITE LOCATION MODELING ................................................................................... 37
4.3.1 Identification of variables used to develop site location models used for 1978-
1985 field research ................................................................................................................ 37
4.3.2 Refine 1978-1985 models with current modeling applications ............................ 37
4.4 CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY ..................................................................................... 37
4.4.1 Radiocarbon dates obtained from 1978-1985 research ......................................... 38
4.4.2 Tephra dating samples .......................................................................................... 39
4.4.3 Update of tephra dating studies since 1985 .......................................................... 39
4.4.4 Update of radiocarbon dates since 1985 ............................................................... 39
4.4.5 Update cultural chronology with modern radiocarbon testing (e.g., AMS) dating
analytical techniques and tephrochronology techniques (e.g., geochemical) ....................... 39
4.4.6 Synthesize southcentral and interior Alaska cultural chronology by updating 1985
cultural chronology with current cultural-historical frameworks ......................................... 39
4.5 LAND USE .................................................................................................................... 39
4.5.1 Identification of prehistoric resource locations ..................................................... 39
4.5.2 Prehistoric settlement patterns in different prehistoric cultural periods ............... 40
4.5.3 Historic land use ................................................................................................... 40
4.5.4 Prehistoric subsistence practices and seasonal round ........................................... 40
4.4.5 Effects of environmental and ecological changes on land use patterns ................ 40
4.6 PLACE NAMES ............................................................................................................ 40
4.6.1 Synthesis of existing place names information ..................................................... 40
4.6.2 Update baseline place names information to account for unknown place names . 41
4.7 TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PLACES/ TRIBAL SACRED SITES ......................... 41
4.7.1 Synthesis of traditional cultural places (TCPs) ..................................................... 41
4.8 LEGACY RECORDS AND ARTIFACT COLLECTIONS ......................................... 42
4.8.1 Finding Aids to Accession Records of 1978-1985 UAMN Data ......................... 42
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
xii
4.8.2 Inventory of 1978-1985 faunal remains and geoarchaeology samples ................. 42
4.8.4 Oral history interviews with 1978-1985 field research principals ........................ 42
4.9 Historic Contexts/Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................ 42
4.9.1 Develop historic contexts for the project area ...................................................... 42
4.9.2 Develop project specific significance standards to evaluate a property’s potential
eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) ............................................ 42
4.10 PALEONTOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 42
4.10.1 Synthesis of paleontology data ............................................................................. 42
4.10.2 Paleontology site location model .......................................................................... 43
4.11 Plans for Unanticipated Discoveries .............................................................................. 43
4.11.1 Develop plan for unanticipated discovery of cultural resources and human
remains 43
4.11.2 Develop plan for unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources .............. 43
5. Site Location Models ............................................................................................................ 44
5.1 Review of Dixon et al. (1980 and 1985) ........................................................................ 44
5.2 Review of Greiser et al. (1985) ...................................................................................... 48
6. References Cited ................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix A – UAMN Inventory of Susitna Project Materials....................................................... 1
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Project location map. .................................................................................................... 71
NOTE: Appendix B and Figures with site information redacted from PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project as being planned by the Alaska Energy Authority
(AEA) is located in south central Alaska, approximately halfway between Anchorage and
Fairbanks in the upper Susitna River basin (Figure 1). It would include a single dam on the
Susitna River at river mile (RM) 184 in the vicinity of Watana canyon. A planned 700-foot-high
dam would have an approximate 557-foot difference between tail water and maximum pond
elevation, with a maximum pond approximately at the 2,000-foot elevation. The Watana
Reservoir would be approximately 39 miles long and a maximum of 2 miles wide. The dam’s
installed capacity would be in the range of 500 to 700 megawatts (MW), with the average annual
generation estimated to be around 2,600 gigawatt hours (GWh). The AEA has not made its final
decision regarding the type of dam or powerhouse (underground or surface) that would be used
or the final maximum reservoir level. The project would operate in a load following mode, with
portions of the high summer flows being stored for use in generating additional power in winter.
The instream flow releases are being determined at this time, however the flows proposed in the
Exhibit E of the 1985 draft amendment application provide a temporary “go-by” schedule for
possible instream flow releases. Project plans also include potential transmission lines and road
and rail access corridors to the reservoir area (Chulitna, Denali, and Gold Creek corridors), a
construction camp, material sources, and other ancillary facilities.
The State of Alaska has studied the feasibility of a hydroelectric project on the Susitna River for
more than 50 years. The Alaska Power Authority (APA) conducted feasibility and
environmental impacts studies in the 1970s and 1980s, and a license application was submitted
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The project was cancelled in 1986.
The Project is again being considered by the State of Alaska as a long term source of energy. In
2008, the Alaska State Legislature authorized the AEA to perform an update of the project.
Hydroelectric power is of particular interest to the Railbelt's Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)
because it provides stable electricity rates due to renewable river flow, rather than the fluctuating
rates of fossil fuel-generated electricity. Between 1979 and 1985, the APA and its contractors
investigated geological, geotechnical, engineering, and environmental topics. Cultural resources
investigations were one element of the environmental investigations (Dixon et al. 1985). The
AEA, the successor agency to the APA, is studying the Watana Hydro Project.
Northern Land Use Research, Inc. (NLUR) is subcontracted to ABR, Inc., one of several prime
contractors to AEA, to prepare several documents for use in the FERC licensing process: (1) the
cultural resources data gap report, (2) cultural resources Preliminary Application Document
(PAD) section, (3) subsistence data gap report, and, (4) the subsistence PAD section. This report
is the draft cultural resources data gap report; the two PAD sections and the subsistence data gap
reports have already been submitted to AEA.
The purpose of the data gap analysis is to compile existing available cultural resource
information about the project area, and evaluate it for its completeness and accuracy to inform
the preparation of environmental documents to support the Watana Hydro Project. This
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
2
document presents the results of NLUR's work to locate, identify, abstract, and evaluate the
cultural resource studies conducted in connection with the 1978-1985 research. The evaluation
entails reviewing the earlier work and comparing it with contemporary laws, regulations,
standards, and the many advances in various disciplines, such as large-project archaeological
survey modeling. In Alaska, NLUR has developed many of the models for the largest gas line,
mining, and railroad surveys (Bowers, et al. 2008; Potter 2005; Potter, et al. 2001, 2002; Potter,
et al. 2006). The adequacy of the earlier efforts is assessed and compared with modern, more
sophisticated GIS-based modeling methods in section 5.
More than a quarter century of modern archaeological research, aided by new methods and
technology in Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Geographic Information Systems (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 in 1985. In some respects, the Susitna
data provided for years the basic underpinning for the chronological framework for interior
Alaskan prehistory (Dixon 1985) (although some archaeologists critiqued that work and its
underlying assumptions; e.g., Betts and Bacon 1986; Bacon 1986). Of major pertinence, modern
advances in radiometric dating techniques require a review of the radiocarbon dates from the
Susitna Hydroelectric project (see section 4).
The purpose of the data gap analysis is to assess the existing cultural resources data and previous
surveys in terms of adequacy to meet various legal and regulatory requirements of FERC,
federal, and state laws and regulations (e.g., 36 CFR 800). To meet these objectives, we
addressed the following subtasks:
• locate relevant cultural resources documents and maps
• review history of cultural resource investigations in the project area
• assess the adequacy of prior cultural resources work
• identify and map previously reported cultural resources
• assess problems with the quality of site data
• to the extent possible, reconstruct past survey coverage and compare with current
site locations recorded in the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (AHRS) database
• assess methodologies of previous work compared to current standards
• identify sites that have been reported since 1985
• identify problems in site location and site identification
• identify data gaps, data limitations, and problematic survey areas
• identify potential issues relating to cultural resources
1.2 Cultural Resources—Applicable Laws and Regulations
The term “cultural resources” is often used as a synonym for the legal term “historic properties”
defined in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its accompanying regulations (36
CFR 800). Historic properties include prehistoric or historic sites, buildings, structures, objects
or districts eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 CFR 800,
36 CFR 60). These may be resources such as archaeological sites (e.g., open-air campsites, stone
chipping localities, game kill sites, and butchering sites), cultural landscapes, traditional cultural
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
3
properties (TCPs), sacred sites, and paleontological sites. In the study area, the vast majority of
cultural resources are prehistoric archaeological sites; the few known historic sites are mainly
cabins. A number of laws and regulations apply to the treatment of historic properties in the
vicinity of the Susitna-Watana Project.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC § 470), as amended, requires that
any federally funded, licensed, or permitted project consider the undertaking’s effects on cultural
resources. The implementing regulations in 36 CFR 800 require that the lead federal agency
consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Native American groups, local
governments, and the public. The Section 106 process provides for identification and evaluation
of historic properties, determination of effect, and a mechanism for resolution of any adverse
effects (mitigation). In the case of prehistoric sites such as those found in the Project area, data
recovery (limited excavation) and avoidance (if feasible) are the most likely approaches to
mitigation (Smith and Dixon 1985).
The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s inventory of historic properties that meet
specific criteria of local, state, or national importance. In order for a property to be eligible for
the National Register, it must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association, and significance under one or more criteria:
A. be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
B. be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or
represent the work of a master, or posses high artistic values, or represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or
D. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
There are some exceptions to these four criteria such as properties achieving significance in the
last fifty years, certain cemeteries or religious properties and other property types. Traditional
cultural properties (TCPs) are places that are eligible for inclusion on the NHRP because of their
association with the cultural practices and beliefs that are (1) rooted in the history of a
community, and (2) are important for maintaining the continuity of that community’s traditional
beliefs and practices (Parker 1993).
Federal legislation includes:
• Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. § 1982)
• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended in 2006) (16 U.S.C. § 470)
• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. § 4321-4347)
• Archaeological Data Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. § 469)
• American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. § 1996)
• Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. § 470aa-470ll)
• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. § 3001 et
seq.)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
4
• Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 (16 U.S.C § 470aaa)
Federal regulations include:
• 18 CFR 4: FERC Licensing, Permits, Exemptions, and Determination of Project Costs
• 18 CFR 380: Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
• 36 CFR 60: National Register of Historic Places
• 36 CFR 79: Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections
• 36 CFR 800: Protection of Historic Properties
• 43 CFR 7: Protection of Archaeological Resources
• 43 CFR 10: Native American Graves and Repatriation Act
Federal Executive Orders (E.O.) include:
• E.O. 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (1971)
• E.O. 12898: Environmental Justice
• E.O. 13007: Indian Sacred Sites (1996)
State legislation includes:
• Alaska Historic Preservation Act (Alaska Statute 41.35)
A number of ordinances, resolutions, and preservation plans may affect cultural resources at the
local level, including Matanuska-Susitna Borough Ordinance 87-007 and Historic Preservation
Plan (adopted 1987) and the State’s Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Denali Highway
Lands (VanderHoek 2011). This review does not include individual tribal or village council
resolutions that may exist in the records of various Native organizations. Private lands are
directly affected by federal cultural resources legislation, especially the National Historic
Preservation Act and implementing regulations (36 CFR 800), as long as any aspect of the
proposed action has federal involvement. Thus the Susitna-Watana Project will fall under the
Section 106 review process regardless of land status within the Project area (federal, state,
municipal, or private). If any aspect of a project is affected by a federal undertaking (permit,
license, or funding), then the federal review process applies to the entire Project area.
Several publications provide guidance on cultural resources investigations, in relation to federal
and state laws and regulations including:
• Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC
Hydroelectric Projects. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C.
(2002)
• National Register Bulletin Series, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior.
Website at: http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/#bulletins
• Historic Preservation Series, Alaska Office of History and Archaeology, Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Website at:
http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/oha/hpseries/hpseries.htm
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
5
• Human Remains and Cultural Resource Management in Alaska: State Laws and
Guidelines (Dale and McMahan 2007).
1.3 Consultation Under Section 106
The process of Section 106 consultation with Native Tribes, SHPO, and other federal and state
agencies, and the discrete tasks associated with lead federal agency government-to-government
consultations and coordination of consultation with the State of Alaska will naturally overlap.
The communities potentially affected by the project have different histories and cultures, but are
characterized by ties (past and present) to the land and its resources. The successful completion
of the consultation and coordination phase of the Section 106 process will require the
development of an efficient and effective consultation process that addresses the letter of the
laws and regulations within the context of local custom and practice.
Consultation is essential for completing the Section 106 review process. Consultation is required
by the NHPA, as amended, and implementing regulations for the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP), 36 CFR 800. Tribal consultation is required in all steps of the Section 106
process when a federal agency undertaking may affect historic properties that are located on
tribal lands, or when any tribe attaches religious or cultural significance to the historic property,
regardless of the property’s location.
In Alaska, consultation occurs with the 229 federally recognized tribes the thirteen Alaska Native
Regional Corporations and some 200 Alaska Native Village Corporations created by ANCSA.
(The Regional and Village Corporations are recognized as “Indian tribes” for NHPA purposes).
Consultation can be informal or formal. Informal consultation is information gathering and
exchange at any time in the process, while the latter usually takes the form of an Agreement
document (step 4 of the 106 process). Consultation is required between the lead federal agency
(technically, the agency, not the applicant), and the SHPO.
Formal section 106 tribal consultation generally involves federal agencies providing the tribe or
organization with a reasonable opportunity to identify its concerns about historic properties,
advise on the identification and evaluation of historic properties, communicate its views on the
undertaking’s effects on the historic properties that might be affected, and participate in the
resolution of adverse effects. Formal Section 106/government to government consultation can
only occur between the federally recognized tribes and the lead federal agency (FERC). In
addition to these mandated consultations, the SHPO and agency may agree that anyone else with
an interest on the project may participate. These decisions, as in the case of all consultation
efforts, must be documented in writing.
Consultation must be a genuine dialog involving the actual exchange of viewpoints and soliciting
input. Simply discussing with people what you are planning or doing will not be enough to
satisfy the consultation requirements, although this is an important first step, and one which is
being done under the “informal consultation” heading through initial meetings about access,
local hire protocols, and cultural resource survey strategies. Sending form letters, while one
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
6
solution to mass communication among various parties, is not sufficient consultation in and of
itself (e.g., Pueblo Sandia v. United States, 50F.3d 856 [10th Cir. 1995].
Much of what constitutes consultation involves data gathering. Especially in the case of Indian
tribes, oral history may be the only way certain information about site locations and significance
can be obtained. Some information about sacred or religious sites may be considered
confidential. Standard archaeological site location data may not be obtainable using these
techniques so care must be given to treat such discussions with sensitivity to these local
concerns.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
7
2. METHODS
2.1 Research Methods
Compiling the history of archaeological research in the Watana Project area was essential for the
completion of all other tasks pursuant to this analysis. Seven years of archaeological survey and
testing (1978-1985) took place during the early study years. That research documented some
270 sites within the study area (as the project area was then defined, see Dixon et al. 1985:viii).
NLUR’s 2011 efforts involved locating, copying, abstracting, and analyzing the information
contained in tens of thousands of pages of text, maps, figures, and tables from the 1978-1985
Susitna Project Cultural Resources Investigations and related FERC documents.
NLUR developed the bibliography in this report by consulting the following sources of
information:
• Electronic card catalog holdings at all Libraries included in the ARLIS system
o Alaska Resources Library & Information Service (ARLIS)
o UAA Libraries
o Anchorage Museum at Rasmuson Center
o Anchorage Public Library system
• Electronic card catalog holdings at
University of Alaska Fairbanks (GOLDMINE)
• NLUR’s in-house library and card catalog system (EndNote™)
• Review of the APA cross-reference documents listed on the AEA website.
All citations located for the Susitna dam project were entered into the NLUR EndNote™ catalog.
Each citation was key worded as “Susitna Dam, cultural resources.” If it had previously been
assigned an APA document number, the number was noted as well.
The Notes field in EndNote™ is used to record the location of a paper or electronic copy of the
document, and whether or not NLUR has a copy. The Abstract field in EndNote™ is used to
record an abstract or executive summary from the document, if the original document included
one. For many documents, we entered the abstract prepared by Maschner (1987) in his review
and monitoring of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project’s records management system. When the
document was used only as background material for the cultural resources reporting, we noted
that, and either did not prepare an abstract, or prepared a very abbreviated synopsis.
NLUR inventoried the voluminous field documents from the original Susitna research in the
1970s and 1980s housed at University of Alaska Museum (UAM), facilitating both location and
retrieval of pertinent cultural resources documents (see Appendix A).
NLUR compiled AHRS site locations on GIS map layers of the proposed project area. The site
database used for this assessment was constructed from AHRS data, information obtained from
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
8
NLUR library files, and original documents housed at the University of Alaska Museum of the
North (UAMN). Because several key federal and state statutes and regulations protecting
cultural resources had not been enacted or were markedly different from current regulations,
there are numerous archaeological sites that will eventually need to be evaluated for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Basic information on these sites was
summarized in order to facilitate an awareness of potentially eligible NRHP sites. Site location,
site structure, report reliability, and condition are among the key criteria for archaeological
significance. Part of our goal was to identify sites that lack this basic information.
The need for this level of effort is obvious when considering the history of archaeological
research in the study area. Information for the sites listed in the AHRS that are within five miles
of the project features varies in its completeness. These sites and their identification process are
summarized in Sections 3 and 4, and presented more fully in Appendix B (deleted from this
redacted version).
2.2 Data Limitations
Specific limitations relating to the various tasks are addressed in each section. It is important to
note that both general and specific limitations of the data reflect changes in regulations and their
interpretations, and changes in general archaeological inquiry over the last quarter century.
The data used to compile this report have several overall limitations. The use of Global
Positioning Systems (GPS) and Geographic Information System (GIS) analyses in current use
were unavailable for most of the previous archaeological work in the project area. Earlier
researchers were limited to triangulation, compass/tape, or other methods of locating sites.
Therefore, site location in the ANRS for many sites is imprecise, ambiguous, and/or inaccurate.
We use the terms ‘precision’ and ‘accuracy’ in very specific ways through 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.
Given many variables, especially given the preliminary nature of the engineering design, we
limited this initial cultural resource evaluation to an area 5 miles laterally from each project
feature. For the Watana Reservoir (Figure 2; redacted), we compiled sites at a scale of both 5
miles and 1 mile from the reservoir edge, and sites within the reservoir itself, using digital
elevation data provided by ABR, Inc. Additional potential project features we examined include
the Watana construction camp (Figure 3; redacted), Chulitna Corridor (Figure 4; redacted),
Denali Corridor (Figure 5; redacted), and Gold Creek Corridor (Figure 6; redacted). For the
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
9
purposes of this report, these areas correspond to the approximate Area of Potential Effect
(APE).
2.3 Known Additional Materials
At the beginning of this research effort, it was known that there were additional materials
relevant to this data gap analysis at the University of Alaska Museum of the North (UAMN),
Fairbanks, Alaska. We anticipated finding the following types of materials:
• UAMN fieldnotes
• Maps
• Photographs
• Radiocarbon dating laboratory report forms
NLUR staff prepared an inventory of the materials located at UAMN, presented as Appendix A
to this report, however, the project scope did not allow for a detailed analysis of the UAMN
materials. Those voluminous materials are considered here as the core of the Susitna cultural
resources raw data; these will need to be reviewed in greater detail prior to preparation of any
fieldwork plans, site models, or other cultural resources research.
2.4 Other Literature Sources of Possible Relevance
Several organizations participated in the 1978-1985 cultural resources efforts. In addition to
UAMN (then called the University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks), these include Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists, Inc. (TES), Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture, Commonwealth
Associates (CA), Alaska Heritage Research Group, Inc., Historical Research Associates, Inc.,
and Acres American, Inc.
Some of these organizations were the primary contractors with APA for various environmental
investigations, while others were subcontracted to the prime contractors. It still needs to be
determined if all of the cultural resource reports, and associated archival materials (fieldnotes,
field maps, etc.) were deposited with the UAMN. Inquiries may need to be pursued with these
organizations (or their successors) to identify any 1978-1985 Susitna Dam cultural resource
materials that they might still hold.
Federal and state agencies were involved in permitting the 1978-1985 cultural resources
research. One APA document (no. 649) identifies the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G).
Those agencies, and others as yet unidentified, may have holdings related to cultural resources.
2.5 Next Steps
2.5.1 Editorial Cleanup
The NLUR staff assigned to work on this project reviewed the preliminary listing of cultural
resources references. Errors, omissions, typographic mistakes, and other editorial items were
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
10
identified and corrected. After that review, the listings were used during the data gap research.
Through our internal discussions and analysis, NLUR evaluated the keywords and use of
EndNote™ as the citation database management software for this project.
2.5.2 Identify Locations of and Obtain Paper/Scanned Copies
Based on the two APA (1988a, 1988b) cross-reference documents, it appears that AEA staff
have scanned a large number of the cultural resource reports. NLUR researchers contacted AEA
to obtain those scanned documents for NLUR’s use for this data gap analysis. They are coded in
the EndNote database as “APA-copy (scanned).” AEA staff posted the documents to an ftp site,
where NLUR downloaded them for analysis.
NLUR requested paper and/or electronic copies from AEA of relevant APA documents which
the 1988 cross-reference lists indicated had not yet been scanned. AEA noted that it would take
four to six weeks or more to make copies of those documents from microfiche, and send them
outside of Alaska for electronic processing. Due to these constraints, those documents were not
reviewed for this data gap analysis. To assure complete review of all relevant legacy (1978-
1985) documents, AEA should pursue obtaining scans of all cultural resources documents from
the previous research even after this initial data gap effort is complete.
2.5.3 Review Documents, Develop Abstracts, Assess Utility for 2011-2017 Program
NLUR archaeologists reviewed the documents and created abstracts. If an abstract, or executive
summary already existed, that language was entered into the EndNote™ citation for the
document.
The utility of the information in the documents needs to be assessed against contemporary
cultural resource research and management practices. That assessment of the cultural resources
information is included in sections 3 and 4 of this cultural resource data gap report.
2.5.4 Conduct Research at UAMN
UAMN is the archival repository for materials collected during the 1978-1985 Susitna
Hydroelectric project research. The archived field notebooks, maps, stratigraphic profiles, and
other text materials still need to be cataloged in EndNote for rapid access, analysis, and future
cultural resources modeling and field research. NLUR-FAI staff are quite familiar with these
materials and should undertake this task under a separate contract with AEA. We presume that
the excellent working relationship with UAMN staff will continue, and they will assist in
locating the materials, and arranging for their temporary loan to the AEA project for copying and
scanning.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
11
2.6 Known and Potential Problems with These Citations
2.6.1 Duplicate Reports or Report Sections Listed under Different Authors
Many of the relevant citations come from NLUR’s EndNote™ database with the original source
coming from West and Stern (1987). Research into other sources identified other citations with
similar or identical titles, but different authors. For example, reports prepared by the University
of Alaska Museum are variously described as being authored by UAM in Alaska Power
Authority sources. Other sources list the author as TES, or the individual researchers from the
1978-1985 period such as E. James Dixon, Jr., George S. Smith, T. Weber Greiser, and others.
Rather than delete a citation from consideration, we retained both forms of the citation in the list
presented in this report. Where the citation lists a corporate author, we note in the abstract that
the same document is abstracted under the authors’ name.
2.6.2 Draft and Final Versions of the Same Report Title
Whenever a source document listed a citation as a draft or final version, that information was
retained in the NLUR EndNote™ entry.
2.6.3 Different Alaska Power Authority Document Numbers for the Same Report
This problem most likely originates from having the same report listed variously as authored by
different entities (discussed above). Where the report listed a person (or persons) as the authors
of that specific chapter, both the entire report and the individual chapters will include a reference
to the APA document number in the EndNote™ citation.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
12
3. CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE WATANA STUDY AREA
3.1 Cultural Resources within the Area of Potential Effect
The study area currently encompasses the Areas of Potential Effect (APEs) that include the
Watana Reservoir, Watana Construction site, and three potential road and transmission corridors
(Chulitna, Denali, and Gold Creek corridors) (Figures 2-6; redacted in this version). A total of
260 cultural resources sites presently recorded in the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (SHPO
2011) database are situated in the Project area. Many of these sites were documented during the
1978–1985 surveys associated with the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Two hundred and twenty
six of these sites (86.9%) have prehistoric remains present. Four sites (1.5%) have protohistoric
remains, 27 sites (10.4%) have historic and modern remains, and one site (0.4%) has
paleontological remains. Two sites (0.8%) do not have an accompanying description to the
AHRS database entry.
Two hundred and fifty seven (98.8%) of these 260 cultural resources sites have not been
evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the NRHP, an essential step in the Section 106
process (AHRS 2011). This includes all of the prehistoric sites. The Susitna River Railroad
Bridge (49-TLM-00006), located near the proposed Gold Creek Corridor, is listed on the NRHP.
The Alaska Railroad Corporation Timber Bridge at MP-267.7 (49-TLM-00265) of the Alaska
Railroad, located within 5 miles of the proposed Chulitna and Gold Creek corridors, was
determined eligible for listing on the NRHP, but has yet to be listed. The Seattle Creek Bridge
(49-HEA-00353), located at MP112.2 of the Denali Highway and within 5 miles of the proposed
Denali Corridor, was determined not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. Table 1 summarizes
the known cultural resources within each of the Project’s potential areas of impact by the period
of remains present and status of eligibility to the NRHP as designated in the AHRS (2011)
database.
Our review of source material reveals some discrepancies in site numbers and totals. This is
most likely due to different geographic coverages and descriptions of the APE (e.g., whether or
not the Watana and Devil canyon reservoirs are lumped together, which material sites and
ancillary facilities are included, whether or not site information is actually recorded in the
AHRS, whether or not UAMN and HRA sites are combined or separated). John Hoffecker, the
author of the EIS sections on cultural resources (1984) states that there are 122 archaeological
sites and 4 historic sites within the Watana impoundment and associated facilities, and that 22
have been assessed for National Register significance. For the entire middle and upper Susitna,
he lists 209 sites, 68% (n=142) of which produced subsurface remains (Hoffecker 1984:0-9).
Dixon et al., in their final May 1985 summary report (1985:2-1), give a total of 248 sites
discovered between 1979-1985, and another 22 that were already listed in the AHRS. Of these,
73 lie within the Watana reservoir, with an additional 47 adjacent to it. Thirty-two sites are
noted by Dixon et al. as being within material sites (designated as A-L), and another 15 are
adjacent to these areas. Citing UAMN reports, documents in the 1984 APA license application
to FERC give a total of 319 sites within the combined impoundment areas and ancillary
facilities. Of these, 67 lie within 500 feet of the Stage I Watana impoundment area, and 101 lie
within 500 feet of the Stage III Watana impoundment area (Dixon et al. 1984).
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
13
Ahtna and Dena’ina place names also have been recorded in and near the Project area; these
provide valuable sources of geographic information pertaining to past human land use. Simeone
et al. (2011) note that over 350 Athna and 50 Dena’ina place names occur within or near the
Project area. Ahtna place names are more prevalent toward the northern portion of the Project
area, north of Devils Canyon, the traditional boundary of the Ahtna and Dena’ina people. Devils
Canyon has both Ahtna and Dena’ina place names, and Dena’ina place names are more prevalent
to the south of the canyon. Lower Tanana place names are less well-documented than Athna and
Dena’ina place names, but also may be present in the northern portion of the Project area.
Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) have not yet been identified within the Project area.
However, the identification of TCPs within the NRHP framework began after the 1978–1985
Susitna Hydroelectric Project and these property types may be identified through further cultural
resources investigations.
Potential impacts of the Susitna-Watana Project to historic properties may include disturbance
during construction of the Watana Dam and associated facilities, access routes, and transmission
lines, and inundation of sites by rising water levels at the reservoir (cf. Smith and Dixon 1985).
Erosion of sites could occur as a result of exposure or stripping of surface vegetation.
Inadvertent disturbance or vandalism to historic properties could occur due to increased land-
based access for recreational activities. Aesthetic changes to a surrounding historic landscape
may also affect the historic and cultural significance of a property.
3.2 Cultural Resources—History of Research1
Cultural resources investigations associated with the Project area have been conducted
periodically conducted since 1953. With increased understanding of the prehistory of interior
Alaska, the methods used to identify and evaluate resources have changed over this nearly six
decade period. Cultural resources field surveys in Alaska commonly employ site location
models to stratify the study area into field survey segments. Within the survey segments,
researchers identify higher and lower potential areas for the presence of prehistoric,
protohistoric, and early historic (before A.D. 1880) cultural resources (Dixon et al. 1985;
Gerlach et al. 1996; Greiser et al. 1985; Mason and Bowers 1994; Potter et al. 2008b; Potter
2005; Reuther et al. 2010, 2011). These models vary in approach and relative success in site
discovery; they can be judgmental and intuitive-based or more statistically oriented and less
subjective. The basic premise behind many of the site location models is that prehistoric,
protohistoric, and early historic land use patterns are highly dependent on local natural resources,
such as subsistence resources and raw materials for making tools, equipment, housing, and
clothing. The distributions of many of these resources are constrained by environmental
variables such as topography, elevation, vegetation, and surficial geology.
The 1953 field study methods consisted of an initial aerial and pedestrian reconnaissance of the
then proposed Devils Canyon Dam site area to demarcate areas with a high likelihood for the
1 Radiocarbon (14C) dates reported here are expressed as "radiocarbon years before present" or simply, "B.P.". Due
to a variety of factors that cause fluctuations in amount of radiocarbon at any given time, radiocarbon dates --
especially those from the late Pleistocene epoch -- may differ from actual calendrical (cal AD/BC) equivalents by
hundreds or even several thousand years. Calibrated BP (cal BP) ages and calendrical equivalents may be calculated
using a calibration program, such as CALIB 5.0 program (Stuiver et al. 2005; see also Reimer et al. 2004).
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
14
location of archaeological remains (Skarland 1953). Intensive on-the-ground survey was
conducted along the shores of Lake Susitna, Tyone Lake and the Tyone River, and the hills on
the southwest side of Lake Louise (Irving 1953). This intensive on-the-ground survey consisted
of subsurface testing at high potential landforms and documentation of the cultural resources that
were identified. Details of the methods, depth, and specific locations of subsurface testing
during the 1953 survey are minimal (Skarland and Irving 1953).
The majority of the previous cultural resources investigations took place between 1978 and 1985.
In 1978, Bacon (1978a, 1978b) developed an initial site location model for the Devils Canyon
and Watana Dam site areas. Bacon (1978a) conducted an aerial reconnaissance to refine the
model with field data from the Project area, prior to on-the-ground survey. The majority of the
1978 on-the-ground surveys concentrated on an area between Tsusena and Deadman creeks,
north of the Susitna River (Bacon 1978a, 1978b). On-the-ground survey was also conducted at
the then-proposed locations for the left and right abutments and spillway for the Watana Dam,
along with proposed locations for an airstrip, camp pad, two material sites, access roads, and a
portion of a the proposed dam site at Devils Canyon (Bacon 1978a, 1978b). This survey
consisted of subsurface testing and the documentation of identified cultural resources.
Subsurface testing consisted of small tests dug with entrenching tools and hand trowels. The test
locations were placed throughout high potential areas at non-systematic intervals. The
subsurface tests were not mapped.
The 1980–1984 field studies led by the University of Alaska Museum provide the vast majority
of data pertaining to the Project area. This research focused on the Watana and Devils Canyon
Dam sites and associated ancillary impacts (Dixon et al. 1985). The ancillary impacts surveyed
and tested during the 1980–1984 field studies include three transmission corridors (Healy-to-
Fairbanks, Healy-to-Willow, and Willow-to-Anchorage) and 12 borrow pits (Borrows A–L) that
were designated as potential material sources. Alternative access routes (Corridor 1 North,
Corridor 2 South, and Corridor 3 Denali-North) were preliminarily surveyed. Researchers
developed a site location model primarily based on environmental variables including the local
geomorphology, elevation, and vegetation (see review in section 5 of this report). Landforms
such as overlooks, lake margins, stream/river margins, quarry sites; caves and rock shelters,
natural topographic constrictions, and mineral licks were considered to have a high potential for
association with archaeological sites. Localized survey segments that were considered to have a
high potential for sites were designated as “survey locales” (Dixon et al. 1985). One-hundred
eighty two survey locales were intensively surveyed and subsurface tested during the 1980–1984
field studies, covering some 13,354 ha (33,000 ac) (Dixon, et al. 1984; 1985). The locations of
these survey locales and sites were mapped on 1:63,360 scale USGS topographic maps (Dixon et
al. 1985: 6–10). Survey locales appear to have been walked over (Dixon, et al. 1984); however,
written details in survey reports are minimal pertaining to the methods employed during the
surface reconnaissance. Areas of lower archaeological potential, (up to 62% of the study locale
areas), included steep slopes exceeding 15 degrees, areas of standing water, active gravel and
sand bars within streams, and active channels of rivers and streams (Dixon et al. 1985:vi).
The distance between subsurface tests at each survey locale was discretionary; that is, left to the
discretion of individual field crew leaders. Subsurface tests at survey locales and sites that were
not chosen for systematic testing typically consisted of round shovel tests approximately 30 cm
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
15
in diameter (12 in) and not deeper than 50 cm (20 in) (Dixon et al. 1985: 6–10). If artifacts were
found in a buried context, at least one 40 cm × 40 cm (16 in × 16 in) square test pit was
excavated to acquire additional information on the stratigraphy and number of cultural
components present at the locality. Tests excavated at survey locales and sites were plotted on
sketch maps.
A total of 248 archaeological sites, covering an area broader than the present study area, were
documented during the 1980–1984 field studies; an additional 22 were already listed in the
AHRS (Dixon et al. 1985:viii). Sixty-three of these sites were chosen for systematic testing to
determine the size of each site, and gather additional field data on the types of and relative
density of artifacts and features, number and age of components, and physical integrity of the
archaeological context of cultural deposits at each site. Systematic testing consisted of
excavating subsurface tests along grids that were placed at the periphery of and excavated
towards the observed cultural materials. Systematically tested sites were mapped using a transit
and stadia rod. Sediment was screened through 1/4 in to 1/8 in mesh screens. The provenience
of artifacts was recorded according to their association with natural stratigraphic units or by 5 cm
(2 in) arbitrary levels. Site sizes at systematically tested sites were determined by the observed
horizontal distribution of cultural remains, while sizes of non-systematically tested sites were
estimated based on the local topography of landforms on which the sites were located. A site tag
with AHRS number was reportedly placed at sites. It is unclear how many sites have had enough
information collected from which a determination of eligibility to the NRHP could be made (a
part of the Section 106 process and a necessary step in site evaluation; 36 CR 800), although the
2011 AHRS reports only 3 have been so evaluated.
An important part of the Susitna studies was the application of a variety of geoarchaeological
techniques. In addition to studies of regional sediment stratigraphy, 83 radiocarbon dates were
obtained in an attempt to place archaeological discoveries in chronological context.
Tephrochronology (using petrographic and other methods to characterize and compare the
widespread volcanic ash layers in the area) was used to provide relative dating of some sites
(Dixon and Smith 1990). Sixteen major stratigraphic units were identified in the project area,
and one lacustrine sediment core was collected (Dixon et al. 1985:ix-x).
In addition to field studies, laboratory analysis was carried out of artifacts and faunal remains. A
total of 137,835 lithic artifacts were analyzed. A total of 142,835 faunal specimens from 78 sites
were studied (Dixon et al. 1985:x).
In 1985, the APA contracted with HRA to develop a predictive site location model and survey
strategy for several proposed linear features including transmission lines, access roads, and
railroad corridors (Greiser et al. 1985; see also section 5 of this report). Three transmission lines
were designated as the Gold Creek–Watana (36.2 mi in length), Healy–Fairbanks (94.4 mi in
length), and Willow–Anchorage (64.4 mi in length) lines which tied into existing transmission
lines along the railbelt. The proposed railroad access consisted of 10.2 miles of rail from Gold
Creek to Devils Canyon. Approximately 76 mi of access road was proposed between the Denali
Highway and the construction site for the Watana Dam site and Devils Canyon.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
16
The Greiser et al. (1985) survey model assessed potential relationships between known
archaeological site locations from all time periods and the characteristics of the vegetation and
terrain in the Project area. About 450.6 km (280 linear mi) of survey area were gridded into
about 550 square plots, each 1.3 km (one-half square mile) in size, superimposed over the linear
survey path of the proposed transmission lines and road and railroad access corridors. Eighty-
nine (16%) of these plots were completely surveyed and five (0.9%) plots were partially
surveyed (Greiser et al. 1986: 2–4). The survey plots were chosen to represent the variation in
vegetation and terrain across the survey area.
The field survey method used during 1985 was for one or more archaeologist(s) to walk transects
across each selected plot with transects spaced 30 m (98 ft) apart (Greiser et al. 1986: 2–14).
Subsurface tests were systematically placed every 20 cm (8 in) to 50 m (164 ft) along each
transect in a given square survey plot. Additional tests were placed at the field archaeologist’s
discretion on higher potential landforms. The depth of the subsurface testing varied between 30
cm (12 in) to not more than 50 cm (20 in) below the surface and sediments were screened
through 1/4 in mesh screens.
A total of 40 cultural resources were documented during the 1985 season, including seven
prehistoric, two ethnohistoric, 15 historic, and 16 recent sites (Greiser et al. 1986: 3–16, 3–22).
Prehistoric site sizes were determined by systematic shovel testing along grids that radiated from
the observed cultural materials. Tests were excavated at variable intervals along these grids.
The protocols used to record sites closely followed those of Dixon et al. (1985).
Since the 1980s, there has been very little cultural resources work done in the project area. In
2011, using a helicopter-carried drill rig in the vicinity of the proposed Watana dam site, the
AEA drilled four geotechnical boreholes within an area designated as Material Site “A” during
the 1978–1985 Susitna studies program. A cultural resources field survey was carried out by
NLUR in June 2011. Based on the NLUR survey, no cultural resources were encountered at any
of the four localities, nor were cultural materials reported for this general area by previous
investigators (Dixon et al. 1985: E-273). NLUR did document tephra in several test pits, and
recommended a finding of no historic properties affected (36 CFR 800.4(d)(1)) (Bowers 2011).
On-going academic research in the upper Susitna has resulted in significant discoveries of
prehistoric sites in deeply buried, dateable contexts, some within ancient dune deposits (Blong
2011). Nineteen sites were recorded in 2010-2011, one of which resulted in a radiocarbon date
of 9630+/-50 C14 years BP (11,180-10,750 cal. BP; Beta-284748). Although these sites appear
to lie outside of the present study area, they have an important bearing on our understanding of
the regional prehistory.
Alaska Native place names have been documented in the Project area at least since 1953 (Irving
1953; Greiser et al. 1986; Kari 2008; Kari and Fall 2003). These names often document aspects
of the way people view, use, and relate to a particular landscape. Ahtna, Dena’ina, and Lower
Tanana place names often relate to the surrounding natural environment such as description of
landforms, hydrology, vegetation, fauna, and aspects of the local weather. Place names can also
refer to past human history and activities such as gathering places, areas of trading, territorial
boundaries, and spiritual places. Thus, place names can be very useful in archaeological studies.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
17
The understanding of how people relate and use local landscapes and resources can provide a
framework to understand continuity and change in past land use systems in the archaeological
record. Place names and the archaeological record can often provide information pertinent to the
identification and understanding of the potential significance of TCPs. Place names and TCPs
are often identified and documented through archival research and oral interviews.
3.3 Geochronology and Prehistory of the Middle Susitna Region
The prehistoric chronology of the Middle Susitna region is primarily defined by radiocarbon
dates on archaeological features, relative ages based on stratigraphic dates, and relative ages
based on tephras that have date ranges for the deposition of known ashfalls. Dixon and Smith
(1990:388) note that 83 radiocarbon determinations were acquired from archaeological features
and geological sections during the Susitna Hydroelectric Project between 1980-1984. It is not
explicitly stated whether the materials dated are charcoal, however this does seem to be implied
in Dilley (1988) and Dixon and Smith (1990). Radiocarbon dating of pollen, plant materials,
bulk soil and charcoal samples in the region has been hampered by problems of contamination
by younger soil-derived carbon in terrestrial settings and older carbon of microscopic airborne
coal particles (lignite) and Tertiary-aged pollen (Dilley 1988; Dixon and Smith 1990).
Two laboratories performed most of the radiocarbon assays for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project:
Beta Analytic, Inc., and the Dicarb Radioisotope Isotope Company. These companies employed
radiometric assaying techniques that were standard during the 1980s. Only a handful of
accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dates were run in the 1990s on charcoal
collected from sites, in particular the Jay Creek Ridge site, during the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project (Dixon 1999; Reuther 2000).
The tephrochronology of the Middle Susitna River region stands as a unique chronological
sequence to apply relative stratigraphic ages to archaeological components in interior Alaska.
Tephras (airborne volcanic ash deposits) that have known ashfall ages and can be differentiated
geochemically also may be used to developed relative stratigraphic ages for archaeological
components (Steen-McIntyre 1985). The use of tephras as chronostratigraphic markers is termed
tephrostratigraphy (often referred to as tephrochronology; Alloway et al. 2007). Tephra
characterization can be achieved by petrographic description (Steen-McIntyre 1979, 1985) or by
the measurement of major and trace elements abundances within a particular sample (Alloway et
al. 2007). Each of these methods relies on the comparison to known petrographic and
geochemical signatures of other dated tephras.
The river basin has a relatively close proximity to volcanic eruptions in southcentral Alaska,
such as those from Mount Spurr and the Mount Hayes vent in the upper Cook Inlet, thus
allowing for thicker deposits in the region. Riehle (1985) and Riehle et al. (1990) note that there
are over 70 Holocene tephras identified in southcentral Alaska. Tephra deposit preservation in
terrestrial geomorphic settings is promoted in the basin at geomorphic settings that are high in
potential for the location of archaeological sites. The locations of archaeological sites tend to be
on landforms that are <15 degrees in slope angle and many of the sites in the Susitna are less
than 1,500 (4,921 feet) meters above sea level (Dixon and Smith 1990:388). Tephra deposit
preservation decreases as the slope angles increase beyond 15 degrees as the potential for
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
18
downslope erosion of sediment increases. Areas in elevation above 1,500 meters (4,921 feet)
above sea level tend to be more wind-swept and have less vegetation and, thus, smaller particle
sizes are subject to remobilization and secondary deposition by wind.
The numerical age ranges assigned to the Susitna tephrochronology are primarily based on
radiocarbon ages derived from archaeological components and buried soils situated above and
below each tephra deposit. These ages provide bracketing ages (minimum and maximum ages)
for tephra deposition. In rare instances, organic materials, such as wood charcoal and plant
remains, are found buried in the primary tephra deposits and may provide a more accurate
radiocarbon age on the volcanic ashfall event. Dixon and Smith (1990) developed a
tephrochronology for the Middle Susitna region based on 42 radiocarbon dates (50.6%) of the
total 83 dates from the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The description of each of the radiocarbon
dates used in the tephrochronology appear in Dixon et al. (1985) and Dilley (1988:33-36).
In addition, Dilley (1988:22-23) and Dixon and Smith (1990) acquired radiocarbon data and
tephra samples from a stratigraphic sequence recovered from two bog cores on the west side of
Watana Creek, and a lacustrine core removed from a pond near the mouth of Watana Creek.
Dixon and Smith (1990) provided a tentative correlation of the tephras observed in terrestrial
stratigraphic settings to a sequence derived from the lacustrine core. Dilley (1988) provided a
correlation between tephras identified at archaeological sites and in the bog and lacustrine core
stratigraphy. The correlation of dated and undated tephra deposits between terrestrial
stratigraphic sequences and the lacustrine core were achieved by the comparison of the position
of a tephra in a stratigraphic sequence, visual characteristics of a deposit in the field, and
petrographic characteristics of each tephra. Geochemical correlation of the tephras was not
performed during this analysis.
At least four unique tephra deposits have been dated in the region and are identified in the Dixon
and Smith (1990) tephrochronolgical sequence. These deposits are the Devil tephra, the Upper
and Lower Watana tephras that compose the Watana tephra set, and the Oshetna Tephra. These
tephras are described below from the oldest to the youngest. Dilley’s (1988) sequence primarily
follows Dixon and Smith’s sequence with some expectations noted below. Several of the
Sustina tephras likely relate to the volcanic ejections from the Hayes vent (Beget et al. 1991;
Dilley 1988; Dixon and Smith 1990; Riehle 1994; Riehle et al. 1990; Romick and Thorson
1983).
As stated above, more than 70 different tephras identified in southcentral Alaska were noted by
Riehle (1985). In addition, geological works since 1985 in adjacent regions to the Susitna River,
such as Wonder Lake in the Denali National Park (Child et al. 1998), have reported tephra
deposits that date back to 10,000 B.P. and may be identified in the project area as further
archaeological work increases.
3.3.1 Devil Tephra
The Devil tephra appears to have been deposited between 1,400 and 1,500 B.P. based on
radiocarbon assays and stratigraphic position to other dated deposits (Dilley 1988; Dixon and
Smith 1990). Dixon and Smith (1990:393) constrained the age range of the Devil Tephra
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
19
deposition with a total of 21 radiocarbon dates recovered from terrestrial geomorphic settings:
five radiocarbon ages from below (contact between the Devil and Watana tephras), one date
within, and 10 above Devil Tephra deposits. The upper limiting dates (n=5) and the radiocarbon
age on a sample recovered within the tephra cited by Dixon and Smith (1990:394) were all
produced by the Dicarb Radioisotope Company (Dicarb) (see section 4.4). The lower limiting
dates (n=3) cited by Dixon and Smith (1990:394) were produced by Beta Analytic, Inc. (Beta).
Dixon and Smith (1990:391-393) correlated the Devil Tephra with Tephra A in a lascustrine core
sequence that has radiocarbon date of 2940+/-110 B.P. (Beta-10780) stratigraphically above the
deposit. However, Dixon and Smith (1990:393) rejected this radiocarbon date as in error as it
does not fit with the terrestrial stratigraphic sequence.
The Devil tephra appears petrographically similar to tephras derived from the Hayes vent
(Romick and Thorson 1983; Dilley 1988; see description of Hayes tephra set below). Riehle
(1985:62) recognized a series of tephras that were carried in a northerly direction from the Hayes
vent and tentatively estimated the age of deposition between 500 and 1000 years ago based on
radiocarbon dating. Riehle et al. (1990:281) have suggested that there is a correlation between
these Devil tephra and 500 and 1000-year-old Hayes vent tephra deposits based on similar
chemical and mineral compositions and age estimates. Based on the work described above, the
distribution of the Devil Tephra is limited to the upper Cook Inlet and the Susitna River
drainage.
3.3.2 Watana Tephra Set
The Watana tephra set– Upper and Lower Watana– is separated by a thin buried soil or eolian
sediments at a few terrestrial locations (Romick and Thorson 1983; Dilley 1988:15). The two
Watana deposits and the Devil tephra are indistinguishable by their physical, chemical and
mineral compositions (Dilley 1988; Dixon and Smith 1990; Romick and Thorson 1983).
However, the Watana and Devil tephras are separated in stratigraphic sequences observed in
terrestrial and lacustrine settings (Dilley 1988; Dixon et al. 1985). Field recognition of the two
Watana deposits is based on coloration and weathering characteristics (Dilley 1988:15).
The timing of the deposition of the Watana tephra set is less well defined than that of the Devil
ashfall event. Dixon and Smith (1990:394) provide a suggested age range of the deposition of
the Watana Tephra between 1850-2700 B.P. based on a suite of 28 radiocarbon dates from
terrestrial stratigraphic sequences: 23 radiocarbon ages from below (contact between the Watana
and Oshetna Tephras), and five above (contact with Devil and Watana Tephras) the Watana
deposits. Dixon and Smith (1990:394) cite two radiocarbon ages as the upper and lower limiting
ages for this tephra: 1880+/-50 B.P. (Beta-9892; upper limiting age) and 2690+/-170 B.P.
(Beta-7301; lower limiting age).
Dilley (1988) suggests that the Watana Tephra appears to be about 3,000 B.P. based on a suite of
upper and lower limiting radiocarbon dates from lacustrine and terrestrial deposits. The
lacustrine core cited in Dilley (1988) and Dixon and Smith (1990) provides bracketing ages for
Tephras B and C as 2940+/-110 B.P. (Beta-10780; upper limiting) and 5130+/-120 B.P. (Beta-
10782) and 5200+/-70 B.P. (Beta-10781). Dilley (1988) provides mineralogical and
geochemical data that Tephras D and E from the lacustrine core are likely similar to the Lower
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
20
Watana tephra. The ages for the deposition of Tephras D and E in the lacustrine sequence is
around 5,000 B.P. (Dilley 1988; Dixon and Smith 1990:392).
As noted above, Dixon and Smith (1990:394) reject as in error the 2940+/-110 B.P. (Beta-
10780) date in the lacustrine core that is stratigraphically above the Watana tephra. Therefore,
the difference in the interpretations of the timing in the Watana deposition between Dilley (1988)
and Dixon and Smith (1990) is primarily due to a difference in the interpretation of the
stratigraphy of a lacustrine core. The Watana tephra has been tentatively correlated to the Hayes
tephra set (Dilley 1988; Riehle et al. 1990:281). If the Watana set was deposited around ≥3,000
BP, it is quite likely part of the Hayes tephra set H (Riehle 1994).
3.3.3 Oshetna Tephra
The Oshetna Tephra has been found in terrestrial and lacustrine stratigraphic sequences
consistently below the Devil and Watana deposits (Dilley 1988; Dixon et al. 1985; Dixon and
Smith 1990), which are typically separated by a buried soil (Dilley 1988:16). The Oshetna
Tephra is mineralogically and geochemically distinct from the Devil and Watana tephras (Dilley
1988:16-17; Romick and Thorson 1983). Dixon and Smith (1990:392-393) note that Tephras D
and E identified in the lacustrine core may be “poorly represented or mixed with the Oshetna
Tephra in terrestrial settings, and consequently appear as a single unit identified by the
distinctive Oshetna Tephra.”
The age of the Oshetna Tephra deposition is constrained by 26 radiocarbon dates derived from
terrestrial and lacustrine stratigraphic sequences in Dixon and Smith (1990:394): 23 dates above
(contact between the Watana and Oshetna Tephras) and three dates below the Oshetna Tephra.
Dixon and Smith (1990:394) cited two specific radiocarbon dates as providing the most accurate
upper and lower limiting ages for the Oshetna deposition: 5130+/120 B.P. (Beta-10782; upper
limiting age) and 5900+/-135 B.P. (Beta-10786; lower limiting age). The lacustrine core in
Dixon and Smith (1990:391-393) also provides a lower limiting date of 9140+/-100 B.P. on the
Oshetna deposition. AMS radiocarbon dating of charcoal recovered from the buried soil and
lowest component below the Oshetna Tephra at the Jay Creek Ridge site also provide lower
limiting ages of ca. 9,500 BP (Dixon 1999; Reuther 2000). Radiocarbon ages from recent work
on lacustrine cores recovered from Wonder Lake provide more constrained bracketing ages for
the Oshetna deposition between 5,850 and 6,060 B.P. (Child et al. 1998:93).
3.4 Cultural History2
3.4.1 Prehistory
A generalized regional prehistory for the interior regions of Southcentral Alaska can be divided
into four broad archaeological culture traditions: the Paleoarctic Tradition, Northern Paleoindian
Tradition, Northern Archaic Tradition, and Athabascan Tradition. These traditions are general
designations for what are believed to be interior Alaskan prehistoric cultures represented by
recognizable differences in technologies and time of occurrence (for more information, see
2 The cultural history summary section relies to a large extent on previous NLUR reports (Reuther et al. 2010;
Potter 2006; Potter et al. 2007).
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
21
Bacon 1987; Bever 2001; Cook 1969; Dixon 1985; Mason et al. 2001; Potter 2008a; West 1967,
1975, 1996). Much of the known prehistory in interior Southcentral Alaska has been derived
from the 1978-1985 Susitna Project cultural resources surveys, as described within this
document.
3.4.1.1 American Paleoarctic Tradition (12,000 to 7000 B.P.)
Several sites in the region have American Paleoarctic Tradition components that date 12,000 to
7000 B.P. The American Paleoarctic Tradition, as proposed by Anderson (1970), relates stone
tool technologies observed from Alaskan sites to stone technologies from Northeast Eurasia
(Rainey 1939). Dixon (2001:282) expands Anderson’s 1970 heuristic construction to include
three regional variants: (1) American Paleo Arctic Tradition, (2) Denali Complex and (3)
Northwest Coast Microblade Tradition. The Paleoarctic Tradition identified type artifacts such
as microblades, bifacial points, large bifacial cores and tools, burins made on flakes, endscrapers,
and other expedient tools made on macroblades. West (1981) later attributed what he originally
defined (West 1967) as the Denali Complex (12,500 to 9,500 years ago) as a regional variant of
the Paleoarctic Tradition based on artifacts from four Tanana region sites (see discussion of
Denali Complex in Mason et al. 2001). Many of the sites which characterize the Denali complex
are located in the Nenana River Valley, including Dry Creek, Component II (Thorson and
Hamilton 1977; Powers et al. 1983), Eroadaway (Holmes 1988; Holmes et al. 2010), Panguingue
Creek, Component II (Powers and Maxwell 1986), Little Panguingue Creek, Component II
(Powers and Hoffecker 1989), Carlo Creek (Bowers 1980; Bowers and Reuther 2008), Moose
Creek, Component II and III (Pearson 1999), and the Dragonfly Creek site (Bowers 1979).
Several components at sites within the Susitna River Basin and uplands date to this period
including component I at the Jay Creek Ridge site (Dixon 1993, 1999) and Bull River II site
(Wygal 2009, 2010).
Early interior populations were terrestrial foragers, exploiting both upland and lowland areas,
focusing on bison, wapiti (elk) and sheep, but exploiting a broad range of animals including
other large and small mammals, fish, and birds, especially waterfowl (Bowers 1980; Holmes
1996; Potter 2008a, 2008b; Potter et al. 2011; Powers et al. 1983; Yesner 1994, 1996). This
economic pattern continued even after the expansion of the boreal forest into the Tanana, Nenana
and Susitna River valleys after 9500 BP (Ager and Brubaker 1985; Potter 2008a, 2008c).
In the Nenana River valley, the Dry Creek, Walker Road and Moose Creek sites also have
components that fall within the 11,000-11,800 year age range (Goebel et al. 1996; Pearson 1999;
Powers and Hoffecker 1989). Stone artifacts from these three sites include large uniface
chopper-like artifacts and flake tools, and bifacially-worked projectile points or pointed-tools,
but they lack evidence of a microblade technology (i.e. microblade cores/blades) or burins.
Powers and Hoffecker (1989) initially proposed that the “Nenana Complex” was a precursor to
the microblade-defined Denali Complex, however, a 12,000 year old microcore-bearing
component at the Swan Point site in the Middle Tanana Valley now casts doubt on the
exclusivity of the Nenana and Denali complexes (Hoffecker et al. 1993; Holmes 1988; Holmes
and VanderHoek 1994; Holmes et al. 1996). Some archaeologists consider the Nenana Complex
to be the technological precursor to the Clovis Complex of mid-latitude North America (Goebel
et al. 1992; Powers and Hoffecker 1989).
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
22
In the middle Tanana River basin, "Chindadn" triangular points have been found at the Healy
Lake sites (Cook 1969; Holmes and Cook 1999), Broken Mammoth (Holmes 1996; Yesner
1994), Swan Point (Holmes et al. 1996), and Chugwater (Lively 1988; Maitland 1986). These
bifacially worked points are dated to 12,000 to 10,000 years ago at Broken Mammoth, and Swan
Point sites and somewhat earlier in the nearby Nenana basin (~13,300 years ago). Cook (1969)
and Holmes and Cook (1999) associate the Chindadn points with a microblade technology based
on observations at the Healy Lake and Chugwater sites. While clear artifact associations with
the radiocarbon samples from the relatively shallow Healy Lake and Chugwater sites are
problematic (Erlandson et al. 1991), they have been found associated with dated hearths at Swan
Point and Broken Mammoth (Holmes 1996). Some researchers (Hoffecker et al. 1993) propose
that an earlier non-microblade complex existed in the adjacent Nenana valley in the terminal
Pleistocene, however association with microblades at Swan Point, Broken Mammoth, and
probably Healy Lake suggests the Nenana valley sites represent a regional variation of the
Paleoarctic Tradition (Potter 2005:71; 2008b). Recent intrasite and intersite work (Potter 2005,
2008a, 2008b) suggests that microblade technology and bifacial projectile point use is related to
economic and seasonal variables rather than with specific cultures or populations. Microblade
technology persists through the earliest occupations in interior Alaska and into the later
Holocene, possibly as late as 1000 B.P. (Potter 2008a, 2008b), suggesting a conservative
technology (Potter et al. 2007). Therefore, variable presence or absence of microblade
technology does not necessarily reflect dichotomous cultural systems.
Organic tools from this early period are rare, but are found primarily in the lowest artifact levels
at the Broken Mammoth and Swan Point sites and Gerstle River in the Middle Tanana Valley.
At Broken Mammoth, these include worked mammoth ivory pieces and an eyed bone needle was
recovered near a hearth dated 10,300 B.P. (Holmes 1996:313).
3.4.1.2 Northern Paleoindian Tradition
The Northern Paleoindian Tradition is one of the newest archaeological traditions to be
proposed, and is not yet clearly defined in interior Alaska prehistory. Most of the data on
occupations that have been attributed to this tradition come from sites located in northern Alaska.
These Northern Paleoindian sites are some of the oldest well-documented sites in northern
Alaska dating as old as 11,600-11,200 B.P., with most ages clustering around 10,000 B.P.
(Bever 2001; Rasic 2000). The oldest sites in the Brooks Range region include the Tuluaq site
(Rasic 2000) and the Mesa site (Bever 2001; Kunz et al. 2003; Kunz and Reanier 1994). The
assemblages from Northern Paleoindian sites show similarities in artifact forms, especially
between large lanceolate projectile points, end and thumbnail scrapers, and spurred gravers.
Several sites with fluted points have been attributed to this tradition, including Putu, Lisburne,
and Teshekpuk Lake sites (Alexander 1987; Bowers 1982; Davis et al. 1981; Reanier 1995).
The unique characteristics of the Northern Paleoindian lithic assemblages have been construed
by some archaeologists to imply temporal and cultural connections with early sites in more
temperate latitudes such as the Great Plains and the American Southwest (Hoffecker 2005, 2008;
Kunz and Reanier 1995). Organic remains are not well preserved in these sites, forcing
comparisons and interpretations to be made mostly from lithic artifacts. However, Reanier
(2003) reported on a 10,000 year-old antler or bone artifact with morphology similar to beveled
shafts from the continental United States recovered from Clovis sites. Subsistence likely focused
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
23
on big game such as bison, musk ox, sheep, caribou and moose (Hedman 2010; Kunz et al. 2003;
Loy and Dixon 1998; Reuther et al. 2009a). Hoffecker (2005, 2008) views the Mesa Complex of
the Northern Paleoindian Tradition as primarily focused on bison hunting.
Only a handful of sites located south of the Brooks Range in Interior Alaska have components
designated as belonging to the Northern Paleoindian Tradition. Dixon (1999:181-187)
tentatively assigned several components from interior central Alaskan sites to this tradition,
including Broken Mammoth Component III, Carlo Creek Component I, Eroadaway, Jay Creek
Ridge Component I, Owl Ridge, Swan Point Component III, and Panguingue Creek Component
II. Hoffecker (2005, 2008) has assigned the bifacial assemblages in Dry Creek Component II
and Moose Creek Component I to the Mesa Complex, which is effectively in the Northern
Paleoindian Tradition.
3.4.1.3 Northern Archaic Tradition (6000 to 2000 B.P.)
There is a curious dearth of interior archaeological sites or components dating within the time
period of 7,000 to 6,000 years ago. After ~6,000 years ago, new technologies, including side-
notched projectile point/biface forms, begin to appear in Interior Alaska archaeological
assemblages. Several archaeologists have designated these side-notched biface assemblages as
part of the Northern Archaic Tradition (e.g., Anderson 1968; Workman 1978; see Esdale 2008
for a current synthesis on archaeological research pertaining to the Northern Archaic Tradition).
While some have argued that the broad occurrence of the point type throughout interior Alaska
and southwestern Yukon possibly represents the spread of a new boreal forest-oriented cultural
tradition (Anderson 1968; Dixon 1985), the presence of numerous sites in tundra areas may
negate this interpretation (Darwent and Darwent 2005; Lobdell 1981, 1986; Schoenberg 1985).
Some archaeologists question whether the possible diffusion of a trait or type, such as the side
notched point, represents an archaeological tradition (Cook and Gillispie 1986), and the
continuity of microblade and other technologies through this period suggests that the Paleoarctic
and Northern Archaic Traditions may be related. Utilization of microblade and core, and burin
technologies appear to continue into or side-by-side with the Northern Archaic tradition, leading
some archaeologists to suggest a later phase of a Denali Complex (Holmes 1975). The so-called
“Late Denali Complex” is poorly understood at this stage of research in interior Alaska (Dixon
1985).
Sites with Northern Archaic components in interior Southcentral Alaska include Fog Creek site
(Dixon 1985), Jay Creek Mineral Lick site (Dixon 1985), and the Dry Creek site (Component III;
Dixon 1985; Powers et al. 1983), the Ratekin site (Skarland and Keim 1958), and several sites in
the Tangle Lakes region (Skarland and Keim 1958; Bowers 1987; Vanderhoek 2011).
Regardless of the differing interpretations of the cultural history of this period, the middle
Holocene saw a general shift in foraging economies of the region, from broad-based exploitation
of both lowland and upland fauna to more pronounced hunting of caribou in upland areas.
However, a broad-spectrum of animals was acquired, including large and small game, birds, and
fish (Potter 2008a-c). Bison hunting still occurred in lowland settings, though apparently bison
were taken at lesser frequencies, along with lesser frequencies of birds (Potter 2008a-c).
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
24
3.4.1.4 Athabascan Tradition (2000 B.P. to present)
The Athabascan Tradition is a prehistoric culture attributed to ancestors of northern Athabascan
Indians of Alaska. It is important to note that the term “Athabascan Tradition,” in its
archaeological denotation, refers to the archaeological culture. Aspects of this tradition continue
into the historic period in the late nineteenth century up to the present time. Early prehistoric
Athabascan tradition sites are characterized by housepit and subsurface cache features associated
with a variety of flaked and ground stone, bone, and antler artifacts. Proto-historic (or late
prehistoric) Athabascan sites include those artifact assemblages predominately characterized by
Native-made items (with an increased occurrence of organic and copper tools), with a smaller
amount of non-Native trade goods (e.g., iron and glass beads) obtained through indirect contact,
but datable to Hudson’s Bay Company and Russian American Company fur trade and to
prospector and missionary influence (A.D. 1740-1850).
Much of the work at Athabascan tradition sites in Alaska come from excavations outside of the
Susitna Valley such as those at Dixthada and Dakah’ Denin’s Village (Shinkwin 1979), Eagle
(Andrews 1987), Hayfield (Lefbre 1956; Proue et al. 2011), Lake Minchumina, and Nenana
Dune Site (Potter et al. 2007). Faunal materials found at Athabascan tradition sites include a
broad spectrum of interior wildlife. Rainey (1939: 365) identified moose, caribou, beaver, hare,
small rodents, fish, and bird faunal materials from Dixthada. Plaskett (1977:123) adds black
bear, Dall sheep, and marmot from the Nenana Gorge encampment to the list (see also Reuther et
al. 2009b).
3.4.2 Ethnohistory
The project area lies in part near the traditional boundary of the Dena’ina (previously called the
Tanaina) and Ahtna Athabascans (de Laguna and McClellan 1981). Before contact, both groups
had semi permanent winter villages comprised of groups of between one and ten semi-
subterranean, multi-family log houses. Customarily, these houses had a main communal living
area with a central fireplace and sleeping platforms located along the walls, and also had smaller
attached rooms that were used as sleeping compartments or sweat baths (Osgood 1937;
Townsend 1981). Villages and/or larger settlements have been reported in areas adjacent to the
Watana project area, e.g., Valdez Creek, Lake Louise, Tyone Lake, Clarence Lake, and Stephan
Lake (Dixon et al. 1985:v).
Four distinct dialects of the Dena’ina language have been identified (Kari 1975; Kari and Fall
1987, 2003) corresponding to different geographical areas, with a primary dialectical boundary
delineating the Upper and Lower Inlet Dena’ina. Townsend (1981) distinguishes three separate
societies of the Dena’ina, each of which roughly correspond to Kari’s (1975) linguistic data,
based on societal differences such as marriage patterns, subsistence strategies, the degree of
interaction between the groups, and other sociocultural elements.
The Ahtna are divided into four dialects, each corresponding to distinct geographical areas (Buck
and Kari 1975), and identified by Reckord (1983) based on oral histories, language, subsistence
patterns and social organization. Of these four, the project area falls into the region occupied by
the Western Ahtna.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
25
The project area enters the traditional lands of the Tanana people to the north of the Ahtna. The
Tanana people inhabit the watershed of the Tanana River from Scottie Creek to the Tolovana
drainage. Three languages are associated with the Tanana people: Upper Tanana, Tanacross and
Tanana. Within the study area, Tanana was spoken. There are three dialects of the Tanana
language, one emanating from the Salcha-Goodpaster band, one from the Chena band and the
other from bands at Wood River, Nenana-Toklat and Minto (McKennan 1981).
Social organization in the area was limited by environmental factors, which influenced land use.
Local bands ranged in size from 20-75 people, who traveled extensively, coming together in
summer for fishing and in winter for hunting (Shinkwin et al. 1980). Kinship was based on
cross-sex sibling exchange marriages, and settlement is based on affinal relationships to one or
both of each couple.
Place names often document aspects of the way people view, use and relate to a particular
landscape. Ahtna and Dena’ina place names often relate to the surrounding natural environment
such as description of landforms, hydrology, vegetation, fauna, and aspects of the local weather.
Place names can also refer to past human history and activities such as gathering places, areas of
trading, territorial boundaries, and spiritual places. Thus, place names can be very useful in
archaeological studies. The understanding of how people relate and use local landscapes and
resources can provide a framework to understand continuity and change in past land use systems
in the archaeological record.
Linguists recorded Ahtna and Dena’ina place names in and near the project area (for a summary,
see Simeone et al. 2011). Simeone et al. (2011) note that over 350 Ahtna place names occur in
the vicinity of the project area. Ahtna place names are more prevalent toward the northern
portion of the project area, north of Devil’s Canyon, the traditional boundary of the Ahtna and
Dena’ina people. Devil’s Canyon has both Ahtna and Dena’ina place names, and Dena’ina place
names are more prevalent to the south of the canyon. Little research on Tanana place names is
available. However, a database of Tanana place names is currently under development at the
Alaska Native Language Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (Gary Holton, personal
communication, September 2011).
3.4.3 History
The broader regional history is diverse, although documented Euro-American exploration and
occupation of the Watana project area itself is limited. In order to understand the history of the
regions relevant to the project area, an expanse of Alaska from the upper regions of the Cook
Inlet to the Tanana Valley is pertinent. The first documented European presence in southern
Alaska was 1741-1742 Russian expeditions lead by Bering and Chirikov, during which they
mapped the Alaskan coastlines (Black 2004). Their initial settlement and exploration focused on
coastal zones, but later moved into the interior regions along the easiest transportation routes;
wide rivers and valleys. Further European and American expeditions into first the coastal
regions and then the interior soon followed the Russian example. Over the next several decades
Spain, Britain, and America sent forth expeditions into Alaska in pursuit of its abundant natural
resources (Mangusso and Haycox 1989; Olsen 2002). Through summaries of exploration,
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
26
mining, transportation, agriculture, and the development of parks, the history of Cook Inlet,
Susitna River, Denali, and the Tanana Valley can be put into context.
3.4.3.1 Exploration
3.4.3.1.1 Cook Inlet
Recorded contact was first made with the Dena’ina of Cook Inlet in 1778, the year that English
explorer James Cook sailed into the area in search of a Northwest Passage (Fall 1981:45; Kari
and Fall 1987:16; Townsend 1981:635). However, Cook reported that the inhabitants already
possessed items of European manufacture and assumed that they were indirectly trading with the
Russians, who had established trading posts on Kodiak Island and the Alaska Peninsula (Fall
1981:55). Soon after, the Russians extended their direct influence into Cook Inlet, establishing
forts at English Bay (the Aleksandrovsk fort), near present-day Kenai (Nikolaevski Fort), and at
Iliamna and Tyonek (Fall 1981:62-65). In 1794, the Cook Inlet region was visited by Captain
George Vancouver, who reported that many of the Natives who approached his ship were
familiar with the Russian language and appeared to be on friendly terms with the Russian traders
(Vancouver 1798). However, this was apparently not always the case as both the Tyonek and
Iliamna outposts were destroyed by the Dena’ina in 1797 (Fall 1981:68).
In 1799, the Tsar of Russia granted the Russian American Company exclusive possession of the
established trading posts in Alaska. From this time forward, the Dena’ina mainly served as
middlemen between the Russians and interior groups, such as the Ahtna (Fall 1981:71). The
Dena’ina population was estimated at 3,000 for the year 1805 (Osgood 1937:19), a number that
was greatly reduced during the smallpox epidemic between 1836-1840 (Townsend 1981:636).
Intensive missionization by the Russian Orthodox Church occurred shortly after the epidemic.
However conversion of the people from the Upper Cook Inlet region did not occur until the
1870s due to the great distance from established Russian settlements. In 1891, the St. Nicholas
Russian Orthodox Church was built in Tyonek on the western shore of Upper Cook Inlet.
3.4.3.1.2 Susitna River
It wasn’t until 1834 that the Russian explorer Malakoff first navigated the Susitna River. Little
is known about the extent of the Russians exploration of the Susitna, however by 1845 it was
certain that they had a better knowledge of the waters of the Upper Susitna than they could have
obtained through maps drawn by the Natives (Bacon 1975; Brooks 1973; Cole 1979). After the
Russians’ initial exploration, outsiders did not return to the Upper Susitna River until the 1896
gold rush when hundreds of prospectors flocked to the Knik and Susitna River Valleys. A
hundred parties were reported to have entered the Susitna River that summer, but only five
achieved any substantial distance. Among these five was William Dickey’s party, one of the
first well documented trips up the Susitna. Dickey and his men made it up to what is now known
as Devils Canyon where they were forced to turn back, being unable to portage their boats
around the canyon and continue on (Cole 1979; Marsh 2002). Very little was known about the
Upper Susitna, above Devils Canyon, until the summer of 1897 when a party of nine men
traveling in small boats made the first recorded trip to the headwaters of the river, reaching them
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
27
on July 29, 1897 (Bacon 1975; Cole 1979; Eldridge 1900). The Upper Susitna River was much
more isolated than it would have been had boats been able to navigate through Devils Canyon.
Military and scientific parties began to come into the region in 1898 to explore mineral deposits
and to scout routes to the interior. One such party was headed by W. J. Jack, who guided George
Eldridge and his team of geologists up the Susitna to Indian Creek and then up the creek and
through Broad Pass to the Nenana River (Bacon 1975; Cole 1979). The route up Indian Creek
was used later by other scientists, geologists, prospectors, and military explorers and was
eventually chosen as the route for the Alaskan Railroad.
3.4.3.1.3 Denali
Exploration into the Denali Region of Alaska began around the 1830s with the Russians pursuing
the fur trade. Their penetration into the Interior came with posts set up along the lower and
middle regions of the Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers. Contact between the Russian traders and
the Denali-region Native people was limited and their participation in trade was primarily
indirect, through middle-men based closer to the trading posts and along the coast (Brown 1991;
Dixon et al. 1980). After Russia sold Alaska to the United States in 1867, American traders took
over many of the trading posts along the various waterways and coastal regions of the territory.
There was no economic motivation to move inland away from the major waterways until
prospectors began to explore the area skirting Denali. The first documented reports of the
mountains were made by a group surveying for the Western Union Telegraph Expedition in
1865-1867 where the head of the expedition’s Scientific Corps, William H. Dall, viewed the
mountains from the Yukon River and named them the “Alaskan Range,” also given that name by
local usage (Brown 1991). In 1898, the U.S. Government designated the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) to become the primary trailblazers in Alaska by providing the public
with accurate maps and information about goldfields and natural resources in the Interior.
Several expeditions were launched in 1898, two of which would, in congruence with the U.S.
Army, map the unexplored Denali region. Both parties were tasked with finding transportation
routes through the Alaska Range; the USGS party, headed by George H. Eldridge, mapped a
route suitable for a railroad or wagon from the Cook Inlet to the Tanana Valley. Captain E. F.
Glenn of the U.S. Army found a route through the range to the interior gold fields (Brown 1991).
3.4.3.1.4 Tanana Valley
Documented Euro-American presence in the Tanana Valley started with Yukon traders Harper
and Mayo (Robe 1943). They began exploration of the greater Tanana Valley in 1878 when they
traveled up the Tanana River from the Yukon River and established a trading post on the Tanana
north of present-day Fairbanks. The U.S. government was also curious about the Tanana region
and its Native inhabitants, and began sending small geological and military teams on
reconnaissance missions. In 1885, Army Lieutenant Henry Allen explored the Tanana River
during a remarkable expedition that began in the Copper River Valley and ended on the
Koyukuk River (Allen 1900). By 1890, E. H. Wells had become the first recorded non-Native to
cross from the Fortymile gold country to the Tanana River (Robe 1943).
In 1896, a U.S. Geological Survey exploration party under the leadership of Josiah E. Spurr
(1900) examined gold fields in Interior Alaska. Within two years of Spurr's report, numerous
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
28
prospectors were combing the hills north of present-day Fairbanks (Robe 1943). Alfred Brooks
undertook an 1898 geological exploration within the gold-rich area that became the Fairbanks
Mining District (Prindle 1913). At the same time, Mendenhall’s (1900) geological expedition
reached the Tanana Valley via the Copper and Delta Rivers, and another military reconnaissance
lead by Lieutenant Castner passed through the Delta area in an attempt to reach Circle by
traveling up the Goodpaster River. As he traveled, he documented Athabascan encampments
(Robe 1943).
Alfred Brooks recounted his 1902 expedition, providing the first written account of a traverse
from the Pacific drainage to the Tanana-Yukon drainage (Brooks 1911). Several non-
government expeditions also passed through the Nenana Valley area, and as early as 1902-1903
an expedition assessing the feasibility of a railroad route was undertaken (Moffitt 1915).
3.4.3.2 Gold Rush and Mining
3.4.3.2.1 Cook Inlet
Gold prospecting began in the Susitna River drainage and the upper inlet in the late nineteenth
century, resulting in the establishment of the Willow Creek and Turnagain Arm mining districts.
Knik boomed into a regional supply center, eventually becoming the starting point for miners
heading into the Interior to the Iditarod-Innoko district (L. Potter 1967:23). Those miners used
the trail system now known as the Iditarod Trail. By this time many of the Dena’ina had
abandoned their smaller winter villages, preferring to live year-round in the larger communities
of Knik, Eklutna, and Tyonek--which was designated an Indian reserve in 1915 (Fall 1987:22).
3.4.3.2.2 Susitna River
Though gold fever hit the Cook Inlet in 1896 and the prospectors swarmed the major rivers
around the area, the Upper Susitna River remained fairly quiet until the early 1900s. In 1903,
while men from Dawson and the Yukon rushed to the Tanana Valley, a group of men headed out
from Valdez toward the Upper Susitna. In late summer of that year, after prospecting every
tributary along the Upper Susitna, gold was struck along Valdez Creek (Bacon 1975; Cole 1979).
The next spring a larger outfit went out to Valdez Creek and discovered the “Tammy Bench” and
“No. 2 Above” claims, bringing in nearly $30,000 by the end of the season. Miners flocked to
Valdez Creek and put in claims over every area available on the creek and its tributaries, from
the Susitna to Grogg Creek; by the mid-1930s an estimated $700,000 in gold was produced from
the claims that were worked in the Upper Susitna (Bacon 1975). Valdez Creek became a
prominent mining district in Alaska; however access continued to be a problem. When miners
were getting ready to leave the district in the fall of 1904 a Native guide showed them an
alternative route, which became known as the Gulkana Trail. This became the primary route for
freight and supplies to be hauled into the district (Cole 1979).
3.4.3.2.3 Tanana Valley
Perhaps the most notable event in the history of the Interior was the gold rush that occurred at the
beginning of the twentieth century. In 1902, a prospector named Felix Pedro, who had
prospected the rushes to the Klondike and Fortymile regions, struck gold northeast of present-
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
29
day Fairbanks. With this strike, the rush began as prospectors and other settlers entered the
Tanana Valley in force. At the same time, the Nenana River region was being explored for its
potential to yield mineral resources. United States Geological Survey (USGS) geologists
examined the Bonnifield Region for extensive sources of coal, finding the best and most easily
accessible exposures along Healy, Lignite, and California Creeks.
Settlement of the Healy area began in 1903, with coal mining beginning its heyday on Healy
Creek in 1920 when the Alaska Railroad was completed up to that point. The presence of
commercially viable coal deposits influenced the placement of the Alaska Railroad though this
area. Suntrana supplied the bulk of coal to Fairbanks and nearby military installations until
1943, when the Usibelli Coal Mine (UCM) was founded by Emil Usibelli under contract to the
military as a secondary supplier (Usibelli Coal Miner 1993:1). UCM purchased Suntrana in
1961. Today, UCM is the major coal producing company on both Healy and Lignite creeks.
Placer mining began on Moose Creek in 1909, and at other places along the western edge of the
Bonnifield Mining District after 1915, as the new Alaska Railroad improved transportation into
the region (Brooks 1923). Gold Lode prospecting in the Bonnifield district started in 1908 along
bedrock exposures on tributaries of the Wood River. Prospects in 1916 centered around Eva
Creek, however, lode deposits in the district did not yield noteworthy amounts of gold until
1931. The principal producer was the Liberty Bell mine on Eva Creek, located east of the Ferry
railroad station (Moffit 1933). The Liberty Bell Mine is a historic mine that was built in 1915
with its highest use occurring during the 1930s (Athey 2006).
3.4.3.3 Alaska Railroad
The discovery of major coalfields in the Matanuska Valley were in part responsible for the
construction of the Alaska Central Railroad, later renamed the Alaska Railroad, which began in
Seward in 1903 (Fall 1987:22). In 1914, a railroad camp was established at Ship Creek, a
Dena’ina fish camp on the eastern shore of Cook Inlet that is now the city of Anchorage. By
1917, the town of Knik was abandoned, with most of its residents relocating to the new railroad
town named Wasilla. As railroad construction progressed construction camps sprung up along
the way and were generally abandoned after use. However, towns that were established at major
river crossings such as Nenana and Talkeetna, at division or section points (Curry and Cantwell),
and at coal mining centers (Healy) survived the construction era (Brown 1991). The railroad was
completed in 1923, with the driving of a golden spike at Nenana by President Warren Harding.
Despite the need for constant repair and reconstruction due to hasty assembly and extreme
weather and natural conditions, the Alaska Railroad achieved what it set out to do; connecting
Alaska’s Interior with the ice-free port at Seward, and by ship to Seattle and the rest of the world.
It became an invaluable resource to the territory by generating new towns and agricultural
enterprise, providing low cost freighting for mining and construction operations, and
revolutionizing river transportations (Brown 1991).
3.4.3.4 Highway System
The U.S. Army was responsible for the construction of the Washington Alaska Military
Communication and Transportation system (WAMCATS). This was constructed during the first
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
30
years of the twentieth century and included the construction of a telegraph system in parts of
Interior Alaska (Blanchard 2010). The discovery of gold in the foothills of the Alaska Range
prompted the establishment of marked trails and roadhouses by the Alaska Road Commission
(ARC) to serve travelers. These trails, many of which followed established Native trails, served
subsistence hunters and trappers, prospectors, miners, market meat hunters and mail delivery
men.
Construction of a road connecting Anchorage and Valdez gained the backing of the War
Department when World War II (WWII) broke out in 1939. The U.S. saw the potential for
modern warplanes to cross over the North Pole to Alaska, and responded with a series of national
defense measures including the construction of Fort Richardson in Anchorage (Naske 1986).
Initially the only means of supplying that base was via the Alaska Railroad from the deep water
port in Seward. Should either the port or railroad be damaged or destroyed, the fort would be cut
off. In response, two new means of reaching Anchorage were built. One was a 14-mile railroad
spur line from Portage on Turnagain Arm to Whittier on Prince William Sound.
The other was the Glenn Highway, which created an overland route between Fort Richardson and the
port of Valdez. As many as 300 men worked on its construction. The pioneer road opened late in
1942, with additional improvements continuing thereafter (Clayton 1967). At the same time, the
Richardson Highway was upgraded to accommodate military traffic from Fort Wainwright in
Fairbanks. The ARC also took over the old military telegraph lines and used them to operate a
telephone system between Fairbanks and Valdez (Naske 1986).
After the Alaska Railroad was completed in 1923, Cantwell became the center for the resupply
route to Valdez Creek. In the early 1920s a sled road was blazed by the ARC to provide a route
between Cantwell and the mining district at Valdez Creek. By the mid 1930s the ARC improved
this trail and turned it into an established dirt road. This road would later become the Denali
Highway, which would follow the old routes to Valdez Creek from Paxson to the east and
Cantwell to the west (Bacon 1975; VanderHoek 2011).
The George Parks Highway was completed in 1971 between Willow and Cantwell. This
provided a much shorter road route between Anchorage and Fairbanks and to Denali National
Park.
3.4.3.5 Agriculture
3.4.3.5.1 Tanana Valley
Gold was not the only thing that brought settlers to the Tanana Valley. Agriculture provided an
additional viable occupation for people living in the region (Monahan 1959). In 1898, the
Homestead Act passed by congress in 1862 was extended to include Alaska. The Act was
amended for Alaska, limiting land parcels to 80 acres (in the contiguous U.S. land parcels were
set at 160 acres) and making no provision for surveys. In 1903, amendments were made to allow
320 acre claims. This led to the growth of agriculture in the region. By 1905, 82 homestead
entries had been filed in the valley, and by 1911 there were over 200. Soon, the Tanana Valley
became the center of farming in the territory of Alaska, as farmers sold their produce to miners
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
31
and other businesses in the region. After the arrival of the railroad, farmers were forced to
compete with outside producers. At this point, the Matanuska Valley became the new center of
commercial agriculture in Alaska (Price 2002).
3.4.3.5.2 Cook Inlet
In 1935, the federal government created the Alaska Rural Rehabilitation Corporation, and began
an agricultural community in the Susitna Valley that was populated by relocated families from
the Midwest (L. Potter 1963:16). In the early 1940s, construction began on Fort
Richardson/Elmendorf Air Field as well as other roads, harbors and airports necessary for the
war effort. These activities led to the growth of Anchorage and secured its place as a major city
(ADCED 2000) as well as provided a market for the agriculture communities of the Matanuska
Valley.
During World War II, Wasilla and surrounding communities suffered a decline in population.
Gold mines were closed and many of the men joined the armed forces. However, the
establishment of Fort Richardson/Elmendorf Air Field gave the farmers in the Matanuska-
Susitna region a ready market for their fresh produce, supporting the remaining residents through
this period (L. Potter 1963:18). After the war, the government once again reopened the area to
homesteading, hoping to provide veterans with land and an income.
3.4.3.6 Development of Denali Park
The journey of the Denali region to becoming a national park started with Charles Sheldon, a
man who traveled to Alaska to study the sheep of the Alaska Range. Greatly respected by his
associates as a competent woodsman and hunter, Sheldon came to the idea of establishing game
refuges in Alaska while working in the range. With the help of his fellow Boon and Crockett
Club members, Sheldon led the surge forward in establishing a park preserve for Denali’s
wildlife (Brown 1991).
Congress passed the Mount McKinley National Park Act in 1917, reserving roughly 2,200
square miles of land northwest of the Susitna basin. Laid out in a parallelogram, the park
extended from the southwest to the northeast with the upper end reaching to the north to include
the mountainous habitat of sheep and caribou around Toklat and Teklanika drainages.
Boundaries excluded Kantishna mining district and the forested moose country to the northwest
where miners wintered and hunted (Brown 1991). Despite the official status as a National Park,
the wildlife of the region continued to be illegally hunted until 1921, when funds were
distributed for National Park Service support.
After the establishment of Mount McKinley National Park, proposals began to circulate through
the government to expand the borders to the north and south. In the spring of 1970, the Alaska
State Legislature established Denali State Park, located to the south of Mount McKinley National
Park and west of Susitna (Norris 2006). Denali State Park expanded to the east in 1976, adding
66 square miles (42,240 acres), an area near the Tokositna Glacier that provided a great view of
Mt. McKinley. The final expansion of the national park occurred in 1980, when President
Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Among its many
revisions, ANILCA changed the name of the park from Mount McKinley National Park to
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
32
Denali, adding a 2,547,147-acre expansion, establishing the Denali National Preserve, and
adding a 1,900,000-acre wilderness within the boundaries of the original Mount McKinley Park.
The final revisions of the boundaries for the Denali National Park and Preserve resulted in a
6,075,000 acre reserve (Norris 2006).
3.5 Cultural Resources—Affected Tribes
The communities potentially affected by the project have different histories and cultures, but are
characterized by strong ties to the land and its resources, and in some cases, through strong
kinship connections. The successful completion of the Consultation and Coordination phase of
the Section 106 process will require the development of an efficient and effective consultation
process that addresses the letter of the laws and regulations within the context of local custom
and practice. Several Alaska tribal entities recognized by the U.S. Department of Interior are
broadly located near the study area. In Alaska, consultation typically occurs with the 229
federally-recognized tribes, the 13 Alaska Native Regional Corporations, and some 200 Alaska
Native Village Corporations created by the ANCSA. (The Regional and Village Corporations
are recognized as “Indians tribes” for NHPA purposes.)
Twenty-two tribes recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs under 25 CFR 83.6(b) are located
within or near the study area. They are:
• Cheesh-Na Tribal Council
• Chickaloon Village Traditional Council
• Chitina Traditional Village Indian Council
• Gulkana Village
• Healy Lake Village
• Kenaitze Indian Tribe
• Knik Tribal Council
• Mentasta Traditional Council
• Native Village of Cantwell
• Native Village of Eklutna
• Native Village of Gakona
• Native Village of Kluti-Kaah
• Native Village of Tazlina
• Native Village of Tetlin
• Native Village of Tyonek
• Nenana Native Association
• Ninilchik Traditional Council
• Northway Village
• Seldovia Village Tribe
• Tanacross Village Council
• Village of Dot Lake
Village of Salamatkof
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
33
Regional Native Alaskan corporations that have interests within or near the Project area include:
• Ahtna, Incorporated (Ahtna)
• Cook Inlet Region Incorporated (CIRI)
• Doyon, Ltd. (Doyon)
Several ANCSA recognized and non-recognized villages, groups and urban corporations, and
village organizations are located near and/or may have interests near the Project area. These
entities include:
• Alexander Creek, Incorporated
• Caswell Native Association
• Chitna Native Corporation
• Chickaloon Moose Creek Native Association
• Dot Lake Native Corporation
• Eklutna, Incorporated
• Gold Creek-Susitna NCI
• Knikatnu, Incorporated
• Little Lake Louise Corporation
• Lower Tonsina Corporation
• Kenai Natives Association, Inc.
• Nebesna Native Group, Inc.
• Menda Cha-ag Native Corporation
• Montana Creek Native Association
• Ninilchik Natives Association, Incorporated
• Northway Natives, Incorporated
• Point Possession, Incorporated
• Salamatkof Native Association, Incorporated
• Slana Native Corporation
• Seldovia Native Association, Incorporated
• Tanacross, Incorporated
• Tetlin Native Corporation
• Toghotthele Corporation
• Twin Lake Native Group, Incorporated
• Tyonek Native Corporation
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
34
4. DATA GAPS
In this section, we discuss Watana Project cultural resources related issues and data gaps derived
from background research of the study area. These issues relate to a number of variables, such
as uncertainty regarding accuracy and precision of site locations, availability of more modern
techniques and methodologies, site condition, possible current and future impacts to sites,
incompleteness of the Section 106 process (especially, lack of determinations of eligibility to the
NRHP). Data gaps are summarized in Table 1.
4.1 SITE LOCATION DATA
4.1.1 Synthesis of existing location data information for known sites
The AHRS data alone are inadequate for characterizing the “affected environment.” Because
sites from 1978-1985 were recorded without the benefit of modern GPS and GIS, the paper
records and survey data need to be brought up to modern GPS and GIS standards. There is no
simple, inclusive approach to compiling Susitna-Watana Project cultural resources data merely
by using the existing AHRS data.
AHRS site records do not necessarily include sites in BIA and individual Alaska Native
corporation files, especially cemetery and grave sites inventoried under Section 14(h)(1) of the
ANCSA. Native Allotments are another type of site record (often in confidential files) that may
need to be evaluated in detail in order to characterize the affected environment. Some Native
Allotments include older historical or prehistoric sites.
In order to fully compile and synthesize site data prior to completing the Section 106 process, a
number of interrelated tasks need to be completed. Existing site location data from AHRS and
all other sources needs to be compiled, including quality control/editing of existing location data
imagery from various sources. GIS layers need to be created for known sites, with the ability to
sort by site type, age, size, and associated environmental variables. A geodatabase needs to be
created with site location data plus aerial imagery. The key to bringing records up to modern day
standards is to digitize field map records identified in the extensive and detailed records held by
the University of Alaska Museum of the North (see Appendix A).
There is the potential for certain types of sites within the project area to be unreported. For
example, “isolated finds” may have not always been consistently treated as “sites”. However, at
the very least, isolated finds can inform the archaeologist: (1) that the artifact was deposited at
that spot by humans (unless taphonomic or topographic features indicate tertiary deposition); (2)
if diagnostic, it can be used describe type distributions; and (3) if the artifact is a tool, it can be
used with other isolated finds to identify patterns of past human use within a particular region.
Arguably, an isolated lithic artifact is a type of site. Abstract types of sites constitute the
empirical entities archaeologists use to explain or integrate into a settlement/subsistence system.
Because isolated finds may not be reported, an important data set may not be recoverable.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
35
4.1.2 Mapped site location data and environmental variables
Imagery from the 1980s and current digitized/orthorectified imagery of the middle Susitna needs
to be compiled and compared. The 1980s aerial photography should be compared to current
photography to understand potential discrepancies between site location data and to assess
changes in the landscape that may have affected site preservation. The aerial imagery will need
to be digitized and orthorectified to use in a GIS based format. The digitization and
orthorectification of historic and current aerial imagery should be used to assess the current
habitat types that are spread through the project area and are an important variable in site
location modeling, the construction of historic contexts and assess site significance.
Understanding the changes in habitat types over time is useful to assess changes in landscape use
through time.
Coded environmental variables should be used to standardize baseline environmental datasets
(current habitat types, faunal and floral communities, surficial geology, bedrock geology, etc.) to
be used in a GIS format. These data sets are important to site location modeling, assessing
potential changes in land use, and the development of historic contexts to be used in assessing
site significance.
4.1.3 Compilation of existing shapefiles (GIS) of environmental variables
Environmental datasets are a major component of GIS site location modeling, assessing changes
in land use patterns, building historic contexts, and assessing site significance. All available GIS
shapefiles and datasets containing environmental datasets that pertain to the above-mentioned
efforts in 4.1.2 should be compiled.
4.1.4 Field verification of existing site location data
Modern sub-meter accuracy GPS technology should be used in the field to verify and update
existing site location information within the project area. Site location information collected
prior to about 2000, compared with modern precise and accurate GPS location coordinates, has
been shown to be up to several hundred meters in error (Bowers, unpublished data). The
descriptions of sites, site maps, and historic aerial and ground photography can all be used to
assess the accuracy of site location data. Each site in the APE should be visited in the field and
high precision GPS technology should be used to obtain an accurate location. The AHRS should
be updated with site location data obtained with precise and accurate GPS technology mentioned
above.
4.2 SURVEY COVERAGE
Cultural resources surveys within and adjacent to the current Susitna-Watana Project site have
been conducted since 1978. In 1978, Bacon (1978a) surveyed the proposed locations for left and
right abutments and the spillway for the Watana dam site. In addition, the 1978 field studies also
surveyed proposed locations for an airstrip, camp pad, two material sites, access roads, and a
portion of the proposed Devil’s Canyon dam site (Bacon 1978a, 1978b).
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
36
The 1980-1984 field studies chiefly lead by the UAM also focused on the Watana and Devil’s
Canyon dam sites and associated ancillary impacts (Dixon et al. 1985). The ancillary impacts
surveyed and tested included three transmission corridors (Healy-to-Fairbanks, Healy-to-Willow,
and Willow-to-Anchorage) and 12 borrow pits (Borrows A-L) that were designated as potential
material sources. Alternative access routes (Corridor 1 North, Corridor 2 South, and Corridor 3
Denali-North) were preliminarily surveyed. In the draft EIS (Environmental Impact Statement),
Hoffecker (1984) provides a synopsis of the number of survey locales and test areas and sites
found between 1980-1984 in each of the proposed dam sites, access routes, transmission lines,
and other potential project wide impacts.
In 1985, Historical Research Associates was contracted by the Alaska Power Authority to
develop a predictive site locational model and survey strategy for several proposed linear
features including transmission lines, access roads and railroad corridors (Greiser et al. 1985).
Three transmission lines were designated as the Gold Creek-Watana (36.2 mi. in length), Healy-
Fairbanks (94.4 mi. in length), and Willow-Anchorage (64.4 mi. in length) lines and tied into
exiting lines along the railbelt. The proposed railroad access consisted of 10.2 mi. of rail
between Gold Creek to Devil Canyon. Approximately 76 mi. of access road was proposed
between the Denali Highway and the construction site for the Watana dam site and Devil’s
Canyon (Greiser et al. 1986). The predictive model, survey and sampling strategy, and coverage
of the linear features are discussed in section 5.2.
A number of the survey locales from these previous surveys need to be digitized from paper
maps in field survey reports into a GIS compatible format. The areas surveyed in the 1970s and
1980s should be revisited to acquire accurate field locations using GPS technology and to assess
their location relationship to and adequacy of survey coverage of the currently proposed project
APEs.
4.2.1 Synthesis of 1978-1985 survey coverage information
There needs to be a geodatabase with 1978-1985 survey coverage information plotted, along
with cross-referenced lists between 1978-1985 surveys and survey report information. GIS
layers need to be created with survey coverage data: locations, test pit locations, level of effort,
survey report information.
4.2.2 1978-1985 excluded survey coverage areas data
The modern geodatabase showing1978-1985 survey coverage areas within the current study area
needs to define areas excluded from past cultural resource surveys. Much of this data is
obtainable only by going through primary site records and field notes housed in the UAM. GIS
layers from 1978-1985, showing areas excluded from 1978-1985 surveys, need to be developed.
4.2.3 Adequacy of horizontal and vertical subsurface testing strategy in 1978-1985
field research
The modern geodatabase needs to include an assessment of the adequacy of previous survey
methods compared with contemporary standards and requirements. This would include data on
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
37
size, depth, and results of each 1978-1985 shovel test pit abstracted from reports and field notes
in the UAM.
4.2.4 Relation of 1978-1985 project components (dam site, access corridors, camp
location, and indirect impact areas such as roads, recreation areas, etc.) to
2011 Wa-Su Hydro Power project.
GIS layers of 1978-1985 project components should be compared with GIS layers of the Susitna-
Watana Project. Comparisons of the two project component footprints can be used to effectively
evaluate the relevance of 1978-1985 cultural resource survey data compared to the present
project.
4.3 SITE LOCATION MODELING
4.3.1 Identification of variables used to develop site location models used for 1978-
1985 field research
As detailed in section 5, environmental variables used in 1978-1985 modeling should be updated
with information that is more recent. A current, state of the art survey model needs to be
developed to guide additional survey, testing, and mitigation required under the NHPA and 36
CR 800 (e.g., compare with Potter 2006; Potter 2008b).
4.3.2 Refine 1978-1985 models with current modeling applications
[See above section 4.3.1]
4.4 CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY
The earlier radiocarbon dates from the Susitna Hydroelectric project were assayed using standard
radiometric techniques in the early 1980s. These techniques required larger sample sizes that
can be fraught with problems when trying to acquire an accurate radiocarbon date on an
archaeology site and a geological deposit. Many times researchers had to combine several small
samples to increase their sample size and samples of potentially different ages were mixed
together with the resulting date reflecting more the average of the different aged materials and
not the actual age of the archaeology, deposition of a tephra deposition, or development of a
buried soil. In addition, larger sample sizes tend to yield younger dates due to an increased
potential for soil-derived carbon contamination that is not removed during the pretreatment
process. The Middle Susitna region also may have an additional problem of older airborne coal
particles and Tertiary pollen incorporated into larger bulk samples, which could create
anomalously older radiocarbon ages. Many of the Susitna dates appear to have been on
combined samples of charcoal, larger woody peat deposits, and bulk sediment samples (Dixon et
al. 1985; Dilley 1988). Dixon (1999), Reuther (2000), and Child et al. (1998) have shown that
ages on archaeological occupations (in this case, the lower component at Jay Creek Ridge), and
the tephra deposition (Oshetna tephra) in the Middle Susitna region can be further refined with
the use of AMS radiocarbon dating.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
38
A major problem with the earlier data is that radiocarbon dates produced at the Dicarb
Radioisotope Company in the late 1970s and 1980s, a highly-used contractor of the USGS, are
highly unreliable and tend to be younger than the actual ages of the materials (Reuther and
Gerlach 2005). This company was used to produce many dates for the Susitna Hydroelectric
project (~30% of the total dates run for the project and ~26% for the tephrochronology [Dilley
1988]). Current pretreatment processes and AMS radiocarbon dating have aided in providing
more accurate chronologies by reducing sample size and contamination, and allowing for the
dating of a variety of organic materials including bone, wood, and charcoal (Jull 2007; see case
study from the Carlo Creek Site; Bowers 1980; Bowers and Reuther 2008). AMS radiocarbon
dating of multiple materials can provide several types of radiocarbon dating data sets to interpret
regional archaeological and geochronological records. In many archaeological contexts when
features such as hearths are not present at sites, the dating of collagen extracted from bone and
antler may provide the most accurate age on an occupation (Potter and Reuther 2011). Even in
archaeological contexts with hearth features present, the dating of bone collagen may also
provide the most accurate date if the site’s occupants used larger pieces of wood as fuel. Small
bits of charred short-lived shrubbery can provide more accurate dates on archaeological and
geological events than larger pieces of charred wood due to the longer life-span of tree than
shrubs and the potential for humans to curate older wood (Schiffer 1986).
Optically and infrared stimulated luminescence (OSL and IRSL) and tephrostratigraphy also add
to more precise and accurate stratigraphic and archaeological chronologies. OSL and IRSL
dating of quartz and feldspar grains allow researchers to place an age on the last time sediment
was exposed to light during depositional transport (Grün 2001). Sediment deposits that have
very little to no organic remains available for radiocarbon dating can currently be dated. Thus,
the deposition of tephra sediments can be directly dated and provide a more accurate age on the
deposition of an eruptive event. OSL and IRSL dates can be produced on deposits within which
artifacts are lying, above and underneath to provide relative stratigraphic dates and minimum and
maximum ages for the archaeological components.
Geochemical characterization of sediments, in particular glass sherds in tephra deposits, using
modern techniques used in analytical chemistry can increase the potential for correlation between
tephra deposits spread across differing geomorphic settings. Analytical techniques such as
microprobe and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) have provided trace
element characteristics of a tephra sample, even down to single shards. The combination of
multiple analytical chemistry techniques, along with petrographic characteristics, have the
potential to contribute tephra identifications that will refine he Susitna tephrochronology, the
overall stratigraphic sequence, and the chronology of the archaeology and prehistory of the
region.
4.4.1 Radiocarbon dates obtained from 1978-1985 research
Radiocarbon dates in unpublished and published reports should be incorporated into GIS layers,
showing distribution of radiocarbon dates by age, cultural affiliation, and laboratory.
Compilation and evaluation of dates are critical to updating the prehistory of the area, especially
as many dates are from the now defunct Dicarb (see above).
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
39
4.4.2 Tephra dating samples
Lists of tephra (volcanic ash) samples collected during 1978-1985 field studies need to be
assembled on GIS layers showing distribution of tephra samples. Analysis of tephras needs to be
conducted by contemporary geochemical standards and laboratory techniques (cf. Riehle 1985;
1994; Riehle et al. 1990).
4.4.3 Update of tephra dating studies since 1985
A geodatabase of tephra dated archaeological sites should be created, listing tephra samples,
dates, analysis since 1985 adjacent to and within the Project area.
4.4.4 Update of radiocarbon dates since 1985
Radiocarbon dates, sample locations, and associated data for cultural resource and geological
studies needs to be compiled, and organized in a geodatabase of radiocarbon dates within and
adjacent to project area.
4.4.5 Update cultural chronology with modern radiocarbon testing (e.g., AMS) dating
analytical techniques and tephrochronology techniques (e.g., geochemical)
The available samples from 1978-1985 research need to be identified at UAMN for modern
analysis. This would include an application of modern dating techniques to bone, and other
materials (collagen samples). There needs to be an application of OSL dating to tephra deposits,
techniques not previously available.
4.4.6 Synthesize southcentral and interior Alaska cultural chronology by updating
1985 cultural chronology with current cultural-historical frameworks
The cultural resource literature developed since 1985 should be examined to update the cultural
chronology of the Susitna region (primarily Dixon 1985). This would include a review of
professional literature in books, journal articles, reports, and professional papers, and research of
museum collections of artifacts.
4.5 LAND USE
4.5.1 Identification of prehistoric resource locations
Identification of raw materials available to prehistoric inhabitants, such as lithic quarry sites,
fresh water, springs, salt licks, etc. needs to be combined with GIS layers depicting raw material
locations. This is especially relevant in light of advances in geochemical tracing of obsidian
from archaeological sites (Reuther 2011) and increased knowledge of lithic site locations
(Bowers et al. 1983; West 1981).
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
40
4.5.2 Prehistoric settlement patterns in different prehistoric cultural periods
Identification of prehistoric cultural periods, updated from some of the above research, needs to
be established on GIS layers, showing time-space distribution of cultural resources and site
types. The historic Susitna data should be updated in light of more recent archaeological,
geological and paleoecological research on Glacial Lake Atna and Susitna (VanderHoek 2011),
Holocene sand sheets (Blong 2011), ice patches and rock blinds (Dixon et al. 2005), traditional
trails, regional pollen studies, etc.
4.5.3 Historic land use
Following identification of sources available for research, data should be compiled from source
materials (homestead records, cabins, mining claims, etc.). This could be combined with other
lands records research. In addition, there may be historic trails within the greater Project area.
According to RS-2477 (enacted in 1866), the trails used for commerce or transport are rights-of
way under State authority. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) developed a
database documenting these historic rights of way. The existence of a documented easement
does not directly equate with the existence of a historic property under 36 CFR 800 and 36 CFR
60, since the features on the ground may have changed substantially over time. However, some
trails may meet the criteria necessary to be considered as historic sites if they are found to
possess integrity. As many of these trails are not included in the AHRS database, evaluations
will need to be performed in cases where field survey indicates road/trail features corresponding
to documented RS 2477 locations.
4.5.4 Prehistoric subsistence practices and seasonal round
Identification of prehistoric harvests of wildlife resources, analyses of seasonal patterns of
resource harvests, and analysis of faunal remains and plant macrofossils from 1978-1985
research need to be brought up to date using modern techniques.
4.4.5 Effects of environmental and ecological changes on land use patterns
This would be accomplished by refinement of the cultural chronological record, identification of
changes in land use patterns, and reviewing pertinent local and regional environmental data
collected since the 1980s.
4.6 PLACE NAMES
4.6.1 Synthesis of existing place names information
A geodatabase of place names locations should be created from published/unpublished Native
place names, place name translations and associated historic land use and cultural information
(Simeone et al. 2011; Kari and Fall 1987, 2003). Oral interviews may provide useful
information.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
41
4.6.2 Update baseline place names information to account for unknown place names
[See above section 4.6.1.]
4.7 TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PLACES/ TRIBAL SACRED SITES
4.7.1 Synthesis of traditional cultural places (TCPs)
A geodatabase with TCP/sacred sites location data should be created based on refined research
and associated historical and cultural information. TCPs are historical properties related to
traditional uses or practices that are integral to the life of a community. The NHPA amendments
of 1992 added Section 101(d)(6)(a) which stated that:
Properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe [or
Native Hawaiian organization] may be determined to be eligible for inclusion in
the National Register. In carrying out its responsibilities under Section 106 of this
Act, a Federal agency shall consult with any Indian tribe [or Native Hawaiian
organization] that attaches religious and cultural significance to properties (of
religious and cultural importance).
TCPs are associated with “cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted
in that community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity
of the community” (Parker and King 1990). TCPs are identified according to procedures set
forth under 36 CFR 800, and their significance is determined according to NRHP criteria (36
CFR 60.4). A TCP must be a tangible place or location with a history of use or association of at
least 50 years, and which retains integrity of association and condition within the community.
One of the results in changes in regulatory and political climate over the years has been an
increased awareness by Native American groups of sacred sites and other ancestral lands. This
has resulted both from burgeoning nativistic and revitalization movements, but also from
legislative mandates such as Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA), Executive Order 13007 “Accommodation of Sacred Sites”, and the increasingly-
common application of the concept of TCPs in assessing site significance (Parker and King
1998, National Register Bulletin 38).
Based on our preliminary review, we have not identified known Native American sacred sites 3
within the Watana Project area. However, our review did not include consultation with Native
groups. Some adjacent localities may be considered sacred by local residents, for example,
because of the birth of ancestral tribal chiefs and other important tribal leaders.
3 "Sacred site" is defined in Executive Order 13007, May 24, 1996.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
42
4.8 LEGACY RECORDS AND ARTIFACT COLLECTIONS
4.8.1 Finding Aids to Accession Records of 1978-1985 UAMN Data
Names, locations, descriptions of 1978-1985 records (field notes, maps, artifact inventories, etc.)
have been inventoried as part of this analysis (Appendix A). However, an electronic database of
UAMN accession records should be created once detailed annotation of field books and primary
data sources is completed.
4.8.2 Inventory of 1978-1985 faunal remains and geoarchaeology samples
A database of faunal and geoarchaeology samples accessioned at UAMN should be created to
facilitate re-dating and comparative uses, including descriptions of 1978-1985 samples.
4.8.4 Oral history interviews with 1978-1985 field research principals
Oral interviews with principal investigators and researchers involved with the 1978-1985 cultural
resources research would prove beneficial (E. James Dixon Jr., George Smith, Robert Thorson
and others).
4.9 Historic Contexts/Evaluation Criteria
4.9.1 Develop historic contexts for the project area
As part of the Section 106 process, AEA’s cultural resource contractor may need to develop
historic contexts for the project area, reviewing current federal and state legislation, regulations
and guidelines, taking into consideration existing management plans and historic contexts for
areas adjacent to the project area (VanderHoek 2011). This should include consultation with
agencies, Tribes and interested parties, and follow OHA criteria for developing historic contexts.
4.9.2 Develop project specific significance standards to evaluate a property’s
potential eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
This task would involve a review of the past documents evaluating Susitna-area site significance
(Saleeby et al. 1985), comparing with current Federal and State legislation, regulations and
guidelines, applying the latest versions of National Register Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60;
36 CR 800).
4.10 PALEONTOLOGY
4.10.1 Synthesis of paleontology data
Evaluation of paleontological sites and associated location data needs to be undertaken and a
geodatabase of paleontological sites should be developed. The potential for Pleistocene faunal
remains needs to be considered, given that Thorson et al. (1981) found approximately 29,000
year old mammoth remains at the confluence of the Susitna and Tyone Rivers, and that
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
43
significant occurrences of dinosaur (Hadrosaur) fossils have been reported from the Talkeetna
Mountains (Pasch and May 1997).
4.10.2 Paleontology site location model
Surficial geology and bedrock geology information needs to be developed along with creating
GIS layers of surficial geology and bedrock lithology, and recording data on locations of rock
outcrops within the study area. Both hard rock paleontological sites and Pleistocene faunal
remains need to be considered in light of current regulations.
4.11 Plans for Unanticipated Discoveries
4.11.1 Develop plan for unanticipated discovery of cultural resources and human
remains
Prior to initiating ground disturbing activities, a Plan for Unanticipated Discoveries of Cultural
Resources and Human Remains will be required (see Dale and McMahan 2007). This will
necessitate a review of current Federal and State legislation, regulations and guidelines, a review
of existing management plans for areas adjacent to the project area, and consultation with
agencies, Tribes and interested parties.
4.11.2 Develop plan for unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources
Prior to initiating ground disturbing activities, a Plan for Unanticipated Discoveries of
Paleontological Resources will be required. This will necessitate a review of current Federal and
State legislation, regulations and guidelines, a review of existing management plans for areas
adjacent to the project area, and consultation with agencies, Tribes and interested parties.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
44
5. SITE LOCATION MODELS
This section provides a review of the main site location models used for the 1979-1985 Susitna
Studies. The first review is a review of Dixon et al. (1980 and 1985).
5.1 Review of Dixon et al. (1980 and 1985)
The goals of Dixon et al. (1980 and 1985) were to locate and document cultural resources,
address their significance and assess the impact of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric project
(centered on two reservoirs and “associated facilities and features” [1980: iii]), recommend
mitigation, and curate artifacts. This was to be achieved by systematic testing through
archaeological survey followed by analysis, reporting, and curation. Assessments for
significance were facilitated by determining site extent through grid shovel testing and recording
a number of variables at sites to be impacted by the project. Mitigation recommendations
focused on important themes, especially those relevant to research questions which would flesh
out the area culture history (Smith and Dixon 1985).
The 1985 document (Dixon et al. 1985) is interesting for its inclusion of changes in
subcontractors, revisions of study objectives, and other information not necessarily normally
included in formal reports, but very relevant at a practical level to attainment of goals. This was
a large project; with over 270 sites located which required some form of analysis and curation of
associated artifacts. Another 22 previously known sites were revisited and documented. Of the
sites found, 111 were located through subsurface testing (about 28,000 shovel tests). The 1985
document states that its conclusions supersedes those written in earlier documents, thus a review
of the original (1980) document was necessary to note changes and understand the basis for
alterations of strategies, especially from a “predictive” modeling perspective.
Variables are categorized as chronological and environmental/other, as well as artifactual.
Chronological variables were recorded as terrain units keyed to surficial geology, stratigraphic
characteristics (including tephras), site maps (on an intra-site level), and radiocarbon dates
(paleosols and organics associated with artifacts or levels of occupations). Tephrochronology
was a significant help in determining regional chronology (one lake core with associated tephras
was also included). Apparently, topographic variables were defined by R&M Consultants in
1981 using aerial photographs, and the 25 terrain units described were used to define both
chronological and environmental variables.
Environmental variables or ecological settings were basically defined based on topographic
characteristics, including uniformity or variability of topography. Variables were overlooks, lake
margins, stream/river margins, quarry sites, caves and rock shelters, constrictions, and mineral
licks, vegetation, and landform types (18 possible). Other variables are mentioned as being
recorded during systematic surveying, such as elevation.
Artifact variables are material type (lithic, faunal, floral), technology (separated as lithic and non
lithic), and features. Part of the objective of setting up the variables in this way was to identify
what research question could potentially be addressed by particular sites or groups of sites.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
45
At the outset of the study in 1979, the authors acknowledged that only a “speculative cultural
chronological framework” and a “tentative cultural historical sequence” (1980: v) for the Middle
Susitna River was possible, based on the limited prior work relevant to cultural resources of the
area. The Western Ahtna and Upper Dena’ina Athabascan speakers were the primary inhabitants
of the region under review. These groups were believed to be highly mobile hunter-gatherers,
and it was suggested that few archaeological sites would exist in the study area. This assumption
was subsequently proven to be incorrect, and strategies were adjusted basically on an as-needed
basis.
A number of assumptions are imbedded into the “survey locales” concerning areas of low and
high potential for cultural resources. Fieldwork was performed from 1980 to 1984, with 2 to 3
month field seasons and crews ranging in size between 7 to 24 people. Survey shovel tests were
round and “generally not exceeding 50 cm in depth.” Sites were shovel tested with 4 m grids to
discover site extent (enlarged when necessary). Sites determined to be within areas of impact
were “systematically tested,” mapped with transit control and tested with 1 m x 1 m units. The
average tested area at these systematically tested sites was 3 m2.
Thorson (Susitna project surficial geologist) initially defined 11 “terrain units” (basically a
desktop survey which reviewed aerial photographs and literature) but difficulties in correlating
geomorphology units and chronology on a fine enough scale prompted abandonment of stratified
random sampling. This was justified basically because of the complexity of deglaciation
sequences and other difficulties, including logistical and technical ones. Terrain unit maps (25
defined terrain units) created by R&M Consultants through aerial photo interpretation were
subsequently used as geomorphological variables.
Site discovery is within ½ mile of all the project area boundaries, which was the emphasis,
though 3 km was the stated survey extent for beyond the proposed reservoirs, and 16 km was the
extent on either side of the Susitna River (from the Maclaren River to Portage Creek). The 1985
report notes there are sites beyond ½ mile of project boundaries found by various means. The
authors also noted the fluctuation of boundaries, a common issue, and strategies obviously need
to have a way to accommodate engineering adjustments.
There are several differences which are very relevant to work then and similar work now. The
Dixon et al. study was considered “pioneering research” by the authors as the area was basically
terra incognita prior to 1980. We have the benefit of over 25 years of interior Alaskan research,
which includes the results of a large areal study (Greiser et al. 1985) in addition to Dixon et al.
Dixon et al. attempted geomorphological studies in the beginning to help define significant
landscape elements for cultural resources and had difficulties in doing so. The importance of
glacial histories was recognized as significant for linkages to environmental variables;
geomorphological understanding has also developed substantially since the mid-1980s.
Dixon et al. identified four major occupational episodes from lithic analysis based on changes in
frequency and diversity of lithic artifacts (exotic vs. local and technological changes). This gave
a basis, which had not existed, for developing an understanding at a finer scale to the Susitna
area chronology. In addition, the necessity for an organized, accessible statewide database of
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
46
sites for regional studies was reinforced. We have that system now in a much more user friendly
form (AHRS dataset), which allows for the creation of models based on known site locations.
The authors state (1985:3-46) that social organization and ritual data (such as was available) has
“limited application…in interpreting the function and patterning of archaeological data,” which
is an interesting comment. The authors also note, during a review of ethnography, that the basis
of chief or “dene” power is essentially economic. However, the authors do not incorporate the
import of this social relationship in discussions, for example, on possible effects on trade
(relatable to lithic variability or changes in lithic technology, the basis for the occupational
episodes). These issues were apparently seen as fodder for future research, and time to fully
develop some of the analysis of what was found during the survey was apparently not available.
Eventually, 16 stratigraphic regional units were identified in the project area. The authors noted
an increased numbers of subsurface sites located in later field seasons after familiarity with likely
areas of buried cultural remains, while the first two seasons located more surface sites. This may
have created issues of spurious differences or similarities between site strata through initial
unfamiliarity with regional stratigraphy (this may be an issue with all regional surveys), calling
into question comparability between earlier and later work. Collation of information may also
have been cumbersome, in contrast to what we have available today by way of personal
computers.
Dixon et al. is the study of a region but does not really feel as if it takes a regional approach.
This is due to a lack of spatial visualization which became more common in ensuing years. GIS
visualization was not available, and though analyses on regional scales had been done elsewhere
by the 1950s in Viru Valley (Willey 1953) and 1960s in the Southwest U.S. and in the Oaxaca
Valley (Flannery 2009), this was a less common approach. The approach here is distinctly site
centered, with a chronological focus as opposed to a spatial focus. Following this study, more
was known about timing of occupations, but not necessarily about intersite settlement patterns or
reasons for variability of the datasets. The attempt to place all sites into broader traditions,
phases, etc. required radiocarbon dating and understanding tephra, and this first pass over the
area garnered a lot of useful chronological data.
Based on various parts the APE, survey locales were identified and geomorphological traits were
recorded during field observation (and compared to terrain units produced by R&M
Consultants). Based on objective decisions, areas within the survey locale were effectively
stratified as either having high or low cultural resource potential. The method of stratification is
based on general site locations and experience in areas outside the region of study, and thus falls
in to the category of deductively derived data. This approach is not necessarily an inferior
approach, but any unique characteristics of topography, etc. within the region not present in the
area from which search criteria are borrowed may be missed (criteria not necessarily transferable
wholesale between regions).
In addition, the bias incorporated into the area from which ideas of site potential were borrowed
will potentially remain imbedded. This is relevant because large percentages (up to 62%) of
study locale areas in the Susitna project were eliminated from field survey based on topographic
and practical criteria, which were essentially: 1) “extreme unlikelihood of specific types of
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
47
environments to contain archaeological sites” which were defined as slopes >15 degrees,
standing water, active gravels, sand bars and river channels; and 2) “the difficulty of testing
specific types of environments…based on practical limitations of contemporary archaeological
survey techniques” (1979:5-10). According to the authors, during one season, testing of these
eliminated areas was performed to explore the veracity of these decisions. Apparently, no chi-
square or similar statistical analyses were applied to the data to explore significance of
associations of variables. This could be done (and has been done to some degree by Potter
(2008b) to explore associations of sites and variables within the region, which might address
how relevant to the Susitna project were the outside derived variables.
The change from the first document (Environmental Studies Procedures Manual [1980]) and the
second (Cultural Resources Investigations 1979-1985 [1985]) is reflected in the revision of the
objectives. The more explicitly stated research design in the 1980 document proposed “a
research strategy that is structured to gather data necessary to predict site locations in relation to
physical and topographic features in the project area” using a “stratified random sampling
procedure” (1980:1). The latter document instead acknowledges this design was untenable (the
random part of that plan), and describes procedures actually implemented as employment of
objective criteria to define high and low potential areas for cultural resources. This is essentially
judgmental stratification of the study area, which is currently employed in various studies, but in
Dixon et al., (1985) few field checks on these judgments were made, and those that were done
were early in the project when the area was less well understood. No statistical tests were used
as a basis for judgments either. As most who do archaeological survey modeling today
understand, there are seldom clear cut boundaries in reality between high and low potential
areas…shades of gray exist and those areas are ones which deserve our attention in order to more
closely define what we think we are observing in site patterning or site selection (and which
potentially influence survey strategy).
The strength of the Dixon et al. (1980 and 1985) work is the large amount of data compiled
(some of which may be useful in GIS modeling applications, and which we assume exists in
some form, (such as on computer spreadsheets). In addition, the acknowledgment that research
designs need to remain flexible, incorporating data back into the design to make it more robust
for understanding site locations is essentially the iterative process frequently advocated today.
The evaluation of the design is missing, but, as stated above, for a first pass at data collection, the
effort was a good one, though the general depth of shovel test pits to no more than 50 cm could
be problematic in areas with considerable sediment deposition. Most intensively surveyed were
those areas which would be directly impacted by the project facilities.
Areas that fall within places of certain impact which were not intensively surveyed in the past
and considered higher in site potential would of course have to be dealt with; for this reason, any
modeling should also include a check on the Dixon et al. areas deemed higher in site potential.
Alternatively, if low potential areas (by Dixon et al. standards) hold sites located after the 1980s
(found during subsequent surveys) all areas defined as low in site potential would require
incorporation into a new site location model (or some type strategy). Areas of high potential
should also be redressed and possibly resurveyed, since assumptions driving the first survey may
be lacking in some way, which would result in missing certain types of areas of high potential
across the survey area.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
48
5.2 Review of Greiser et al. (1985)
The stated goal of the study by Greiser et al. (1985) is to predict the occurrence and density of
archaeological sites by chronology, cultural affiliation, and site type within the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project’s linear features. This goal is adjusted somewhat in the course of the
document in regard to density of sites because general site density is too low within the sampled
area’s identifiable “terrain units.” Known archaeological site locations from all time periods and
their associated attributes are assessed for relationships to vegetation and terrain (the two
environmental factors, each of which has numerous “units”); these assessments are the basis for
model scenarios.
About 280 linear miles of survey area were gridded into one-half square mile plots (about 550
plots of 160 acres each) which overlies the linear survey path; of those plots or quadrants, 110
(20%) were chosen for analysis. The quadrants were not chosen randomly, but rather from
across the survey area as representative of (in relative proportion to) the variation in vegetation
and terrain, the environmental variables. The sites within these quadrants are considered
randomly chosen and representative of the possible archaeological sites in the APE.
Based on the results of the sampled area, the authors aim to predict where sites may be located
for the total linear survey area of the project. The authors use prior information (from various
authors including Dixon, Powers, Hoffecker, Bacon, and Holmes) developed from surveys in
similar environments to create their categories for analysis. There is a fairly thorough
background discussion of what has been done in this general area of Alaska, how culture
chronologies (mainly based on artifact typology) have been defined up to 1985, general
subsistence and seasonal rounds within language territories in the APE and general habitat
variation within the study area.
Variables include: terrain units (28 classes such as kame deposits, granular alluvial fans, flood
plain deposits, terraces, etc.); vegetation units (over 30 classes, but combined into 8 groups for
expediency); distance to water (from 10 to 2,500 meters); site type or function (19 types such as
kill sites, lithic sources, villages, etc.); site size; period of occupancy (7 periods or traditions);
and location (x-y points from AHRS database). Basically, site frequencies by type, chronology
and cultural affiliation are counted within the various terrain and vegetation classes.
Archaeological sites are implied as dependent variables, though this is not stated perhaps due to
the authors’ choice of factor analysis, which does not require variables to be categorized as such
and no prior assumptions of independence are required. The point of factor analysis, as
described by the authors, is to explore the “relative worth” of a number of variables, and to
support predictions about the relationships among variables which may indicate consistent
associations or “basic patterns” in the data.
Assumptions are (stated and unstated) that ethnographic information is pertinent to prehistory as
far as site patterning, that faunal distributions mimic habitat distributions (for considering site
type, behavior, and subsistence), and that sites will be non-randomly distributed within specific
geographic settings. The null is the opposite, that is, sites would be randomly distributed across
the landscape. The stated question is whether “there are vegetation and topographic units that
can be used to predict the presence or absence of a particular site type. “
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
49
After defining the sites by chronology, site type, and affiliation, counts were made and the
frequencies of each as they occur within each terrain unit and vegetation type were recorded for
each research quadrant (the 20% of the project area). Cross tabs describe the data and chi-square
tests between site characteristics and the two environmental factors tested for independence.
Factor analysis was used to score (weight) terrain units and vegetation type associations with site
characteristics. These scores were grouped in binomial fashion as indicating either strongly
positive or strongly negative associations and listed as such. One can immediately see the
classification (categories) by which sites are defined (by type or function especially) are critical
to the outcome. In and of itself this issue is not problematic; however, this presumes adequate
testing/excavation of sites prior to modeling in order to fully understand the nature of a site
(necessary for getting at explanation of site patterning).
To determine if sampled units were relevant to the larger survey area, Spearman rank correlation
coefficients were used to evaluate the degree of association between two “series” (proportion of
acres in sample, proportion of acres in survey area for vegetative and terrain units). An
association between the two proportions does exist statistically, which is seen by the authors as
validation of the effectiveness of the model. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed on site
size and other site characteristics and the two environmental variables revealed no significant
correlations were found when very large sites were removed from the dataset (these always had a
significant relationship to historic period of occupation). Not surprisingly, site size was a
problematic variable, and adjustments in transect spacing were discussed in an attempt to address
this during survey (possibility of missing small surface scatters). Other tests were significantly
correlated, such as campsites and terrain with slight to pronounced topographic relief. In many
cases, the authors statistically support patterns of site locations noted by previous researchers.
They also support their hypothesis in most cases, that sites are non-randomly distributed across
the landscape.
Field work parameters proposed by Greiser et al. (1985) begin with sample quadrants, which
were to be subsurface tested and other information was to be very briefly recorded (including
“testability” of the area) unless sites were found, in which case more detailed information would
be gathered. Spacing of crew members was recommended at 20 to 50 m (a distance today
regarded as inadequate), and spacing of test pits was 20 to 50 m (inadequate as shown in more
recent survey results). Excavation of test pits to depths of 30 to 50 cm was also inadequate as
deeply buried sites would obviously be missed). The whole 160 acre quadrant was meant to be
shoveled tested in this manner. If this was the case, many negative tests would have shown up
(many, many more than positive, probably). This would no doubt confirm the non-random
hypothesis. Site forms proposed by the authors are thorough and appear similar to those used
today in recording sites.
The spatial modeling section of the Greiser et al. (1985) study is well thought out, given
available methods and data at the time, but several issues need consideration. The biased nature
of the dataset of known sites is noteworthy (the authors admit to the tentative and confusing
nature of their dataset, especially in regard to chronology). Thus, the prefield data manipulation
is interesting, but is difficult to connect to actual field results. The narrow corridor from which
the dataset was chosen and the model built appears to be based on the assumption that site
characteristics (connected explicitly to behaviors by the authors) are influenced (strongly
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
50
positive or strongly negative) by immediate and constrained vegetation and terrain, without
regard to the broader surrounding environment beyond 0.5 miles. This may not be the case,
especially if sites are associated with trade or other social functions, as well as sites associated
with migratory game routes.
In addition, the possibility (very likely) of change in vegetation over time is not addressed. The
focus on terrain units (basically topography and surface geology) is useful. Issues with the size
of the research quadrant is closely related to the “modifiable area unit problem” where different
results are obtained from simply changing the size of the spatial unit of observation; this has
implications for understanding site variability across a study area. The attempt at randomizing
the survey area by gridding and choosing plots is useful only if the several ecoregions across
which this project lay are well understood, which means being inclusive of all the specifics from
each ecoregions (specifics of vegetation, topography, hydrography). Systematic gridding, with
the purpose of being able to project to non-surveyed areas, would only seem useful if a very
close match exists between all variables in the surveyed and non-surveyed areas. This is highly
unlikely in the Alaskan boreal environment where there is too much heterogeneity.
The issue of removing some areal extents from the survey area due to nearly zero likelihood of
sites was effectively supported in this study though the archaeologists involved in the systematic
test pitting definitely would have rather found sites instead of confirming non-existence of sites.
This was important, however, because later studies have greater confidence in removing areas of
lowest potential from planned survey areas. The shallow depth of test pits to 50 cm is a real
problem for discovery of deeply buried sites. Spacing of tests and crew members was too wide,
as noted above. Spatial associations of sites within the study area are also not well addressed.
No mention of taphonomic issues keyed to terrain or vegetation is included, aside from a general
statement of greater preservation in later Athabascan sites (which may or may not be the case
dependent on several factors not discussed, including sediment characteristics). This is relevant
for considering site chronology and the likelihood of site destruction.
A number of methods used by Greiser et al. (1985) are completely relevant and are still part of
modeling in Alaska today. Their stratification of an APE by environmental variables (now
commonly also elevation or derived slope and aspect), their use of known archaeological sites
and attributes as the dataset, and statistically measuring the significance of associations between
sites and variables are basically the same methods employed by many of today’s predictive
models.
Differences relate to how we define the environment (how we categorize variables and the
placement of importance); this is a moving target, in a sense, since categories can nearly always
be defined (and reclassified) differently. Even more numerous variables, if anything, are
considered relevant today. Theoretical concepts of how humans interact with their environment
and with one another have also developed since the Greiser et al. report, and these developments
affect how we define and categorize site types, chronologies and cultural affiliations.
Presumably, we are still searching for patterns useful for detecting areas with greater and lesser
potential for sites; Greiser et al. (1985) were aware that the patterns seen by using previously
identified sites may or may not be a true picture of the pattern of “all” sites.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
51
Because the level of survey coverage to date in many places of Alaska is still a slim proportion
of actual acreage, models based on known sites, often called deductive models, are problematic
(but expansion of datasets can only improve conditions for modelers and everyone else). How
many sites are enough is difficult to say; there is always a chance that a particular site type is not
in the known dataset (for a variety of reasons), which effectively skews models based on known
datasets. So-called inductive models, in which data is gathered from outside the area of study,
are also problematic, especially when considering the heterogeneous nature of boreal landscapes
and the importance of microtopography. Models with broad areal extent then, appear to be most
useful because some of these issues are reduced by including a wider variety of sites. This may
change, however, as numbers of known sites within a region increase; surveys targeting highly
associated variables (especially topographic) with closely spaced, judgmentally placed test pits
will likely locate more sites and regional patterns may be seen. Models could be created for
more constrained areal extents.
Other approaches, especially those using GIS, which can include layers of important information
relevant to the prehistoric “agent” such as resource habitat and proximity, distances and costs of
travel, can assist the modeler in refining the importance of variables. One of the best parts of the
Greiser et al. (1985) report is the Summary and Future Research Considerations which touches
on several of these options (e.g., development of models of hunter-gatherer behavior based on
reconstructed resources), The level of detail required of environmental and cultural data increase
for these type models, however. Again, meaningful categorization is required, which is
necessarily based on informed understanding of all the (numerous) model components, including
human behavior, since essentially we are attempting to recreate realities from other places and
times (no easy feat, also noted by Greiser et al.) to winnow down possibilities. However, as
Potter (2005, 2006, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c) has pointed out, because we can graphically or
statistically illustrate an area of higher site potential in a predictive model, this does not mean the
areas of lower potential for sites are actually devoid of sites (a premise not requiring a model to
understand, but a good cautionary statement).
Like archaeological survey models today (now more often referred to as “site location” models),
Greiser et al. (1985) attempted to create a model useful for predicting site presence by examining
particular variables and their association to known sites, mainly for the purpose of reducing the
area over which survey was necessary. The Greiser et al. (1985) report furthered efforts in this
regard, though some associations, particularly in relation to historic sites, are intuitively obvious
statements not requiring advanced study to determine (such as historic structures are associated
with the railroad bed, which is on terrain with less relief). The authors may have included some
of the overly obvious historic results because the perception was at that time (and still is in many
circles) to be scientific we need statistical measures. As with recent modeling efforts, prehistoric
and historic variables require separate treatment because the reasons for choosing a site location
were different in many cases (if we consider the “agent” making the choices for site location).
Likewise, with greater understanding of prehistoric goals, based on greater understanding of
paleoenvironments and resources, we may be able to model more effectively for specific types of
prehistoric sites. In some circles, efforts to reduce the area over which surveys are required, a
main focus of predictive models, is considered undesirable and in disagreement with
archaeological goals; this is seen most commonly as conflict between cultural resource
management and academic archaeologists. This needn’t be the case; particularly, GIS can be
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
52
extremely flexible for changing model parameters and useful for testing associations of
variables, which ultimately expands the possibilities of understanding a particular geographic
area from whatever research/question/viewpoint you take, cost effectively. This would seem
desirable in any circle, and minimizing field survey can also be defined more closely. The
topography is made more visible, variables are better understood, and the area can be carefully
examined prior to going into the field. If done with a maximum of informed data and by
informed archaeologists, predictive modeling is a useful tool; as with any tool, its specific use
and purpose requires careful thought and rechecking of results.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
53
6. REFERENCES CITED
Ager, Thomas A., and Linda B. Brubaker
1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of Alaska. In Records of Late
Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by B. Vaughn, Jr., and F. Holloway, pp.
353-384. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists, Dallas.
Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development (ADCED)
2000 Alaska Community Database. http://www.dced.state.ak.us/mra.
State Historic Preservation Office
2011 Alaska Historic Resources Survey database. Accessed in September 2011.
Alaska Power Authority (APA)
1980 Permit Information, BLM, ADF&G, COE Archeological Clearances. Document no.
649. Anchorage, Alaska.
1988a Susitna Hydroelectric Project Document Index. Alphabetical Listing by Author, with
scans indicated.pdf. Index published online by Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska.
1988b Susitna Hydroelectric Project Document Index, Numerical Listing by Document Number.
Index published online by Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Road Commission (ARC)
1942 Alaska Road Commission Summary of Activities 1942. Prepared for Administrative
Use. State of Alaska Archives, Juneau
Alexander, Herbert L.
1987 Putu: A Fluted Point Site in Alaska. Simon Fraser Department of Archaeology,
Publication No. 17. Simon Frasier University, Burnaby, British Columbia.
Allen, Henry T.
1900 A Military Reconnaissance in Alaska, 1885. In Compilation of Narratives of
Explorations in Alaska, E. Hazard Wells (ed.), pp. 411-484. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Alloway, Brent V., Gudrún Larsen, David J. Lowe, Phil A. R. Shane, and John A. Westgate
2007 Tephrochronology. In Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science, edited by S. A. Elias, pp.
2869-2898. Elsevier, Ltd, London.
Anderson, Douglas D.
1968 A Stone Age Campsite at the Gateway to America. Scientific American, 218 (6):24-33.
1970 Microblade Traditions in Northwestern Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 7(2):2-16.
Andrews, Elizabeth F.
1987 Archaeological Evidence of European Contact: The Han Athabascans near Eagle, Alaska.
High Plains Applied Anthropology 7(2): 51–64.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
54
Athey, Jennifer E.
2006 Bedrock Geologic Map of the Liberty Bell area, Fairbanks A-4 quadrangle, Bonnifield
Mining District, Alaska. Map 1:50,000. Division of Geologic and Geophysical Surveys,
Fairbanks, Alaska.
Bacon, Glenn H.
1975 Heritage Resources Along the Upper Susitna River. Miscellaneous Publications, History
and Archaeology Series No. 14. Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
under Contract DACW85-75-C-0041 by Alaska Division of Parks, Anchorage, Alaska.
1978a Archaeology in the Upper Susitna River Basin, 1978, pp. 59. BLM Reference no. AG-
AK-910-297. Report to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, by Alaskarctic under
contract DACW85-78-C-0017, Fairbanks, Alaska (APA document no. 2298).
1978b Archaeology Near the Watana Damsite in the Upper Susitna River Basin, pp. 25. Report
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District under contract DACW-85-78-C-
0034 by Alaskarctic, Fairbanks, Alaska. (APA document no. 2297).
1986 The Culture History of Interior Alaska. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Meeting of
the Alaska Anthropological Association, March 7 and 8, 1986, Fairbanks, Alaska.
1987 A Cultural Chronology for Central Interior Alaska: A Critical Appraisal. Invited review
in The Quarterly Review of Archaeology. pp 3-5.
Begét, James E., Richard D. Reger, DeAnne Pinney, Tom Gillespie, and Kathy Campbell
1991 Correlation of the Holocene Jarvis Creek, Tangle Lakes, Cantwell, and Hayes Tephras in
South-Central and Central Alaska. Quaternary Research 35: 174-189.
Betts, Robert C., and Glenn H. Bacon
1986 Measuring the Effectiveness of Large Area Survey Methods. Paper presented at the 13th
Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, March 7 and 8, 1986,
Fairbanks, Alaska.
Bever, Michael R.
2001 An Overview of Alaskan Late Pleistocene Archaeology: Historical Themes and Current
Perspectives. Journal of World Prehistory 15(2):125-191.
Black, Lydia T.
2004 Russians in Alaska. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks.
Blanchard, Morgan R.
2010 Wires, Wireless and Wilderness: A Sociotechnical Interpretation of Three Military
Communication Stations on the Washington Alaska Military Cable and Telegraph
System (WAMCATS). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Nevada, Reno.
Blong, John
2011 Preliminary Summary on 2010-2011 Field Research in the Upper Susitna Basin.
Unpublished manuscript in the files of Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
55
Bowers, Peter M.
1979 Final Report: Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Electrical Distribution Line Extension
to Mount McKinley National Park, Alaska. Report submitted to the National Park
Service. University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
1980 The Carlo Creek Site: Geology and Archaeology of an Early Holocene Site in the Central
Alaskan Range. Occasional Paper No. 27, Cooperative Park Studies Unit. University of
Alaska, Fairbanks.
1982 The Lisburne Site: Analysis and Culture History of a Multi-Component Lithic Workshop
in the Iteriak Valley, Arctic Foothills, Northern Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the
University of Alaska, 22(1-2):70-112.
1987 Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Tangle Lakes Archeological District. Bureau
of Land Management, Alaska State Office, Anchorage.
1999 AMS Dating of the Area 22 American PaleoArctic Tradition Microblade Component at
the Lisburne Site, Arctic Alaska. Current Research in the Pleistocene 16:12-14.
2011 Cultural Resources Assessment of Four Watana Dam Site Boreholes, South-Central
Alaska. Report prepared for ABR, Inc., and the Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage.
Report prepared by Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks.
Bowers, Peter M. and Joshua D. Reuther
2008 AMS Re-dating of the Carlo Creek Site, Nenana Valley, Central Alaska. Current
Research in the Pleistocene 25:58-61.
Bowers Peter M., Robson Bonnichsen, and David M. Hoch
1983 Flake Dispersal Experiments: Noncultural Transformation of the Archaeological Record.
American Antiquity 48(3):553-572.
Bowers, Peter M., Ben A. Potter, Joshua D. Reuther, Chris B. Wooley and Katherine Price
2008 Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis for the Denali- Alaska Gas Pipeline Project Area.
Confidential report prepared for the Denali Pipeline Project. Northern Land Use
Research. Inc., Fairbanks.
Brooks, Alfred H.
1911 The Mount McKinley Region, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper No.
70. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
1923 The Alaska Mining Industry in 1921. In Mineral Resources of Alaska 1921. U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 739, pp. 1-44. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington
D.C.
1973 Blazing Alaska’s Trails. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks.
Brown, William
1991 A History of the Denali – Mount McKinley, Region, Alaska. U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Buck, Mildred, and James Kari
1975 Ahtna Noun Dictionary. Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
56
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR)
1977 The Iditarod Trail (Seward-Nome Route) and other Alaskan Gold Rush Trails.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Capps, Steven R.
1911 Mineral Resources of the Bonnifield Region: Mineral Resources of Alaska, 1910. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Child, Jonathan K., James E. Begét, and Al Werner
1998 Three Holocene Tephras Identified in Lacustrine Sediment Cores from the Wonder Lake
Area, Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research
30(1): 89-95.
Clayton, Florence
1967 A History of Early Glennallen, Alaska. Copper River Current: The Valley News. June
29, 1967. 6(1):1-4.
Cole, Terrence
1979 The History of the Use of the Upper Susitna River: Indian River to the Headwaters.
Report prepared for the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Research and Development, Anchorage, Alaska.
Cook, John P.
1969 The Early Prehistory of Healy Lake, Alaska. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of Wisconsin-Madison.
Cook, John P., and Thomas E. Gillespie
1986 Notched Points and Microblades. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Meeting of the
Alaskan Anthropological Association, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Dale, Rachel J., and J. David McMahan
2007 Human Remains and Cultural Resource Management in Alaska: State Laws and
Guidelines. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 5 (2):87-95.
Darwent, John, and Christyann Darwent
2005 Occupational History of the Old Whaling Site at Cape Krusenstern, Alaska. Alaska
Journal of Anthropology 3(2):135-154.
Davis, Craig, Dana Linck, Kenneth Schoenberg, and Harvey Shields
1981 Slogging, Humping and Mucking Through the NPR-A: An Archaeological Interlude.
Occasional Paper No. 25. Anthropology and Historic Preservation, Cooperative Park
Studies Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
57
Dilley, Thomas E.
1988 Holocene Tephra Stratigraphy and Pedogensis in the Middle Susitna River Valley,
Alaska. Unpublished Master’s of Science thesis, Department of Geology, University of
Alaska, Fairbanks.
Dixon, E. James Jr.
1985 Cultural Chronology of Central Interior Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 22(1):47-66.
1993 Quest for the origins of the first Americans. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
1999 Bones, Boats & Bison: Archaeology of the First Colonization of Western North America.
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
2001 Human Colonization of the Americas: Timing, Technology, and Process. Quaternary
Science Reviews 20:277-299.
Dixon, E. James, Jr., George S. Smith, William Andrefsky, Becky M. Saleeby, and Charles J.
Utermohle
1984 Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Survey of the Middle Susitna River, Alaska, in
Connection with the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, 1983. Antiquities Permit Report no.
81-AK-209. University of Alaska. Fairbanks, Alaska.
Dixon, E. James, Jr. and George S. Smith
1990 A Regional Application of Tephrochronology in Alaska. In Archaeological Geology of
North America, edited by N. P. Lasca and J. Donahue, pp. 383-389. Centennial
Special Vol. 4. Geological Society of America, Boulder.
Dixon, E. James, Jr., George S. Smith, and David C. Plaskett
1980 Environmental Studies Procedures Manual/Research Design: Subtask 7.06 Cultural
Resources Investigation for the Susitna Hydropower Project. Alaska Power Authority,
Susitna Hydroelectric Project, submitted to Acres American, Inc. by Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists, Inc., and University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Dixon, E. James, Jr., George S. Smith, William Andrefsky, Becky M. Saleeby and Charles J.
Utermohle
1984 Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Survey of the Middle Susitna River,
Alaska, in Connection with the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, 1983. Antiquities Permit
Report, permit no. 81-AK-209. University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, AK.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
58
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, Alaska (APA document no. 2718).
1984 Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Survey of the Middle Susitna River, Alaska, in
Connection with the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, 1983. Antiquities Permit Report,
Permit no. 81-AK-209. University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, AK.
Dixon, E. James Jr., William F. Manley, and Craig M. Lee
2005 The Emerging Archaeology of Glaciers and Ice Patches: Examples from Alaska’s
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. American Antiquity 70(1):129-143.
Eldridge, George H.
1900 A Reconnaissance in the Sushitna Basin and Adjacent Territory, Alaska, in 1898. In 20th
Annual Report of the U.S. Geological Survey, Pt. VII. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Erlandson, Jon, Rudy Walser, Howard Maxwell, Nancy Bigelow, John Cook, Ralph Lively,
Charles Adkins, Dave Dodson, Andrew Higgs, and Janette Wilber
1991 Two Early Sites of Eastern Beringia: Context and Chronology in Alaskan Interior
Archaeology. Radiocarbon 33(1):35-50.
Esdale, Julie
2008 A Current Synthesis of the Northern Archaic. Arctic Anthropology 45(2):3-38.
Fall, James A.
1981b Patterns of Upper Inlet Tanaina Leadership, 1741-1918. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
1987 The Upper Inlet Tanaina: Patterns of Leadership Among an Athabaskan People, 1741-
1918. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 21(1-2):1-80.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC
Hydroelectric Projects. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C.
Flannery, Kent V., editor
2009 The Early Mesoamerican Village, (updated edition). Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek,
CA.
Gerlach, S. Craig, Stacie J. McIntosh, Peter M. Bowers and Owen K. Mason
1996 Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Prehistoric Cultural Resources on Eielson Air
Force Base, Alaska. Report prepared for Shannon and Wilson, Inc., Fairbanks and the U.
S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District by Northern Land Use Research, Inc.,
Fairbanks.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
59
Goebel, Ted, W. Roger Powers, and Nancy H. Bigelow
1992 The Nenana Complex of Alaska and Clovis Origins. In Clovis Origins and Adaptations,
edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. Turnmire, pp. 49-79. Center for the Study of the First
Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Goebel, Ted, W. Roger Powers, Nancy H. Bigelow, and Andrew S. Higgs
1996 Walker Road. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia,
edited by F. H. West, pp. 356-363. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
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).
Grün, Rainer
2001 Trapped Charge Dating (ESR, TL, OSL). In Handbook of Archaeological Sciences,
edited by D. R. Brothwell and A. M. Pollard, pp. 47-62. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd,
Chichester.
Hedman, William H.
2010 The Raven Bluff Site: Preliminary Findings from a Late Pleistocene Site in the Alaskan
Arctic. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks District
Office. Fairbanks, Alaska.
Hoffecker, John F.
1984 Appendix O, Cultural Resources. In Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Susitna
Hydroelectric Project, FERC no 7114-Alaska., pp. O-1 to O-29. vol. 7: Appendices N
and O. Office of Public Information, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C.
2005 Incredible Journey: Plains Bison Hunters in the Arctic. The Review of Archaeology
26(2):18-23.
2008 Assemblage Variability in Beringia: the Mesa Factor. Paper presented at the 73rd Annual
Meeting for the Society of American Archaeology, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, March
26th-30th, 2008.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
60
Hoffecker, John F., W. Roger Powers, and Ted Goebel
1993 The Colonization of Beringia and the Peopling of the New World. Science 259: 46-53.
Holmes, Charles E.
1975 Archaeological Survey in the Nenana Valley, 1975. Report submitted to the [Alaska]
Division of Parks, Anchorage.
1988 An Early Post Paleo-Arctic Site in the Alaska Range. Paper presented at the 15th Annual
Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Fairbanks, Alaska.
1996 Broken Mammoth. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of
Beringia, edited by F. H. West, pp. 312-318, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
2001 Tanana River Valley Archaeology Circa 14,000 to 9000 B.P. Arctic Anthropology 39(2):
154-170.
Holmes, Charles E. and John P. Cook
1999 Tanana Valley Archaeology Circa 12,000 to 8,500 Yrs B.P. Paper Presented at the 64th
Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, Chicago.
Holmes, Charles E. and Richard VanderHoek
1994 Swan Point Site: A Multi-Component Site in the Tanana Valley, Central Alaska. Paper
Presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,
Anaheim.
Holmes, Charles E., Richard VanderHoek, and Thomas E. Dilley
1996 Swan Point. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia,
edited by F. H. West, pp. 319-323. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Holmes, Charles, Joshua D. Reuther, and Peter M. Bowers
2010 The Eroadaway Site: Early Holocene Lithic Technological Variability in the Central
Alaska Range. Paper presented at the 37th Annual Meeting of the Alaska
Anthropological Association, Anchorage, March 24th-27th, 2010.
Irving, William N.
1953 Report on the Susitna Archaeological Survey, 1953 Part II. Ms. on file at the University
of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks.
Jull, A. Timothy
2007 AMS Method. In Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science, edited by S. A. Elias, pp. 2911-
2918. Elsevier, Ltd, London.
Kari, James
1975 The Way the Tanainas Are: Dena’ina T’qit’ach. Stories collected by J. Kari,
illustrations by L. Wetmore. Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks.
2008 Ahtna Geographic Names: A Case Study in Alaska Athabascan Geographic Knowledge.
Presented at the Landscape in Language Workshop, October 26 to November 1,
Albuquerque, NM and Chinle, AZ.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
61
Kari, James, and James A. Fall (editors)
1987 Shem Pete's Alaska. The Territory of the Upper Cook Inlet Dena'ina. Alaska Native
Language Center, University of Alaska, Fairbanks and The CIRI Foundation, Anchorage,
Alaska.
2003 Shem Pete's Alaska. The Territory of the Upper Cook Inlet Dena'ina. 2nd ed.
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Kunz, Michael and Richard E. Reanier
1994 Paleoindians in Beringia: Evidence from Arctic Alaska. Science 263:660-662.
1995 The Mesa Site: A Paleoindian Hunting Lookout in Arctic Alaska. Arctic Anthropology
32(1):5-30.
Kunz, Michael, Michael Bever, and Charles Adkins
2003 The Mesa Site: Paleoindians Above the Arctic Circle. BLM-Alaska Open File Report 86,
April 2003. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage,
Alaska.
de Laguna, Frederica, and Catherine McClellan
1981 Ahtna. In Subarctic, edited by J. Helm, pp. 641-663. Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 6, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
LeFebre, Charlene
1956 A Contribution to the Archaeology of the Upper Kuskokwim. American Antiquity
21(3):268-274.
Lively, Ralph
1988 Chugwater (FAI-035): A Study of the Effectiveness of a Small Scale Probabilistic
Sampling Design at an Interior Alaskan Site. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska
District, Anchorage.
Lobdell, John E.
1981 The Putuligayuk River Delta Overlook Site: Fragile Traces of Ancient Man at Prudhoe
Bay, Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Unpublished Report to the Environmental Conservation
Dept., ARCO. Lobdell and Associates, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico.
1986 The Kuparuk Pingo Site: A Northern Archaic Camp of the Arctic Coastal Plain, North
Alaska. Arctic 39(1):47-51.
Loy, Thomas H. and E. James Dixon, Jr.
1998 Blood Residues on Fluted Points from Eastern Beringia. American Antiquity 63(1): 21-
46.
Maitland, R. E.
1986 The Chugwater Site (FAI-035), Moose Creek Bluff, Alaska. Final Report, 1982 and 1983
Seasons. Report to U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Alaska District, Anchorage.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
62
Mangusso, Mary C. and Stephen W. Haycox (editors)
1989 Interpreting Alaska’s History: An Anthology. Alaska Pacific University Press,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Marsh, Kenneth L.
2002 A River Between Us: The Upper Susitna River Valley of Alaska, A Historical Story
Collection. Trapper Creek Museum Sluice Box Productions, Trapper Creek, Alaska.
Maschner, Herbert D. G.
1987 A Monitoring and Cataloging Study of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project's Records
Management System. Report completed under contract to the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee, Senator Jalmer Jertulla, Chairman, Anchorage, Alaska. (73 pages).
Mason, Owen K. and Peter M. Bowers
1994 Predictive Model for Discovery of Cultural Resources on Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.
Report prepared for EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. by Northern Land
Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks.
Mason, Owen K., Peter M. Bowers, and David M. Hopkins
2001 The Early Holocene Milankovitch Thermal Maximum and Humans: Adverse Conditions
for the Denali Complex of Eastern Beringia. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 525-548.
McKennan, Robert A.
1981 Tanana. In Subarctic, edited by J. Helm, pp. 562-577. Handbook of North
American Indians. vol. 6. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
Mendenhall, Walter C.
1900 Explorations in Alaska in 1898. In Compilation of Narratives of Explorations in Alaska.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington.
Moffitt, Fred H.
1915 The Broad Pass Region, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 608.
1933 Mining Development in the Tatlanika and Totatlanika Basins. U.S. Geological Survey
Bulletin 836:339-345.
Moffitt, F H., and H. Bouchard
1975 Surveying. 6th ed. Thomas Y. Crowell, New York.
Monahan, Robert L.
1959 The Development of Settlement in the Fairbanks Area, Alaska. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec. (copy viewed at the Rasmuson
Library, University of Alaska Fairbanks).
Naske, Clause M.
1986 Paving Alaska’s Trails: The Work of the Alaska Road Commission. University Press of
America, Lanham, Maryland.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
63
Norris, Frank
2006 Crown Jewel of the North: An Administrative History of Denali National Park and
Preserve, Volume I. Alaska Regional Office National Park Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior, Anchorage, Alaska.
Olson, Wallace M.
2002 Through Spanish Eyes: Spanish Voyage to Alaska, 1774-1792. Heritage Research, Auke
Bay, Alaska.
Osgood, Cornelius
1937 [1966] Ethnography of the Tanaina. Yale University Publications in Anthropology. No.
16. New Haven, Human Relations Area Files Press.
Parker, Patricia L.
1993 Traditional Cultural Properties - What You Do and How We Think. CRM 16 (Special
Issue):1-4
Parker, Patricia L., and Thomas F. King
1990[1998] Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties.
National Register Bulletin 38. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington D.C.
Pasch, Anne D., and Kevin C. May
1997 First Occurrence of a Hadrosaur (Dinosauria) from the Matanuska Formation (Turonian)
in the Talkeetna Mountains of South-Central Alaska. Short Notes on Alaska Geology
1997, pp. 99-109, Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, Anchorage.
Pearson, Gorges A.
1999 Early Occupations and Cultural Sequence at Moose Creek: A Late Pleistocene Site in
Central Alaska. Arctic 52 (4): 332-345.
Plaskett, David
1977 The Nenana Gorge Site: A Late Prehistoric Athabaskan Campsite in Central Alaska.
Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
64
Potter, Ben A.
2005 Site Structure and Organization in Central Alaska: Archaeological Investigations at
Gerstle River. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University
of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks.
2006 Site Location Model and Survey Strategy for Cultural Resources in the Alaska Railroad
Northern Rail Extension Project Area. Prepared for ICF Consulting Services, LLC, by
Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks. NLUR Technical Report 278a.
2008a Radiocarbon Chronology of Central Alaska: Technological Continuity and Economic
Change. Radiocarbon 50(2):181-204.
2008b Exploratory Models of Intersite Variability in Mid to Late Holocene Central Alaska.
Arctic 61(4):407-425.
2008c A First Approximation of Holocene Inter-assemblage Variability in Central Alaska.
Arctic Anthropology 45(2):88-112.
Potter, Ben A., Peter M. Bowers, Carol Gelvin-Reymiller, Peter J. Kriz and Joshua D. Reuther
2001 Cultural Resource Data Assessment for the North American Natural Gas Producers
Pipeline Project Area. Confidential re[prt prepared for the Alaska Gas Producers Pipeline
Team, Anchorage. Report prepared by Northern Land Use Researc, Inc. , Fairbanks.
Potter, Ben A., Peter Bowers, Christopher B. Wooley, James Gallison, William Sheppard, Carol
Gelvin-Reymiller and Joshua D. Reuther
2002 Results of 2001 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Alaska Gas Pipeline
Project Area, Southern Route. Confidential report prepared for the Alaska Gas Producers
Pipeline Team and URS Corporation. Report prepared by Northern Land Use Research,
Inc., Fairbanks.
Potter, Ben A. and Joshua D. Reuther
2011 High Resolution Radiocarbon Dating at the Gerstle River Site, Central Alaska. American
Antiquity, accepted for publication.
Potter , Ben A., Edmund P. Gaines, Peter M. Bowers, and Molly Proue
2006 Results of the 2006 Cultural Resource Survey of Proposed Alaska Railroad Northern Rail
Extension Routes and Ancillary Facilities, Alaska, Volume I. Report prepared for ICF
International by Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks.
Potter, Ben A., Joshua D. Reuther, Peter M. Bowers, and Carol Gelvin-Reymiller
2007 Results of the 2007 Cultural Resource Survey of Proposed Alaska Railroad Northern Rail
Extension Routes and Ancillary Facilities, Alaska. Report prepared for ICF International,
by Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks.
Potter, Ben A., Peter M. Bowers, Joshua D. Reuther and Owen K. Mason
2007 Holocene Assemblage Variability in the Tanana Basin: NLUR Archaeological Research,
1994-2004. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 5(1):23-42.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
65
Potter, Ben A., Joel D. Irish, Joshua D. Reuther, Carol Gelvin-Reymiller, and Vance T. Holliday
2011 A Paleoindian Child Cremation and Residential Structure from Eastern Beringia.
Science 311:1058-1062.
Potter, Louise
1963 A Study of a Frontier Town in Alaska: Wasilla to 1959. Burt, Hanover.
1967 Old Times on Upper Cook’s Inlet. The Book Cache, Anchorage.
Powers, W. Roger, and John F. Hoffecker
1989 Late Pleistocene Settlement in the Nenana Valley, Central Alaska. American Antiquity
54(2): 263-287.
Powers, W. Roger and Howard E. Maxwell
1986 Lithic Remains from Panguingue Creek, An Early Holocene Site in the Northern
Foothills of the Alaska Range. Alaska Historical Commission Studies in History No.
189.
Powers, W. Roger, Dale R. Guthrie, and John F. Hoffecker
1983 Dry Creek: Archaeology and Palaeoecology of a Late Pleistocene Alaskan Hunting
Camp. Unpublished manuscript. National Park Service, Anchorage.
Price, Kathy
2002 Homesteads on Fort Wainwright, Alaska. Center for Environmental Management of
Military Lands, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
Prindle, L. M., F. J. Katz and P. S. Smith
1913 A Geological Reconnaissance of the Fairbanks Quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey
Bulletin 525. Washington, D. C.
Proue, Molly, Justin M. Hays, Joshua D. Reuther, and Jeffrey T. Rasic
2011 The Hayfield Site: Modern Technology Applied to Materials Collected in the 1950s.
Alaska Journal of Anthropology, submitted and in review.
Quirk, William, III
1974 Historical Aspects of the Building of the Washington, D.C.-Alaska Military Cable and
Telegraph System, with Special Emphasis on the Eagle-Valdez and Goodpaster
Telegraph Lines 1902-1903. Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Rainey, Froehlich G.
1939 Archaeology of Central Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History 36(4):355–405.
Rasic, Jeffrey T.
2000 Prehistoric Lithic Technology at the Tuluaq Hill Site, Northwest Alaska. Unpublished
M.A. Thesis, Department of the Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman,
Washington.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
66
Reanier, Richard E.
1995 The Antiquity of Paleoindian Materials in Northern Alaska. Arctic Anthropology
32(1):31-50.
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.
Reckord, Holly
1983 Where Raven Stood - Cultural Resources of the Ahtna Region. Occasional Paper No. 35.
Anthropology and Historic Preservation, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of
Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Bertrand, C. J. H., Blackwell,
P. G., Buck, C. E., Burr, G. S., Cutler, K. B., Damon, P. E., Edwards, R. L., Fairbanks, R. G.,
Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T. P., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., Kromer, B., McCormac, F. G.,
Manning, S. W., Ramsey, C. B., Reimer, R. W., Remmele, S., Southon, J. R., Stuiver, M.,
Talamo, S., Taylor, F. W., van der Plicht, J., and Weyhenmeyer, C. E.
2004 IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 26 - 0 ka BP. Radiocarbon 46, 1029-
1058.
Reuther, Joshua D.
2000 Radiocarbon data and notes on Jay Creek Ridge AMS Dates. Unpublished data on file at
the Archaeology Department, University of Alaska Museum of the North and Northern
Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks.
Reuther, Joshua D. and S. Craig Gerlach
2005 Testing the “Dicarb Problem”: A Case Study from North Alaska. Radiocarbon 47(3):
359-366.
Reuther, Joshua D., S. Craig Gerlach, and Jerold M. Lowenstein
2009a CIEP and RIA Protein Residue Analysis on “Fluted” Points from Northern Alaska.
Current Research in the Pleistocene 26:109-111.
Reuther, Joshua D., Molly M. Proue, Justin M. Hays, Heather Hardy, and Victoria Florey
2009b Data Recovery at Locus 1B of HEA-062, the Nenana River Gorge Site, Interior Alaska.
Report prepared for the Alaska Railroad Corporation, by Northern Land Use Research,
Inc., Fairbanks.
Reuther, Joshua D., Carol Gelvin-Reymiller, Ben A. Potter, Justin M. Hays, Molly M. Proue and
Chris B. Wooley
2010 Site Locational Model and Survey Strategy for Cultural Resources along the Proposed
Donlin Creek Project Pipeline Corridor: Beluga to Donlin Creek, Alaska. Report
submitted to Donlin Creek LLC, Anchorage, by Northern Land Use Research, Inc.,
Fairbanks, and Chumis Cultural Resources Services, Anchorage. Copies on file at
Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks, and Chumis Cultural Resources Services,
Anchorage.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
67
Reuther, Joshua D., Chris B. Wooley, Carol Gelvin-Reymiller, Justin M. Hays, Jason S. Rogers,
Jill Baxter-McIntosh, Robert C. Bowman, Patrick T. Hall, and Matthew H. Hull
2011 Results of the 2011 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey on BLM Lands of the Proposed
Donlin Gold Natural Gas Pipeline Study – BLM Interim Report. Report submitted to
Donlin Creek LLC, Anchorage, by Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks, and
Chumis Cultural Resources Services, Anchorage. Copies on file at Northern Land Use
Research, Inc., Fairbanks, and Chumis Cultural Resources Services, Anchorage.
Reuther, Joshua D., Natasha Slobodina, Jeff Rasic, John P. Cook and Robert J. Speakman
2011 Gaining Momentum – Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Archaeological Obsidian
Source Studies in Interior and Northern Eastern Beringia. In From the Yensei to the
Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene
Beringia, edited by Ted Goebel and Ian Buvit. Texas A&M Press, College Station.
Riehle, James R.
1985 A Reconnaissance of the Major Holocene Tephra Deposits in the Upper Cook Inlet
Region, Alaska. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 26:37-74.
1994 Heterogeneity, Correlatives, and Proposed Stratigraphic Nomenclature of Hayes Tephra
Set H, Alaska. Quaternary Research 41:285-288.
Riehle, James R., Peter M. Bowers and Thomas A. Ager
1990 The Hayes Tephra Deposits, an Upper Holocene Marker Horizon in South-Central
Alaska. Quaternary Research 33: 276-290.
Robe, Cecil F.
1943 The Penetration of an Alaskan Frontier: The Tanana Valley and Fairbanks.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, Yale University.
Romick, Jay D. and Robert M. Thorson
1983 Petrography and Stratigraphy of Holocene Tephra from the Susitna Canyon Area, South-
Central Alaska. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Department of Archaeology,
University of Alaska Museum of the North, Fairbanks.
Saleeby, Becky M., E. James Dixon, Jr., and George S. Smith
1985 Susitna Hydroelectric Project: Cultural Resources – Significance. Alaska Power
Authority, Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Project. University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1986 Radiocarbon Dating and the "Old Wood" Problem: the Case of the Hohokam
Chronology. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:13-30.
Schoenberg, Kenneth M.
1985 The Archaeology of Kurupa Lake. Research/Resources Management Report AR-10.
National Park Service, Regional Office, Anchorage, Alaska.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
68
Shinkwin, Anne D.
1979 Dakah De’nin’s Village and the Dixthada Site: A Contribution to Northern Alaskan
Prehistory. National Museum of Man Mercury Series No. 91. Archaeological Survey of
Canada, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.
Shinkwin, Anne D. and Martha Case
1984 Modern Foragers: Wild Resource Use in Nenana Village, Alaska. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 91. Anchorage, Alaska.
Simeone, William E., Adam Russell and Richard O. Stern
2011 Watana Hydroelectric Project Subsistence Data Gap Analysis. Report prepared for ABR,
Inc., and the Alaska Energy Authority by Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Anchorage,
Alaska.
Skarland, Ivar and Charles J. Keim
1958 Archaeological Discoveries on the Denali Highway. Anthropological Papers of the
University of Alaska, 6(2):79–87.
Skarland, Ivar and William N. Irving
1953 Report on the Susitna Archaeological Survey, 1953. University of Alaska, College.
Smith, George S. and E. James Dixon, Jr.
1985 Susitna Hydroelectric Project: Cultural Resources – Mitigation Recommendations.
Alaska Power Authority, Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Project. University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Spurr, Josiah Edward
1900 A Reconnaissance in Southwestern Alaska in 1898. In Twentieth Annual Report of the
United States Geological Society to the Secretary of the Interior, 1898-1899. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Steen-McIntyre, Virginia
1979 A Manual for Tephrochronology: Collection, Preparation, Petrographic Description and
Approximate Dating of Tephra (Volocanic Ash). Colorado School of Mines Press,
Golden.
1985 Tephrochronology and Its Application to Archaeology. In Archaeological Geology,
edited by G. Rapp, and J. A. Gifford, pp. 265-302. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Stuiver, Minze, Paula J. Reimer, and R. W. Reimer
2005 CALIB 5.0. Program and Electronic Documentation, http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/.
Thorson, Robert M., and Thomas D. Hamilton
1977 Geology of the Dry Creek Site: A Stratified Early Man Site in Interior Alaska.
Quaternary Research 7: 149-176.
Thorson, Robert M., E. James Dixon, George S. Smith, and Allan R. Batten
1981 Interstadial Proboscidean from South Central Alaska. Quaternary Research 16: 404-417.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
69
Townsend, Joan B.
1981 Taniana. In Subarctic, edited by J. Helm, pp. 626-640. Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 6, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Usibelli Coal Miner
1993 Usibelli Coal Mine Celebrates 50th Anniversary. Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. Vol. 13, July.
Vancouver, George
1798 A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean, and Round the World: In Which the
Coast of North-West America has been Carefully Examined and Accurately Surveyed,
Performed in the Years 1790-1795 in the Discovery Sloop of War and Armed Tender
Chatham, Under the Command of Captain George Vancouver. G. G. and J. Robinson,
London.
VanderHoek, Richard
2011 Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Denali Highway Lands, Central Alaska.
Draft manuscript. Alaska Office of History and Archaeology Report Number 112.
Alaska Office of History and Archaeology, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation,
Anchorage.
West, Frederick H.
1967 The Donnelly Ridge Site and the Definition of an Early Core and Blade Complex in
Central Alaska. American Antiquity 32(3):360-382.
1975 Dating the Denali Complex. Arctic Anthropology 12:76-81.
1981 Archaeology of Beringia. Columbia University Press, New York.
1996 Teklanika West In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia.
pp. 332-342. Frederick Hadleigh West, ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
West, C. Eugene and Richard O. Stern
1987 Bibliography and Index of Alaskan Archeology. Aurora
. Monograph Series No. 3.
Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage, Alaska.
Willey, Gordon R.
1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Viru Valley, Peru. Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin. 155, Washington, D.C.
Williams, Fred
n.d. Some Historical Notes about the Copper River Basin. Unpublished manuscript, copy on
file at Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska.
Workman, William C.
1978 Prehistory of the Aishihik-Kluane Area, Southwest Yukon Territory. National Museum
of Man, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey Paper 74. Archaeological Survey of
Canada, National Museum of Canada, Ottawa.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
70
Wygal, Brian T.
2009 Prehistoric Colonization of Southcentral Alaska: Human Adaptations in a Post Glacial
World. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Reno, Nevada, Reno.
2010 Prehistoric Upland Tool Production in the Central Alaska Range. Alaska Journal of
Anthropology 8(1):107-119.
Yesner, David R.
1994 Subsistence Diversity and Hunter-Gatherer Strategies in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene
Beringia: Evidence From the Broken Mammoth Site, Big Delta, Alaska. Current
Research in the Pleistocene 11:154-156.
1996 Human Adaptation at the Pleistocene-Holocene Boundary (Circa 13,000 to 8,000 BP) in
Eastern Beringia. In Humans at the End of the Ice Age: The Archaeology of the
Pleistocene-Holocene Transition, edited by L.G. Straus, B.V. Eriksen, J.M. Erlandson,
and D. R. Yesner, pp. 255-276. Plenum Press, New York.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
71
Figure 1. Project location map.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
72
Table 2 Summary of the number of known cultural resources and NRHP eligible sites within 5 miles of
each Area of Potential Effect. (Note: because of overlap, some sites appear on more than one
construction feature).
AHRS Site Totals NRHP Eligibility Status
Watana Dam Site
Total # of Known Cultural Resources: 177
Prehistoric – 160
Historic – 9
Prehistoric/Historic – 2
Historic/Modern – 1
Protohistoric – 4
Paleontological – 1
Number of Resources with Evaluations of NRHP Eligibility
Incomplete – 177
Watana Construction Camp
Total # of Known Cultural Resources: 40
Prehistoric – 38
Historic – 2
Number of Resources with Evaluations of NRHP Eligibility
Incomplete – 40
Proposed Chulitna Corridor
Total # of Known Cultural Resources: 82
Prehistoric – 71
Historic – 7
Historic/Modern – 4
Number of Resources with Evaluations of NRHP Eligibility
Incomplete – 81
Number of Resources Determined Eligible for Inclusion to the
NRHP, But Not Currently Listed – 1
Proposed Denali Corridor
Total # of Known Cultural Resources: 86
Prehistoric – 77
Historic – 7
Undefined – 2
Number of Resources with Evaluations of NRHP Eligibility
Incomplete – 85
Number of Resources Determined Not Eligible for Inclusion on
the NRHP – 1
Proposed Gold Creek Corridor
Total # of Known Cultural Resources: 50
Prehistoric – 39
Historic – 8
Historic/Modern – 3
Number of Resources with Evaluations of NRHP Eligibility
Incomplete – 48
Number of Resources Listed on NRHP – 1
Number of Resources Determined Eligible for Inclusion to the
NRHP, But Not Currently Listed – 1
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
1
APPENDIX A – UAMN INVENTORY OF SUSITNA PROJECT MATERIALS
Susitna
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Documentation
UA Museum – Range 80
Box 1
37 hard-cover yellow “Rite in the Rain” Ring Binders
• All notebooks are labeled as follows:
Reconnaissance 1984 Book I TLM-216 thru TLM-221
Reconnaissance 1984 Book IV TLM-227 thru TLM-231
Reconnaissance 1984 Book V TLM-232
Grid Shovel Testing TLM-065 – TLM-088
Grid Shovel Testing TLM-042 – TLM-062
Project Journal – Susitna 1984 Book 2
Susitna Hydroelectric 1984 Indices R- Z
Altimeter Study – Susitna 1984
TLM -040 Crew 2 Maureen King Book 1 of 2 Tephra Site
TLM -040 Crew 2 Maureen King Book 2 of 2 Tephra Site
TLM -173 Crew 2 Maureen King
TLM -174 Crew 2 Maureen King
TLM -175 Crew 2 Maureen King
TLM -216 Crew 2 Maureen King Book 1 of 1
TLM -034 Crew 4 David Rhode
TLM -060 Crew 4 David Rhode
TLM -063 Crew 4 David Rhode
TLM -073 Crew 4 David Rhode
TLM -119 Crew 4 David Rhode
TLM -217 Crew 4 David Rhode
TLM -229 Crew 4 David Rhode
TLM -029 Crew 5 C.M. Hoffman
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
2
TLM-184 Crew 5 C.M. Hoffman Book 2
TLM-207 Crew 5 C.M. Hoffman
TLM-215 Crew 6 Bruce Ream Book 1
TLM-215 Crew 6 Bruce Ream Book 2
TLM-220 Crew 6 Bruce Ream Book 1
TLM-220 Crew 6 Bruce Ream Book 2
TLM-017 Crew 7 Nena Powell
TLM-061 Crew 7 Nena Powell
TLM-064 Crew 7 Nena Powell
TLM-077 Crew 7 Nena Powell
TLM-102 Crew 7 Nena Powell
TLM -104 Crew 7 Nena Powell Book 1
TLM-104 Crew 7 Nena Powell Book 2
TLM-171 Crew 7 Nena Powell
TLM -230 Crew 7 Nena Powell Book II
Box 2
3 manila envelopes, 3 green hanging file folders, 2 loose file folders (separate from green hanging files), and Appendix D of the report
Artifact Plates (Appendix D)
Three manila envelopes:
Appendix E
Appendix F
Extra Figures – All chapters
Two loose file folders:
Susitna 85 Appendix B (a-b) and Appendix C
Impact Assessment Draft Final 1985
Three green hanging file folders:
Significance 1985
Impact 1985
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
3
Appendix D – Historic and Archaeological Sites Documented as Part of the Cultural Resources Survey
Loose pages:
1,874 pages
Box 3
1 box of aerial photographs (10” x 10”) – 17 photos and 3 transparencies
45 folders containing aerial photos and photo logs for several sites
1 bundle of digitized site maps
~140 folders of varying contents. The majority of them contain site location maps
Box 4
Several bound and unbound documents; subjects are as follows:
TLM -128 Diagnostics Flakes > 1.0 gr. with platform
Alaska Power Authority Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Procedures Manual
Phase I Environmental Studies Final Report *draft*
Interim Report on Seismic Studies for Susitna Hydroelectric Project – Dec. 1980
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Plant Ecology Studies – Semiannual Report (Jan – June 1980)
Susitna Hydroelectric Project FERC License Application Exhibit E – Chapters 7, 8, and 9
• 2 copies
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Development Selection Report Appendices A through J
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Newsletter – Sept. 1983
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Social Science Workshop 2: Cultural Resources Research Priorities
Alaska Power Authority *looks to be a paper copy from slides from a presentation*
Exhibit E: Schedules, Outlines and Guidelines – September 21, 1982
Environmental Studies Annual Report 1980: Subtask 7.12 Plant Ecology Studies - May 1981
Environmental Studies Annual Report: Subtask 7.11 Big Game – July 1981
U of A Museum Susitna Hydroelectric Project 1981 Photo Log
TLM -128 1982 Flakes < 1.0 gr. > 1.0 (no platform)
TLM -128 1983 Flakes < 1.0 gr. > 1.0 (no platform)
Environmental Studies First Semi-Annual Report: Subtasks 7.05 Socioeconomic Analysis
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
4
Procedures Manual/Research Design: Subtask 7.06 Cultural Resources Investigation
Task 7 Environmental Studies Summary Annual Report 1980 – May 1981
Susitna 1982 Photo Log
Susitna 1983 Photo Log
Un-labeled record book
Environmental Studies Procedures Manual: Subtask 7.12 Plant Ecology
Susitna Hydroelectric Project FERC License Application Exhibit E (unbound copy) – Chapters 4, 5, and 6
Susitna Hydroelectric Project: A Detailed Plan of Study, Task Descriptions – September 1979
Box 5
2 boxes of Kodak color slides
1 binder of black and white slides
3 binders of black and white negatives
1 bound report:
Final Report 1982 Field Season, Sub-task 7.06 Cultural Resources Investigation for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Box 6
Final Report 1982 Field Season, Sub-task 7.06 Cultural Resources Investigation for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Semi-Annual Report: Subtask 7.06 Cultural Resources Investigation for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
• 2 copies
“4- Geoarchaeology, Tephrochoronology”
Antiquities Permit Report (1982)
• 3 copies
Antiquities Permit Report (1983)
• 2 copies
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Semi-Annual Report: Subtask 7.07 Land Use Analysis
Quarterly Report: Brown/Black Bear Studies
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Furbearer Studies
Environmental Studies Procedures Manual Subtask 7.06: Cultural Resources Investigation
“3.6 – Systematic Testing”
Preparation of Exhibit E
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
5
Environmental Studies Annual Report 1980: Appendix E - Maps of Site Locations and Survey Locales
Environmental Studies Annual Report 1980: Subtask 7.11 Wildlife Ecology Birds & Non-game Mammals
Environmental Studies Annual Report 1980: Subtask 7.11 Wildlife Ecology Furbearers
Environmental Studies Annual Report 1980: Subtask7.07 Land Use
U of A Museum Susitna Hydroelectric Project 1981 Photo Log
Museum: Artifact Plates 1985 Report - Paste-Ups (envelope)
4 sheets of slides depicting artifact plates
Museum: Artifact Plates 1985 Report – Originals (envelope)
1 binder of slides
Box 7
43 hard-cover yellow “Rite in the Rain” Ring Binders
1 paper-back “Rite in the Rain” cross section notebook
1 spiral bound “handi notes” notebook
• All notebooks are labeled as follows:
Missing Artifacts from Collections
Transmission Corridor Notes
Susitna Hydroelectric 1984 Indices A-H
Susitna Hydroelectric 1984 Indices J-P
Project Journal – Susitna 1984
TLM-115 Crew 2 Maureen King
TLM-251 Crew 2 C.C. Maxwell King
TLM -182 Crew 2 Maureen King
TLM -177 Crew 2 Maureen King
TLM -169 Crew 4 David Rhode
TLM -217 Crew 4 David Rhode Book 1
TLM -221 Crew 4 David Rhode
TLM -126 Crew 4 David Rhode
TLM -200 Crew 4 David Rhode
TLM -184 Crew 5 C.M. Hoffman Book 1
TLM -225 Crew 5 C.M. Hoffman
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
6
TLM-226 Crew 6 Bruce Ream Book 1
TLM-226 Crew 6 Bruce Ream Book 2
TLM-058 Crew 6 Bruce Ream Systematic Testing UA84-95
TLM-199 Crew 7 Nena Powell
TLM-230 Crew 7 Nena Powell Book I
TLM-206 Crew 7 Nena Powell
TLM-194 Crew 7 Nena Powell
TLM-222 Reconnaissance 1984 Book II
TLM-223 thru TLM-226 Reconnaissance 1984 Book III
TLM-233 thru TLM-234 Reconnaissance 1984 Book VI
TLM-235 thru TLM-237 Reconnaissance 1984 Book VII
TLM-238 thru TLM-241 Reconnaissance 1984 Book VIII
TLM-242 thru TLM-246 Reconnaissance 1984 Book IX
TLM-247 Reconnaissance 1984 Book X
TLM-248 thru TLM-250 Reconnaissance 1984 Book XI
TLM-251 thru TLM-259 Reconnaissance 1984 Book XII
Survey Locales 1984 #7 thru 27
Survey Locales 1984 BK 33-133
Survey Locales 138
Survey Locales 1984 143 and 144
Survey Locales 1984 161-167
Survey Locales 1984 168-179
TLM-009 thru TLM-039 Grid Shovel Testing
TLM -094 thru TLM-107 Grid Shovel Testing
TLM -108 thru TLM-167 Grid Shovel Testing
TLM -172 thru TLM-214 Grid Shovel Testing
HEA Sites Grid Shovel Testing
Photo Log B/W
Photo Log Color
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
7
Box 8
Several loose paper maps
19 folders of maps
SimCo Cabin TLM-071 1988 Correspondence and Pictures (envelope)
Draft – Site Significance: A Framework for Evaluating Cultural Resources Associated with the Susitna Hydroelectric Project in
Central Interior Alaska May 1984
Archaeological Survey and Site Distribution in Relation to Terrain Units 1985
Susitna Hydroelectric Project – Social Science Workshop 2: Cultural Resources Research Priorities
Summary of Susitna Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Investigations
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Subcontract for Cultural Resource Services – June 1983
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources – Mitigation Recommendations 1985
-Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Survey of the Upper Susitna River Valley, Alaska in Connection with the Susitna
Hydropower Project, 1980
15 folders of Reports
Box 9
102 folders all pertaining to a different sampling locale
6 manila envelopes labeled as follows:
Survey Locale Map Template
Template for Site Location Maps
Reconnaissance Test Profile Template
Latitude/Longitude Template
Template for Site Map
Enlargement Grids for 1:2000 R&M Terrain Unit Maps (1:24,000)
Precision Altimeter Survey Procedures
Bundle of maps labeled as follows:
Devil Canyon Reservoir Index Map
Devil Canyon Slope Stability Map (8 different maps)
Watana Reservoir Index Map
Watana Slope Stability Map (15 different maps)
46 folders containing misc. information and maps
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
8
Box 10
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies: Subtask 7.06 Cultural Resources Investigation Phase 1 Report – April 1982
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Final Report 1982 – Chapter 3 pgs. 3-1 to 3-139: Site Reports
Susitna Hydroelectric Project 1982 Cultural Resources Survey – Final Report March 1983
3 binders black and white negatives
Susitna 1981 – Figures
Susitna 82 – Systematic testing
Susitna 81 – Graphics
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Final Report April 1982 – Chapter 3 pgs. 3-140 to 3-272: Site Reports
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Final Report April 1982
Chapter 5 – pgs. 5-1 to 5-35 Geoarchaeology
Chapter 6 – pgs. 6-1 to 6-5 Paleontology
Chapter 7 – pgs. 7-1 to 7-20 History and Prehistory
Chapter 10 – pgs. 10-1 to 10-18 References
Susitna – Figures
Box 11
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies: Subtask 7.07 Land Use Analysis – Phase 1 Report
Proposal for continued Cultural Resource Studies for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, 1983-1984
Susitna Hydroelectric Project FERC License Application Exhibit E – Chapter 4 (draft)
Susitna Hydropower Plan of Study
Susitna Hydroelectric Project No. 7114 Supplemental Responses for October 1, 1983
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Volume 8 Exhibit E – Chapters 7, 8, and 9 February 1983
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Plan of Study February 1980
Exhibit A – Project Description
Proposal for Cultural Resource Inventory and Mitigation for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Susitna Project Site Maps and Profiles
Site Significance: Evaluating Cultural Resources Associated with the Susitna Hydroelectric Project in
Central Interior Alaska – Draft - (red binder)
Cultural Resources Impacts and recommended Mitigation Measures for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Central Interior Alaska –
Draft – (black binder)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
9
Box 12
217 folders, each dedicated to an individual site. Documents in each folder are mostly maps - hand drawn and digitized
Box 13
Antiquities Permit Report
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Final Report April 1982
Table of Contents – pgs. vii – xxix
Summary i – xxxv
Chapter 1 – pgs. 1-1 to 1-9
Chapter 2 – pgs. 2-1 to 2-25
1 binder of black and white negatives
3 binders of slides
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Subtask 7.06 – Cultural Resources Investigation Appendix E
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Final Report April 1982: Chapter 3 – pgs. 3-273 to 3-424 Site Reports
1983 Field Season Cultural Resources Investigation Volume II
Susitna 82 – Site Reports
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Impact Statement
Box 14
Appendix D (1,834 loose pages)
Appendix E (box)
Appendix F (box)
Box 15
Several large folders labeled as follows:
Coding Forms Fall 1984 1-99
Coding Forms Fall 1984 100-199
Coding Forms Fall 1984 200-259
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
10
Data Files
Data Files
(unlabeled)
Susitna Lithic Tables – By tradition and summary table
Susitna Hearth Features
Susitna Lithic Artifact summary printout
Susitna Athapaskan Tradition Miscellaneous Summary Tables
(unlabeled)
Susitna Sites by tradition printout and tables by tradition
Susitna Fauna Tables
Box 16
193 folders; each dedicated to a different locale. Some are specified as survey locales
1983 Field Season Cultural Resources Investigation Volume I
• 2 copies
1983 Field Season Cultural Resources Investigation Volume II
• 4 copies
Box 17
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies: Subtask 7.06 Cultural Resources Investigation Appendix E
6- Geological and Soil Resources
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Settlement Process: Social Science Workshop 1
1983 Field Season Cultural Resources Investigation Volume III
• 5 copies
1983 Field Season Cultural Resources Investigation Volume II
• 3 copies
Susitna Hydroelectric Project: A Detailed Plan of Study – September 1979
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
11
Box 18
Site Location Maps
TLM-184 Summary
1983 Systematic Testing TLM-016
1983 Systematic Testing TLM-030 – Site/Lab Data
1983 Systematic Testing TLM-030 – Samples; Profiles
1983 Systematic Testing TLM-069
1983 Systematic Testing TLM-097
1983 Systematic Testing TLM-184
Box 19
Folders of varying contents, card boxes, loose cards, bound reports, and loose papers
Impact analysis 1983
Folders:
Research – Climap
Artifact Transfer Susitna Lab
Susitna Field Strategy 1984
Susitna Historic Sites
Field Season Index 1983
Susitna Field Season 1983
1984 Research Coding Forms
Systematic Testing Procedures
Scope of Work 83-84
Procedures/Quality Assurance Manual – May 1984
Report on 1982 Field Season
Final Artifact Plates Systematic Testing 1983
Artifact Plates
Susitna Camera
Hiring Procedures
Field Procedures
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
12
Susitna 1983 Photo Plates
Susitna 183 Population Report
Sensitivity Maps 1983 T. Lines
T-Lines, Access, & Recreation w/out Sensitivity
T-Lines, Access, & Recreation w/ Sensitivity
Susitna Sensitivity Testing Program
Site Significance
Map Photos Susitna
Appendix Maps Quad Photos
USGS Map Photos 1982
Artifact Photos 1982
Photo Proof Sheets
Tables 4.1 - 4.5
Impact Assessment
Construction Planning Maps
Susitna Project Sampling Locales
Graphics Clean Copy Impact Assessment
Final Report 1981 – Methodology
Work Scope for Continued Cultural Resource Studies for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Reports:
Revised: Work Scope for Continued Cultural Resource Studies for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
• 2 copies
Susitna C14 and Tephra Cards
Boxes:
Photos
Index of Pulled Artifacts: Fog Creek Site TLM-030
Stratigraphic Profile Descriptions
Loose cards:
Specimen Removal Forms
Photo Logs
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
13
Box 20 1981 Systematic Testing (just box 20 labeled as such)
7 red binders labeled as follows:
Systematic Testing 1981 HEA-175
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM -022
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM-043
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM-046
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM-050
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM-059
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM-097
Box 21
1 rolled up paper map
1 box of aerial photographs (10”x 10”)
19 folders of “Systematic Testing Sites”
The Achievement and Early Consequences of Food-Production: A Consideration of the
Several Articles:
Archaeological and Natural-Historical Evidence
Iron Deficiency in Alaskan Eskimos
Sea Otters: Their Role in Structuring Nearshore Communities
The Athapaskan-Environment System in Diachronic Perspective
Aleuts: Ecosystem, Holocene History, and Siberian Origin
The Nature and Age of the Contact between the Laurentide and Cordilleran Ice Sheets in
the Western Interior of North America
Early Man in the New World: Problems of Migration
The Gallagher Flint Station, an Early Man Site on the North Slope, Arctic Alaska, and its
Role in Relation to the Bering Land Bridge
The Agricultural Revolution
Examination of a 16,000 year old Frozen Tattoo Body from St. Lawrence Island, Alaska
The Discovery of America: The first Americans may have swept the Western
Hemisphere and decimated its fauna within 1000 years
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
14
Cultural Chronology of Central interior Alaska
Broken Canines from Alaskan Cave Deposits: Re-Evaluating Evidence for Domesticated
Dog and Early Humans in Alaska
A Reported Early-Man Site Adjacent to Southern Alaska’s Continental Shelf: A Geologic
Solution to an Archaeological Enigma
Tephra Falls in the Middle Susitna River Valley: Implications for Prehistoric Human Ecology
Prince of Wales Island Prints/Slides
2 File Folders:
The Archaeology of Northern Prince of Wales Island
14 folders with varying contents, ie: C14 dating and Faunal Analysis
Box 22
1 box with a report inside
4 green hanging files with varying content
Box 23
1983 Field Season Cultural Resources Investigation Volume I
• 5 copies
1983 Field Season Cultural Resources Investigation Volume II
1983 Field Season Cultural Resources Investigation Volume III
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Horizontal and Vertical Control Surveys – March 1981
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies: Subtask 7.06 Cultural Resources Investigation Appendix E
Phase II Final Report: Sample Survey and Predictive Model Refinement for Cultural Resources Located Along the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Linear Features Volume I
Cultural Resources Investigations 1979-1985 Volume VII, Appendix E, Figures E1-E24
Cultural Resources Investigations 1979-1985 Volume VII, Appendix E, Figures E25-E47
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
15
Box 24
21 yellow paper-back “Rite in the Rain” field notebooks
2 yellow hard-cover “Rite in the Rain” ring binders
2 orange hard-cover “level book” field notebooks
3 yellow hard-back “Lietz Engineers’ Field Book” notebooks
18 ‘notebooks’ made of loose leaf “Rite in the Rain” paper
1 small artifact bag of Kodak slides (14 slides)
Box 25
Several folders with some of the following contents:
Site Maps
Land Status Maps
Survey Corridor Maps
Auger Holes
Trails
Access Corridor Maps
Sensitivity Maps
C14 dating documents
Box 26
Folders with the following Categories:
Monthly Report – July 1983
Susitna Correspondence 1984
Susitna Correspondence 1985
Internal
Internal Misc.
1984 CRM Meetings
Review Letters 1982 – 1985
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
16
AHRS
1985 Budget
1984 Land Status
1985 CORR
Facilities and Features
1984 Schedule
Site Size
Sensitivity
Tephrachronology/Geoarchaeology
Final Report Lithic Analysis
Cultural Chronology
Site Components
Site Evaluation
Paleontology
Box 27
Site Significance: A Framework for Evaluating Cultural Resources Associated with the Susitna Hydroelectric Project in Central
Interior Alaska – Draft
Interim Report on Research Conducted for the University of Alaska Museum Susitna Hydroelectric Project 6-1—5-83 to 11-7-83
Several report drafts
Artifact Photos (in a folder)
HRA Susitna Hydroelectric Linear Features Sample Survey – Phase II. B&W negatives, contact sheets, and photo logs (envelope)
EERC License Application – Exhibit E
1 binder full of slides
Box 28
6 binders labeled as follows:
Duplicate Photo Logs – incomplete
Appendix D 1
Soil Profiles – Susitna
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
17
Susitna Faunal Material
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Site Size Delineation
Faunal Sheets – TLM -016 and TLM-077
Box 29 1981 Systematic Testing (just box 29 labeled as such)
8 binders with the following labels:
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM-018
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM-033
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM -038
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM -039
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM -040
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM -042 A
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM -042 B
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM -069
Box 30
47 loose IBM Displaywriter Diskettes (2D)
8 boxes of IBM Displaywriter Diskettes (2D) with the following labels:
ARCS 1 – ARCS 10 (Duplicate)
ARCS 11 – ARCS 20 (Duplicate)
ARCS 21 – ARCS 30 (Duplicate)
ARCS 31 – ARCS 41 (Duplicate)
ARCS 1 – ARCS 14
ARCS 15 – ARCS 27
ARCS 28 – ARCS 41
Susitna Disc
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
18
Box 31
109 folders containing documents pertaining to “Survey Locales”
46 folders containing documents pertaining to AHRS sites
Box 32
5 binders with the following labels:
Appendix D 2
1984 Susitna Report Draft Final
1984 Susitna Report Draft Final
Disk Index “84”
Faunal Data Sheets – Susitna 1984 Book III (TLM-222 thru TLM-256)
Box 33
3 boxes containing a combined copy of the Final Report:
Final Report 1982 Field Season: Subtask 7.06 Cultural Resources Investigation for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
1 box containing the final Annual Report 1980:
Annual Report: Sub-Task 7.06 Cultural Resources Investigation for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Draft – Environmental Impact Statement: LPK Timber Sale Plan for the 1984-89 Operating Period, Tongass National Forest, Alaska
Several loose pages, copies of portions of the final report
Box 34
4 red binders
25 hard-bound yellow notebooks
3 paper-back notebooks
1 spiral-bound orange notebook
• All notebooks are labeled as follows:
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
19
“81” Case Susitna Hydro Feasibility Study U of AK Museum Archaeology I
“1981” Case Susitna Hydro Feasibility Study U of AK Museum Archaeology II
Susitna Project 1981 U of AK Museum Journal I
Susitna Hydro-power Project “81” Anderson Univ. of Alaska Museum I
Susitna 1981 Anderson Univ. of AK Museum II
Susitna Project 1981 Lester W. Baxter U of A Museum I
Susitna Hydropower Project 1981 Betts Univ. of Alaska Museum I
Susitna Project Betts Univ. of AK Museum II
Susitna Arch. Clearance Betts
Susitna Hydro Project V. Butler U of AK Museum I
Susitna Hydro Project V. Butler U of AK Museum II
Susitna Hypo Project 1981 Jim Kurtz Univ. of Alaska Museum 1
Susitna Project 7/7/81 – 7/9/81 E.J. Dixon
Susitna Archaeological Project Richard Gilaser
Susitna Project 1981 Jordan U of AK Museum II
Susitna Hydro-power Project 1981 J. Jorgensen U of AK Museum Fairbanks AK III
Susitna River Archaeology Project Maureen King Univ. of Alaska Museum 1981 Book I
Susitna River Project 1981 Maureen King Book II
1981 Susitna Hydro-power Project Lisa Kritsis Univ. of Alaska Museum I
1981 Susitna Hydro-power Project Lisa Kritsis U of AK Museum II
Susitna Hydro Project 1981 Jim Kurtz Univ. of Alaska Museum Book 2
1981 Susitna Mercotte
Susitna Hydro-power Project 1981 Peter Phippen Univ. of Alaska Museum I
Susitna Hydropower Project 1981 C. Utermohle Univ. of Alaska Museum I
Susitna Hydropower Project 1981 C. Utermohle Univ. of Alaska Museum II
Susitna Hydropower Project 1981 David Rhode Univ. of Alaska Museum I
Susitna Hydro 1981 D. Rhode Univ. of Alaska Museum II
Susitna 1981 G. Smith
Susitna 1981 Soil Stratigraphy
Binders are labeled as follows:
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM-027
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
20
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM-048
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM-062
Systematic Testing 1981 TLM-065
Box 35
3 binders
19 hard-bound yellow field notebooks
6 paper-back yellow field notebooks
• All notebooks are labeled as follows:
Color & B/W Photo Log – Susitna Project June-August 1980
Susitna Bore holes 5/6 – 5/8 1980
Susitna Hydropower Project “1980” Lester Baxter
Susitna Hydropower Project “80” Lester Baxter II
Susitna Hydropower Project “1980” Betts #1
Susitna Hydropower Project “80” Betts #2
Susitna Hydropower Project “1980” Martha Case I
Susitna Hydropower Project: 1980 Martha Case II
1980 Susitna Hydropower Survey James Dixon Jr
Susitna 1982 J. Dixon
Susitna Archaeology Project Maureen King #1 1982
Susitna Archaeology Project Maureen King #2 1982
Susitna Hydropower Archaeology Lisa Kritsis #1 1982
Susitna Hydropower Project Ray Medlock 8/8/80 – 8/27/80 Subtask 7.06
Susitna Hydropower Archaeology D. Rhode 1982 Notebook #1
Susitna Hydro Archaeology 1982 David Rhode Notebook #2
Susitna Hydro Project “82” Sattler
Susitna 1982 Sims
Susitna Project G. Smith
Susitna 1982 G. Smith
Susitna 1980 G. Smith
Susitna Hydropower Project: 1980 C. Utermohle I
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
21
Susitna Hydropower Project: 1980 C. Utermohle II
Susitna Hydropower Project “80” C. Utermohle III
Susitna Hydropower Project: 1980 Ziff
Binders are labeled as follows:
Systematic Testing 1982 TLM-128
Systematic Testing 1982 TLM-130
Systematic Testing 1982 TLM-143
Box 36
Box is full of Ziploc artifact bags…all empty but labeled with provenience information
Box 37
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Final Report April 1982: Chapter 4, pgs: 4-1 to 4-199 – Systematic Testing Discussion and Evaluation
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Appendix E
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Phase I Report – Chapter 4: Systematic Testing Discussion and Evaluation
Cultural Resources Investigations 1979-1985:
Volume I – Chapters 1-10 Appendix A
Volume II – Appendices B and C
Volume III – Appendix D (Part 1)
Volume IV – Appendix D (Part 2)
Volume V – Appendix D (Part 3)
Volume VI – Appendices E and F
Volume VII – Appendix E (full-scale maps) Figures E1-E24
Volume VII – Appendix E (full-scale maps) Figures E25-E47
Box 38
Site Report Progress Inventory
Mitigation A.C.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
22
1983/1985 Contract
Susitna Hydroelectric Project: Transmission Line Selected Route – Final Draft March 1982 Figures
Before the federal Energy Regulatory Commission Application for License for Major Project: Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Volume 4: Exhibit G February 1983
Volume 6B: Exhibit E – Chapter 3 (figures) February 1983
Volume 6A: Exhibit E – Chapter 3 February 1983
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Phase I Report – Chapter 3: Site Descriptions; 1980 and 1981 Reconnaissance level Testing
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Final Report:
Appendix A – pgs. A-1 to A-20 Literature Review: Archaeology, Ethnology: History
Appendix B – pgs. B-1 to B-13 Literature Review: Geoarchaeology
Appendix C – pgs. C-1 to C-14 Forms
Appendix D – pgs. D-1 to D-3 Correspondence
Box 39
3 binders of B&W negatives
3 binders of color slides
1 bundle of papers:
1984-1985 Susitna Hydropower Project Computer Programs and Data File Examples
Box 40
Cultural Resources Investigations 1979-1985: Volume IV – Appendix D (Part 2)
Susitna hydroelectric Project Volume VII: Exhibit E – Chapter 4 Historic and Archaeological Resources
1983 Field Season Subtask 7.06 Cultural Resources Investigation for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project I
1983 Field Season Subtask 7.06 Cultural Resources Investigations for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project II
Box 41
1980 Susitna Report
2 binders:
Appendix E & F
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
23
Box 42
Black & White Photos 1982
3 binders:
Black & White Photos 1981 Roll: 21-46
Color Slides 1980 and 1981
1 folder of color slides and B&W photos and artifact plates 1982
Box 43
1 folder – Susitna 1980
6 binders with the following labels:
Final Report 1982 Field Season Subtask 7.06 Cultural Resources Investigations for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, J. Dixon et al. –
December 1982
Susitna Hydropower Project Faunal Sheets TLM-089 thru TLM-221 1983-1984
Susitna Report 1984/1985
1982 Faunal Remains Survey
Reading File – Susitna Lab 1983/1984
Susitna Hydropower Project Faunal Sheets 1981
Box 44
4 binders
1 bunch of index cards with provenience information on them for C14 samples taken in the field
33 hard-cover yellow field notebooks
8 paper-back yellow field notebooks
• All notebooks are labeled as follows:
Susitna Archaeology 1983 Mapping Book I TLM-016, TLM-017, TLM-030, TLM-180
Susitna Archaeology “83” Mapping Book II TLM-030
Susitna Archaeology 1983 Mapping Book III TLM-097, TLM-184
Susitna Photograph Record “83” TLM-030
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
24
Systematic Testing Photo Record “83” TLM-184, UA83_110
Grid Shovel Testing “83” TLM-030
Susitna Project W. Andrefsky U of A Museum
Susitna Project 1983 Crew 4 Paul Buck I UAF Museum
Susitna 1983 R.J Dale
Susitna Project 1983 Gillispie I UA-F Museum
Susitna 1983 Gillispie II
Susitna 1983 P. Haessig Book 1 of 2
Susitna 1983 P. Haessig Book 2 of 2
Susitna Project Crew 4 1983 Hemphill University of Alaska Museum
Susitna 1983 Chuck Hoffman
Susitna 1983 Beth Horvath I
Susitna 1983 Beth Horvath II
Susitna Hydro Project 1983 Anne M. Jensen I U of A Museum
Susitna 1983 Bill Johnson Book 1 of 2
Susitna 1983 Bill Johnson Book 2 of 2
Susitna Hydro Project Jordan Hammer Drill Holes Clearance
Susitna 1983 Jordan U of A Museum
Susitna 1983 Maureen King Notebook I U of A Museum
Susitna 1983 Maureen King Notebook II U of A Museum
Susitna Hydro Project 1983 S. Ludwig
Susitna Project Crew 4 Herbert Maschner UAF Museum
Susitna 1983 Owen Mason I and II (stuck together)
Susitna 1983 Nijhowne I
Susitna 1983 Nena Powell Book 1
Susitna Project Ream UAF Museum
Susitna 1983 Saleeby Vol. I
Susitna 1983 Saleeby Vol. II
Susitna 1983 Sattler Vol. I
Susitna Hydropower Project Sattler Vol. III Univ. of Alaska Museum
Susitna 1983 S. Shelley
Susitna 1983 Dixon Sims Book II
Susitna 1983 Dixon Sims
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis
25
Susitna 1983 G.S. Smith
Susitna 1983 C.J. Utermohle U of A Museum
Susitna 1983 Allison Young I
Binders are labeled as follows:
1983 Systematic Testing TLM -030 Square Summaries
1983 Systematic Testing TLM -180
1983 Systematic Testing TLM-128
1983 Systematic Testing TLM -215